I'm just thinking if it was intentionally done by way of an accelerated process the likes of which are generally looked down upon by reasonable numismatists the world over some 50, 75 or 100 or so years ago, we ought to let the poor coin off the hook for it, no? I wonder what the experts think. I'm not an expert, I just like to collect coins.
If its comical toning it will always be labelled AT. If its that bad, I would dip it. Yes, dip will remove a layer of luster, but if not overdipped will not be too noticable. If it was just borderline hopefully age would mellow it back to more normal toning. My opinion anyway.
I own a few and don't let it bug me. They are what they are. If I ever sell them, I'm sure they will sell at a discount.
The AT phenomenon is not really that old...it wasn't until recently that the major 3rd party graders started rejecting supposedly AT coins that were once acceptable. Of Course wild circus colored coins that are so obvious will always be rejected by knowledgeable collectors, so that point is moot. This analogy brings up market acceptable...a term that can be argued until the sun goes down. Collect what you like, problem solved, just don't be discouraged if you find out later on your collection is not as valuable as you once thought. Happy Collecting
If it's older than I am I might give it a break. But you have to realize I'm old enough that I used a slide rule at work. And I was there when computers took up whole large rooms.
Taking them from the bottom up... LineDad, I still have my old Dietzgen from, get this, high school! BR549 and Larry, I think I like your attitudes. :yes: Medoraman, when the luster is impaired for whatever reason that's a collateral issue. It may be relative to the "AT" method employed to impart the toning or it may not be. Nobody knows what caused it, really. It's like these "cleaned and retoned" coins. What's wrong about those is the "cleaned" part, not the "retoned" part. On the former, we can actually see that dead surface. I'm on board, there. That should negatively affect the technical grade of the coin and in extreme cases even render the coin unmarketable. I'm just talking about so-called "AT," here, as I had generally defined it, above. EDIT: FWIW, just because some people prefer deep, rich oil paintings to thin, superficial water color paintings doesn't categorically make water color paintings unmarketable. I judge toning on whether it's eye-appealing to me, and "AT" isn't even in my vocabulary. I'm a coin collector, not a coin detective. If, from what my eyes can see, the underlying technical condition of the coin is unimpaired, that's all that matters to me. So, to any of you "AT/NT" guys who may for whatever reason wander into here, yeah, just to make the record clear, I'm one of "those guys." :smile
A coins grade and value are always dependent upon "originality" and once the coin has been AT'ed, that originality will always be in question. Is there a time when AT becomes acceptable? IMO, no just like the acceptability of a scratch. The coin has simply lost its originality. However, if a collector does not mind, then thats ok as well but that collector and his/her heirs should not be surprised that the coin will not be acceptable for professional grading and as such would never achieve its "perceived" value. There are exceptions to the rules though. I'm sure an 1804 Silver Dollar could be AT'ed and still achieve a high value although not as high if it had not been messed with. There are also some very valuable coins that have been slabbed with "market acceptable" scratches.
I'm not a fan of toned coins, whether natural or artificial. This coin is natural, I think, and very desirable to some, but I've seen AT coins that look pretty much the same. Either way, it doesn't look "original" to me.
