If you had a beautiful coin graded MS65 and the same coin, but with an extremely ugly toning to it, graded MS65, would they be worth the same? Where would the same coin, same grade, but with beautiful toning stand?
With toners, it's all about eye appeal. This is especially true if they are the same grade. The eye appealing coin could be worth several times more than the ugly toner.
If you mean exactly the same coin, as in (a) a beautifully toned coin, and then (b) the same coin with the toning dipped off completely, or worse (c) the same coin poorly dipped and subsequently spotted . . . of course not. In each case, the coin has the same marks, same luster, and same details, yet clearly has 3 very different values. However, if you mean 2 very different coins, both graded MS65, one being of superior color over average surfaces, strike and luster, and the other being brilliant bankroll white over above average surfaces, strike and luster, they could very well be worth exactly the same. Clear as mud? Neither is human nature, but it is human nature that places value on coins. - Mike
@ToughCOINS he means a beautifully toned coin and an ugly toned coin not having been dipped or cleaned in any way. The nicer coin will have a premium and the ugly coin will probably sell for closer to MS64 money just to move it. Here is a good example of the value difference between beautiful and ugly albeit they are not the same grade. Both are 1891-O dimes. Both are in PCGS holders, the first one is graded MS-63 CAC and the second is MS-64. The MS-63 was priced higher than the MS-64 because of the toning and CAC validation. Strike quality is about the same for the pair. MS-63 CAC MS-64
I'll readily agree with that, with a qualification. That being that toning is like ice cream - different flavors. In other words just because you and I, or you and 10 other people, happen to think a given coin has pretty toning, I can assure you there are plenty of others who do not think it pretty at all. Or, take the coins that Ed posted just above, I find them both to be equally ugly. (No offense Ed, that's just my taste.) But I'm sure others will think differently. I've seen people time and time again pay 3,4, 5 times book for toned coins that you couldn't give to me for free. And I've seen others turn their noses up at coins that I would pay 3 times book for. Toning is like ice cream, all there is to it.
@GDJMSP Everybody has their personal tastes, no offense taken. One of mine is I do not collect copper or nickel coins. Never have. My very first coin album was a Dansco folder which housed Barber, Mercury and Roosevelt dimes to 1964. I only buy copper and nickel coins to resell or fill a hole in a type set.
Ugly or unattractive toning will often sell below price guide. Untoned examples will usually sell near the price guide value. Attractively toned examples will usually sell above price guide and depending on the quality of the toning, many multiples of price guide. There is no substitute for eye appeal!
With that I would agree. But there are differences in what constitutes eye appeal. In my opinion, none of those coins have any.
Eye appeal definitely varies according to who is looking at a given coin, piece of art, potential spouse, etc....However, a fairly large and predictable number of coins will fall within a given category of eye appeal for various niche groups of collectors.
The right toning can add huge premiums. This coin books for $85 I paid 10x that strictly for the color. One dip in ez est and it's worth $85
