Not in any garish rainbow manner, no. I have all 33 years of ASE's in the same Dansco I started them in, in 1988. There is very minor edge toning on Page 1, but that's it. No special handling whatsoever. That's where I stand on the issue. Show me ANY ASE with garish color, and I'll show you "intent"/AT. Oh, and by the way, until a year ago, I lived in a very high ambient sulfur content soil area. Less so in downtown Harrisburg the past year, unless you count diesel exhaust.
Do you store your coins in an air conditioned home? Have you ever forgotten to put the acetate slide back in? You would be surprised what can happen when air flow increases. How about the PCI ASEs? The actual inserts caused dramatic rainbow toning in just a few years while the labels say “100% white”!
Early soap bar ANACS too. My coins are in my home, yes. Secured building. I use far less AC (and heat) than the average bear. A side effect of my brain injury - I'm very temperature tolerant. I can be comfortable from 55 to 80. No, I've never forgotten the acetate. No PCI coins. I only ever bought any to crack them out IMMEDIATELY.
Interesting, I assumed the slide trapped the gases onto the coin and caused the toning over time. I wondered if opening them all up often would slow any toning progression.
The acetate slide inhibits toning, that I can say for certain. "Ordinary and prudent care" - it's the Bellman standard and it's not up for debate. If something tones despite our best efforts to STOP IT, that is the point where legitimacy BEGINS.
I tend to think of gas as natural because one can not prove intent. Liquid, gels, etc, must be applied but not gas. Gas as a liquid is different than gas as an air born chemical.
I can't really see the toning that well on the 49-D, but those coins look fantastic from a toning perspective. Intercept Shield went out of business I believe so airtites are probably your best bet.
No matter how outrageous the toning, there is a scenario in which that toning could have developed naturally with regards to intent. That is the entire crux of Doug’s argument. The grader can never be 100% sure about the intent of the owner(s)!
That still does not change the fundamental definition of “artificial”: “made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, typically as a copy of something natural.” Toning induced through natural means is usually deemed market acceptable, regardless of intent. What you are arguing is the difference between market acceptable/unacceptable toning, not natural/artificial toning. HUGE difference, one I would expect you to know for someone who worships market grading. Thus I reiterate my definition of artificial toning: Putting a coin into an environment WITH THE INTENTION of making it tone.
If you need to refer to unknowable information to define it, you haven't defined it. You're looking at a coin you have never seen before. Is the toning AT or NT? How do you define that with information that you could possibly know? That is the question.
Yes I have. You just quoted it. Maybe you should read it. No, the question is “Is it market acceptible or not?”
The question of the thread is how to define artificial toning, not how to spot it. My definition, based on the fundamental definition of “artificial,” is the most correct one. But it was challenged and the question was raised about how to spot it 100% of the time. The answer is you can’t, so it boils down to whether or not the toning is market acceptable.
I agree with SlipperySocks' post of yesterday at 4:31pm! That's my 2¢. Also, we could run it by Mike Mezak to get his opinion.
Any idea how long those nickels have been in that Dansco? I ask only because I too have a Dansco Jeff book, and I've had it a LONNNNG time and I have no blue on mine. As an aside, ANY discussion of toning on nickels HAS TO set aside a special category for the proofs of the early 1960's. There is a HUGE tendency for the 1961 to tone yellow-greenish, and the 1962 to tone blue, while spending eternity right next to each other. I've asked all the experts I can find and the top theory is trace metals in the alloy since Day One. My suspicion has always been different plastics in the mint packaging.
I don't disagree with what you're saying. I think AT/NT is a pointless distinction to make. Having said that, I question the value of a definition that cannot be applied to identify the item it defines in a real world scenario.