Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
US Coins Forum
>
Can you define artificial toning ?
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="medoraman, post: 3234841, member: 26302"]How do you know? Seriously, I have seen, (and we have had this discussion many times as well), in person in a few months a very nicely toned coin develop IF it had good surfaces. Acceptable looking coins, if they had good surfaces, can be had in a few hours. </p><p><br /></p><p>Most AT looking coins look that way because they were forced onto non-lustrous surfaces. This has always been done as a way to fool amateurs that a coin was not defective or harshly cleaned in the past. If the collector was dumb enough to only rely on colors, then coin doctors AT coins to fool them. This was so prevelant as to create the demand for "white" coins to begin with, since you cannot easily hide defects on white coins like you can darkly toned coins.</p><p><br /></p><p>Again, which is why I simply look at luster. If its a richly lustrous surface I will give the coin the benefit of the doubt the colors happen by accident, or "natural". This is because I personally have witnessed original, untouched coins toned what slabbers would today label AT. I have also seen what slabber would label NT done on purpose over the course of a few month or so. </p><p><br /></p><p>[USER=15309]@Lehigh96[/USER], you can react to what the market is today all you wish, (and I would say you indeed an expert in that area sir, I greatly respect your opinion in that area and Jeff nickels). I would simply say that long before the slabbers this was the world, and I have personally seen "accelerated" toning, as well as "AT" coming out of original rolls and books. Therefore, I agree with the premise of Doug's. It is a continuum and very much a slippery slope. I simply wish the hobby would "get over" pretty colors and again concentrate on surfaces, and value rich lustrous surfaces more and not worry what color they are.</p><p><br /></p><p>Another example of the slippery slope. You claim certain toning to be "natural", yet other toning, while not done on purpose, to be from "improper storage". So now we are judging storage practices of other collectors based upon YOUR desire for how the coin looks? If you like it, its NT, but if not then it is AT due to "improper storage"? See the slippery slope? BTW, I am not meaning "you" personally Lehigh, but "toned coin collectors" as a group.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="medoraman, post: 3234841, member: 26302"]How do you know? Seriously, I have seen, (and we have had this discussion many times as well), in person in a few months a very nicely toned coin develop IF it had good surfaces. Acceptable looking coins, if they had good surfaces, can be had in a few hours. Most AT looking coins look that way because they were forced onto non-lustrous surfaces. This has always been done as a way to fool amateurs that a coin was not defective or harshly cleaned in the past. If the collector was dumb enough to only rely on colors, then coin doctors AT coins to fool them. This was so prevelant as to create the demand for "white" coins to begin with, since you cannot easily hide defects on white coins like you can darkly toned coins. Again, which is why I simply look at luster. If its a richly lustrous surface I will give the coin the benefit of the doubt the colors happen by accident, or "natural". This is because I personally have witnessed original, untouched coins toned what slabbers would today label AT. I have also seen what slabber would label NT done on purpose over the course of a few month or so. [USER=15309]@Lehigh96[/USER], you can react to what the market is today all you wish, (and I would say you indeed an expert in that area sir, I greatly respect your opinion in that area and Jeff nickels). I would simply say that long before the slabbers this was the world, and I have personally seen "accelerated" toning, as well as "AT" coming out of original rolls and books. Therefore, I agree with the premise of Doug's. It is a continuum and very much a slippery slope. I simply wish the hobby would "get over" pretty colors and again concentrate on surfaces, and value rich lustrous surfaces more and not worry what color they are. Another example of the slippery slope. You claim certain toning to be "natural", yet other toning, while not done on purpose, to be from "improper storage". So now we are judging storage practices of other collectors based upon YOUR desire for how the coin looks? If you like it, its NT, but if not then it is AT due to "improper storage"? See the slippery slope? BTW, I am not meaning "you" personally Lehigh, but "toned coin collectors" as a group.[/QUOTE]
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
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
US Coins Forum
>
Can you define artificial toning ?
>
Home
Home
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Activity
Recent Posts
Forums
Forums
Quick Links
Search Forums
Recent Posts
Competitions
Competitions
Quick Links
Competition Index
Rules, Terms & Conditions
Gallery
Gallery
Quick Links
Search Media
New Media
Showcase
Showcase
Quick Links
Search Items
Most Active Members
New Items
Directory
Directory
Quick Links
Directory Home
New Listings
Members
Members
Quick Links
Notable Members
Current Visitors
Recent Activity
New Profile Posts
Sponsors
Menu
Search
Search titles only
Posted by Member:
Separate names with a comma.
Newer Than:
Search this thread only
Search this forum only
Display results as threads
Useful Searches
Recent Posts
More...