Why are toned coins so popular?

And my point is that the toning community (I like that choice of term) is an insular portion of the coin hobby. I get why they might not see that. It's always hard to see the outside of a structure from the inside. I get it. Yes, the popularity of toning has temporal and regional differences. I object to its being rammed down the throats of newbs as if it's "normal" just as SOMEONE SOMEWHERE has obviously misled hundreds of newbs that numismatics is about throwing obscene amounts of magnification at circulating coins to find "errors which are not".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

/raises hand

 

Yes, David?

 

I was just acknowledging my desire for primacy in the "die poop at immense magnification is a good thing" class of collector.

At least it cannot be created from scratch by anyone with the desire to learn how, as can be pleasing toning.

 

Wow. Good thing we've met. You mighta had me going. Yes, toning CAN BE and IS DAILY created from scratch by practitioners and dealers of same (market acceptable, too), but do we REALLY want to denigrate an entire class of criminals, err, specialists (yeah, specialists, THAT'S the ticket) just because of the misdeeds of the few?

Yup, I do, but I'm just nasty like that.

 

V. Kurt Bellman, posted: "I object to its being rammed down the throats of newbs as if it's "normal" just as SOMEONE SOMEWHERE has obviously misled hundreds of newbs that numismatics is about throwing obscene amounts of magnification at circulating coins to find "errors which are not"."



I believe both of us were around when we could find valuable coins in pocket change. Those days are virtually gone; however, folks can have a good time (for free) playing around with pocket change at the microscopic level. For example, I suggest that a true doubled die is a mint error whether it can be seen with the naked eye or only under 15X!

Besides, I think you'll agree that much of the enjoyment from our hobby has nothing to do with value.

 

15X? Fifteen-ex??? FIFTEEN-EX!?!?! Where you been? These jabronis are throwing 50X and 75X and more at this stuff! Next they'll be sequencing the DNA of the fly poop on the coins.

 

It is an unfortunate truth that true rarity is completely devalued - deserved or not - when the conditions defining that rarity can be duplicated at will. My interest lies in disseminating the fact that attractive toning is an available option on just about any coin for someone willing to invest in learning the process, as opposed to direct attack on those currently producing it under conditions other than those considered "natural." If it were widespread and common knowledge that the toning you're about to pay a premium for was as likely created by the seller at their kitchen table as it was by "natural" processes, then there's no cause to contend your conscious decision to pay extra as an informed buyer.

Your direction of attack has the fatal problem that in many cases the toning will only be known to be "artificial" if the creator publicly acknowledges having done it. My direction of attack has the fatal problem that it'll never be possible to educate everyone. Face it, friend, we're both boned here. However, the fact that a goal is not achievable does not make it unworthy to strive for.

Quality optical magnification is expensive and inefficient. I cannot imagine ever needing more than 10x optical, and have never actually used more than 5x in practice. If I ever need more detail, I will increase the sensor size and megapixel count to that end. 50x optical magnification on a modern 20+MP sensor would create an image of such size that a single serif on a letter could not be viewed in its' entirety on a large monitor.....

There is, even for me, an upper limit to how much magnification is necessary. A point is reached - more quickly than most realize - where the detail depicted cannot ever be proven to have happened by one process or another.

 

So now people that like toning are criminals? Is there anyone that isn't a criminal to you?

 

Wow, you don't read well, do you? People who MAKE toners are criminals. SHEESH! Only one kind of coin person needs to fear my wrath - one who thinks "capitalism" is an excuse to rip people off.

Make no mistake - far more toners are "made" than "found". Even "Q. David" and Cliff Mishler acknowledge that.

 

You started out that way but then said "but do we REALLY want to denigrate an entire class of criminals, err, specialists (yeah, specialists, THAT'S the ticket) just because of the misdeeds of the few?" clearly implies they all are by making a distinction between an "entire class" and the misdeeds of the few. If you were only talking about the coin doctors they would be the entire class being discussed not the few

 

Speaking of GSC. I've never bought from them cause the coins I've gone after have always sold for wayyyy more than I had my max at. But I still see them constantly. I wonder about a coin like this one: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1903-Morgan...178147?hash=item4403c77023:g:rv0AAOSwBt5ZHM8U

A 1903 Morgan Proof with a mintage of only 755 being sold raw. Look you can hate on TPGs and prefer to buy coins raw but the fact is a coin this valuable being sold raw is a little fishy since it's reducing the buyer base significantly which is already small to begin with for a 3k minimum coin. To me I assume they think they'll get more money for it raw because of their pictures look nicer than they grade it would get (or had if they cracked it).

 

The entire class is ripe for derision, because they are in denial. Being in denial is no crime. But they do need to be informed. There are plenty of so-called "free market capitalists" to feed their need, and THEY are the criminals.

 

Here's an excellent example for @Lehigh96 and @GDJMSP and me to analyze.

I would never consider bidding on this coin. Why? Because I cannot see what I need to see to be confident of what I'm buying. There's not enough "there" there. No problem. Move on.

Why am I not tougher on them for this listing? Because I don't think I could do any better, at least with only 1 obverse and 1 reverse photo. This needs various angles of lighting to see what I'd want to see. So, why not buy and return it if I don't like it? Too much hassle. My life is all full up. I don't have time for that hooey.

One more thing: I don't know about you, but when I click that link, when the eBay page comes up, for a brief fraction of a second, the obverse photo shows without optical sharpening, and then WHAMMO, the sharpening kicks in. Enough right there to pass this coin by.

I've never lost a penny on any coin I didn't buy. I just wait for the right piece and the right listing. When it's not about the "getting", but the "hunting", you fret far less over listings like this one.

Where I live, we have a HUGE cadre of "I'll never have a coin slabbed" guys. I don't immediately suspect a coin for not being in plastic. My guess? The owners are too cheap to spend money on slabbing. Evidence? Over half of the slabbing I DO see locally is junk slabbing. No PCGS, no NGC. Lots and lots of old PCI.

 

The problem isn't that you know better it's that many don't know better. When buyers who don't know better are dropping thousands on a coin with questionable pictures isn't that crossing your ethical line? Yet you still feel okay buying from this same dealer when you spot coins that meet your criteria?

 

I take your point, but I look at coin photography as an art and not a science. My history of photographing coins goes back to taking Kodachrome slides with a Canon F-1 with the 100mm f4 Macro lens with a gelatin filter holder holding Kodak Wratten filters to perfectly match the film's sensitivity to the precise color temperature of the lamps. I know that so much is based on choices made.

Even an "unmessed with" digital photo isn't really unmessed with at all. It's messed with up one side and down the other by software from, at least, Kodak, Sony (usually), and even Apple, plus whatever other vendor is in your system. I genuinely have NO IDEA ON EARTH what someone else thinks counts as "questionable". I know enough to know that a modern digital photo has more information in it than most computer owners' monitors are set to show.

I also know that the Average Joe has no idea what I'm even talking about. It's obvious when you walk in their house and see how they have the TV set to look. Wowsers!

 

I'm too young to even know what a Kodachrome is if not for Paul Simon making me google it years ago.

 

You missed a truly wonderful thing. One of the finest inventions ever. It's my idea of "optical storage".

 

Here's the true essence of the GSC/questionable pics issue. In my previous career, one of the things I did was make internegatives from slides to then print those internegatives on regular color paper. We couldn't use regular Kodacolor or Vericolor negatives, because their inherent contrast was too high. Kodak Internegative Film was a special emulsion created to ACCURATELY render a color slide so that it printed in a way that best resembled the slide.

In other words, it was designed for accuracy rather than aesthetics.

I loaded Kodak Internegative film into a camera to shoot scenic shots. When printed, I could see everything I could see when I was at the tripod, from the brightest highlight to the deepest shadow. The scene was captured "accurately". It also, by unanimous consent, looked like crap. It was flat and uninspiring. It was "blah".

Fast forward to a concept of "photographing a coin accurately". Yeahhhh, not s'much. ALL coin photographs are the photographer's vision of what pleases them. This is NO MORE OR LESS TRUE for GSC or anybody else, on this forum or not.

In point of fact, I find GSC's photos MORE LIKE what I see in hand than any other source I can name, with the exception of very recent Heritage and S/B images. I won't say the same for about 8-10 years back.