Sorry, forgot to include the reverse. My thinking is that if the toning is natural, it has been dipped and retoned....but it could just be completely artificial. I'm not really sure. Sorry, the pics arent very good, just give it your best SWAG!
Hum? This one I lean towards AT. It seems so dark and lack of luster. Also no tone on the high points of the eagles wings and feathers has be concerned. Nice coin though. Even if I'm wrong and it is NT, for me its not an attractive tone.
Thanks for the input. Much appreciated! Here's anothern for evaluation, 1838 this time. Completely different source too. Anyone have experience with rpholder? He has a lot of beautifully toned coins and appears to be a respectable seller, but some of them are a bit questionable. http://cgi.ebay.com/1838-RE-Capped-...l?hash=item5ad2306da6&_trksid=p3286.m20.l1116
Coin has nice detail, but dead/flat luster. I'd stay away from it. I can't comment on the tone, but I'd bet its AT due to lack of luster. Do you think it has been over dipped than some one tried to re-tone/tone it?
I would suggest thay everyone open the pics of those 2 coins and compare them to each other side by side on the screen. The differences between them are glaring when you do so. I would agreee that the first coin pictured is AT. It appears to have been harshly cleaned and then AT'd in an effort to hide that. The second coin looks natural to me. It has a great deal of underlying luster, even on the high points, and appears to be a very nice MS coin. For those who wish to learn how to recognize underlying luster when you see it, open the pics of the second coin to full size and look at them with a large view (3" or more), low power (3x-4x)glass. You will see how at the edges of the toning that the luster shines through in the lighter areas and fades out gradually in the darker areas. This effect is very difficult to replicate with artificial toning, and can only be done by the best coin doctors. edit - One other thing - when you compare the pics of the 2 coins, it is easy to see the difference between the glare (reflection) in the pic of the first coin and the underlying luster in the pic of the second coin. I would suggest that pics like these be saved for future reference for those wishing to learn.
#1 is AT and I would question the authenticity of. #2, I would do some homework on before dropping 400 on this coin. The 3 in the date should be lower and I don't like the denticles on the reverse, Thats off the top of my head and I would have to check the reference books to verify. NOT saying its fake I just have some questions in my mind when I see the picture here is all.
GD that is good input. I am not so sure about luster in the fileds though, the area's you pointed out seem protected and may retain more luster than the fields.
I have not had experience with rpholder, so in all fairness to him I cannot comment. However, I've repeatedly noticed that nearly all of his silver has this AT look to it. On ebay I have checked his "see other items" for Capped Bust Halves several times, most recently 02/14/11, and it truly becomes a trend when you see all of those photos lined up in a column on ebay. I will not accuse this person of anything outright since I've never given him a chance, he has good feedback, and the details of most of his coins seem quite nice, but I am suspicious of this toning and the trend that I am seeing with so many "beautifully toned" "monster toned" coins with dull or no underlying luster and funny AT-like coloration.
First one: artificial- the toning isn't really normal, toning is only near the sides Second one: Natural all the way. Toning all around the coin
