Featured Can you define artificial toning ?

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

"I know it when I see it."

No, wait, that was only for off-color material, right?

 

I have created toning on coins placed in an album for almost fifty years. The toning I got was not desirable at all. Just a black ugly mess.

Personally I have no desire to intentionally change the appearance of any of my coins. Doesn’t seem to be a responsible way to handle them knowing I am only a temporary caretaker.

The only toning I believe I could positively say is intentional are these horrid purple pieces. Mostly, toning has little affect on me. However there is one proof 66 seated dime with a rainbow halo around the rim that I would love to own. I won’t pay the dealers premium though.

In the end I don’t know that I could confirm if toning was artificial or not unless it was extreme.

 

I think what you're posing is more of an accelerated toning vs. natural toning scenario. Sure, we know now that those holders, bags, paper, and elements contribute(d) to toning of coins, but was that the case back when being the only methods of keeping your stuff nice? Nowadays anyone with a little science know how can turn a coin in no time.

Is accelerated toning artificial toning??? I'm going to have to say yes, but some of the results are really nice if you like toned coins.

 

The question about toning should be whether it is Intentional or Un-intentional. You're asking the wrong question.

A coin that circulates its entire life won't tone will it? It's only when it is held captive by collectors or in someone's piggy bank or some form of non-circulation that it ends up with some toning.

 

Until someone can show me a balanced chemical equation for the toning reaction that incorporates intent, I think that's a non-starter.

I mean, if "unintentional" toning is great but "intentional" toning is bad, then what about "unintentional" cleaning? "I didn't mean to hairline the coin, I was just trying to get rid of germs!"

 

I guess my point was (and if I understand him correctly, @GDJMSP might agree):

What's the difference and why do you care so damn much? None of you will ever agree on the definition of AT and NT, nor will you ever (or hardly ever) agree on whether a particular coin is AT or NT.
​

The only difference I can see between the 2 is intent...so if you must ask a question (as if it even matters) then ask the right one.

Actually the right question that everyone must ask themselves might just be "Do I give a damn?".

I don't, that's for sure. It's toned or it isn't. All this other crap is all some hocus pocus blah blah blah in an attempt to generate premiums.

LOL

 

I look at it that if someone brought the surface of a coin into contact with a solution or gas with the intent of causing oxidation, then that is artificial toning - whether a TPG can detect it or not. If it happened through a natural process - even if it is like putting a Dachshund bitch in heat in with a Golden Retriever sire - is still natural.

 

@GDJMSP I don't like the term artificial toning. Artificial toning is toning that isn't real, and that's not what we're seeing. Sometimes the TPGs will slab coins as AT that the submitter knows positively has naturally toned. Likewise if you submit a coin with artificial negative toning they would probably straight grade it.

Really the correct terminology is market acceptable toning or not market acceptable toning. That's really what this comes down to, and it differs greatly by series. Market acceptable toning for an ASE would get marked as AT every single time if it was on classic coinage, for example, since many series have a distinctive look for how they tone.

 

Doug got me to bite. Have 3 2011 25th Anniversary Sets still sealed in the mint shipped box. Just by a turn here and there you can here that there are "loose" coins. There were many complaints about this back in the day, lol, I am getting old.
So I know that there are coins loose in the OGP but I do not know if they are out of the capsule itself. Had two other sets that I sold to LCS and they opened in front of me and 4 coins were out of the capsule bouncing around in the OGP.
So I guess I am going to admit to helping NT. I give the shipping box a 1/4 flip about every 6 months when I remember to do so.

 

At/Nt? It all relates to the 'age' of the process. My feeling is that toning, regardless of the process, is most 'natural'........suffer on that dear friends..............

 

There are coins out there that look like they were created in a lab by a mad scientist. I've also seen examples with toning that gives them most amazing eye appeal. I don't own any monster rainbows, but have a couple pieces with some pleasant coloring. My stance is if you like it - get it. Ultimately a coin (any coin) is worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it.

 

For me intent doesn't really matter, there's no way to know looking at a coin whether or not the previous owner intended for it to tone.

Things I would consider AT would be like using a blow torch, baking it in the over, using a chemistry set, applying actual chemicals

The end product is all that really matters because trying to guess what happened is mostly a fools game. If a lab can do it nature can too and a lot of times we underestimate the differences in where someone lives.

 

I understand every aspect of your point Doug, and agree. This is why I have always tried to educate about surfaces, not colors. I collected toned coins way before they were in, (some pursued them in the late 70's and 80's but not many), but not really because they were "pretty".

Back then it was common practice to remove any toning to make "white" coins. Collectors preferred them, so most got dipped. I always preferred undipped, more lustrous, surfaces. So to me, toned coins were preferable. To many others who liked toned coins, surfaces were the real prize, not the colors. Somewhere along the line the colors came to be seen as the real prize, hence artificial toning.

This is my problem. It is really dumb to destroy a perfectly good coin with color, since you will not be helping the surfaces. The luster is the real prize here people.

 

My definition:

Putting a coin into an environment WITH THE INTENTION of making it tone. Whether or not someone can tell is a totally different story

 

I believe it comes down to personal preference really, either you like a specific toned coin or you don't. Even saying market acceptable is subjective because there are people buying toned coins that I don't like and then there are TPG rejected coins for questionable color that I do like. Who is right and who is wrong?

 

Agreed Baseball21

When grading a coin, you know nothing about the intent of the previous owner, therefore, you can't use intent when determining AT vs NT.

Secondly Doug, we have had this argument more times than I can count. You readily admit that there are AT coins that are easily identifiable as AT. But then you pretend that every form or NT is easily reproducible which is completely false. Toning can be most easily understood by using a left-right scale with AT on the far left and NT on the far right.



As you move towards the middle, the line between what is AT and NT gets blurred and this is where you find the threshold of MA (Market Acceptability). Just like you can't know intent, you also can't know the history of the coin and its storage conditions. So what we do is rely on a system of indicators that help tell us if the coin is NT or AT. Examples of indicators would be color progressions (yellow-magenta-cyan), color patterns (eg textile toning, target toning), elevation chromatics (lack of creep over relief changes), pull away toning, depth of color (oil slick appearance) etc.

Your assertion that artificial toning methods like intentionally placing a coin in an old album and then increasing temp & humidity for a few days/weeks will look exactly the same as a coin stored in an album is ridiculous. What typically happens is that those coins that experienced accelerated toning due to increased heat/humidity will show indicators of AT and will often take the look of the Questionably Toned coin in the scale above.

Here is an example, let's say a collector has an album full of coins and stores it in his attic in the Southeastern US. A year later he retrieves it and finds that his coins have toned dramatically. He had no intention of toning his coins, yet they are toned and they display the indicators of artificially toned coins. If sent to the TPGs, those types of coins will be details graded for AT/QT despite the fact that the owner had no intention of artificially toning his coins. It does not matter, the AT is the result of IMPROPER STORAGE and the coins deserve to be considered problem coins.

It would serve this forum very well if you would stop falsely claiming that accelerated toning methods look identical to coins that have toned over decades, THEY DON'T.

 

How do you know? Seriously, I have seen, (and we have had this discussion many times as well), in person in a few months a very nicely toned coin develop IF it had good surfaces. Acceptable looking coins, if they had good surfaces, can be had in a few hours.

Most AT looking coins look that way because they were forced onto non-lustrous surfaces. This has always been done as a way to fool amateurs that a coin was not defective or harshly cleaned in the past. If the collector was dumb enough to only rely on colors, then coin doctors AT coins to fool them. This was so prevelant as to create the demand for "white" coins to begin with, since you cannot easily hide defects on white coins like you can darkly toned coins.

Again, which is why I simply look at luster. If its a richly lustrous surface I will give the coin the benefit of the doubt the colors happen by accident, or "natural". This is because I personally have witnessed original, untouched coins toned what slabbers would today label AT. I have also seen what slabber would label NT done on purpose over the course of a few month or so.

@Lehigh96, you can react to what the market is today all you wish, (and I would say you indeed an expert in that area sir, I greatly respect your opinion in that area and Jeff nickels). I would simply say that long before the slabbers this was the world, and I have personally seen "accelerated" toning, as well as "AT" coming out of original rolls and books. Therefore, I agree with the premise of Doug's. It is a continuum and very much a slippery slope. I simply wish the hobby would "get over" pretty colors and again concentrate on surfaces, and value rich lustrous surfaces more and not worry what color they are.

Another example of the slippery slope. You claim certain toning to be "natural", yet other toning, while not done on purpose, to be from "improper storage". So now we are judging storage practices of other collectors based upon YOUR desire for how the coin looks? If you like it, its NT, but if not then it is AT due to "improper storage"? See the slippery slope? BTW, I am not meaning "you" personally Lehigh, but "toned coin collectors" as a group.

 

I have to disagree with that scale, based upon this album I recently purchased. In it you will see every version of the scale with the exception of the coins represented above Artificial and Borderline.
When discussing intentions consider this; Nowadays we know albums will tone coins and may use them for that purpose but, did collectors 30-50 years ago put their coins in albums to protect them or to tone them? Toning used to be considered a negative thing but today can bring a premium.
So are these coins(in this album) NT or AT? In my opinion these are NT as I would consider any coin toned in an album, bag or roll that did not have a chemical or gas applied, or conditions like humidity and heat manipulated to accelerate changes.
I purchased this from the grandchild of the assembler who said he was adding coins to it as far back as his childhood memory would go.

 

I would say that the line I draw between natural toning and artificial toning is the time frame it took for the coins to change color. Coins that take years to change in an album, roll or bag are natural. Coins that are manipulated into changing within seconds, minutes, hours or in a couple weeks or months are artificial.