Gassing coins -AT

I am pressed to ask why it was even given a number.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The cert #? It was graded before it was gassed. NGC saw it was messed with and updated the cert on their end which is pretty good by them in my opinion.

 

Do you mean when it looked like this?


IBetASilverDollar is correct- my contact at NGC was notified and the on-line cert updated.

 

Why just updated? Doesn't NGC just flat out cancel them?

 

BTW, speaking of toned coins again. I looked at my 1964 Kennedy with butt ugly toning and enough hits to garner an MS63, but which came back as MS65. I sent it in to NGC to prove something in 2016. The colors have already all progressed. It's more attractive now, yes. But it still changes enough in NGC plastic in TWO YEARS to be barely recognizable as the same coin. No one's gonna convince me toned coins are stable. I've still never owned one that is.

 

Here is another seller doing this.

Original:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1887-Morga...r-/253912324504?nav=SEARCH#vi__app-cvip-panel

Now:
https://m.ebay.com/itm/Beautiful-Ra...1209ffe9cefb&_mwBanner=1&_rdt=1&ul_noapp=true

 

No.

 

But, but, but, Lehigh and Basball always tell us we’re wrong about the lack of integrity and ethics in the toner specialty, right? Seems it is they who have the blinders on.

Here is a compelling looking color progression with a defensible shape, in a revered holder subtype, yet obviously it is a manufactured piece of garbage.

I have to “call BS” on the entire toner specialty.

QED

 

I disagree that it is a normal color progression. I am a relative amateur on toners, but this one would be a no-go, even if not in the slab. Also notice the bluish tinge of the inner plastic over Pluribus, that is not normal nor is it lighting, IMO. Jim

 

To me the added color looks like an overall negative and I wouldn’t have bought that coin even without knowing the full story. But it does seem like enough people do just think any color+rattler equals something special.

I still haven’t seen anyone be good enough at gassing to create a high end toned Morgan.

 

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!

I never said that everyone was ethical, I was speaking about myself. There have always been coin doctors trying to game the system, and this clown's products are typical examples of poor AT junk that only fools the most novice collectors. If you think that the color progression on that Morgan Dollar is typical, then you don't know anything about bag toned Morgans. I have owned hundreds of them and none had that color scheme.

And don't you mean the entire toner specialty except the proof 60's Jeffersons?

 

What happens on early 60’s Jeff proofs, I AM TOLD BY SOMEONE WHO SHOULD KNOW, has nothing to do with thin film interference dichroism, but is due to excess trace elements in those metal batches themselves. Care to weigh in? I’m open minded about this sub-category.

I had suspected subtle OGP plastics that were not consistent year to year.

 

Unless someone can prove that mint used a different supplier for nickel planchets for those years, and those years only, I find that explanation to be very unlikely. And when I say supplier, it may be a series of suppliers in the production of the planchets.

NGC offers a metallurgical analysis service. I would assume they use an SEM for composition, but I don’t know for sure. We could submit a proof from the 50s and 60s and see what happens.

I think your theory of the OGP plastic is more likely than trace elements in the metals. Regardless of the composition of the metal, the toning is still a thin film interface.

 

Keep in mind that in the early 1960’s, even for proof coining, the Philly mint did make their own blanks from roll stock. For everything then, cents to halves.

 

This is insane!

 

In the early 1960’s, NOT ONLY did Philly Mint not buy blanks or planchets, they even rolled their own roll stock from ingot metal. How soon we forget! Now, they buy clad and CuNi in huge rolls and cents pre-punched and pre-plated. In short, they’re wimps now.

I’d LOVE to see a “Blue 62” or “Yellow 61” proof Jeff analyzed for trace elements. My source suggested cobalt in the mix in 1962.

 

There is no way for that pattern to form while sitting in a bag.

 

I'm surprised that anyone would bid on this:

1. It is blatant AT and fits no natural pattern or color progression. (Red flag #1)
2. NGC will not grade toned coins as MS or PF 70. (Red flag #2)
3. NGC will not award a DCAM or CAM designation to a coin toned like that - it is impossible to see any field to device contrasts behind the color. (Red flag #3)

 

In the past, I would have said not at all especially with coins like the one in the OP that are blatantly altered. On the other hand, there are so many new and young collectors on Instagram that are so accustomed to seeing this crap in TPG plastic (not all of it gassed in the slab either) that they have no idea what classic NT v. AT looks like. PCGS especially dropped the ball in this regard.

 

That's not true. There are coins or more specifically old proofs that were colorfully toned during grading that NGC has given CAM/DCAM too.