2 types of toning ?

I know that there are a number of terms used to describe toning on coins: Album Toning, Bag Toning, End of Roll Toning, Environmental Toning, etc., but these are more geared to how the toning developed.

Other terms like Rainbow Toning, Rim Toning, Bulls Eye Toning, Verdigris Toning, etc. are geared to how the toning looks.

I been mulling about a viewers experience of toned coins and have come up with two different types of toning from a pure viewing or visual perspective --and would be interested to hear the opinions from other toned coin collectors and/or experts on this subject.

In my experience, I've seen two major types of toning on coins in respect to how easy the toning is to see:

1. Toning that looks (roughly) the same from any angle. An example would be this 1944-D Walking Liberty Half, which exhibits this colorful look from any view angle.



2. Toning that needs a special viewing/lighting angle to pop. An example would be this 1862 Proof Seated Liberty Half, which looks more "normal" with the typical reflective silvery proof surface, until you hit that special lighting/viewing angle where the color and toning pattern appear.



I am not exactly sure what is different in the toning physics to get these 2 different types, but it’s clear to me they exist. I have started to think there should be terms to describe these 2 different toning characteristics in the marketplace.

I have come up with two terms to describe this difference: “universal angle toning” or "universal toning" (for coins that have roughly the same toned look from any angle) and “oblique angle toning” or "oblique toning" (for coins that pop, get enhanced colors, or light up at a special lighting/viewing angle).

If anyone can think of better terms to describe these two types ... or if terms for these different types of toning already exist in coin vernacular -- let me know.

This differentiation is never made when you buy a toned coin, sight unseen, based on a photo (although is easy to experience when you buy a coin live, in-hand).

Whether one or the other type of (visual perspective) toning should have a premium attached, I am not sure. Also I am not sure if one type is more rare or prized by collectors. I think that "oblique toning" on coins might generate more wild and crazy colors; but to me, coins that have “universal toning" or any angle toning are more friendly to look at as they require no viewing or lighting angle manipulation to see the color and are certainly easier to show to other people.

I am curious to hear the opinions of toned coin lovers and/or collectors on this topic. Are both of these majors types of toning equally prized by you? Does one seem more rare than the other? Would you pay more of a premium for one over the other? Or do you generally not care how easy the toning is to see with the coin in hand.

Personally, I like coins that exhibit "universal toning" better as you can just lean them up on your desk, in any way, and see the wild color. While those coins with "oblique toning" might appear sort of plain from most angles until you hit that special lighting/viewing angle. But I am not sure all collectors feel this way.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Ahh. That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for posting that GDJMSP.

 

While it is true that toning is more visible at different angles when it gets thicker, that's not the reason for the phenomenon you describe. More to the point, I believe the difference in toning is what you call "universal angle" toning is prevalent on business struck coins (or coins with luster), whereas "oblique angle" toning show up on proof or prooflike coins. They are both caused by the same phenomenon (thin film interference), but the difference in the surfaces underneath cause the different properties. Said a bit differently, the "bumpy" luster typical on a business struck coin causes light to be scattered in all directions and thus the toning is visible in all directions, whereas a proof or prooflike coin with much more regular surfaces reflects light through the toning the best at a certain angle. It's the surfaces underneath that make the difference, not the toning. IMO of course...Mike

 

Interesting read, Leadfoot. Clearly this is a complex topic. I think i have seen some statistical correlation in my collection with your premise; however I do have exceptions.

 

There will be exceptions because of the phenomenon GDJMSP describes -- as toning grows thicker, more towards black, it becomes more visible at oblique angles, but generally not vibrantly.

Please post your exceptions, and let's discuss them....but I think you will find the surfaces underneath are the driving force in how the color is expressed.

 

Thanks Leadfoot (Mike) ... I appreciate your analysis on my "exception to your general rule" coins.

These are 3 proof coins are all "universal" view angle coins as well.
They all have clear striking toning & color -- visible from any view angle.





I don't have any examples of "oblique" view angle toning on business strike coins, because I almost exclusively buy the "universal" view angle coins. So I only have that one (the 1862 Seated Half). So my exceptions to your rule is only in the proofs.

 

Actually perhaps this is an exception coin?

This business strike Merc does have toning in all views, however it "lights up" with crazy (ugly!) color at one special angle.
So it's a kind-of sort-of "oblique" view angle coin ... or perhaps more of a hybrid coin showing qualities of both.

 

I'm in agreement with Mike. Oblique toning does happen with business strikes, but is by far more a characteristic of proof and proof like surfaces. Colors change dramatically depending on the position of lighting and the coin. Universal toning also occurs in proof and PLs, possibly because the thickness of the "film" has not developed.

 

While not prooflike, I suspect it's a little light on the luster, which would explain the semi-oblique toning.

 

On the Lincoln -- while there is some "scatter" on any proof coin (because the surfaces on a very small scale aren't really a perfect mirror), I suspect that coin really lights up at the special angle (i.e. mirror angle). Said another way, I'll bet that coin is more "oblique" than "universal" in-hand.

On the Proof 37 -- please correct me if I'm wrong, but that looks like a satin proof -- and as such is lustrous and follows the rules for lustrous toned coins. This is an issue I am very familiar with, I also own a toned 36 satin proof, and these satin proofs are actually MORE lustrous than their business struck cousins. (By the way, I think your coin is a SUPERB example -- very pretty!)

On the Franklin -- see comments on the Lincoln, but I suspect the coin really lights up when caught at that right angle.

The underlying point is this -- coins aren't only "oblique" or "universal", but rather various degrees of each, and I think your examples show this very well.

All IMO, of course.

 

Thanks for that robec and leadfoot ... i understand this phenomena so much better now

 

Thanks GDJ (and everyone) ... this has been very enlightening.

 

Toning that I can easily remove with the touch of my finger. Why is that? Is this normal? The toning easily smears off the surface of the coin when I lightly touch it. These are silver dimes, quarters, halves that have sat in coin albums for over 35 years and have toned over that time. Can someone explain what is happening here.

 

If I had a dime for every time I said that to somebody I'd be super-rich by now and everybody would hate me and want to raise my taxes for it. Keep your eye on the ball, that's the underlying technical condition of the coin. Determine just one thing on the toning, whether it appeals to you or not. That's, your eyes, not somebody else's, certainly not some "experts" or TPGs. And, that's all there is to it.

Oh, wait, and I like how WingedLiberty is bothering to articulate the different types of toning that are out there, that's really the direction I believe this business with toning needs to go. AT, QT, Coin Sniffers? What are we, scientists? Really, if you can't judge off the face of a coin whether you like it without an assist from forensic experts, I'm sorry for saying, but maybe you need to find another hobby.

OK, as you were; my apologies for the little rant...

 

Were or are the coins around tobacco smoking?

 

leo, I am not sure what would cause toning to rub off, but i am guessing it's not true toning as that bonds to the metal. So it must be some sort of surface deposit. The thought it could be from tobacco smoke, as was posted above, could be worth investigating.

By the way, I cringed when i read you were rubbing or touching the coins surface with your finger. Many a coin has been ruined, or at least it's value significantly dropped, by a fingerprint. Human skin has a lot of oils and acids that will eat away at coins over time, so I wouldn't make a habit of that practice.

 

I've got an 82 bronze , appears possibly (most likely ) large date with such a freakishly huge 2 with obvious doubling, along with more of the coin. The variety numbers lead back to a zinc planchet. I've always wondered if somehow it was made at west point without mint mark like the rest of those first zincs. I have a pair of 82d that are red, orange, and a touch of white at top of obverse and bottom of reverse. Thoughts?