Rainbow Toned Market Alive and Well

I really think it would be much easier on everyone if nobody cared about the originality of toning and just decided based upon eye appeal. The only reason AT coins are shunned is because the Numismatic community has applied a stigma to them and brainwashed the collecting public into believing that it is 100% pure evil.

Meanwhile, people can alter coins (Hobo Nickels) and it is considered art.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That's how I have felt for awhile now. Let's not forget, however, that most AT coins are not nearly as eye appealing as a beautiful NT coin. As I said before, "Leadfoot's peace dollar raw is a great looking coin even if it AT" and that applies to other eye-appealing AT coins as well.

 

It might be easier, but I'm not so sure it would be better.

Said another way, art in the name of deception and profit is not art, it's deception and profit.

Said yet another way, a forged Rembrant good enough to fool many experts is still worth a fraction of the original. Are you saying that the counterfeit should be valued as much as the original because they both "look good"?

Do the ends justify the means? I'd like to think not, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Bottom line: People pay big money for NT coins -- or more properly coins that the buyer considers NT -- and the simple lack of toned, big-money raw coins attests to this fact. Slap an AT label on a coin -- even an expertly toned attractive one -- and it generally loses 50-75% of its value on the open market. That's not Mike talking, that's reality.

The real will (and should) always be more valuable than the contrived, IMO.

 

I agree. IMHO, if the coin has nice eye appeal I don't care how it was created. Most of the eBay AT coins are so ugly to me that I wouldn't want them. But that Peace Dollar is amazing, even though it's AT I would love to have it.

 

I think it is a matter of perception. The simple fact is that the oxidation layers on a coin's surface are identical with respect to AT and NT coins. The only difference is how the oxidation layer formed. What takes nature decades to produce can be accomplished with human intervention through heat, chemicals, and atmosphere in a very short period of time.

We only care about the origin of the toning because we have been told that artificial/accelerated toning is evil. What if the original viewpoint from the Numismatic world was one of respect and admiration of the coin doctors? What if the metal coin was viewed as a blank canvas for the coin doctor to create his masterpiece? What if the term coin doctor was replaced with coin artist? If these views were commonplace instead of the current stigma on AT coins, there would be no price difference, no debate, no argument, and no fear.

While I understand your analogy of a Rembrandt, I don't think it is accurate. My guess is that an artist capable of counterfeiting a Rembrandt must have incredible skill. If he were to apply this skill to a blank canvas, a painting of equally incredible beauty might appear. The problem is that in order to reap the financial rewards of your work in the art world, you usually have to be dead. This is the motive behind copy cat artists that counterfeit famous works of art. In my coin world, the coin doctor need not copy a particular toning pattern, only create a coin with beautiful toning. It is our current view of AT that creates the need for the doctor to repeat market acceptable colors and patterns.

I have so many coins in my collection that walk the line between AT and NT that I have come to this conclusion. If I can't differentiate between AT and NT when viewing the coin but recognize that the coin is beautiful despite the toning's origin, I can't bring myself to value the coin differently just because some so called expert tells me that it is AT. The only reason I am forced to endure this process is a financial one. Furthermore, I have never been able to change any other collector's mind regarding their opinion of AT & NT, which tells me that it will never change.

 

It scares me that some are willing to admire a person who is altering a coin in the pretence of making money , perhaps hiding flaws such as cleanings or other damage . Or just taking a ordinary coin and doctoring it to add color and value . How many perfectly good coins are ruined by amateurs trying their hand at beautifying coins .
rzage

 

That is part of the hobby though.

 

Then we open the door to fraud and forgeries of all kind.

And the legitimate rarities loose their magic.

Who would pay $3 million for an 1804 S$1 if the prevailing mindset is a doctored 1801 is just as good ? Who would pay AU50 money for an honest AU50 chain cent if a carved-up VF20, made to look AU50, is just as good ?

The same thinking holds true for lesser valued coins as well.

The point is this : the value of an AU50 chain cent isn't just the detail; it's the original, mint-made, surviving detail. Prices are high because almost none survived with that much detail and demand is high. It's easy enough to have the same amount of detail on a tooled VF20.

Which gets us back to supply and demand. The supply of legitimate AU50 chain cents is very low, but the supply of doctored "blank canvas" copper is potentially unlimited. For this reason, coin collecting will always treasure original, undoctored coins.

 

A Hobo Nickel is art. No one is trying to palm off carved Buffalo 5c as some exotic rarity. Everyone sees them for what they are.

The difference is FRAUDULENT INTENT.

When someone intentionally doctors a coin with intent to fool someone and pass it off as original for profit, that is fraud. There is no way to compare that to a hobo 5c.

 

I respectfully disagree.

I disrespect AT not because of anything I learned in coin collecting, but rather something I learned in kindergarten.

Deliberate attempts to fool people to take their money is wrong. And that's what AT is.

 

You got me their buddy .
rzage

 

With all due respect, you have completely missed the point. If the practice of artificially toning a coin was accepted, there would be no fraud. In the end, the oxidation layers on an AT coin are the same composition as those on an NT coin. The only difference is how the oxidation layers formed and how fast they formed. If you can't tell the difference between the two by sight, why should the origin of the toning matter. If that was the view of the Numismatic world, the practice of artificially toning a coin would not be fraud because it would be accepted. There would be no intent to fool anyone.

 

I think you have a point Lehigh...but the problem is that ATing a coin is not accepted and is typically done with the intent of altering a less valuable coin to make it valuable. It is true that oxidation on a coin can have beautiful results regardless of where it came from.

I personally don't care if the coin was NT or AT as long as it has the appearance of being NT. Most of the AT coins out there look painted. Someone threw some chemicals and heat at them and the coin turned all sorts of colors. They stand out like crazy. If someone has the skill to create a coin that truly has a NT appearance then I would be happy to have it in my collection. Is it wrong to create such a coin and claim it is natural and profit as a result...yes, but the beauty of the coin is the same.

 

I don't dispute that trying to deceive others in an attempt to make money is wrong. My point is that it is the Numismatic community's vilification of artificial toning that makes it deceptive in the first place. With acceptance, the price of the AT coin would then be decided by the market. A beautiful coin with what we now call "market acceptable" toning would drive a large premium and the AT crap produced by novices will still be crap, and the terrible toning would still negatively affect the value of the coin.

I say grade every one, slap QT (questionable toning) on the slab, and let the market decide how much each coin is worth. How many NT coins have been relegated to worthless items by the TPG's unrelenting pursuit to avoid slabbing an AT coin? How many AT coins have made it into TPG slabs due to the TPG's stubborn refusal to admit that sometimes, they just don't know?

 

I totally agree with you. The result would be that NT coins would drop in value as the supply of total (and indistinguishable) toners would increase. I think you are 100% correct that IF ATing was accepted it would take the majority of the money out of it.

 

While I agree with that premise in theory, I think that it would only apply to the common date coins. Although they do exist, very few coin doctors will risk trying to AT an already expensive coin in an attempt to make the coin even more valuable. Therefore, when you run across an expensive coin with superb toning, it will still drive a significant premium.

 

We could ask the same questions about cleaning. Or re-coloring. Or whizzing. Or any other manipulative act. And in all cases, the result is the same :

• No one is perfect, but the TPGs are darn good. Much better than the vast majority of hobbyists.
• They are right more often than wrong. Much more often.
• The answer to the "how many" question is "not that many" compared to the number they get right.
• In general, they are pretty reliable and have done the hobby / industry a service.
• Overall, they have weeded out fraudulent crap (which is just) and most legit coins wind up in slabs (also just).

EXCEPTIONS DON'T PROVE THE RULE. That's why they call them exceptions.

And that's the fatal flaw in the "how many" question - it tends to treat exceptions as the rule. By preponderance, justice is served.

 

We have to draw a clear distinction between the concept of AT and NT coins in our minds - whether or not you can discern them in hand.

AT coins do not, will not, and should not trade at par with legitimate NT coins. Isn't it obvious why ?

For the same reason tooled coins should not trade at par with legitimate coins with original mint detail.

It's not just about the STATUS of the coin ! it's about HOW WE GOT HERE. By natural process, or by artificial manipulation.

AT Coin doctors are frauds.

 

Again, with all due respect, these are not fair comparisons. In the cases where a TPG grades a cleaned coin, they know the coin was cleaned but deem that the cleaning was not harsh enough to prohibit the grading of the coin.

With regards to toned coins, they often times have no idea whether the toning is AT or NT. The whole policy of "market acceptability" is just their opinion whether or not the coin will pass for NT in the marketplace. So if you are claiming that their accuracy in determining the originality of toning for which they can't possibly know the history or storage conditions is comparable to that of weeding out other coin problems such as cleaning or whizzing which are readily evident to expert graders, then I will strenuously disagree.

You can follow the philosophy that exceptions don't prove the rule if you want. I follow a different philosophy: innocent until proven guilty. There is no justice in relegating beautiful NT coins to the ranks of AT simply because the TPG's can't tell the difference. How much money have the TPG's spent researching methods to try and solve the AT problem. My guess is very little. Maybe they should take all of the money they collect from AT body bagged coins and put it into a research fund that might one day solve the problem once and for all.

I am one of the most staunch supporters of the TPG's you will ever find, but not on their policy with regards to toned coins. Until they publicly state their policy of "market acceptability" I can't respect the way they handle the AT problem.

Here is an excerpt from the PCGS's THE OFFICIAL GUIDE TO COIN GRADING AND COUNTERFEIT DETECTION.

PCGS realizes this is a tough area and when there is doubt, the correct solution is not to grade the coin. Although there can be legitimate disagreements over some color and toning, when a coin is absolutely original there is no question about the color or toning. By not putting questionably toned coins in holders, PCGS ensures that the "coin doctors" are less likely to attempt their trade.

If either PCGS or NGC actually followed this grading policy over the years, I might have a different outlook on the subject. Instead, they give the public the company line listed above and follow a much different policy of "market acceptability" that is an admission that the coin is questionably toned. The other alternative is that this part of the company line is a lie "when a coin is absolutely original there is no question about the color or toning." IMO, that is exactly what it is, a lie. Didn't you mention something earlier about deceiving people in order to make a profit. Apparently, the TPG's did not attend kindergarten.

 

There is no such thing as AT or NT. It is just slow toning and fast toning.