Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Maxfli, post: 2121065, member: 69089&quot;]If I have to choose between the two, then yes, the dipped coin is the lesser of two evils.&nbsp; At least it looks a lot like it did when it was first minted, so that&#039;s something.&nbsp; The other coin is simply freakish and bears no resemblance to coinage in a normal state.</p><p><br /></p><p>But I guess you want to be argumentative, because you chose to ignore the rest of my post. You know, the part where I acknowledged that some toning is normal on older coins, and I&#039;m OK with that.</p><p><br /></p><p>I wasn&#039;t even commenting on the NT vs AT debate.&nbsp; Just saying that I find even natural toning, taken to extremes and obviously the byproduct of highly unusual conditions, very unnatural looking and very unappealing...to the extent that not only would I not pay a premium for it, I would in fact find the untoned coin more desirable and valuable, dipped or not.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in