Toning -- Artificial or Natural

A while back I posted a 1986 Statue of Liberty coin with "Monster" toning selling for a monster price. Well, lo and behold, it is still available, per the following link:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=41107&item=3042472682

Now this coin made it into a PCGS slab and is being offered by what appears to be a reputable seller.

Now, take a look at this coin, a 1964 Kennedy Half:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=41103&item=3926719664&rd=1

In another forum the members universally believed it to be artificially toned, and the seller was trashed as a deceptive purveyor of cooked coins. If you look at the other items the seller has to offer, many signs raise suspicion about the Kennedy Half:

1. Many of the other coins offered have toning that looks similar
2. All coins being sold are toned
3. The Seller's feedback is kept private
4. The ID of bidders is kept private.

However, if the Kennedy Half had been offered by a "less suspicious" seller, I might be inclined to believe the toning is "natural", as it does not look too much different from the Statue of Liberty dollar in the PCGS slab.

The colors on the Kennedy are supposedly in the same sequence as "naturally" toned coins, so I do not know how one would tell if such toning was artificial. Any comments or insight on this would be great!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

My $0.02 - Cooked. Toning doesn't do that under normal circumstances. May be ignorance on my part, and there may be a few examples of natural toning that look like this, but I am wary of coins this symetrically toned.

 

I find it hard to believe that the Statue of Liberty coin has toned naturally. As I understand it, there are many ways to "make" a coin tone "naturally", but IMHO, these are still artificially toned and I personally would not pay a premium for them.

 

I'm wary of paying any premium for toned coins, period. Yes, I can appreciate beautiful natural toning as much as the next guy, but there are too many shake-and-bakers out there preying off of the current mania for toners that it's just too easy to get burned. Plus I don't want to add fuel to the fire that encourages coin doctors to ruin perfectly good, non-toned coins.

 

August 2004 Coin Values (page 123) has a great article about natural versus artificial toning.

For instance, some people have "baked" silver coins in their oven with crushed match heads (for the sulfur) to artificially tone their coins. They also state that the coins end up smelling something awful!

In any case, check it out as this article by Reid Goldsborough is perfect for this thread.

 

Is toning good or bad? What causes it? Are toned coins damaged?

David

 

Toned coins aren't considered "damaged" in the eyes of most collectors and dealers if the toning is considered to be "natural"; that is, a gradual chemical process, usually over the course of many years, whereby the environment around the coin allows chemical reactions to occur on the surface.

If the toning is "artificial," something intended to bring funky color to a coin by other than a gradual process by mere exposure to the elements, the coin is considered "damaged goods" like a coin that's been cleaned, whizzed or polished.

Toning, by itself, neither increases nor decreases the grade of the coin. There is intense competition for the most spectacular of the naturally toned specimens; many times you can get 3-5 times the typical "book value" or more with the right toning. Other folks don't like toned coins much and would not pay a premium. There's really no way to objectively quantify toning with a number like a mint state grade, so it's up to the wallets and opinions on "eye appeal" on a person-by-person basis.

It's also this strong market for toned coins that is unfortunately sending a lot of perfectly good non-toned coins to the ovens. I appreciate nice natural toning as much as anyone, but I really want the mania over toning to subside a bit because I'm tired of seeing some really nice and desirable coins being ruined by someone hoping to make a killing on bogus toning.

 

Ed, I read that article before posting the thread. However, from the info in that article, nothing was said (that I can recall) which would indicate the Kenndedy half was "cooked" --- the colors are "natural" (yellow, magenta, and cyan), they are in the correct order (as listed), and there are not obvious "bald spots" of toning between the fields and devices. If I am missing something (from the article) that would ID the Kennedy as artificial, let em know.

 

Susan, I agree with you, which was the main point of the thread I had started a while back:

http://www.cointalk.org/showthread.php?t=1781

Clearly if that coin were left in its original mint packaging, it would not have toned like that. And I doubt if many people but modern commems in old Raymond Waite albums. So I suspect the coin was "created" by placing it in a sulphur laced envelope or album hole dusted with sulphur, and letting it sit for a few months or years. Not exactly "cooking" the coin, but not exactly "natural" either. This is the grety area.

I suspect that if that Statue of Liberty Dollar could make it into a PCGS holder, there is a good chance the Kennedy could as well! :O

 

Come on, GD. How do you expect me to argue with you, when you write posts like that?

 

That's one of the reasons I read it because when it comes to toning, I know nothing about it. What may be natural versus artificial is still something I am going to leave to more experienced numismatics.

The Kennedy looks "fine" to me, but that is just me. I am sure that if you took it to a coin show, you may get differant opinions on the matter if it natural versus artificial.

Also, the baked method with crushed match heads is just one method of artificial toning as outlined in this article.

 

GD, good post -- guess that kind of says it all, and then some. I guess it comes down to a judgement call by the grading services -- if you can convince them that AT is NT, so be it. However, it would appear to me that such instances are rare, or we would have a shortage of blast white coins.

Ed, I agree with you. I can probably ID obvious AT (cigar smoke, funky colors), but more convincing AT I will leave to the experts.

Finally, attached is a new thread on the CU forum discussing AT on a Morgan from the same seller of the Kennedy. Interestingly, one of the forum members claims he got the seller to admit the coins are AT. Another point they make is that the colors on this sellers coins are more "neon" than NT, even though the colors on the AT coins are the "right" colors (yellow, magenta, and cyan).

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=318273

Thanks, everyone, this thread has been very informative!

 

The Devil Made Me Do It

I've lurked for some time, but never bothered to post, but this struck a funny bone nerve and I couldn't help myself. Not only wasn't Doug fond of toned coins, he flat out disliked them and I didn't have a problem with that. It left more for me. However, he said smiling, the coin below may have been one of the ones that change his mind, ever so little.



What do you think, naturally or artifically toned?

 

Heavily tarnished.

 

That's certainly one way of looking at it. Toning can be considered tarnish similar to rust on steel. Oxidation is oxidation, however IMHO that Buffalo has more character and every bit as much (or more) eye appeal than a blazing white example. I happen to have one of those too. I'm a little surprized at only a single response, but I suppose toned or tarnished coins aren't for everyone any more than blast white coins excite every collector.

BTW, that Buffalo sits in an NGC slab labled MS64 and as I understand it lived in an old Whitman folder for many, many years. It is considered natually toned, as much as nature had anything to do with the materials in the Whitman folder and the environmental conditions it was kept in for all those years.

But, that's what is so great about this hobby. There really is no right or wrong way to collect even if certain parts of it are looked down upon by some. Collect what you like and pay what you what to, regardless of what anyone thinks. And no, that doesn't mean I support those that doctor coins, but you really don't want to know what I think should be done to them,....

 

If it were a silver coin, I would suspect AT. But with nickel coins I have seen all kinds of colors, including purples, and blues which have been considered NT. Defitinely expert opinions needed in those cases.

 

Expert opinions

While I agree that it would be good to have an expert validate a toned coins in regards to AT or NT, it doesn't always work out. I'm not at all certain there are many, even in the third party grading companies. Here's another example:



As you can see from the image, this quarter was in the mint packaging and toned. I can verify that fact and that none of the other coins in the Mint package were toned in this manner, and I cut it out of the undamaged, unopened package myself. Normally, I would have expected a coin displaying these colors to be heat AT'd, but I saw it with my own eyes.