Any thoughts on why they bagged my toned nickels?

Artificial toning is not corrosion. Natural oxidation will continue to change over time, while an AT coin will not change (even when subjected to extreme conditions).

The nickel pictured looks 100% NT, and nickels are not the coins that that have been throwing off the TPG's (the silver coins are the one's that have been causing all the problems). The only coins of mine that I thought NGC has done a decent job of grading with any sort of consistency are Jefferson nickels, but seeing your nickel bagged makes me not want to send them any more of my nickels (which were the only coins I was considering ever sending to them again). They have no consistency at all, and their grading always surprises me (grading too high and too low, and bagging coins that no collector or dealer would ever call AT).

The first time I ever used NGC I sent in 5 toned coins and all of them graded. That is the one and only time I know of where NGC has graded every single coin submitted. I've asked many other national dealers, and everyone said that NGC always bags something. I think it's because they can get away it, and often get paid again when the coin is sent back.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

NGC MS-64


See....no consistency.

 

An AT coin can absolutely change over time - I have seen many such examples in holders and it is obvious that they did not look that way when they were graded and encapsulated.

I know plenty of dealers and collectors who submit coins to NGC without always get a body-bag. In fact, some of them hardly ever get one. Your obvious dislike for NGC causes you to continue to make sweeping statements which frankly, are difficult to believe.

 

Are you asserting that the above coin looks so similar to the one at the beginning of this thread, that NGC has "no coinsistency"?

If so, that is ludicrous. First of all, the two coins look very different. Second of all, even if they did look the same, or for that matter, identical, that wouldn't lead to a "no consistency" conclusion. It would simply indicate that in one particualr case, they were inconsistent.

Do you think about and read what you post?

 

I find it odd that they would bag this nickel for AT unless they are tightening up the market acceptable scale the way PCGS is currently. Nothing about the toning strikes me as unusual and it bears the same colors as a few nickels I own in NGC holders.




It would stand to reason that if these coins are considered market acceptable then your coin should qualify as well. I think Martin's point is the similar to mine. The colors on the OP's coin falls into the category that has been deemed market acceptable by the TPG's in the past. I also agree with Mark that bagging the coin is only one example of inconsistency in that regard and does not represent the overall performance of NGC.

It is important to consider that toning patterns and color schemes can vary from date to date within a given series. The war nickels of a completely different alloy certainly show different patterns and colors than the traditional nickels. Also, the 57 and 58 mint sets are famous for producing stunning toned examples and the TPG's are probably much more lenient on color coins from those years. The 1952 however is rarely encountered with rainbow toning and that may also have contributed to the decision of NGC to bag the coin. I agree with the opinion that you should re-submit the coin to NGC. I think the coin is market acceptable.

BTW, I think it is funny that the color is so powerful that not one person in this thread discussed the grade of the coin. Based on the photos, I grade the coin MS65. And not because of the planchet flaws on the cheek and collar.

 

In the post above you will note that I stated that market acceptable colors and patterns can vary from date to date within a given series. This coin demonstrates powerful cotton candy pink and lime green along with orange, blue, and violet. These colors are usually only seen on the war nickels. I don't own a single traditional nickel with the these colors or that vibrancy. If anything, this coin should have been body bagged and the OP's coin should have been graded. In that respect, you are right. Inconsistent, they got them both wrong.

DISCLAIMER: This assumes that the photos reflect the actual appearance of the coin and are not juiced. I reserve the right to change my mind after seeing the coin in hand.

 

I, too, have seen this and, speaking candidly, it scares the beejesus out of me. A nice thought on Halloween.

 

If you saw the toning change on a coin that was in a holder, it was not an AT coin. AT coins do not change. There a 4 different coin doctors I know of that have successfully got there coins graded on multiple occasions. Before I identified them as coin doctors I submitted coins from 3 of them, and got stars from each of the 3 different sources. After acquiring more coins from each of these sources I began to suspect that their coins were not natural, so I did what I call the "torch test" on each one to determine the originality of the toning.

You see, there are several different factors that play a role in the toning of coins. Storage is one. Canvas bags, cardboard holders, velvet or felt holders, wooden boxes, and roll wrappers all play a roll in toning. The amount of light and the spectrum of light that hits the coin is another. Ever notice at shows the dealers that sell rolls of coins? Almost always the end coins are gold toned because they are repeatedly placed under the lights at the shows. Elements in the air also play a roll in toning. Moisture, sulfur content, and other elements can accelerate toning. One of the biggest factors to affect toning is temperature. I had over 50 very colorful coins that I sent to NGC come back in the middle of summer that lost all the vibrant and neon colored toning. One SMS quarter actually much more colorful, but every other coin had turned dark or murky looking. I believe it was because the coins sat in the back of the mail truck for too long in 100+ temperature.

After testing of some of my toned coins of lower value, I discovered that AT coins do not change. I tested toned examples from the 3 different sources that had previously received star designations at NGC by taking a pen torch flame (with a nice size flame) and holding the flame to the color on the coins for 2-3 seconds. The colors on the AT coins did not change in the slightest bit. However, applying this same test to every single naturally toned coin resulted in some sort of noticeable change. Some coins would become more colorful. Some coins would change colors slightly, or become darker. The color on some coins would simply disappear. There was no pattern in any coins tested that would allow the change of the toning to be predicted, but in every single naturally coin tested there was some sort of change in one way or another. AT coins are nots susceptible to changing when exposed to extreme changes in temperature like NT coins are, so I highly doubt that they would be susceptible to any of the other factors that play a role in the toning process. Any time I question the originality of the toning on a coin, this test quickly answers my questions. Until someone can prove me wrong I will stand by my statement that AT coins do not change over time, but NT coins do. If you don't believe me, try this test yourself. It is better than 95% accurate.

 

It doesn't matter to me if you tested certain coins or not. That doesn't change the fact that there are a multitude of ways that coins are AT'd and they don't all react the same way.

I have been told about and/or seen examples of some that appeared to be stable after 10 or more years. But I have also been told about and/or seen others which had obviously changed. In fact, among them were examples that were taken off the market by grading companies in honor of their guarantees.

 

I agree. These colors are much more often seen on war nickels. I have seen a couple of regular nickels with similar toning though, and I'm pretty sure it is natural. The two coins below are not mine, but came out of the same mint set. The '57-P was graded MS-65 at PCGS. I'm not sure if the '57-D is certified or not. I've got a couple of other raw nickels in my set that also have similar toning. They look like they are just slightly more or less progressed in the toning process, but toned in the same way. Both nickels below came from original mint sets.

 

Martin,

I don't doubt that you believe what you are saying, but it simply isn't true despite your non-scientific experiments. Many AT coins will continue to turn over time. I believe that almost all of these coins that exhibit this behavior were toned with the application of chemicals to the surface of the coin that was not properly removed after the coin doctor experiment is completed. I am happy to provide you with an example of an AT coin that I have been monitoring for over 3 years now.

1963 Artificially Toned Franklin Half Dollar

Original Seller Photo (Taken 6/19/06)



While the photo is juice, it did accurately portray the appearance of the coin in hand which at the time exhibited a predominantly pink patina with blue highlights.

My photo (Taken 6/30/08)



Taken last year, the coin had turned dramatically as the toning continued to advance. The appearance at this point was mostly blue with some violet highlights.

My photo (Taken 10/31/09)



I just took this photo and it is fitting that today is Halloween because this coin has become scary. The coin presently displays predominantly violet in the areas that were once pink then blue. The coin was stored in an intercept shield 2x2 for the last few years in case you were wondering. There is no doubt this coin is AT and it is indisputable that the coin is turning over time.

I really don't know what your experiment proves. Are you saying the the silver sulfide layer formed during an AT process is flame retardent? Standing by your statement that AT coins don't turn while NT coins do calls into question your ability to discern NT from AT in the first place IMO.

 

I've never seen any AT coin change with my test, or over any length of time. Almost all of the AT coins that have been slabbed have color because someone applied something on the surfaces of the coin, or treated the coin with something and changed the environment of the coin in a way that would create a reaction to the treated area of the coin. Whatever is done to the surface, or the manipulated reaction that adds color to the coin is not the same as the ionization of the molecules of the metal. The molecules in the metal of an ionized coin are not completely stable until the toning turns black, but the colors seen on an AT coin are the result of a competed chemical reaction and therefor do not change. There is one known way of artificially toning silver coins in which the actual molecules of the metal are really ionized, but the overall look of a coin that this has been to is usually noticeably different than an originally toned coin. I can't think of seeing any of these coins in holders, so they are not really any issue. I'd love to see before & after pictures of any AT coins that have changed if you can provide any. I have been proven wrong before, and I am welcome to being proved wrong again. That's how we learn, right? I'm pretty certain that I am right in this case though.

 

See the post by Lehigh96, above your previous one.

 

There is no doubt that the Franklin half is AT, and there is no chance of it ever slabbing at any company. I am pretty certain that the coin was baked, torched, or treated with liver of sulfur. A coin that has been treated with any of those methods with develop very similar colors, and sometimes a golden color of toning as well. Any of those methods of toning are likely to change over time, becoming duller and losing the intensity of the boldest colors. However, I did not factor these methods of toning into my statement because you just don't see any of these amateur toning jobs in holders. They are not the type of coins that have been creating problems with the TPG's, and anyone that submitted a coin like that for certification would have to be very new to collecting toned coins. The AT coins I'm referring to that do not change are going to be quite colorful with a full spectrum of colors (often very vivid or neon), and are the coins that have repeatedly slipped passed the "expertise" of the TPG graders because they actually look like they could be an originally toned coin. Forgive me. I did not state that before, and should have been a bit more specific.

 

That conclusion is inconsistent with both the principles of chemistry and diffusion. To my knowledge their is no difference between the oxidation layer of an AT or NT coin. If there was, it would be easy to develop a test that would determine the authenticity of the toning even though that test might still prove to be cost prohibitive to a TPG.

 

That (Lehigh96's post) is my understanding, as well.

 

Most AT coins don't actually have an oxidation layer. There is a youtube video that clearly shows the way to tone a coin in which the molecules of silver actually do ionize. If you do this test yourself several times, and play around with it you'll see that these aren't the coins that are causing problems. I have never done the "torch test" on a coin that has been assisted with this type of accelerated ionization, but I would think a change in toning would be noticeable.

 

You seem to start out with a sweeping, overly broad statement, get called on it and then clarify or change what you are saying. Why not start out without the gross exaggerations and hyperbole? And I will repeat (again) I have seen plenty of certified coins where the (artificial) color has clearly changed over time.

 

I find Lehigh's post about the '63 Franklin interesting on a number of levels and have a few potentially naive questions for him (and Mark and Doug and others that might know):

1. the color changed dramatically in about three years and in a bad way. I have seen similar posts in the past although this one is nice because it has three examples and is practically timelapse photography. Could such a change to black or ugly occur with a NT coin in such a time period? Any time period?

2. The coin is in an intercept holder. Would you assume similar results in an NGC or PCGS holder?

3. Is it paranoia or is it wise that I check my slabbed coins periodically for color changes (safety deposit box being a pain in the neck to have to go too often, nothwithstanding)? I of course like to just look at them, but I tend to look most closely at some of my toned examples to see if anything looks amiss.

4. Any thoughts on the lightning bolt-looking piece emanating from Ben's head that seems to be the only portion that didn't undergo changes? Was something attached to the coin at this location during the AT process?