Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;mikenoodle, post: 3234934, member: 307&quot;]Leave it to Doug to ask a question that can’t be answered in anything less than a short book. :::smh:::</p><p><br /></p><p>As usual, Doug, you ask your question in such a way as it can only be answered by making a logical conclusion.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>My current (always evolving) view on toning is simple, but probably only my own:</p><p><br /></p><p>Toning can be attractive or not. Toning, in my opinion, in an of itself should not command any premium for a coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>An attractive coin, toned or not should command a premium. Period. Full stop.</p><p><br /></p><p>The unattractive coin should not. Also full stop.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>Toning is not a guarantee that a coin has not been cleaned.[/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