Never seen this toning patter before!

Check out the toning pattern on this 1936 Mercury Dime NGC PR67. Looks like rainbow glitter was spilled on the coin. I wish I could see this baby in hand.

http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=1122&Lot_No=1028#photo



An incredibly unique coin to say the least.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Looks like Tinkerbell sneezed on it without a tissue

 

The only thing we know for sure is the Irish weren't invloved or there'd be gold at the end of that rainbow.

Ribbit

 

maybe toad peed on them

 

That is odd toning for a proof.

 

I think we need an expert on this. Somebody who was seen a lot of toned coins, and who has put his money on the line for them, besides. I think we need to consult Lehigh on this. If Lehigh says this pattern looks odd, I'd take this toning as suspect.

 

I personally think the toning looks a little weird... to me the coin looks like it once may have had more toning then it does now.... I do admit it is strangely appealing tho...

 

Lehigh, Do you consider yourself an expert on toning? Just wondering, re:Eddie's comments above...Mike

 

To a certain extent, yes. IMO, expert is a relative term. I consider my knowledge and experience with toned coins to be more advanced than most of the members of this forum, with a few notable exceptions.

However, the field of Numismatics is so broad, you really can't be an expert unless you define a specialty. For example, I would consider myself an expert as it relates to toning of Morgan Dollars. But I don't know the first thing about toning on CBH's as I have never owned one or seen one in person.

Paul

 

Don't forget, you purchase these, shell-out the cabbage for these, put you money where your mouth is on these, whatever you want to call it...which, of course, also counts for something. Let's just say, Paul, in my mind, at least, you qualify on experience. And the spots of color throughout this coin do look suspect (odd/unnatural) to me.

 

How do you define expert? How long did it take you to gain expert status?

I mean no disrespect, and I hope you don't take this the wrong way -- but I wouldn't consider you an expert. A knowledgeable collector with a background in metallurgy, absolutely. A cut above the average person around here, no question -- but an expert, I'm not so sure.

Then again, you DID say being an expert is relative....so maybe we're both right.

Respectfully...Mike

p.s. sorry for the tangent, and in case you're interested, I don't consider myself an expert in any phase of numismatics.

 

BTW, I forgot to ask. If this is a PR67 where are all the feathers that are supposed to be around that cap? Or did they just ignore that for the color? Or were these '36 PRs just that flat? Just wondering how they got that, um, "market grade" on this one.

 

Eddie, you are correct to question the strike -- it is a bit weak for a proof merc of this year, based on my experience. However, I see nothing so bad (in the photos) as to preclude a 67 grade, and these coins do from time to time show some weakening of the details....Mike

 

OK, give me a few moments you guys, I'll show you exactly where I'm looking. Based on what you said, Mike, I guess this might just be weak in the high spots I'm looking at. Have to log off, first, and get this picture in my photosuite.

 

Eddie, Take, for example, the coin below (FWIW, NGC graded it PF 67, CAC didn't agree):




You will notice that the coin's die has been polished, and is showing signs of "age". There's also a softening of the details centrally on the obverse, as in the coin Lehigh posted.

 

p.s. don't forget that the Heritage photos are taken lit from below -- this gives them an odd appearance that can make the coins look "off" to your eye.

 

p.p.s. Not a proof, but here's a real looker with a more traditional album look:

http://coins.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=1122&Lot_No=989