How do you like this toning?

Saying that toned coins are being refused by collectors is a mis-reading of the sentence. Re-read.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm sorry, they are the refuse of the coin collecting society. My bad, I shouldn't have said that you stated they are refused by the coin community. Way out of line on my part.

 

Why are you quoting me...I didn't misquote you. I was trying to stand up for the fact that some people don't care for toned coins while others like them. But, referring to toned coins as the refuse (aka garbage) of the hobby is a little inappropriate IMHO as it's simply an attempt to "stir the pot." I understand why you wouldn't like them (I don't like a lot of toned coins while others I do)...but lets try and be civil.

 

Well thank goodness, the 2009 D "spotted wonders" lincoln type I are mint state, since the mint put the spots there! I have rolls of them !

Hey Cecil, lets see some of your coins! and Welcome to the forum!

Jim

 

Toning alters coin surface!
Guest Commentary in July 4 issue of Coin World by Weimar White.
A chemist for 42 years and specialist in Carson City coinage and member of the LIberty Seated Collectors Club, American Numismatic Association, and American Chemical Society.

Here are a few of the statements made by Mr. White;
Quote:
It is a fact that whether a coin is lightly or heavily toned, the metals in the coin have experienced oxidation, which is the loss of electrons resulting in chemical wear.
I take this to mean a toned coin has been damaged to some degree.
Quote:
When a silver quarter dollar is toned golden on both sides, 260 micrograms of silver have been removed from the the atomic state. Toned red it would have lost 440 micrograms and if it were toned blue, it would have lost 700 micrograms of silver by oxidation. The darker the toning is on a silver coin, the more metal oxidation has occurred, which etches away the cartwheel spin or mint luster. Blue or black toning cause the most damage to the radial corrugations on Uncirculated coins.
This don’t sound good to me!
Quote:
Frequently, when a thiourea dip is used to remove the black or blue toning, the dip is blamed for the dullness of the MInt luster, when in reality it was the toning that etched the surface of the coin through oxidation.
This is what I’ve always been told. Now I find out its the oxidation!
Quote:
This is easy to prove by weighing a toned silver coin to the nearest 0.1 milligram and then dipping it in a thiourea solution. Rinse the coin in water, dry it and weigh it again. Record the weight loss. Then dip the coin again and rinse , dry and re-weigh it again. You will see that virtually all the weight loss occurred in the first dipping, which means that only the oxidized metal was removed.
Maybe there is something to this after all. Mr. White finishes with this statement;
Quote:
I have suggested that toned coins not be designated as “Mint State”, because they were not toned when originally minted.
After all this I still like those “honey” colored Buffalo nickels, but then they aren’t silver are they.

 

Look up the definition of mint state in numismatics and then tell us what you think about toned coins not being designated as such. I understand that it is a chemical change to the surface of the coin, but it is that chemical change that draws collectors to pay 6x wholesale or even more. How is it the toning's fault that some choose to DAMAGE nicely toned coins by removing the oxide layer? Like Lehigh said previously, even "untoned" coins have an oxide layer, however invisible.

 

A misleading conclusion. Of course there was more weight loss in the first dip, because the dip's chemical composition is designed to remove the oxidation product such as sulfide, acetates, etc. and less of the associated silver layer, whereas following dips only removes original silver content of the coin since the oxidized products were removed in the first dip. And since that is just a byproduct action of the dip it is designed to be weak.

Jim

 

here are my 2 cents

toning when it crosses a limit is harmful to the coins when it gets to corrosion
lot of collectors love different kinds of toning
toning given its natural course will lead to corrosion but if its properly preserved it will take hundreds of years to get there - at that time most of us wont be there

it takes an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without agreeing to it.

i personally hate toning but i dont hate other peoples toned coins nor do i hate them for collecting it in fact i have some tned coins based on other considerations i do prefer toned to dipped.

white has many shades take 2 white natually preserved coins and compare

whether you love white coins or toned coins dont get swayed by someone else coins everyone has a different budget and taste.


Dear Aslan we should capture everything except the personal statement from here. just my tying from here wil get us 50% there

 

Weimar White is a fruitcake.

 

one more time in the language of the royal court please?

 

Cecil, what you don't understand is that all coins you see are oxidized unless they are in the presence of a vacuum since they instant they are made. Oxidation is a natural process that happens to every coin no matter. Storage will affect the extent of oxidation...but all your blast white coins are oxidized to a certain extent.

Why is it that you can't accept the fact that some people like toned coins. It's fine that you don't...there is nothing wrong with that, you don't have to collect the rainbow toners. But, if someone else wants to...let them. It's OK.

 

Nickel tones too...it's still oxidation. It just has a different level of chemical reactivity than silver. So, toned silver isn't acceptable and is refuse but nickel is OK?

 

Not sticking up or putting down anyone, but if you look at cecil's first post and read it carefully, all he is trying to state is that a toned coin is no longer considered MS. Somewhere along the line, this conversation has gotten off track from the original comments. Now this is a very ideal hypothesis that he has tried to support with some information from a scientist who supports his ideal and we have several members who are leaders in their field to support their claims as well. So lets break this down like we are in graduate school and what conclusions that we can come up with..... oh wait a minute, that would be entirely useless since there are two sides to this argument and no one is willing to concede either way. I know nothing about this stuff, but after trudging through the last few pages, I think arguments for both sides have been made and supported. Therefore, you are both right and both wrong. Ever hear the expression, "I may not be right, but I am never wrong". The statement means basically that although your arguments are each true, they each carry flaws that make them incorrect as well. So everyone is correct and everyone is wrong too. Now go to bed kids. It will be a sunny day tomorrow.

 

I took new pictures of the reverse that aren't so exposed.