This coin was graded VF details - environmental damage, by NGC. I don't dispute the grade, but I'm wondering what constitutes the line between environmental damage and toning? The blue tint in the "toning" is somewhat visible at certain angles, but from straight on appears gray or black. My assumption is that the "toning" is original and the coin is not cleaned because of the wear pattern reflects circulation handling - does that seem right?
The thing you are missing is that there is no line between them. Toning IS environmental damage once it gets to that point. Environmental damage is basically nothing but corrosion. But that corrosion can be caused by many different things from toning to PVC contamination and everything in between. I would say you are correct. But that doesn't change anything. Base on your comments it seems that you do not have a clear understanding of what is meant by some of the terminology when it used to describe coins. But that is not unusual, in fact it's quite common. Many people in the hobby tend to substitute their own definitions for the actual definitions of a lot of numismatic terms.
Agreed Doug. This is toning that has advaned to the point where it has damaged the underlying metal. It has gotten so thick that it has started flaking off in places and by definition environmental damage. A good comparison is what happens to a car when it has a crack in the outer paint and the environment causes rust that eventually makes the paint chip off.
Well, that's why I asked. So, environmental damage is toning, but toning that is extreme enough that there is likely damage to the coin surface. Here's a mate to the dollar that is would probably be considered the same - but great detail
Or actually - I probably mis-stated that recap - should have said that toning could be one form of environmental damage if it's extreme enough - so some other forms of environmental damage, such as pvc damage - are not toning - yes?
not necessarily correct. PVC can leave a residue on a coin that can cause it to tone. If the residue is removed before the acid damagase the surfaces (enough to be detected with the naked eye) then the resulting toning is market acceptable and can be holdered by P/N. The big issue is that the surfaces have to be nuetralized in order for P/N to be willing to holder the coin.
Yes. But at the same time what TCT told you is also correct. There are many, many different things that can cause environmental damage to coins, toning is only one of them. And not all toning is considered to be environmental damage, only terminal toning is. And just like TCT said, some other things that can cause environmental damage, can also cause toning. It depends on many things. There is little in numismatics that is simply cut and dried, it usually more of a matter of degree. If it's this degree, then it is one thing. If it's to another degree, then it is something else. And if it's to yet another degree, then it is something else yet again. And sometimes it even matters as to what particular coin you are talking about. For the same thing can be thing #1 with this coin and thing #2 with that coin. I know it sounds confusing, but there are a lot of subtle nuances in numismatics.
