Featured The Slabbed (NGC/PCGS) AT-QT (Artificial/Questionable Toning) Thread

Summary of results:
-----------------------

Coin 1 - Clad Dime (pg.1) - 2 (NT/MA) vs 6 (AT/QC)
Coin 2 - Franklin (pg. 1) - 3 (NT/MA) vs 7 (AT/QC)
Coin 3 - CBH (pg. 4) - 5 (NT/MA) vs 0 (AT/QC)
Coin 4 - Silv PR Ike (pg. 5) - 3 (NT/MA) vs 6 (AT/QC)
Coin 5 - Peace Dollar (pg. 7) - 6 (NT/MA) vs 4 (AT/QC)
Coin 6 - Ohio Silv PR 25c (pg. 8) - 0 (NT/MA) vs 11 (AT/QC)
Coin 7 - 1964 MS 25c (pg. 9) - 11 (NT/MA) vs 0 (AT/QC)
-----------------------

NT/MA: 3 total
AT/QC: 4 total

-----------------------
Points:

ddddd - 2
Lehigh96 - 1
TheFinn - 1

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The last quarter was pretty decisive; how about this 1974 Clad Proof Quarter? This is a coin I owned. It was bought and sold for around $10. Included are normal photos and one that shows the color. It's not a new holder, so I can't count out gassing, but I did not see any clear evidence (although a very small opening-that is almost undetectable-could have been somewhere in the slab).

 

The obverse spots and haziness give me pause. This is a look that I could see being natural, but I wouldn't buy it. I don't want to call it blatantly AT, but it is QT enough for me that I would avoid it.

 

I’m NT/MA on that quarter. It isn’t terribly attractive and I have no idea why it was graded no matter the originality of the toning.

 

I want to call it NT the dark hazing on the coin makes me suspiscious. I would call it improper storage, and then say QT.

 

NT, but not very attractive. It looks like some coins I have seen from proof sets that were left in hot humid garages.

 

My thoughts:

1. (1981-D Roosevelt) - QC
2. (1962 Franklin) - Blatant AT (the reverse is awful)
3. (1966 Roosevelt) - NT
4. (Bust half) - MA secondary toning
5. (2011 ASE) - Blatant AT (you can see where the current was applied on the reverse)
6. (1973 Ike) - MA
7. (1923 Peace) - Blatant AT (that shade of blue + orange and red suggests heat IMHO)
8. (2002 OH quarter) - Blatant AT
9. (1964 Washington) - NT
10. (1986 ASE) - AT
11. (1974 PF Washington) - NT/MA - Improper storage

 

In the slab I'd say NT but in the lighted photo's Id say AT. How do they get pictures like that? Is it light manipulation or camera settings?

 

+1 on the 2 different sets of photos.
Ill go NT/MA

 

Typically, you use diffused lighting with the light source shined directly onto the surface of the coin. I just put a paper towel over my lamp and use a rubber band to keep it in place.

 

That quarter is perplexing. The small photo's make me think NT but the zoomed in one makes me question it so I have to go:

QT/MA

 

lol

 

I’m at AT and don’t like the spot on the reverse. Wasn’t there a lot of back and forth on these spots potentially caused by a wire applying an electric current.

 

Interesting post.

 

@Jack D. Young that coin had its own thread....

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/gassing-coins-at.326742/

—————

Here is a video of the Quarter...maybe that will help get an additional view.

https://instagram.com/p/BctfDZWDZY8/

 

For those undecided about the quarter, feel free to give a final opinion based on the video.

Also, I don’t know how to treat the QC/MA responses. At this point I believe those will just be excluded (unless the posters want to update based on the video linked above).

@Duke Kavanaugh @heavycam.monstervam @SlipperySocks

 

NT is my final answer. Due to the fact that I have Nickels with a similar toning pattern and color In an album.

 

It really isn't that hard guys.

 

Not Market Acceptable.
Could it be natural? Yes, but I think it is questionable enough that the top services shouldn't just approve it. They have a "questionable color" designation, it fits here. JMHO.