The Monster Toned Coin Game Thread

Floor is open...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

All of my coins are in BCW 2X2 Coin Snaps, 2X3 plastic coin holders that I got from a company "Bags Unlimited" way back when (they no longer sell them), or 2X2 cardboard coin holders. All are seal in some way or another. Thanks for the info. I'm really not too crazy about toning.

 

That's the kind of rich toning I like on Buffalo's. The pinks and yellows on the head flow very well with the superior luster. I'm going with a 5.5!

 

I like it but it doesn't immediately jump out at me (I feel this way about many Buffalo and Jefferson nickels).
So my score is 4.0

 

5.0. Beautiful pastel toning and a high gem grade to boot. I like it a lot. Not every coin has to turn blazing neon to be a very desirable toned coin—this Buffalo is the perfect example of a beautiful toner. I am no longer going to use the Morgan scale on every coin, as Nickels tone differently from Morgans.

 

That's what I like about this thread. It's helping me appreciate the differences in toning between silver, nickel, and copper.

 

I'm at a 3.0 on the Buffalo. It's beautiful and a great coin, but we're scoring toning here, right?

It's barely toned at all...not sure how it can really be even remotely close to the 5.0 range??

 

I think if you photographed it, you would change your mind. The coin has fantastic target toning on the obverse with bright yellow at the peripheries graduating to pink, and finally green at the center.

This photo was taken in December of 2010, and my photographic skills were not as good as they are now.

 

Well, then take better photos and I'll judge accordingly.

As posted, it looks to be barely toned. Yes, it's attractive. But, toned Buffalo Nickels are not rare, and many much more vibrantly than this one appears to be.

 

Maybe we need to break things up a bit since it looks like we can't use the same toning scheme between metals. The scale defined earlier in this thread works well with silver coins; especially the larger ones. Should we have new scales for nickel and copper?

 

Sure thing, I'm gonna contact the guy I sold it to 5 years ago and ask him if I can have it back so you can see better photos. It isn't my problem that you cant interpret photos, nobody else is claiming that the coin is "barely toned". You are alone on that hill.

 

If your photos are accurate, then it is barely toned. If your photos are not accurate, then why post the coin at all?

This reminds me of your supposed "champagne toned" Jeff Nickel you posted a couple weeks back. Using flowery language to describe a coin shouldn't be necessary (i.e., "fantastic target toning on the obverse with bright yellow at the peripheries graduating to pink, and finally green at the center").

I prefer not to have to use my imagination to guess what it might look like - I base my thoughts on what the picture posted actually displays. And, in this case, those pictures display very little toning, and absolutely no where near meriting a 5.0 in my book. To each his/her own I guess.

 

Just as a reminder - I gave your nickel below a 5, and it deserved it all day long.



The light pastel single-sided Buff Nickel above - not even close. I stand by my 3.0 for the Buff Nickel above.

 

No, the photos display a fully toned obverse in pastel shades of yellow, pink, and green. You can call the language flowery in an attempt to minimize the presence of said toning, I and everyone else will simply call the description ACCURATE.

As for the the champagne toned Nickel, I had seen the coin in hand. Are you claiming that I can't tell the difference between a completely untoned coin and one that has a light champagne patina?

Look, we get it, you are a legend in your own mind. You are also dogmatic, condescending, and on a regular basis, WRONG. And this coin is a perfect example. Rather than admit that you are wrong, you double down on this lunacy that the Buffalo Nickel I posted is "barely toned".

And I really don't care if you give the coin a 5.0 or a 3.0, your opinion is what it is. But remember, if you want people to respect your opinion, which I and many others don't, then you need to stop making claims like this Buffalo Nickel is "barely toned" when it is clearly 100% toned on both sides.

 

Now you’re trying to say the reverse is also fully toned?? Your pictures must be extremely off if that’s true.

As I’ve said before, I can only judge what your pictures actually show. Your pictures show a lightly toned Buffalo Nickel. Period. I give ZERO damns whether you care to hear that reality or not. I also give ZERO damns if you “respect” my opinion based on the pictures you provided.

 

Oh, so now it is “lightly toned” as opposed to “barely toned” huh? And yes, the entire reverse is toned. The reverse isn’t rainbow toned, but it also isn’t untoned either.

Your backpedal on “barely toned” was predictable, almost as predictable as your continued whining about the quality of the photographs, photographs that nobody else participating in this thread is having trouble interpreting. If you want my respect, learn admit when you are wrong!

 

Barely and lightly are synonyms as far as I know. I gave it a 3 which by default implies it had some toning visible to me. No backpedal here. Nice try though.



Look, we get it, you are a legend in your own mind. LOL!

 

I see both sides of this argument. In my commentary, I did say "it doesn't immediately jump out at me" and thus I see the point being made by @brg5658 ....I did use some extrapolation with the pictures (and was debating a score in the high 3s vs low 4s). Meanwhile @Lehigh96 has seen it in hand so he knows the look better than anyone else. Nickels, especially ones that don't have obvious rainbows, are harder to judge from photos than many other coins (in my opinion). So, I am not surprised to see wide spreads in scoring.

 

Ok, another one for consideration. A “cellophane Jefferson”. PCGS PR 66. Photographs are accurate, and not juiced.