The Monster Toned Coin Game Thread

Nice deflection.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Nah, you bring it up cause your butt hurt about it. Which is all this argument is about.

None of my scores are self contradictory and you know I was being hyperbolic when I gave your coin a 1.0 because I admitted it a few posts later. That coin still deserves a low score though, 2.0 should suffice.

Furthermore, nobody needs to be an expert, self proclaimed or otherwise, to see that the “super common” MS67 Buffalo Nickel had 100% toning coverage and is not “barely toned.”

When have either of us proclaimed we are experts? You have decided to characterize us that way so that you play the victim rather than being adult about it, and simply admit that you are wrong.

So here’s my question to you. If the Buffalo Nickel is “barely toned”, why did it sell for 2X price guide?

 

I will answer your question. Our horseback rider doesn’t know much about toned coins. He talks about inferior photography? Look at this page from his website. The photographs look like they were shot during a lunar eclipse. The lighting is awful; it is extremely unflattering to toned coins. Either that, or the coins are all ugly as sin. I would not buy any of those coins based upon the photography. Don’t believe me? Go to his website. If that is good coin photography, I would hate to see bad photography. Guess who is no expert.

 

Still on your ad hominem rant I see. LOL.

Pathetic.

Let’s see your coin photography...oh...right, you have never posted a coin photo that you have taken that I have seen. Sad.

 

2x is about where I’d expect an attractive but lightly toned coin to sell. You’d be talking 7-10x if it were anywhere even close to a monster.

I never said it was ugly. It’s also absolutely hammered; it’s a helluva nice coin. It’s just no monster.

 

No, I am being honest. The photography is awful. I have taken many photos of coins I have taken, and they are all terrible. I have often said that I don’t have the talent or time to take better coin pictures. Yours are no better, in presenting coins as attractive. You think you are a good coin photographer—I say NOT. Since I am a big buyer, that should impact upon you, as if I feel that way, others may well feel similarly.

 

I am not a seller, so I fail to see what my photographs have to do with you being a “big buyer”??

And I have had plenty of people ask me to photograph their coins, so I’d say you are either blind, in the minority, or clueless as to what good coin photography is.

You are a lover of the cartoonish TrueView school, so enough said.

 

So wait, you are saying that “barely toned” coins drive 2X premiums on a $500 price guide coin?

That is patently absurd.

 

If the little bit of toning that is there is attractive and the grade is gem+ of course that’s not absurd, and you know it. Let’s just agree to disagree. This is not accomplishing anything.

 

No, I just know bad photography when I see it. Just because others think you are a good coin photographer just enhances your delusions. I would take cartoonish Truviews over your “pitch dark” photographic crap.

 

Congratulations.

 

To get back on topic, I rate my Jefferson Nickel proof as 5.6. It is a beautiful, lustrous, colorfully toned coin in hand, and in the photographs, which are accurate. For a Jefferson, it is a near monster.

 

This got derailed a bit.

I was at a 4.2 on the Buffalo.

Proof Jefferson I had at 4.9.

 

I like the coin and it’s design more than the toning. The toning does give it that classic silver tarnished look which I think goes well with the design. By no means is this even close to a monster and if this toning was on a Morgan it would be a 2 but I think on this coin it merits at least a 4. It’s also hard to read the luster on this coin. As an MS62 I am sure it’s there. The protected areas on the reverse around 10-11 o’clock seem to really enhance the color. It may be the lighting or the photography that are not showing this coin in its best light. I think if those colors showed across the entire coin as they do in those protected areas this could go above 4.

 

The images from CRO are below. While they are brighter, my images are more accurate to the look of the coin in hand (it has dark toned surfaces, and you only see the bright greens and yellows seen in the images below if you tip it into a light source at just the "right" angle).

It is a 300 year old coin, and silver doesn't stay bright with age - unless dipped out like (sadly) so many British coins have been (across the pond there seems to be a much higher preference for dipped/white coins).

Lastly, let me remind people that coins struck from this period have a very different type of "luster" from modern coinage. They were struck using much different die production technology and pre-industrial coinage presses. The "luster" is more similar to what would be called a proof-like coin nowadays. One area of numismatics where this is very evident is in the production of Talers and German state coins pre-1780s or so.

 

I'm with @kSigSteve ...I really like the design and would be thrilled to own it. The color adds character, but it's not enough for a high toning score.
I'm settling at a 3.0.

(note: will update summary info after this round).

 

2.5. Beautiful coin, but minimally toned by the Morgan standard.

 

This coin is just like the previous 300 year old coin that I gave a 1.0 based on applying the Morgan Dollar scale.

This coin is fantastic because of its age, shape, unique design, and overall coolness factor. And while the toning that exists contributes to that coolness, the toning by itself isn’t that spectacular. I think it is better than the last one so I will give it a 2.5 rating.

As @kSigSteve pointed out, when compared to other coins of this series (if others exist) the toning rating might be several points higher.

 

It is the only known example extant.