Paper tone the 99% silver tones easily. I had a group of these that were stored in tissue paper. This one survived the silver purges the last few cycles and lives in my type set.
It was a storage choice these were from a collection I purchased. Its a market acceptable coin. Pure silver tones easily this one has been stable 15 years or better. No secret really and its perception what PMD is. Many coins have been stored in paper envelopes for example for long periods of time it can induce tone and color.The answer is a definite maybe if its PMD. (there is not a right answer)
Anything that causes toning over a prolonged period of time (ex. sulfur laden manilla flips) is usually accepted as 'natural' toning. It's the juicing, cooking, and baking that's considered unnatural........
This dime I have had 20 years. Some big dings on the front and was a horrible scrubbed white coin. It was in a lot I bought and no value so it ended up in an envelope and re-toned a lot. Often times Heavy tone can hide hairlines and damage this coin has scratches and dings the hairlines are now hard to see. Many would call this one market acceptable its a damaged filler so it makes no difference if it were a significant coin though it could be a bad buy for someone. Tons of coins like this out there as well as the Eagle posted above.
Ehhh - I'm never gonna say it's post mint damage, but I might say it's artificial toning in some cases - stress some cases. But then that's because the only real difference between artificial toning and natural toning is intent.
The 1891 dime appears to have pvc damage. The green yuck all over. The ASE / Pass seems tarnished - buyers usually want Gem BU with super luster on these.
Oh Doug, please. Not state of mind, again. The requisite mens rea for the crime of artificial toning. Good grief!
Well eddie, let's say 2 guys wrap some coins up in tissue paper and put them away. Guy one does so simply because he thinks it will help protect his coins from contact marks, scratches and the like. Protecting his coins is all he's trying to do, and he has no idea, he's completely unaware, that the paper will cause his coins to tone. Guy 2 he knows all about tissue paper and how it makes coins tone. So he quite intentionally wraps his coins up in tissue paper and puts them away - eagerly waiting for and anticipating the pretty colors on his coins. And sure enough, at some point down the road both guys go look at their coins. Guy one is surprised, maybe even shocked at what he sees, and his reaction may be a good one or bad one for him depending on how he looks at things. Guy two is simply thrilled when he takes coins out and sees all the pretty colors. Point being of course that both sets of coins are toned. The one and only difference is/was the intent each guy had because the result was the same. Guy two purposely caused the toning, and in my eyes that makes it artificial. Guy one had no clue it would happen, and in my eyes that makes it natural. Now, the difference between you and me is, apparently, - one of definitions - as in what is natural and what isn't. So now let me ask you a different question. Guy one does everything the same. But guy 2, this time he takes his coins, puts them in a sealed box with valves and stuff attached to it, pumps in the same chemicals (in the form of gasses but highly concentrated) that were in the tissue paper, and merely waits for a few hours instead of a year, 2, 3 whatever, for the toning to occur. Now in my eyes guy two has artificially toned his coins - with the exact same chemicals as the guy one had tone his naturally. And I'll bet you'd agree that guy 2 artificially toned his coins in this situation. So, how can guy 2 in this situation be any different than he was in the 1st situation ? Same chemicals in both situations, same intention in both situations, same result in both situations. It can't be natural in one and artificial in the other. But it seems you're trying to tell me it can be.
Doug, I don’t accept this “artificial” thing. It’s as simple as that with me. All that does is introduces a state of mind element that judges the coin based, not what on one’s eyes can see, but on what one’s “mind’s eye” ”sees,” and that’s where all the funny business starts. When you take your eyes off the coin and judge it rather with your mind’s eye, your imagination is the standard you’re judging with. It’s just like the trouble so many even seasoned collectors still have on the grade of a coin they happened to come by in circulation. They take their eyes off the condition of the coin for what their mind’s eye “knows” to judge the grade as “circulated.“ I keep my eyes on the face of the coin, and I don’t play mind games when I’m grading a coin. If the toning is unappealing to me, so be it, and I’m the less inclined to be interested for it. There’s certain toning I like, and certain I don’t like. In each of those events, I couldn’t care less how the toning got there. As long as it’s not nail polish or spray paint, the mode of onset is entirely irrelevant, and the coin is still grade-worthy and collectible. Neither do I collect nor grade coins based on arbitrary opinions, however “expert” or not. I collect and grade based on what my eyes can see, not on what my mind’s eye may surmise. My eyes can see the toning, and I judge it accordingly, based on whether I like it, not anyone’s wild imagination. And if I have to say, that’s just me, then that’s the way it is, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.
Eddie I think we're a lot closer to being of similar opinions than you think we are. The ideas you expressed above, well, those all a big part of what I mean when I say - the only difference between AT and NT is intent. In other words Eddie, when ya get right down to it there really isn't any difference between AT and NT - and that's the entire point of my comment !
Yes, OK. Let me see if I can restate it. You’re saying “intent” is still the criteria most would say they’re still using to differentiate the two. If that’s correct, I finally, after all these years, and threads upon threads of discussions, cracked the code, if you will, of where you’re at on this issue. And if that’s the case, then, FWIW, I certainly think that’s how those who continue to live and die by these arbitrary distinctions think they’re differentiating them, too. I’ll say this, also. Even if I saw someone tone a blast white coin to rainbow in five seconds, I wouldn’t hold that against the technical grade. If the process impaired luster in the five seconds, that takes it down. If it’s so much impairment, I may even judge the coin “cleaned” and not grade-worthy. But not for the toning, but the impairment of the luster. As regards the toning, that’s a market thing, and I can see it going to that grade, i.e., the “market grade,” either up or down, based on its appeal to these here eyeballs. And that’s me on this whole issue, Doug, in a nut.
No, I'm not saying that. They readily acknowledge that it is their intent to make the coins tone. They are claiming that their intent to make the coins tone doesn't make any difference - that it's still natural toning even though they did it on purpose. A lot of folks say or claim that just because they intentionally put coins in albums or wrap them in tissue paper or something similar to that, even though the only reason they do so is because they know it will make the coins tone - that what they're doing is natural toning and not artificial toning. BUT - those same people say if a guy puts the coins in a sealed box, pumps in gasses etc, that is absolutely artificial toning - in their opinion. (even though they can't tell one from the other) I'm saying there isn't any difference between the two things, both are artificial toning. Intent is the same in both cases, and the chemicals used are the same in both cases. So if one is artificial then the other has to be artificial as well. If you take 3 coins, all the same coin, all as close to identical as they can get in every respect. 1 guy puts his in an album - he has no idea that this will make it tone. Guy 2 puts his in an album knowing full well it will make it tone. Guy 3 puts his in a sealed box and pumps in gasses. Ya take all three coins, put them all 3 side by side and they all have very similar toning. You have a 100 people look at them and nobody can see any real difference between any of them. They're all pretty, the luster still shines through on all of them. Not a single person, not even 1, can say this one's artificial and that one isn't. So you tell me, if that's the case, then what's the difference between any of those coins ? There's only 1 answer Eddie - two guys toned their coins on purpose, 1 guy did it by accident - intent, because that's the only difference there is. And yet people claim that 2 of them are natural and 1 is artificial - but they absolutely cannot tell you which one is which by looking at them. And you can run them all 3 through any electronic gizmo, any scientific instrument there is - and you still can't tell any difference in any of the 3. Bottom line, there isn't any difference, all 3 are the same. So when I said this above - The point you're missing Eddie is that even though intent is/was different, intent doesn't make any difference in the actual result - the toning that occurs.
Doug, why should intent be relevant to toning in the first place, there’s my whole thing. Is intent relevant to cleaning? I didn’t intend to clean it, I just intended to wipe the dirt off it? Is it relative to fingerprints? I didn’t intend to leave fingerprints, I just intended to handle it? Is it relevant to damage? I didn’t intend to drop it on the sidewalk, it just slipped out of my hand? Is that how we’re now determining the grade-worthiness of coins, by examining our state of mind? What kind of grading is that? It’s not technical grading. Technical grading is tied to the condition of the coin. It’s not market grading. Market grading is tied to eye appeal of the coin. I know, it’s forensic grading, tied to what was going on in our minds. Yes, there’s our new, modern standard, articulated. Get out the polygraph test and examine every mind in the chain of custody of the coin so we won’t be defrauded! I’ll bet PCGS would be willing to help us out there for a reasonable charge. They already have that coin-sniffer test to evaluate toning for their Secure slabs so we won’t be defrauded on the toning. Call these passing their polygraph test the Really Secure slabs. I want my coin in one of those! Are you beginning to get the idea? It’s about the coin. Keep your eye on the coin, forget about the rest. That’s where I am. That’s how I grade coins.
That's the whole point Eddie - it isn't ! At least not in the way you mean. For years I have been trying to point out to people there is no difference between AT and NT - other than intent. And to use your own words, "a state of mind" is no physical difference. I mean technically it is, but intent certainly doesn't change or alter the toning in any way. It isn't relevant in the physical sense, it is only relevant in the mental sense.
