Log in or Sign up
Coin Talk
Home
Forums
>
Coin Forums
>
US Coins Forum
>
Can you define improper storage ?
>
Reply to Thread
Message:
<p>[QUOTE="GDJMSP, post: 3237116, member: 112"]Again, current discussions are the reason for asking this question. It has been stated in other current threads that improper storage is a valid reason for designating toned coins as being artificially toned, or if you prefer, having questionable toning. </p><p><br /></p><p>But that begs a question doesn't it ? For how does one define improper storage ? Personally, I have a rather simple and straightforward definition for it. Improper storage is defined as any storage method that is conducive to toning. </p><p><br /></p><p>However, the idea has been out forth that this kind of improper storage is OK and will result in NT or market acceptable toning, but that kind of improper storage is not OK and will result in AT/QT or not market acceptable toning. </p><p><br /></p><p>Now I don't know about anybody else but that seems downright arbitrary to me. More than arbitrary I'd say, I find it completely and totally illogical and contradictory. </p><p><br /></p><p>I mean, the toning is deemed OK if the coins were put in an album, coin envelopes, cardboard coin holders of any kind, wrapped in tissue paper, paper coin rolls, etc etc, and then stored in a temperature controlled environment with low humidity. But if the very same coins were stored in any of the very same things, but stored in an environment that was not temperature controlled and had high humidity - those coins are deemed not OK.</p><p><br /></p><p>Is there anybody here who thinks that even remotely makes any sense ? Or saying that it is a valid reason for designating the toning on the coins as being AT, QT, or not market acceptable ? Especially since there is absolutely no way that anybody would or could ever know under which conditions those coins were stored ? </p><p><br /></p><p>And let's not forget to put intent into the equation. Does it matter if an individual in any of the scenarios described above, used those storage methods with or without the intent of making the coins tone ? And bear in mind, in ALL of the scenarios the coins did indeed tone ! And in all of the scenarios the coins did tone specifically because of the storage method the individual chose to use. The only difference is one happened faster than the other due to increased and variable temperature and humidity.</p><p><br /></p><p>So, can you define improper storage ?[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>
[QUOTE="GDJMSP, post: 3237116, member: 112"]Again, current discussions are the reason for asking this question. It has been stated in other current threads that improper storage is a valid reason for designating toned coins as being artificially toned, or if you prefer, having questionable toning. But that begs a question doesn't it ? For how does one define improper storage ? Personally, I have a rather simple and straightforward definition for it. Improper storage is defined as any storage method that is conducive to toning. However, the idea has been out forth that this kind of improper storage is OK and will result in NT or market acceptable toning, but that kind of improper storage is not OK and will result in AT/QT or not market acceptable toning. Now I don't know about anybody else but that seems downright arbitrary to me. More than arbitrary I'd say, I find it completely and totally illogical and contradictory. I mean, the toning is deemed OK if the coins were put in an album, coin envelopes, cardboard coin holders of any kind, wrapped in tissue paper, paper coin rolls, etc etc, and then stored in a temperature controlled environment with low humidity. But if the very same coins were stored in any of the very same things, but stored in an environment that was not temperature controlled and had high humidity - those coins are deemed not OK. Is there anybody here who thinks that even remotely makes any sense ? Or saying that it is a valid reason for designating the toning on the coins as being AT, QT, or not market acceptable ? Especially since there is absolutely no way that anybody would or could ever know under which conditions those coins were stored ? And let's not forget to put intent into the equation. Does it matter if an individual in any of the scenarios described above, used those storage methods with or without the intent of making the coins tone ? And bear in mind, in ALL of the scenarios the coins did indeed tone ! And in all of the scenarios the coins did tone specifically because of the storage method the individual chose to use. The only difference is one happened faster than the other due to increased and variable temperature and humidity. So, can you define improper storage ?[/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 improper storage ?
>
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...