The Monster Toned Coin Game Thread

Understood. However, I do think your pictures are excellent. My feeling is that some of the interpretations of the photographs are faulty. When one gets a really beautiful coin such as depicted, in such a high grade, with an NGC star, there is no way a rating of the color as a 3 or thereabouts can possibly be valid. There is a limit to subjective judgement. I bet if I held that coin in my hand, the rating would go up from 5 to close to 6.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Agreed, I’ve submitted several hundred coins to NGC over the years and I’ve never gotten a star. Nothing with a star should rank in the threes, but he was clear he doesn’t like the mint set toning patterns.

 

I agree in theory that nothing with a star should rank in the theees but in practice NGC has even given two level toners stars.

 

Not in my opinion. I think stars for color are comparatively uncommon. Stars for one sided cameo are a different thing on proofs, but any toner I ever owned was a 5, solidly. In all of the coins I have submitted to NGC, I only got 2 stars in 5 years. My feeling is, if one does not like a Mint Set or Album toning, don’t buy it, but minimizing the level of toning is overly critical.

 

Other than small crescent Battle Creek Morgan Dollars, I don’t recall seeing any 2’s with stars.

 

I’d call all of these 2s (maybe some can be bumped into low 3s, but not in my view)

https://www.greatcollections.com/Co...ook-Label-Kenneth-Bressett-Signed-Label-Toned

https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/879285/1904-O-Morgan-Silver-Dollar-NGC-MS-66-226-152-133-Toned

https://www.greatcollections.com/Co...C-MS-65-226-152-133-New-York-Bank-Hoard-Toned

https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/868732/1897-Morgan-Silver-Dollar-NGC-MS-64-226-152-133-Toned

https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/868730/1896-Morgan-Silver-Dollar-NGC-MS-63-226-152-133-Toned

 

In the future, I will give coins a numerical grade based on the quality of the toning. If it isn’t appealing to me, I will say so, but not penalize the coin numerically.

 

One more that might barely be a 2

https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/859656/1896-Morgan-Silver-Dollar-NGC-MS-63-226-152-133-Toned

(and this is just a small sample of the ones I’ve seen)

 

Crescent toning is a special case. I agree, it doesn’t do anything for me. However, one has to be objective, and recognize that a huge premium will be put on crescent rainbow toning. Objectively, those are 4s for the quality of the rainbow. Personally, I would agree that to me, they are 3s. There is a tremendous market for crescent toning with the star. I sold one like that on eBay for $850, for a MS 63 common date.

 

So that just means it wasn’t limited to the Battle Creek coins. For whatever reason, NGC rewards small swatches and rainbow crescents with stars. It’s nearly impossible to get a star out of them these days on a nickel.

 

Depends on the coin, I actually agree with the star on this one.

 

It doesn’t bother me but the consensus with my star Morgan shown earlier was that it was below a 3 and it has a much better spectrum of color than the 5 examples shown a few posts above. Some rainbow toners are classified as a coin that just has a bunch of different colors. To me a true rainbow toner is one that shows the true progression of color through each specific band of color in order.

Just pointing out some minor contradictions here.

 

And some more while I was looking (including non-Morgans)

https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/407877/1956-D-Roosevelt-Dime-NGC-MS-65-226-152-133-Toned

https://www.greatcollections.com/Co...nnial-Half-Dollar-NGC-MS-66-226-152-133-Toned

https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/858611/1945-S-Mercury-Dime-NGC-MS-67-226-152-133-FB-Toned

Plus some more Morgans:
https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/806000/1886-Morgan-Silver-Dollar-NGC-MS-66-226-152-133-Toned

https://www.greatcollections.com/Co...Silver-Dollar-NGC-MS-66-226-152-133-CAC-Toned

https://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/821144/1884-O-Morgan-Silver-Dollar-NGC-MS-64-226-152-133-Toned

 

Basically, the exercise is subjective, which is fine. I think people are reacting emotionally to the coins that they see, and not to a formal scale. It is ok, as we all seem to do that to a greater or lesser degree.

 

I think yours is a fair 3 since it has a nice spectrum of color even for a crescent. The examples I linked are fairly plain and in my view aren't worthy of a star.

 

I have no problem with either of the dimes or the 1886 Morgan which has a tremendous overall appearance.

The commemorative was disgraceful.

 

Those are all minimal rainbows. They got the star for eye appeal—really nice looking coins, with some pleasant toning.

 

They are all ok, but they just don't have the colors (or coverage) to be much more than high 2s. These are the coins that end up making the star seem much less exclusive than it should be.

 

I'll just have to disagree here. To me they are neutral. I can see someone paying a premium for them but the majority of people would not.

 

It’s hard to do dimes justice in photos, but the Mercury in particular doesn’t look like a 2 to me, high 3s, maybe a 4 luster dependent.

I’ve seen untoned coins get stars so sometimes the luster is the driving factor which we can’t judge from photos. We can’t just look at the toning coverage and flatly decide that based on the limited toning that it doesn’t deserve a star. My example of the Battle Creek’s was used because it seemed like NGC gave every single coin from that hoard a star without an individual assessment. Does anyone have a Battle Creek without a star?