I'll have to admit I have become a toner addict. I don't necessarily prefer wild rainbow colors (there are some stunners), but I prefer coins in their original skin. When I look at a hundred year old blast white coin my first thought is "it has been dipped", which is a deterrent for me. I can see how others might find this attractive though. Personally, I'd rather own eye appealing coins in their original skin…something that gives the coin some personality and character.
I like both: wild rainbow stunners and pieces with light to medium, even toning indicating they've never seen an acid dip.
Only coins i collect for the coin itself are the toners. Not a collector of any other type. Mercury dimes too though but mainly as bullion.
The thing to understand about toning is, it's a soft grade. It's the cover of the book, not the contents of book. Much like collectors of covers can be illiterate, so too can collectors of toning not have a clue. Ah, but they're happy, and that's what counts.
The contention that toned coin collectors are uninformed is ridiculous. The biggest names in the numismatic community all covet coins with toning/original skins. Not many dipped coins on the Legend Numismatics website. To the contrary, novice collectors usually prefer blast white dipped coins. It is only after years of collecting that they learn the virtues of toned coins. In your case, I'm afraid that you will never learn.
Not all blast white coins have had been dipped. There are millions of "original white" dollars in existence today.
Think of all them original mint sewn bags of dollars from the 60s. How many were toners inside ea. $1000 bag? maybe 30%?
I will think about how many years they have had to tone and be dipped since they were removed from the bags!
I don't know anyone who collects unopened mint bags of Morgan Dollars. The fact is that there is no discernible difference between an original untoned coin and one that has been dipped. Therefore, the originality of all untoned coins comes into question. If this sounds familiar, it is the same argument used about NT vs AT. But at least with toned coins, there are indicators that can be used to evaluate the market acceptability of the toning. With blast white coins, the assumption will be that the coin has been dipped. Sorry, but if you guys want originality, you need to seek coins with an original skin.
In other words...buy 100% white coins! the way it left the mint!, it can't get more original than that.
I'm not advocating dipping, either, Bob. They should leave the toning on. When technical condition was the grading standard, they doctored them up that way; today, when eye appeal is the grading standard, they doctor them up the other way.
I'm sorry, Lehigh, but the kids aren't buying it. They're seeing toning as long or short onset, they're using their own eyes, and they're collecting what appeals to them. They don't need a psychic, fortune-teller, crystal-gazer, medium, spiritualist, clairvoyant, telepath like you to dictate what they should and shouldn't be paying premiums for based on your premonitions. Your mind is that messed up, not theirs. They're brighter than that, and you're losing market-share for it.
I haven't really made up my mind about toned coins. Some coins pictured in various threads appear to have been artificially toned. Would I buy one like that? No. On the other hand, a SLQ that I acquired had obviously been dipped and its bright appearance really looked out of place compared to the rest of the collection, so it found itself inside a zip lock bag with the yoke of a hard boiled egg for several weeks. Result: no more dipped look. Will this increase or decrease its resale value? I probably won't find out since I don't sell coins. Yet.
