Wild Toning

I was looking at the type coins in my 7070 album today and noticed that this Morgan dollar had really blossomed since the last time I saw her. When I bought her in 1989, she was all white. But in the ensuing years, after being kept first in a paper envelope and then for the last 17 years in the 7070 album, she has developed these very vivid colors on both sides. Miss Liberty has developed locks of golden hair, and reverse looks like the golden rays of early morning coming up behind the eagle.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Magnificent! Very handsome.
Lance.

 

Nice! Time to move it to an airtite.

 

Wow! Beautiful!

 

Exquisite!

 

Thank you, everyone, for your kind comments. I was so knocked over by this coin when I saw it yesterday I just had to share it. An airtite is definitely in this coin's future

 

If I saw that on ebay, I'd think it was AT !

 

Well, it's definitely not AT! I bought it white in 1989, kept it in a sulfur-laced coin envelope until I got my 7070 album in 1994, and it has been residing there ever since. Also, from 1993 to 1996, it was in a house where the air apparently contained generous amounts of sulfur (I left a few silver coins out in the open there and they started toning very quickly).

 

Umm.... Isn't that the very definition of AT?

 

No, it's not. I guess I should clarify. By "sulfur-laced", I meant that the paper itself had a high natural sulfur content, but I didn't put any sulfur in the envelope myself. Artificial toning is an accelerated process done with chemicals. My coin has taken a couple of decades to reach this stage.

You can read about artificial toning here:

http://www.pcgs.com/articles/article2316.chtml

Also, I would say that given the roughly concentric pattern of the toning, being housed in the 7070 for 17 years probably had a greater effect. Certainly, I've never had any kind of toning like that from other silver coins that I have kept solely in coin envelopes.

 

I'm not accusing you of doctoring the coin, but I'd be suspicious of it as a buyer. I wonder if it would slab at PCGS ? It appears to have some wear ( ?) so I guess it is AU not unc....kind of a gash on liberty's cheek, so even if MS it is no 65 type of coin.

I'd be more concerned about the sulfur floating around in the air of your home instead of the coin itself, sounds very unhealthy !

Do you live in Pekin ?

http://www.pekintimes.com/highlight...s-worst-sulfur-dioxide-air-pollution-in-state

 

The only time I ever tried to give a coin artificial toning was when I was a teenager and I bought an AU 1917 SL quarter from the local coin shop. After learning about the effects of sulfur on silver in chemistry class, I covered the coin in an egg yolk paste and kept it for about a week in the refrigerator. Then I took the coin back to the shop to show the owner my creation. She had a fit, and ended up giving me a 15-minute lecture about how I'd ruined the coin! Her reaction rattled me so much that I have never attempted artificial toning since then!

The house I lived in from 1993-1996 was a place in Japan that was probably built in the '80s or earlier with cheapie building materials. The sulfur content was so high that nearly anything made of silver that was left out in the open started to tarnish within a few days. My current residence apparently has a far lower sulfur content, as I can leave silver out in the open for weeks with no noticeable chemical reaction.

As for my coin grading, I doubt PCGS would give it a grade since it appeared to have been cleaned when I bought it.

 

I have to agree.

When I first opened this thread the first thing I said was, "AT."

 

I love it! I have one with the same colors. I also know it is NT. I like everything about your coin.

 

Stunning! What percentage of your coins toned over this time period?

 

So did I, but this just reinforces the conundrum of toned coins to me. I believe almost any toning can be either "naturally" occuring, or AT, or forced to occur. So......if the OP didn't MEAN for it to happen, is it NT? Or is a certain color pattern ALWAYS AT regardless of source? If the difference is intent, how to prove it? If its color patterns, aren't you penalizing a coin like the OP who did not AT a coin? Where is a boundary?

This post is a poster child for the problem with paying extreme amounts for toning on a coin. If there cannot be an answer for this situation, then the same logic applies to all toning. Either you have to say the style of toning is the determinant factor, in which you are saying an innocent collector has just damaged a coin with AT without knowing it, or you have to say a persons INTENT is deciding when judging toning, which is unknowable. If toned coin colelctors wish to protect their market, (meaning high premiums paid for toning), and at first glance this coin looks AT, then I think they would be forced to say this toning is AT and damaging to the coin.

Me? I like toned coins, and like the OP coin. I would buy it if it was priced like the past at a tiny premium over a white coin.

 

Very nice toning .... it added more beauty to the lady :smile

 

I also have to agree. I like tonners too but I'm unwilling to pay a huge premium over the going price when compared to a non-tonner in the same grade. Funny thing though. There was a time when I used to look upon toned coins as less desirable.....even ugly. Strange how someones opinion can change over time.

 

I think it was the market man. When younger I was taught toned coins were less valuable since the toning was in reality damage, and a lot of AT coins were toned to hide damage to the coin. The older collecters felt that once a white coin toned, it was forever impaired and could never again be a lusterous white piece. It is still the same mentality in copper coins, with toned coins in copper being worth less than original red usually.

 

So are you saying I shouldn't pay 2-5x the value for an antique car with a nice rusted body?