Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="GDJMSP, post: 14317642, member: 112"]OK, fair enough. But what you apparently don't understand though, or misunderstand, is that there is nothing you can do to neutralize or stop that toning from progressing. And there's nothing you can do because you didn't apply any foreign substance (toning agent) to the coins. To neutralize toning you have to remove something from the coin, but in your case there is nothing to remove (neutralize). Granted, if you take coins out of the paper envelopes, then yes the toning will slow down, but it will not stop. So the toning has not been neutralized - neutralized means stopped, prevented from happening. But that still leaves us with a question. You are stating that you deliberately put the coins in paper envelopes because you knew doing that would accelerate and cause them to tone more quickly. This in an important distinction because there are those, and plenty of them, who would say that makes what you did artificial toning. By the same token there are also plenty who would say it isn't AT, that it is NT. And that's the question - is it, or isn't it ? What most folks find to be acceptable, or "OK toning" as you put it, is that when a collector puts coins in a coin album or a paper envelope, with no beforehand knowledge or intention that doing so will cause the coins to tone. If that is the case, then yes, the toning is acceptable. But for some folks, when you do that intentionally, it is no longer acceptable. And that's precisely the point I made in a earlier post in this thread - there is no consensus as to how the term "artificial" is defined. Ask a hundred people, ask a thousand, and you're going to get multiple definitions, which will quite often be completely contrary, contradictory, to the other definitions.[/QUOTE]

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches