Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;medoraman, post: 3237202, member: 26302&quot;]Good thread, and exactly what I was getting to on your other thread discussing the arbitrariness of &quot;their&quot; definition. Almost all storage, short of modern air controlled environments, will allow toning. What the toner group is saying is &quot;I am used to this type of toning, so I will call it &quot;natural&quot;, and anything other than that I will assume was done on &quot;purpose&quot;&quot;. My point has always been toning is BAD. ALWAYS BAD. Any corrosion is a defect, and it is not the way the coin left the mint. </p><p><br /></p><p>However, when trying to collect coins, you have the choice, (since none were stored &quot;perfectly&quot;), of either accepting toned surfaces or cleaned surfaces. If a 150 year old coin is blast white, it HAS been cleaned, no exceptions. So, what is your choice, white cleaned or toned (possibly) uncleaned? I tried to choose toned uncleaned when given a choice, knowing it is dangerous because toning can cover up defects and continue if not abated into outright corrosion and destroy the item. </p><p><br /></p><p>That is the crux of it, and some toned coin afficianados simply do not like being told toning is <u>by definition</u> &quot;damage&quot;, it just can be less &quot;damage&quot; than the alternative of cleaning. That, and they want their toned coins to look like they expect. However, saying that, I do strongly support the hobby trying to turn its back on coins people have toned intentionally, since this encourages damage to be intentionally inflicted onto otherwise good coins. I do so by refusing to pay extra for ANY toned coin. I will pay extra for better surfaces, toned or untoned, but not for &quot;color&quot; since THAT is what encouraged people to intentionally tone coins to begin with![/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