Isn't Toning Early Stages of Environmental Damage?

Where does one draw the line? Where do the grading companies determine the difference?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I would imagine that some toning could be considered environmental damage, but how do you account for the toning on some of the CC Morgans that had been in Mint vaults for decades and decades?

Chris

 

Yes, it is damage, but if it is considered to have eye appeal, then they call it "toning". ;-)

http://www.pcgs.com/eyeappeal.html

"For toning, PCGS uses seven levels of eye appeal, from 'Amazing' to 'Ugly'. For luster on mint state coins and depth of reflectivity on proofs, PCGS uses six levels of eye appeal, from 'Amazing' to 'Negative'."

"...splotchy toning and/or deeply embedded toning is never positive no matter how 'original.'"

"Totally Ugly toning can subtract up to two points from the 'technical' grade, or be so bad that the coin is a 'no-grade' for 'environmental damage.'"​

 

The Mint vaults constituted a damaging environment. It was clearly an environment that contained sulfur compounds. Those compounds reacted with the metal of the coins. Presto, "environmental damage" -- or, given the realities of today's market, "toning".

 

Wouldn't you agree that in today's society, that toning is considered acceptable?

Chris

 

Might want to speak to your dermatologist about that, Doug.

 

Well environmental damage/toning doesn't have to be a result of being outdoors or outside of a vault. Air molecules and chemicals in air still reach and interact with the surface of a coin. Therefore in my view I don't see a distinction between how or where it was toned.

Artifical toning from my perspective is irrelevant cause I see toned as toned regardless of how it got to that. Some do care about how it was toned. I should mention that I don't seek to collect toned coins nor would I pay a premium for them.

I prefer coins that are closest to their original luster. I also prefer coins that were struck the way they were designed and intended to be made. In other words I don't like errors or varieties. If I remember correctly, King Farouk of Egypt was of similar mindset to mine. He sought the "purest" examples.

 

Of course. But it is a chemical reaction that alters the surface of the coin. It's just that "turning pretty colors" isn't considered "damage", at least today. It was different in the past, and might be different in the future, especially if the coin doctors get good enough at producing "market acceptable" toning.

 

Some toning is acceptable, other toning is not. It's all in the eyes of the beholder.

 

I agree with both the idea that toning is both damage and in the eye of the beholder. Yes, technically toning IS damage by definition really. However, many like the look.

 

Yea, there's no wrong or right. Just personal preferences.

In regards to the purpose of starting this thread I was just curious to get others opinions. Specifically when it comes to where they consider toning to be good or bad.

 

By 'no-grade' you mean what NGC calls a "details" grade?

 

@Nevadabell , I was just quoting from PCGS, but I believe you are correct.

 

You mean all my coins have some toning?!?!?! OHHH NOOO, say it ain't so Doug! Hahaha

That is true however. I guess to be accurate, I usually purchase examples with minimal or non-apparent toning. The less noticeable the better... usually. I say "usually" cause I probably do have some coins with slight toning that I like more than others with less or non-noticeable toning.

In conclusion every coin has to be viewed and judged on its own merits. Sometimes you just like it and sometimes you don't. There's more to liking a coin than just color. Such as design, for example.

 

I think once it starts to hit Black it might be considered ED .

 

Of course toning is environmental damage. There is no doubt that some toned coins are gorgeous, but I just don't get some of the crazy premiums for them.

 

Some of us used to call it environmental damage. On reconsideration, it's just changes brought on by the environment. A circulated coin experienced changes brought on by the environment, as well, and we don't call that environmental damage. Same thing. Or maybe I'm just loosening up in my old age.

 

Ya know? There used to be a time when I would freak out if a coin was toning in the Dansko. Don't bother me a bit now........let the heirs deal with it.