Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;-jeffB, post: 1077050, member: 27832&quot;]I&#039;m coming around on the attractiveness/desirability of toning, but deep down inside, I still can&#039;t help thinking of it as <i>damage</i>. As lots of people have shown, it&#039;s not hard to tone a coin. I think the current distinction between &quot;natural&quot; and &quot;artificial&quot; toning is unsustainable -- I don&#039;t think there&#039;ll ever be a consensus on where to draw the line, and if there ever were, those derided as &quot;coin doctors&quot; would find a way to skate that line for profit.</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;ve heard some people say that they like the look of worn coins, and I see that &quot;lowball registry&quot; coins can sometimes actually command a premium over better-grade examples. I don&#039;t really expect a burgeoning market in &quot;artfully worn&quot; coins to lead coin doctors to widespread&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; &quot;artificial wearing&quot;. But if that did happen, I&#039;d view it the same way as I view the current toning controversies.[/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