...given that this clown is moving multiple sulfur-smeared coins per day, and accumulating a steady stream of positive feedback for them. At least it's mostly low-end Lincolns with little or no numismatic value to start with. But it's almost enough to make me wish I could ditch my own conscience; there's clearly a ton of money to be made...
If there are suckers it's the buyers...not "this clown." All he's doing is essentially asking...no harm/no foul...looked at one of his listings and has 100% positive feedback plus see nothing indicating natural toning, so sure most know it's artificial, nothing fraudulent or misleading, etc, IMO. Not my cup of tea but apparently so for some/others.
That was the point I was trying to make. There are enough suckers to keep him in business, and it looks to be pretty lucrative. Well, he's doing a couple of other things: 1) He's trashing coins that were probably otherwise undamaged. No, I don't get worked up about the loss of some 1959 Lincolns -- I've done worse to coins myself -- but it's still a little bothersome. 2) He's refusing to say that he does this artificially, as an art form. That's sleazy. To me, it's right down there with the folks who sell silver-plated bars as "1 ounce .999 mil silver", or low-content gold coins as ".24 gold". Now, if he were advertising these as "coin art" or the like, I'd actually consider cheering him on -- and even suggest that he raise his prices, as there's clearly plenty of demand. Yeah, it's "damaging" coins, but if you're going to turn a coin into art, common Lincoln cents aren't the worst victims.
Nothing more than a novelty items, much like selling enameled coins, like the mint is starting to do. LOL I think this seller is far from being a clown. They found a way to make money out of cents.
I don't mean to offend or start any arguments, but I find all toning to be damage. I know many pay huge premiums for "monster toning," and if that is what you like, go for it. Congress has passed no laws that apply here on what is "collectible." But what difference does it make how the toning got there? If you like it, and it is worth the price to you, then nobody should think the less of you for paying whatever. I find it comical that the TPGs will grade a coin MS 68, when heavily toned with little "eye appeal," if they conclude omnisciently that the toning is "natural," but will reject as damaged an otherwise pretty coin whose toning hints to them it might be artificial. But all toning is artificial, whether it was put there by the sulfur in the paper of a coin storage envelope over a period of fifty years or by an "artist" making something to sell to people who are happy to buy it. It is all artificial because it is not the natural product as it came from the mint. Toning changes the surface forever. Sometimes you can remove oils and dirt adhered to a coin and reveal the original luster. No one can remove tarnish, excuse me, toning, and restore the original surface. Yes, dips can help if the toning is light, but the surface has still been altered, if only slightly. The PCGS price guide drops a 1914-D cent from $16,000 in MS65RD to $6,750 MS65BN. That brown is just "natural" toning. In the cases of these coins on sale, the only sad thing is that his customers could save money by buying some red cents and a small bottle of sulfur. DIY time.