Artifical toning, forum members, and PCGS slabs.

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I completely understand, though I still think toned coins, the likes of which appear brightly tie dyed with little blackening are FAR more rare than the amount I see being sold. This is an opinion I know but I don't live in a bubble and I am not JUST using my own experiences to conclude this. I wasn't about to go into a huge long list of all the possibilities that might create such a coin, but I still think they are quite rare to come about in what I define as purely natural (which seems as valid as any other)...I realize this is a personal opinion. I do understand there are all sorts of variables at play, I still think its very rare for such toning to come about in most of what would be called 'normal' conditions.

I am also quite convinced that there is no definitive way to tell between MOST NT and AT however one defines it. I am quite convinced that defining it is a moot point since in most cases there is no way to verify beyond doubt. Nuff said from me...interesting thread though.

 

Nope, and I never said you could determine it, only define it.

It is not arbitrary. You may not agree, and it may not be deterministic, but none of that changes how I (and others, I might add) choose to define the terms. The definitions are there for all to read, and your dismissal of them doesn't change that, and if they are arbitrary, they are just as arbitrary as the difference between real and counterfeit artwork.

 

Buy a few modern silver coins, put them in envelopes and/or albums, and put them away. Check them in a year and tell me if you think it's as rare as you previously did. I suspect that through this exercise you'll realize that toning isn't as rare as you might think (although I will grant you that "tie dye" toning is rare). I know I did....Mike

 

Oh, I see. But as a potential buyer of toned coins, doesn't that leave you in a spot? I mean, here you have definitions, but no way of determining whether any particular toning fits into the definitions.

Your definitions, then, are of no utility, whatsoever, to anybody...including to yourself. They're rather simply a reflection of your ideals in a toned coin. Good for you (and, those others, if I might add).

I think I'll just let this one go at, you completely lost me on it; unless you care to further explain, I'll listen...

EDIT: BTW, I hope you've been following these threads and understand I have no issue with your personal tastes in a toned coin...nor with anyone's, for that matter.

 

And this thread shows some of the evidence that Tonedcointraider wasn't as ignorant as some believe:

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=739420&STARTPAGE=1



In short, it is rather difficult (for me) to believe that Tonedcointrader was duped when, in his own words, he believes that Alex (nicetoning) is "a good Doctor".

 

Of course it does. That's the catch-22 of toned coin collecting. I never said it was easy, and all toned coin collectors need to be comfortable with that (or not).

If you define utility as the ability to conclusively classify every coin as AT or NT, I agree. However, I do not have an issue with the ambiguity and I realize fully that it is imperfect.

And the same could be said for artwork -- the discussion that got this back and forth started -- just because I can't tell the difference doesn't mean there isn't a difference nor does it mean that the original should be valued the same as a copy. Now, you can call that "aribtrary" or "emotional" or without "utility", but that's truly how I feel -- and I am not alone in this line of thought.

Thank you for the clarification.

Why the confrontational tone if you don't take issue (and my apologies in advance if I have misinterpreted the tone of your responses)?

 

I should clarify that those were the only type of toning I was referring to...the brightly colored coins almost devoid of the dark toning that I have noticed seem to go hand and hand on the coins I have seen that tone over long periods of time and develop color. I see these coins for sale in large amounts. I have seen silver coins develop a dark tone (not rainbow) in under a year of carrying the coin in my pocket, holding it in my hand here and there. Heck, I decided to carry a presidential dollar in my pocket and in hand to see the affect I would get and it took less than 3 weeks for it to tarnish to a dull brassy shade.

I bought a lovely silver coin from Iceland (the one with the cow and the maiden). It was reflective as a mirror but it had little mars and the mirrored surface just amplified the flaws so I decided to make it my pocket coin. I am hoping by next year it will have a nice tone to it from my 100+ degree Houston sweaty hands, we'll see.

 

Drsus, Coins exposed to circulation (e.g. pocket wear) tone quite differently than those that spend time in an envelope or coin album, and I suspect that's why you haven't experienced any rainbow toning....Mike

 

And the plot thickens. Scott just came forward and posted his response on the TCCS board. Check it out.

http://www.tonedcoins.org/forums/view_topic.php?id=4037&forum_id=11

FWIW, I think Alex is doctoring coins but I think he is introducing them into the market by mixing them with NT coins. I have no idea whether Scott knew that Alex was a coin doctor, but at the very least he suspected it. Most of us who suspected a dealer of AT'ing coins would not buy from that seller for collecting or dealing purposes. Scott was blinded by potential profits IMO, regardless of the extent of his knowledge.

I also stand by my original opinion that this situation could have been handled much better if done discreetly. I do have to give credit to the boys over at the PCGS forums however. They were more interested in the parody post of "A FEW GOOD MEN" by relicsncoins than the thread topic. The post was hysterical and at last count there were 10 posts related to that one post. No better way to make the subject irrelevant than to make a joke of it.

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=739420&STARTPAGE=1

Keep up the comedy guys.:high5:

 

Ok...wait...so you're saying I shouldn't store my coin collection in the same box with my match collection?

 

Nicely said, Lehigh, and I agree with all of the above, FWIW...Mike

 

I found this quote from Tonedcointrader (Scott) quite interesting:

"Yes, I told Chris I thought he might be a "real good doctor" Why? Because I wanted him to pass on the coins so I could buy them because I really liked them and thought they were NT! PCGS agreed with them being NT and graded them first time through."

So, basically, Scott (Tonedcointrader) admitted to lying to Chris (rctoners) in the PM so Scott could buy the allegedly AT coins from Alex (nicetoning) before Chris did.

My head is starting to spin, but at least we've heard from the source his explanation....Mike

 

It is quite the dilemma to have to choose which one of those ethics infractions to make your official story. Kinda like removing your left foot from your mouth just to make room for your right foot.

BTW, my take on it seems to be holding true. Let me translate Scott's post. "I wanted him to pass on the coins so I could buy them because I really liked them and thought they were NT!" = I wanted him to pass on the coin so I could buy them because I thought I could make a whole bunch of money if they slabbed.

 

As we have seen with the AT vs NT discussion, it is difficult to infer intent -- particularly from someone who is admitting to lying to someone asking for advice -- and I suspect we'll never know for sure what was in his head.

That doesn't mean that I don't have an opinion on the topic, but rather that I recognize it is an opinion based on an incomplete understanding of the truth of the matter (sound familiar ).

Have a good evening...Mike

 

Mike, if you were wondering at that, I'm glad you took the time to ask. Now we can raise this to the second shelf, where it belongs. And, hopefully, it will stay there, throughout. Let me show you how we do that.

Mike, your personal tastes in a toned coin are your business. The standards, a.k.a., definitions, are everybody's business, because they affect the way toning is going to be judged (a.k.a., determined) in the marketplace. And, I'm saying, you can't hang that standard on "intent," because that's arbitrary, subject to personal whim. Look at the toning, and forget about intent. Just like, when you grade, look at the coin, and forget about where the guy says he may have got it from. Imagine if we tried to figure out whether a coin came from circulation or not, in order to assign a grade to it. Wouldn't that be silly? It's just as silly, IMHO, to try to figure out whether the coin was intentionally toned or not, in order to judge the toning. Just look at the coin, and go by what you can see on the coin. Make sure it's not spray paint, and make sure you know what your talking about, before you go off pointing fingers. That's what I'm saying. If I'm being confrontational, at all, that's where it is, it's not on your personal tastes in a toned coin, no way.

 

I'm sorry, but I do not subscribe to the credo that the ends to justify the means nor am I willing to condone deception by looking the other way. That's not to say you or any others do, but that's the logical conclusion I draw from your line of reasoning.

 

Well, if that's all you got from what I just said, now you are misunderstanding, as well as carelessly characterizing my position. No hard feelings, though, as that was a rather predictable reply. We let it go at that.

 

That's not all I got from your post, but that is the logical conclusion that I drew from this line of logic:

What I take from the above comment is that we should ignore intent (i.e. "the means") and focus on the toning (i.e. "the ends"). Said another way (and if I'm following you), it doesn't matter if the toning was natural/artifical or intended/unintended -- just look at the coin and judge it on your own likes/dislikes. That simply a conclusion that I am willing to draw because it essentially gives carte blanche to (a) deceive people into spending lots of money on coins that they believe are natural/unintentional, and (b) decrease the value of the natural/unintentional coins already in the marketplace (through an increased supply of ready-made AT coins).

If I've misinterpreted your comments or drawn the wrong conclusion, I'm all ears. Alternatively, if you'd like to let this discussion end with us agreeing to disagree, that's OK too, and I appreciate the opportunity to explain myself.

Take care...Mike