The Monster Toned Coin Game Thread

It was a return as far as I can tell from the feedback:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Then, it is a juiced picture. Saved by the picture. Glad I didn’t bid. I rarely have bought expensive toners on eBay, as I am choosy about getting what I pay for.

 

Absolute agree it's altered. I'm at a 3.5 still. Nice color and good luster but no neon levels.

 

Here is the proof that the photograph was doctored: This is a nice, ordinary toner I have, that would probably be a 3. It is decent, but not wildly toned—the rainbows are attractive, but not spectacular. Look at the color of the blue in the slab. In my coin, the slab is pale blue—normal color. In the seller’s photo, it is a deep, intense blue. Case closed—I saved myself a grand. The seller’s coin was over saturated.

 

You can't compare the colors of the slab labels between the two coins. Your example uses an older monotone label while the other uses the current multi-tone label. Yes, the multi-tone label in the pictures seem to be enhanced but not that significantly; at least in my opinion.

 

I change my vote to a 4 for the likely inaccurate eBay photos. It’s probably pretty in hand but not amazing.

 

Their blue is still Blue, and in the seller’s picture, it is way over saturated.

 

The blue transition label (light bottom, dark top) of the eBay item is a much darker shade of blue than the label generation you posted. Yes they are both blue, but very different blues in real life.

Regardless, I still think the pics from eBay are likely a bit off. I don’t personally think the seller is digitally juicing them - I think they are using red-shifted lights and not setting their white balance properly.

 

Two examples of the same generation label— his, and one at random. He is clearly digitally juicing them, or using external light to enhance the color:

 

I guess that's always the thousand dollar question. Not everyone uses the same lighting when taking photos of coins. I try to take that into consideration when buying coins online. The major auction houses are consistent in their protography. I like Great Collections photography over Heritage (which seems to be darker). On eBay I only trust a few sellers who seem to be consistent in their photography/lighting.

 

The seller is certainly doing something either purposefully or unbeknownst to him/her.

But, that slab pic of the 1989 you posted is poorly lit and washed out and doesn’t look like that generation of slab looks in hand either. Somewhere in the middle is the truth.

 

If you know how to interpret heritages photos sometimes you can get a great looking coin for Lee’s as they don’t always do it justice

 

Not trying to beat a dead horse here but I don’t know of lighting that causes this generation of PCGS label to look like that. I’m happy for the OP that he didn’t have to deal with the hassle of a return. It’s probably also worth noting* for anyone new to the hobby reading this that some sellers have been known to crop the coin out, saturate it and fly it back in to avoid it being obvious like this so we all have to be careful, but not a bad first way to compare if you ever wonder if something fishy is going on with a slab shot.

Below are random images from a random seller and two auction houses next to the coin in question. The labels all look different due to the lighting but not THAT different.



Now those same three with 75 clicks of saturation added next to the same OP coin:


*Edited- typo.

 

Summary Chapter 1
Rd. 1: 1883-O Morgan NGC MS63* [Obv]...CT -> 3.6 (Mid) vs You -> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 2: 1880 Morgan PCGS MS62 [Obv]...CT -> 2.7 (Low-Mid) vs You -> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 3: 1881-S Morgan PCGS MS65 [Rev]...CT -> 3 (Mid) vs You -> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 4: 1880-S Morgan PCGS MS65 [Obv]...CT -> 4.6 (Mid-High) vs You -> 5 (High)
Rd. 5: 1880-S Morgan NGC MS66* [Obv]...CT -> 3.2 (Mid) vs You -> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 6: 1880-S Morgan PCGS MS?? [Rev]...CT -> 3.5 (Mid) vs You -> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 7: 1887 Morgan PCGS MS64 [Obv]...CT-> 4.2 (Mid-High) vs You-> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 8: 1939-D Lincoln PCGS MS65RB [Obv]...CT-> 4.1 (Mid-High) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 9: 1972-D Ike PCGS MS63 [Obv]...CT-> 2.3 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 2 (Low-Mid)
Rd. 10: 1892 GB Half Crown PCGS MS64 [Dual]...CT-> 4 (Mid-High) vs You-> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 11: 1967 UK Half Crown PCGS MS65+ [Dual]...CT-> 3 (Mid) vs You-> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 12: 1963 Franklin NGC MS65+* FBL [Rev]...CT-> 4 (Mid-High) vs You-> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 13: 1884-O Morgan PCGS MS63+ [Obv]...CT -> 5 (High) vs You -> 5 (High)
Rd. 14: 1899 GB 6 Pence PCGS MS65 [Dual]...CT-> 5 (High) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 15: 1926 F.I.C. Piastre PCGS AU58 [Dual]...CT-> 3 (Mid) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 16: 1904 USP Peso NGC PF62 [Dual]...CT-> 2.8 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 17: 1944 Jeff Nickel PCGS MS 66 [Obv]...CT-> 4.8 (Mid-High) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 18: 1880-S Morgan PCGS MS 66+ [Obv]...CT-> 2.7 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 19: 1881-S Morgan PCGS MS 68+ [Obv]...CT-> 6 (Monster) vs You-> 6 (Monster)
Rd. 20: 1887 Morgan PCGS MS 66+ [Obv]...CT-> 5.3 (High) vs You-> 6 (Monster)
Rd. 21: 1880-S Morgan NGC MS 66* [Obv]...CT-> 4.5 (Mid-High) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 22: 1941-D Jeff Nickel NGC MS 67* 5FS [Dual]...CT-> 4.9 (Mid-High) vs You-> 6 (Monster)
Rd. 23: 1961 Franklin 50c PCGS PR 65 [Dual]...CT-> 5.3 (High) vs You-> 6 (Monster)
Rd. 24: 1884-O Morgan NGC MS 61* [Obv]...CT-> 2.7 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 25: 1941-D Jeff Nickel PCGS MS 66 FS [Dual]...CT-> 3.6 (Mid) vs You-> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 26: 1708 GB Shilling PCGS MS64 [Dual]...CT-> 2.8 (Low-Mid) vs You-> 3 (Mid)
Rd. 27: 1880-S Morgan PCGS MS64 PL [Rev]...CT -> 5 (High) vs You -> 5 (High)
Rd. 28: 1835 10c PCGS AU58 [Rev]...CT -> 3.9 (Mid) vs You -> 5 (High)
Rd. 29: 1888 Morgan PCGS MS65+ [Obv]...CT -> 4 (Mid-High) vs You -> 4 (Mid-High)
Rd. 30: 1904-O Morgan NGC MS64 [Dual]...CT -> 3 (Mid) vs You -> 2 (Low-Mid)

Summary Chapter 2
Rd. 31: 1878 8tf Morgan PCGS MS66 [Obv]...CT -> 5.5 (High) vs You -> 6.0 (Monster)
Rd. 32: 1880-s Morgan PCGS MS63 [Obv]...CT -> 4.7 (Mid-High) vs You -> 5.3 (High)
Rd. 33: 1881-S Morgan NGC MS 66* [Obv]...CT-> 5.6 (High) vs You-> 6 (Monster)
Rd. 34: 1868 4D Mdy PCGS MS 65 [Dual]...CT-> 3.1 (Mid) vs You-> 3.5 (Mid)
Rd. 35: 1884-O Morgan NGC MS 64* [Obv]...CT-> 4.2 (Mid-High) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 36: 1884-O Morgan NGC MS 64* [Obv]...CT-> 4.3 (Mid-High) vs You-> 5 (High)
Rd. 37: 1881-S Morgan Raw [obv]...CT -> 1.8 (Low) vs You -> 1.7 (Low)
Rd. 38: 1877-CC Quarter PCGS AU 58 [Dual]...CT -> 3.4 (Mid) vs You -> 4.8 (Mid-High)
Rd. 39: 1919 Franc PCGS MS 66 [Dual]...CT -> 2.9 (Low-Mid) vs You -> 3.5 (Mid)
Rd. 40: 1887 Morgan PCGS MS64 [Obv]...CT -> 5.8 (High) vs You -> 6.0 (Monster)
Rd. 41: 1974-S Ike Raw [Obv]...CT -> 2.5 (Low-Mid) vs You -> 2.0 (Low-Mid)
Rd. 42: 1885-O Morgan NGC MS63* [Obv]...CT -> 2.8 (Low-Mid) vs You -> 3.0 (Mid)
Rd. 43: 1958-D Franklin NGC MS64* [Dual]...CT -> 4.5 (Mid-High) vs You -> 4.9 (Mid-High)
Rd. 44: 1886 Morgan PCGS MS66 [Obv]...CT -> 5.9 (High) vs You -> 6.0 (Monster)
Rd. 45: 1883-O Morgan NGC MS63* [Rev]...CT -> 3.5 (Mid) vs You -> 3.0 (Mid)
Rd. 46: 1958-D Franklin NGC MS67* [Dual]...CT -> 4.1 (Mid-High) vs You -> 5.5 (High)
Rd. 47: 1888 Morgan Anacs MS63 [Obv]...CT -> 5.1 (High) vs You -> 5.4 (High)
Rd. 48: 1961 10c PCGS MS66+ [Obv]...CT -> 4.5 (Mid-High) vs You -> 4.7 (Mid-High)
Rd. 49*: 1883 Morgan PCGS MS64 [Obv]...CT -> 5.1 (High) vs You -> 5.9 (High)

______
*Rd. 49 is presumed to be a juiced picture, so take the final scores with a grain of salt

 

Floor is open...

 

Not juiced.

 

I like the gold color. Good coverage but nothing insane 3.1. I like the bag toning too!

 

I'm going 3.0
Some covet textile toning, but personally most of them do not appeal to me.

 

4 for me. Unique toning color. I also love textile toners and not all of them have great eye appeal. This one certainly does.

 

2.0 for me. I don't like textile toning, and that coin doesn't have much positive eye appeal in terms of colors.

First cycle toners are kind of boring ... the textile pattern makes this one less boring than most for some people I guess.