Rainbow Toned Market Alive and Well

I disagree. But I think the definition of AT is different to everyone. I would define AT as physically altering the surface of the coin with the use of chemicals or heat. But, if I put a coin in an envelope for a year on a window sill...is that AT? To me it's not. That coin toned naturally. Is album toning natural or AT...someone put that coin in the album. Is selling that coin as NT OK? I mean...human's made those canvas bags and placed the Morgan Dollars in them.

I don't think anyone here disagrees that altering a coin's surface to deceive the buyer and gain a profit from that deception is wrong. But, be that as it may...we can still appreciate the beauty of the coin. Those are two completely separate discussions that are being combined here.

Do the TPGs get these wrong sometimes...of course. They get other things wrong too but I would imagine the toning issue is probably their greatest problem. There is just too many variables in toning, even the best experts in the world might get them wrong. It has already been shown that PCGS policy is basically "when in doubt don't slab." That means they can't confirm it as NT not that it isn't. That's just the nature of toning.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Tell me if you think the following coin is consistent with PCGS's public policy regarding artificial toning.

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.





Now define "market acceptability". See above photos.:smile

 

PCGS has a long history of being very inconsistent in many ways (grading, toning, ect...). That is why I prefer NGC.

I would say this coin is a clear example of AT. It's pretty but IMHO clearly AT and thus not worth a large premium to me. But, I do like it.

Also, are those marks on Kennedy's neck on the case or the coin? If on the coin I'd say it's grossly overgraded too.

 

Paul,
That Kennedy is one I am sure they would buy back as an obvious AT coin.:smile

 

Well I ain't selling. Despite the questionable nature of this coin's toning, it is absolutely gorgeous. The single most impressive toned Kennedy half I have ever seen. In addition, I can make a pretty good argument for this coin to be NT. What I can't do is say without a doubt that it is NT. By PCGS's stated public policy, it should have been body bagged. Why wasn't it, two words: MARKET ACCEPTABLE.

Personally, my biggest problem with this coin is the MS64 grade. Was the grader blind. No way this thing should be above MS63, market grading or not.

PS. It seems to me that any numismatic phrase containing the word market is very controversial.

 

if it werent for that "drooping" I would like that Kennedy, but unfortunately, it looks too AT to me.

 

Here wait I can fix that. Kinda like the old joke: You wanna look skinny, hang around fat people. You wanna look NT, hand around AT coins. Put em next to each other, it looks much better.






PS: They are both pretty, that is why I bought them.

 

But Lehigh , ATing coins is done with the sole respect to make a coin something it isn't . The reason NT coins cost so much is because of their rarity , why condone something that will encourage people to add more and wreck 1000s of coins while learning JMO. Also AT is done for fraudulent reasons like hiding defects as seen in the proof Gobrecht Dollar in this thread , it's almost like saying to a counterfeiter , do a good enough job so no one can tell the difference and I'll gladly put your coin in my collection as real .
rzage:whistle:

 

LOL
It does work. When asked how he looked so good at his age, Mick Jagger replied " easy, just stand next to Keith Richards"

 

Missed a whole page of posts , I'm responding to something 15 posts ago , man I hate when it opens to the wrong page .
rzage

 

I could make the same arguments about dipping. The coin wasn't white, but the dipper is passing it off as a white coin and not divulging that fact either. Isn't that deception in order to make a profit. Dipping is widely accepted in the numismatic world. And don't give that crap from Weimar White about removing active corrosion either, it is just an excuse.

 

NICE COIN. IMHO a very appealing toned specimen, uncommon to find one of this date so dressed up. That is why this coin is currently at the bid it is, and justifiably so for this NT coin. Good investment coin. Someone said earlier in the post, toning isn't everything, but it is the first thing you see on a coin, and this one say's "BUY ME" all the way!

 

Lehigh , I can see your point , true , dipping is done to take off ugly toning and making the coin look better but I don't think it's done fraudulently , if anything it will reveal any flaws the toning covered , I just think AT is done to make a coin into something much rarer a beautiful colored toned coin , dipping will never raise the price 12X , and that I feel is the soul incentive for AT a coin . Now I love a toned coin like you do and I respect you as a collector , I've had this same arguemen I mean discussion with DesertGem and the closest we've gotten was to agree to disagree . BTW the only way I'd agree with W.White was if the corrsion was wrecking the coin , and then I wouldn't buy a coin like that .:thumb:
Rusty