Guess the grade--1922 Peace Dollar

eddie, I think Doug is trying to help us all learn by asking zane his reasoning. It is only when we discuss the detailed reasons that we can seperate the fact from the fiction, and all become more knowledgeable collectors.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Ah - the Tofestos to the Rashi on the Gemera of this Mishna...

Ruben

 

Mike and Doug, I know. But I'm saying Zaneman can't do that to any practical degree of precision. I wish he could. For that matter, I wish we all could. I wish I could precisely explain why I think it's NT. But we can't even define what we mean by AT and NT, outside of just in the abstract (which is of course of no practical use to anybody), when you get right down to it. And, because of that, I think it's a little premature to be asking why it's AT, when we can't even agree on a definition of AT.

EDIT: BTW, I agree with what you're saying, Mike, on the need to press for specifics, so as to enhance our knowledge and understanding. What about starting with defining these terms, first, though, specifically...that's what I'm saying.

 

Now, there you go making sense again. :goofer:

Bruce

 

I wouldn't say there is a definition for Artificial Toning, only indicators. Coins posses qualities that indicate that the toning is either natural or artificial. I have stated before that one of my pet peeves is for someone to claim AT without providing the reasons (indicators) why they think the coin is AT. Doug has now asked for these reasons. For all that think the coin is AT, please tell us why you think the coin is AT, specifically.

 

There are a couple things that bother me. Right under United there is a black area that is mottled and has a very distinctive look of a coin that was heated with some sort of toning catalyst. Also on the front predominately behind the head (but all over the coin) there are small black spots that indicates heating to me.

I also don't like the overall color. It just doesn't seem right to me. Especially the overall salmony pink/blue seen on the obverse.

 

Evidently I'm not going to get any definitions out of anybody, so let me try a different approach. Why, Lehigh, do you choose to presume the toning is NT? Why not, instead, presume it's AT, and put the burden of going forward with evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption on the proponents of NT? The question would then become, "Why, specifically, do you propose the toning is NT?" If you're unable to answer the question to any reasonable degree of certainty, we then, of course, would be entitled to fall back on the presumption the toning is AT.

Bottom-line, you set a trap for the unwary. It was unintentional. From what I believe one can reasonably infer from your reply, you weren't even aware of it, yourself. But, net effect, that's what you did, when you chose to presume the toning is NT, and put the burden on Zaneman to show otherwise. You're a winner, there, because, in Zaneman's own words, "It just doesn't seem right to me." That's the best he could do...the best anybody could do...without any definitions of NT and AT.

Your method, furthermore, just so happens to mimic the method of the TPGs, when they "evaluate" these toned coins for the market, and give them their so-called "market grades." They presume the toning is NT, going in. Again, that's a hard presumption to overcome, understand, without any definitions of AT and NT. In fact, it's just as hard to overcome as presuming the toning is AT, going in, without any such definitions. More of these toned coins "pass the test" that way, however, which is what the TPGs want, because, let's face it, that's where the money is. It's also what the submitters want. It's also, of course, what the auctioneers want. It's a game, for sure. In the final analysis, however, everybody is happy...even the buyer, as he or she now has confirmation of the toning in the form of a TPG slab.

Finally, let me restate, I believe your coin is NT. Let me add, just so there’s no misunderstanding, I mean it, I mean it, I mean it. My “rationale?” It's just the opposite of Zaneman's “rationale.” Again, that's the best I can do, the best anybody can do, given we're without definitions. It just seems right to me, based on what I've seen...

 

Eddie,

Where do you see that I have posted that I think the coin is either AT or NT. I simply posted a guess the grade for the coin. And we all know that I am very tolerant of AT coinage.

The TPG's don't know the provenance, storage methods, or history of most of the coins they grade. How can we expect them to accurately weed out the coins that were intentionally toned versus those that were the result of time and improper storage. At this point the TPG's know this as well and don't proclaim slabbed coinage toning either NT or AT. If they slab the coin, they are simply proclaiming the toning to be market acceptable.

As far as setting a trap, well you have me there. I knew that members would proclaim this coin AT. I just wanted more explanation for their opinions. However, sometimes "it just doesn't look right to me" is a very adequate justification for AT. You can't pinpoint why, but the coin just doesn't look right based on the thousands of other toned coins you have seen in that series. I fully accept Zaneman's reason for proclaiming the coin AT and his supporting reasons.

 

MS64


stainless

 

What do the black spots represent?

Ruben

 

He's saying that the area below looks weird-it's the most noticeable part of the coin and what I used to find the pictures that I posted.

 

Another post about AT/NT, said that spots are formed when a chemical Beads, leaving spots. It is odd that on the reverse it appears to leave light spots and on the obverse it leaves dark spots, Dark spots with light centers, and light spots.

 

If it was a chemical agent the dark spots could be from beading, while the light spots were (assuming it was "baked") the agent bubbled and spread due to the heat.

 

Here's my '22 peace...what would you grade this one?

 

I'd say 63, but you should start your own thread :smile


(You didn't say if it was graded, I assumed UNC, it may be a 58 as I can't tell light wear from pics)

 

I posted it a while ago, but no one really looked = \ Just had one reply.

Thanks for the grade though!! It's a beaut = )