Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Neal, post: 8282258, member: 43872&quot;]I don&#039;t mean to offend or start any arguments, but I find <i>all</i> toning to be damage.&nbsp; I know many pay huge premiums for &quot;monster toning,&quot; and if that is what you like, go for it.&nbsp; Congress has passed no laws that apply here on what is &quot;collectible.&quot; But what difference does it make how the toning got there?&nbsp; If you like it, and it is worth the price to you, then nobody should think the less of you for paying whatever.&nbsp; I find it comical that the TPGs will grade a coin MS 68, when heavily toned with little &quot;eye appeal,&quot; if they conclude omnisciently that the toning is &quot;natural,&quot; but will reject as damaged an otherwise pretty coin whose toning hints to them it might be artificial.&nbsp; 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 &quot;artist&quot; making something to sell to people who are happy to buy it.&nbsp; It is all artificial because it is not the natural product as it came from the mint.&nbsp; Toning changes the surface forever.&nbsp; Sometimes you can remove oils and dirt adhered to a coin and reveal the original luster.&nbsp; No one can remove tarnish, excuse me, toning, and restore the original surface.&nbsp; Yes, dips can help if the toning is light, but the surface has still been altered, if only slightly.&nbsp; The PCGS price guide drops a 1914-D cent from $16,000 in MS65RD to $6,750 MS65BN.&nbsp; That brown is just &quot;natural&quot; toning.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.&nbsp; DIY time.[/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