The Monster Toned Coin Game Thread

I have a positive bias towards these proof Jefferson toners and I like this one.
I'm going with 4.7

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

In fairness, there really isn't that big of a spread in the scoring.

wxcoin: 5.5
ddddd: 4.0
Morgandude11: 5.0
Lehigh96: 4.5

All of these scores are with 1.5 points of each other. But then you have Oscar the Grouch's grade which is a full point lower than the lowest grade of all the other respondents.

brg5658: 3.0

If he wants to submit an outlier grade, that's fine, but to try to gaslight everyone by saying that a coin with 100% toning coverage is "barely toned" is ridiculous and will not go unchecked.

 

The 60's toned proof Jefferson's are striking. Heck, even V Kurt Bellman likes them, and he is a toning hating Wiemar White fan. I have owned several of these and this one looks better than the ones I've owned. The way the violet toning in the reverse fields creates an almost cameo effect on the yellow toned Monticello is freaking amazing. I'm giving this a big score indeed.

5.5

 

I would say that 1.5 points is already a big spread when the scale is only 1.0-6.9. In my view, a small spread is when everyone is within 1 point.

And part of this thread is the ability to debate. There will always be some coins that are more controversial/have a higher range than others.

 

I don't care about the spread or his low score, but saying that coin is "barely toned" is just factually inaccurate.

 

That Jefferson is a "monster"! I'd give it a solid 6. The colors are off the chart!

 

Only as factually inaccurate as your photos are.

 

Current Jeff Nickel is a 4.5 for me. Toned proofs don’t do much for me, and as I’ve stated many times before - colors in axial-type photos of proofs (like these are) are not how the coin looks at most angles in hand.

 

How the heck would you know what the coin looks like in hand? If you bothered to look, when I posted GTG photos in the slab, they looked exactly the same. I think that you’re not only contentious, you clearly know ZERO about toned coins, other than your own. Get off your high horse (pun intended), and stop commenting about how you THINK coins look, as opposed to how they look. I guess you must be clairvoyant, as well as being arrogant.

 

@Lehigh96 is a hypocrite of the highest order here. He rated a double sided highly toned 1708 Queen Anne Shilling as a 1.0 earlier in this thread. He has dismissed several other coins as “being guilty by association” for no other reason than because he believes certain colors are always AT or questionable. Yet I am the dogmatic one! Please.

I at least give rational reasons for my ratings and claim them as my opinions and only mine. To use his own words, Paul is a legend in his own mind.

 

Again, stop whining, you are the only one who can't see the color in those photos.

 

I have taken tens of thousands of coin photographs - that informs me that you can only make a proof coin look like that with axial like lighting.

Take it or leave it, toned proofs are not my preference - nor are they the toned coin markets preference. It’s funny how those whining are the ones accusing others of whining. Pathetic.

 

Can you read? I have stated multiple times, it was lightly/barely toned. I never said it wasn’t toned. I don’t see any relevant toning on the reverse, but I gave the coin a 3 for the pastel almost negligible obverse toning.
Who is the whiner??

You are all bent out of shape because someone says the pictures are sub par (which they are) and because the toning isn’t very vibrant (which it isn’t). All that whining about a coin you don’t even own. Get a grip.

 

Oh you have taken thousands of photos of coins? May I kiss your ring, your Royal Horse’s posterior? You wouldn’t know a good looking coin, if I threw it at your feet. Why don’t you take your fatuous, pseudo-expert self, and ride into the sunset. Adios, amigo. Axial lighting my left foot! Beautiful toning is beautiful toning!

 

Need a tissue?

 

If I did, I would use one of your many thousands of photos.

 

Resorting to "I know you are but what am I" huh?

I did rate that shilling as a 1.0 because I didn't think very much of the toning and most people were rewarding it with higher scores simply because of the age of the coin. The TPGs follow the same practice of deeming certain color schemes as questionable, and if you submit a coin that bears that color scheme, it has a much higher chance of getting a details grade, so it is perfectly reasonable for me to punish coins with questionable color schemes in this thread.

As for your assertion that you give "rational reasons" for your ratings, there is nothing rational about saying that a coin with 100% toning coverage is "barely toned".

 

Yawn.

So you can be a self-proclaimed “expert” but others can’t offer their opinions. Makes sense.

 

Actually, NO, the toned proof Jefferson Nickels from the 60's don't need a specific angle to see the toning. Many proof coins do need the angles that you are talking about, but in my experience, 60's toned proof Jefferson Nickels are the exception.

 

You can offer your opinion, just make sure it is plausible. Your assertion that the Buffalo Nickel I posted is "barely toned" is ludicrous, and you embarrass yourself with each post you make defending your lunacy, instead of just taking a well deserved L.