Artifical toning, forum members, and PCGS slabs.

I'm having a hard time accepting any kind of standard based upon the above. If this is the way it is defined, then there can be no true coin based distinction between the two.

I'll await Leadfoot's definition! :rolling:

(edit - looks like I have it and I don't feel any better. - with this NT vs. AT debate, how do y'all view tab toning? I know it is accepted as NT, but as discussed, the intent seems to be the driving factor.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

See the post immediately preceding your own.

 

Leadfoot already provided his definition

What I meant by my previous comment, which is giving you problems is...

Sometimes "original" envelope or album or roll (or whatever) toning looks unnatural. And if you were a grader, without any knowledge of how the coin had been stored, you would call it AT, due to its appearance, But if you knew/saw how the coin had been stored, you would call it NT.

On the other hand, some AT jobs are so good, that if you were a grader in a grading room, unaware of the coin's history, you would call it NT. But if you knew what had been done, you would call it AT.

 

It was my opinion that the majority of coins , that are put in albums and left in high humidity places , toned an ugly brown - black color , so why would a tone inflictor , I won't call them Dr. , chose such a haphazard method .
rzage:thumb:

 

Mike, if I understand you correctly, your definitions are dependent solely upon intent (or the lack thereof)? If so, you and Doug seem to be in agreement.

 

Your understanding is correct.

 

Thanks. Even though I don't think intent should be THE determinant, at least if we used the terms intentional toning and unintententional toning, there might be fewer arguments.

 

That, I seriously doubt.

 

As an aside, I have been contacted by someone whose opinion on this (and other) topic(s) I respect has told me that coin doctors have successfully replicated the pull-back look. I have not seen an example of this, and I am still awaiting one, but I thought this comment was worth repeating here....Mike

 

I agree with this 100% Eddie. People should buy what is appealing to them when it comes to toned coins. This is always going to be a debated topic sense not even TOP GRADERS can tell the differences no matter how many years or drawings they make with the alphabet...

Collect what you like and learn as much as possible so you can have a lot of collection. I say, if you have a question ask but on forums it is going to confuse even more and a forum like TCCS is only going to be AT... and it might disappoint you whether your coin is NT or not.

I'm starting to back off from asking so much and buying from what I have learned. I talk with knowledgable people prefervably through PM instead of asking for an opinion straight on here.

 

Please!!! :kewl:

 

It seems like all one would have to do is put something right where you want the pull back toning to occur , could it be that simple .
rzage

 

Take a look for yourself. The poster in question is Truthteller and his post is near the end.

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=738545

 

Thank you Mike for reminding me why I don't read the PCGS forum. About 75% of the posters in that thread couldn't care less about the issue and only posted so they could make their cool little jokes or stabs. Some of them come right out and say I didn't read the threads in question, but I will comment anyway.

Honestly though, if everyone reacted the way they did, there will be no detrimental effect on the market.

 

LMAO! just below that one..."Is the makeup permanent?"

 

If I was a member I would have responded with "No, it is not permanent, it can easily be removed with kool-aid."

That guy has almost 6,000 posts in 18th months, and they are probably all as funny as that one.

 

And of course you're going to explain to us all now how a buyer goes about determining that "intent" just by looking at the coin.

You drew an analogy to forged and original artwork and the problem therein was that while we can define what we mean by forged and original, we can't define what we mean by AT and NT...that distinction is purely arbitrary.

 

Okay...well, I have to also agree that intent might be key when it comes to coins, already in the possession of a collector, which tone because of what that collector has done to it. Problem is that intent, in most cases, probably cannot be determined. If a person put a coin into a holder or the attic and the coin toned but he had no idea this would happen, he had no intention of it happening...that would certainly be...unintentional. Whether the toning could truly be called NATURAL is a bit questionable since something WAS done that speeds up a process that, under more normal conditions, takes a very long time...and by normal I would even allow hot and humid places like where I live.

I have always considered natural toning to be more of the type that comes about after a very long time...the type of toning that is showing on some of my coins after decades of sitting in storage down here in Houston where, at a times, it can be very hot and humid...the type of toning that comes about where a coin has:

1. Been stored for a very long time where the owner has done nothing to promote the toning. I can attest to the fact that toning will happen ever so slowly by just putting a coin in a 2x2 and putting the coin in a drawer for decades in conditions that neither overly promotes toning nor overly protects the coin from toning. These coins tone so slowly that to get a coin to tone as bright and colorful as so many I see would take so long that they would be quite rare IMO. (again, no other factors at work on the coin)

2. A coin that has been exposed to extreme conditions or elements that promote toning purely by accident. Cases like the Morgan lost in an attic and then found decades later, fell through the crack in the floor, etc...these cases are certainly rare as well when not intentional. The holders that tone coins, I don't know.

So the way I have always seen toning is that super color toned coins like this, coming about in the way I have always seen as natural...is quite rare. The problem is, they aren't rare at all. I can easily go and buy 5 right now.

I only have my own experiences to go by and in my own experience, my coins have taken literally decades...some have taken a whole life time to develop even a hint of color being stored unprotected in a drawer in the hot and humid Houston weather (and indeed it gets hot to the point where its hard to keep your house cool)...I have never personally seen a coin achieve color like these coins stored normally. More often than not they tone dark with a hint of color which is what I have always called 'natural tone'. I have even seen a morgan that was found in the attic and it was almost BLACK with a haze of color that could be seen in the black...never a crisp clear clean color like I see.

With that...I am spent...

 

Thanks, Rigo. FWIW, have you realized yet what the real problem is? It's that we're dealing with emotion, pure and simple. When push comes to shove, what these people continuing to maintain and defend these arbitrary distinctions are really honked-off at is the possibility that they may have been made a pigeon out of by some slick operator who happens to know more about hastening toning on coins than they ever dreamed possible. That's the reason any quality answer one may give just continues to fall on deaf ears. IMHO, anyway...