A Liberty just came walking in the shop (AT or Natural Tone?)

Verdict? I am up in the air about this one. TYVM
~Jason

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Looks natural to me. However I wouldn't really consider the little bit of toning to give it a premium at all.

 

Toning adds no extra value to me when I'm grading a coin to determine a value.

 

From the amount of wear on the coin, I would say it is probably natural re-toning from an old cleaning. That coin should likely not have that kind of toning after that much wear. That, in my experience, is any easy way to tell if a coin has been cleaned or not.

 

Mr. Flute that is exactly what I was thinking. The pictures do no justice though. The 6 oclock on the reverse I am almost certain is 100% natural. It has a nice golden crisp with a natural look. The wear of the half/the blue through me off. Some idiot prolly applied AT to a lightly naturally toned coin.

 

The blue does look wierd. I would be nervous if it were a 1919d or 1921 or something, but its a 17 P. It can't be much more than bullion, right? EDITED

 

If it is natural toning, I'm going to give it to the local dealer down the road as a gift. I bought it for a good price.

 

Looks like NT. And like others have said its not enough to command any premiums.

 

Yeah Doug. That goes aling with what I wanted to add:

Coins like this that are not in MS/AU and are toned, are toned for a different reason. In my limited experience, the heavy toners are that way because of the mint luster. The luster layer is what is toning. So when you see a coin that is obviously devoid of luster, the toning is caused by something else. Some reasons could be the album chemicals, it sat in a smokers house, residue of some sort, or it is toning due to the chemicals from a dip.

 

The one thing to recognize is "toning premium" is fair if its not for toning, but for original surfaces. Nice original surfaces get rarer the older a coin is. I don't care if a coin is colored or not, if it has nice original surfaces its a keeper and should command a premium. Naturally a great many of these coins are now toned, so that is why I think a lot of beginners confused toning=premium, when it should be original surfaces=premium, it just happens most are toned. Its hard to keep copper and silver original coins FROM toning over the years.

Look past any color to evaluate the surfaces, in my view. That will lead you to the truth.

 

well said escalade guy!

 

nice wlh half

 

I'm confused by the direction this discussion is taking.

Toning is the accumulation of a chemical layer on the coin's surface. For silver, this is most often silver sulfide. Thin layers interfere with the transmission of reflected light, producing different colors; thicker layers just look black.

Luster is the anisotropic (different from different directions) reflection of light from the coin's surface, caused by microscopic ridges and valleys formed when the metal flows against the die. These microscopic ridges wear away quickly and easily, which is why you only see luster on uncirculated or lightly-circulated coins.

Toning can happen on any surface, "original" or not. It's most attractive when combined with the luster of an original surface, but it can appear on even the most worn coin. Heck, it appears on well-polished spoons, candlesticks, and even chrome exhaust pipes.

So, yeah, you can have toning on a well-worn coin, arising from the same chemistry and physics as toning on an MS piece. It can even show the same color patterns. But it won't get you the same money.

 

Very good post sir. Toning CAN happen on impaired surfaces naturally, but its much more difficult. Also the colors are different on a toned VG coin than a BU coin in my experience. If I see bright colors on a VG I am extremely suspicious. Retoned gun metal grey is much more typical. Can it happen? Yes. Is it very common? Not so much.

My main point sir was many people see brightly colored coins and assume the prices, since they were more than white pieces, were for the color. In fact, when I saw these things sell, (yeah coins like this sold for premiums in the 70's too, just not todays multiples), it had a lot more to do with the lusterous original surfaces on the colored coin, and the white coin was white because it had imparied surfaces, (probably from overdipping).

That is what I was trying to impart, maybe poorly. If a coin is brightly colored, VF-AU, but lacks luster I am extremely suspicious of the color. Color does not prove original surfaces, but many people in my experience believe it does. You are right, they are two different things, but the good coins have color on a lusterous surface, always have and always will. Color on an impaired surface to me raises concerns, and its value will be more at the whims of market fads than the first category.

I hope that better phrases what I meant.

 

The coin appears to me to have been cleaned and retoned.

It has the look of "secondary toning" to my eye.

 

I'll go with an earlier poster. I have never seen natural toning with colors on a g-vg coin. just the handling to cause that much wear would also remove any natural toning.