Coin toning, good or bad?

I've been reading lots of mixed feelings about oxidation on coins, some articles say it's damage and takes away from the value and then some say if the toning is eye appealing then it can add value. So I'm guessing the value of it depends on the collectors but I was just curious about what you guys had to say about it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Oh no...........................now you did it!

I'll just sit back and watch.

 

Ha-ha.... Yes @Islander80-83 said it best. That’s a powder keg subject. Just suffice to say, there are those that love them, and those that don’t. Myself, I am a blast white kind of guy. But I have seen premiums being paid for attractive toned coins. And you are correct saying that the value lies with each individual collector. It’s not defined like say the grading system is.

 

Lol now I'm even more intrigued!!

 

I'm only responding to enjoying what's forthcoming. There are a number of threads about this subject and they all boil down to opinion. I can't wait!

 

Who was it that posted yesterday with the "rainbow collection" that was near completion? That is an awesome group of pennies, I think they have definitely have a place at the table , they can be really beautiful. However is a sign of ware or neglect and not the intention of the producers when it comes to giving a coin a grade u don't think toning should by any means necessarily take away but it definitely shouldn't contribute to a positive step up the scale. But that like my opinion, man.

 

Personally, I like them both. I have some toned proof coins that I like and I think it looks pretty neat. That being said I also like the deep camo shiny as can be.

 

Yes it is oxidation and yes it is damage though many find it attractive. The biggest concern is NT (natural toning) or AT (artificial toning).

 

Damage.

 

I read somewhere on pcgs about artificial toning and I would definitely agree on that being considered damage to the coin kinda like improperly cleaned coins, that being said, I can see how natural toning can either be considered collectable by some and damage by others. In the simplest terms I can think of, natural toning is technically damage but to some people it's a natural act of the metal content and is a collectable type damage. Idk I might be completely wrong.

 

And we're off and running.....

 

And this is probably the one point in all of numismatics as a hobby that many seem to completely ignore. All things: value, attractiveness/desirability, pride of stewardship, satisfaction, joy, challenge, enrichment, etc...are completely subject to the individual involved in the hobby.

Nobody has the right nor authority to dictate these things unto another in their leisure endeavors. Whatever toots your horn, pull on it...hard and continuously! Some find toning to be attractive and enjoy examining and admiring such coins.

Others find great pleasure in challenging themselves hunting down those blast whites and blazing reds. And, yet others find themselves somewhere in between, and pick and choose those of both spectra that catch their eye.

Yes, toning is damage. And this damage begins from the moment of minting...if not even before. It is a natural process. Can you imagine if archaeologists held the same attitude that some coin hobbyists do? "Oh...it's damaged! Everything has gone through wind and water deterioration and is crumbled. Let's just junk it and find a better example of millennia past culture..."

Every coin has some form of value, whether it be for research, education, admiration, propagation, or any other personal reason. So, if you like it blast white and blazing red...no one's forcing you to even look at a toner (unless you got tricked by it not being mentioned in the post title) And, if you enjoy toners, what does it matter what anyone else has to say about it...c'mon...people collect CircCams!!!

And people are going to have qualms about somebody collecting toners? Collect what you want and forget what anybody else says!

 

Hey I've seen people collect strange things. In another one of my posts I mentioned I was recently incarcerated at the state penitentiary, well there was this one odd fella, every day when we went to the yard he would spend all his time sitting on the ground inspecting rocks and he would normally sneak a few of them back to his cell and he was proud of his collection, but then again it was prison so he could have been just looking for sharp pointy rocks to put in a sock and beat the brakes off someone, who knows. Moral of the store is he loved his collection but to everyone else they were just rocks, the beauty is in the eye of the be-holder.

 

Yes it is, scientifically speaking.

Yes it does, for those who value toning . . . but not for those who don't.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell.

 

Personally, I think both NT & AT are beautiful, & give an added dimension to what may be an otherwise boring coin.

 

Well that's because you're an idiot! NT is merely the result of not taking care & storing coins with inadequate conditions. And AT is just desecration of what would normally be a great specimen.

 

OK you 2, knock it off!!!

 

Coin is money, it is intended to be used, spent. It is, technically, abnormal for a coin to be perfectly preserved in its “birth” state. People call the reaction a coin suffers, oxidation, if I’m not mistaken. What that is is, aging. Aging is a natural process. If folks want to call aging, damage, then so be it. I call it, maturing, and it is sometimes very appealing to my eye.

 

Fair point, but damage and maturation are not mutually exclusive. In other words, toning can be both.

 

Come on page two!!! We're cookin with grease now!