Why are toned coins so popular?

I see where you are coming from . But,

Tarnish has a negative connotation. As a verb it means: lose or cause to lose lustre. Also as a noun one meaning is: damage or harm done to something. Tarnish is dark and is indicative of a loss of brightness and color.
To me Tarnish is opaque and dull where as toning is translucent and bright. Tarnish is toning gone out of control. Do you know what I mean.?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

In my area, I see a lot of "cobalt blue 'sixty-twos'".

 

Early 60's proof Jefferson's are commonly found with this type of toning.

 

I looked at a proof set last week at a show and yes a deep purple blue the color of the nickel .In fact I recall stating that the nickel was the selling point of the set.
I wonder the cause of the early 60's nickels toning this way.
Was it the mint package , the mixture of the alloys ?

 

I was wondering about proof Barbers in the same way. They all seem to be toned, minus the very few I've seen. (,never the frosted part though),

 

You know you can only get away with big words like that because this isn't the bullion section, right?

 

I'm sorry but I respectfully disagree with you on toning being Tarnish. Tarnish decreases the value of a coin, while toning increases it.

I would not use the words interchangeably.

I think I see what direction you must be going in, a scientific one. In which case tarnishing and toning are the same process; the buildup of reactive chemicals on the surface of a metal. Many years ago, I used to be a chemistry minor in college. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that you too are a science based person. After all, you are a Numismistist. Thus the PROCESS of both tarnishing and toning are one in the same. The RESULT of that process is what I am referring to.

To the degree that the sulfur build up on the metal affects the coin and thus determines the color and opacity of this chemically bonded film on top of the reactive metal, the two terms are different. And Tarnish you cannot not see lustre through. Tarnished coins for this reason are incapable of being graded Mint State. Here is a definition of the word tarnish from the premier dictionary of our time, that I hope you will agree with. From the current Oxford dictionary of English.


Perhaps it is not my place, as a neophyte collector, to be debating this terminology. But I believe that only through such opposing viewpoints, that the truth is eventually arrived at. I'm only an amateur and you are the Numismistist. So I invite your rebuttal with all due respect.

 

"What we have here, is a failure to communicate." Toning and tarnish are the same process, period. As "Valp" said, one is considered beneficial, and one is considered detrimental. The fundamental truth exposed by this conundrum is that what is considered makes no logical sense. That's QED for me, right there.

You are factually incorrect that a tarnished coin can't be "mint state" - because they are graded that way every day. Coins with wear can't be "mint state", but tarnish is not such a disqualifier.

Bottom line? Coin people can consider anything they want to be whatever they want. That doesn't mean it makes any sense or that I have to play along - 'cuz I don't. To me, "toning" chasing is a fad that will someday go away, and I can scarcely wait for that day to come.

 

Now, Kurt, can you grade any of the coins that are "Labeled" Tarnished, as anything but environmentally damaged. My gut instinct says no.

This is a result of other chemicals besides sulfur; oxidation, selenium, etc. Silver is ready to share its one outer shell electron with whatever it can. Toning is purely a result of just Sulfur sharing in silver's one lonely electron.

 

Those all look to be dug out of the ground. A coin doesn't have to have been buried to have tarnish

 

No, toning isn't specific to sulfur. It's a result of very thin layers of any compound that's more transparent than silver, but less transparent than air. That can be silver sulfide, silver oxide, and presumably other silver compounds as well.

Baking a coin in air will tone it, even if there's no sulfur present.

 

What you show as "tarnished" has another name - "corroded". Tarnish IS toning.

 

ok i give up trying to convince you guys, instead I've decided to end this. I've read and studied too many books and articles to agree with you. But I do believe it is a matter of perspective. To me a tarnished coin is ugly because it's lost its lustre and eye appeal. A toned coin can be beautiful and quite a bit of eye appeal. (A big factor in grading)

Let me explain....

But here's the real science. A chemical liquid or gas reacts with silver to forms a new compound and causes the layers to form.... the more silver molecules that have undergone this reaction the and the deeper the color we perceive. You see, the silver coming from the coin, and the reactant combine (most of the time silver sulfide) and if left unchecked becomes an ugly tarnish (too many layers). This is the point where the silver lustre of the coin corrodes and becomes a new compound, silver sufide or, take your pick of other silver molecules, and in fact turns into a new surface that the mint didn't intend.

Toning does take away a few molecules of silver and chemically change some silver atoms into molecules of silver compounds but not enough to take away the lustre beneath the surface.

So, since my profession is to help parties resolve disputes...ADR

Let's just agree to disagree. A win win for both camps residing on both sides of the issue. You believe in a literal translation of "tarnish" in that a chemical process takes place from the beginning of Discoloration.

And I think that tarnish, is a severe condition which begins at the point where it takes away MS status because it converts the surface metal into a new compound.

So its just a matter of perspective on the
(-beginning-) of the process of when a coin begins to tarnish. That is all there is to say on this issue.

My name on here may be ValpoBeginner, but I've had quite a bit of life experience.

 

http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-connotative-words.html

Tomorrows lesson will be the difference between a simile and metaphor.

 

Perhaps this article will help those with the science issues as it relates to numismatics.

Toning Often a Matter of Eye Appeal
By F. Michael Fazzari, Numismatic News
July 31, 2013

http://numismaster.com/ta/numis/Article.jsp?ad=article&ArticleId=27085

"I teach that attractive oxidation is called “toning” and unattractive oxidation is called “tarnish.” Toned coins are desired by many collectors, while tarnished coins are less desirable."

"Many people view toning as the destruction of a coin’s surface. Who can argue with that? That’s exactly what oxidation does. When it becomes too advanced (black or dark in color), the original surface of a coin is actually corroded away. Lighter oxidation can be professionally removed without a trace, even when the surface is viewed using a stereo microscope. Perhaps purists will respond that damage will be seen using much higher powers of magnification and to that I must agree. In which case, no vintage coin is 100 percent original so let’s keep this discussion relevant to normal magnification."

This was not my source in explaining the science. Actually it was from a book I read about 5 or 6 years ago.... but maybe this guy explains it better. I didn't mean to upset any of the purists who think "bright white is the only right". But the consumer collectors and grading companies are sure taking control of the market majority by buying and selling toner coins.

 

Yes, that was Skip Fazzari's take four years ago. What does he teach now? And how many others agree with him? Not many, I assure you.