Featured Can you define artificial toning ?

Personally I try to keep it simple. If the coin in question tones without any applied chemicals then it's natural. It doesn't matter how long it takes to tone, how it was stored or anything else. If the coin was treated with any thing at all, then it's artificial.

Recreating the environment of natural toning does not make it artificial. Placing coins into a specific paper envelope or an album know to cause toning does make it artificial. Treating a coins surface does make it artificial.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The problem with this definition, and ones like it, is that you can't tell the intent or the time it took to tone by looking at the coin.

A meaningful definition of AT must be definable only by viewing the end result.

This is why only the market acceptability of the toning is relevant. AT/NT is a pointless distinction to make, because it can't be proven.

 

This is the point I was trying to make, at least in part. The AT/NT distinction is pointless. The only "meaningful" distinction is market acceptable or not market acceptable. Try defining that!!!

 

True but, I am not sure a meaningful definition is possible due to the subjectivity of perspectives and opinions. For example, the few toned coins I have purchased I was able to get the history of the coins to help establish the plausibility of the toning. This guarantees nothing and isn't applicable in most cases. This post was started to get a feel for the majority opinion. I am interested to see what the majority is if the thread actually stays on target and doesn't devolve into other things.

 

As one who has only a few toned coins, I read the opinions here with a great deal of interest. As a bottom line, I tend to agree with @CoinCorgi

But seeing some good hands disagree, often sharply, the whole subject seems to me to be a minefield.

 

I don't get it. What, exactly, is the key difference between "placing coins into a specific paper envelope or an album known to cause toning" and "recreating the environment of natural toning"? Are you saying that any album or envelope toning, even if unintentional, is AT? If so, how is it different from bag toning or roll-end toning?

 

Leave it to Doug to ask a question that can’t be answered in anything less than a short book. :::smh:::

As usual, Doug, you ask your question in such a way as it can only be answered by making a logical conclusion.

In this case, the conclusion is that there really is no difference and that toning is toning regardless of intentions, how long it took, etc. and to this point I really must agree.

The thing is that over the years, Doug has seen me evolve as a collector and grow as a numismatist. Thanks for helping me on my way, Doug.

My current (always evolving) view on toning is simple, but probably only my own:

Toning can be attractive or not. Toning, in my opinion, in an of itself should not command any premium for a coin.

An attractive coin, toned or not should command a premium. Period. Full stop.

The unattractive coin should not. Also full stop.

The current market and it’s proclivity to believe that a toned coin is somehow better than an untoned coin simply because the toning makes it “more original” is wrong and discussions like this one point out why.

Toning is not a guarantee that a coin has not been cleaned.

 

Toned coins are no different from non-toned coins in one aspect: market demand will set the price.

You pays yer money and you takes yer chances.

 

Prove it! Show us an untoned coin, then show the exact same coin with market acceptable rainbow toning the next day. I have offered this challenge to hundreds of people over the years. To date, I am undefeated!

That also isn't true. What you are talking about is Type 1 Artificial Toning in which deep toning is used to hide surface flaws. This practice is typically reserved for expensive coins where a bump in grade means a large bump in price. What we are talking about for the purposes of this thread is Type 2 Artificial Toning where the attractive nature of the toning improves the eye appeal of the coin and creates a price premium. In that arena, most of the coins are inexpensive mint state common date coins with very little numismatic premium over their intrinsic value. And most of the time, the coin doctor will chose a fully lustrous coin. For example:



It is worth mentioning that I didn't not create these terms: Type 1 & Type 2 AT. They were created and taught by Bob Campbell (not @robec), who was the ANA President for a while. They actually made a video about artificial toning about 20 years ago.

Again, Prove it! And are you claiming the coin shown above is NT simply because it is lustrous?

Toning is a fact of life, most original coins that are not dipped are going to be toned in some fashion. You can't simply ignore toning or colors, it is part of the hobby, and a very important part to many of us.

No, we are judging the coin based on its appearance. That appearance will have indicators of either AT/QT or NT/MA. It has nothing to do whether I like the coin or not. My example of the improper storage was simply to show that "intent" can't be used in the evaluation of the authenticity of the toning.

 

Again, when grading those coins, the TPG grader will not have any information about the storage condition of those coins. Furthermore, I submit that you don't know the storage conditions of those coins. What was the temperature/humidity in Grandpa's house for the last 50 years? Do you know? If not, this could be exactly like the example that I listed above.

Having said that, most all of the coins that I see in that album look to be in the NT/MA range on the scale. The 1941 looks perfectly fine, a quintessential album toner. In fact, the only coin that looks at all questionable is the 1947 and only because the center of the coin is toned deeper than the peripheries. In album toning, the toning starts at the edge and moves inward, the center of the coin should have the least amount of toning.

 

I'm saying that if you know an album or an envelope that has coins stored in them causes toning then it's natural. The coin has not been treated. Ones intent to create toning does not cause AT. AT is created by doctoring the surface of the coin.

 

Schroedinger's Coins.

 

Tell me, why is "slow motion" toning any less AT than faster toning is? My personal standard is that you are obligated to do everything possible to avoid the toning or it is AT. Pretty "damage" remains damage nonetheless. I use 1 ounce copper rounds as my "coal mine canaries" to decide if I need to do more to protect my coins from toning.

 

Intent has everything to do with AT/NT. But if you can’t tell, then you defer to determining if the toning formed from a natural process (aka, “looks natural”).

This is why I like using the term “induced” toning to describe a coin subjected to a natural process with the intention of causing toning.

 

Ok, explain the scenario in which a TPG grader can know the intent of the owner(s) of the coin.

 

@Lehigh96 You are right that I do not know that is why I said;

"to help establish the plausibility of the toning. This guarantees nothing and isn't applicable in most cases. "


Do you think the 49D obverse toning in my photo resembles the QT obverse example?


They aren't going to a TPG anytime soon but will all be moved to airtites in the hope of severely stalling the toning progression. Which I hypothesized occurs exactly as you described, from the rim inward. Thank you for confirming that. It seems to start as the nice colors then the yellowish matt toning chases these colors inward until they meet in the middle, presumably like on the '47, until the colors are all consumed and nothing remains but the unattractive yellowish coating. Where it would go from here I do not know. I hope to catch as many as possible in the attractive state and try to store them in a manner that will suspend the toning from progressing further. Any suggestions besides the airtites?

 

You don't have get to that decision, Lehigh. If the coin is recent enough that ordinary prudent care would have prevented the toning, it is AT per se. "Allowing it", "Permitting it", "Encouraging it", and "Causing it" are distinctions without a difference, at least to me.

 

The coins surface has not been treated or induced chemically.

 

It doesn’t work that way, despite your wishes. The TPGs recognize that toning is an absolute certainty, and they are not going to penalize a coin as a problem coin because someone used a traditional storage method.

This is what I was talking about earlier. You are not going to convince people of your numismatic expertise when you take extreme positions like this.

Or are you claiming that an ASE can’t tone in an album in a few years?

 

So only liquids count? Not gasses?