Is, or is not, tone part of a coins grade?

You didn't answer my question though. And wait, you knew "variegated".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Is there a term for that scratchy look?

 

And yes, it is well "variegated" :thumb:

 

Lehigh,

Sorry for all the e-mails, but I tried to sleep and kept thinking about your last post (what can I say, I'm hooked!). And this quote was very interesting "More often than not, toning will fall into the neutral or negative category." That tells me, as someone new to the hobby, that unless I am absolutely certain the tone is "a positive", I may want to stay away from toned coins and buy more white coins, at least until I have more experience. Would you agree with that statement?

By the way, I consider myself a investor (#1)/collector (#2) of coins. (that always seems to be a question from experienced collectors when answering my questions and I am understanding why more and more).

 

I absolutely do not agree. I will explain why, but first I want you to answer my original question. Which category do you place this Franklin Half Dollar in: Positive, Neutral, or Negative?



If you play along you will see the light, I promise.

 

I did answer but I've sent so many e-mails you missed my response.
You know, at first I said negative. But having looked at it again, I'd have to say positive. Why? because although it has a "bad paint job" look, and not what I would consider beautiful, it is so unique, many people would find it valuable, and pay extra for it. Am I right?

 

It's largely subjective, but as a general rule, more attractive, smoother toning without bad splotches and that isn't too dark, is more likely to result in a grade bump.

Often, sellers hype coins by describing them as "beautiful", when to most people, they clearly are not. The sellers (usually) know better. That said, I have seen beautful coins that look anything but, based on their images.

 

One of the things that makes a big difference to me in whether I like a toned coin is how much luster that coin has. Many of you know how much I love colorful coins (or "toned" coins as they're often called). However, a coin can have all sorts of pretty colors but if there is no luster and has a "flat" look to it, then most likely it is artificial. That's not to say that, just because rainbow coins have luster then the toning is natural because that's not necessarily true. However, to me, luster is a big part of eye appeal, which is extremely important when I am choosing a coin. By the way, it is very hard to see whether a coin has luster from most photos, so be very leery when buying mint state coins from photos alone.

 

"It's not always that the color is pretty in their opinion, it's that the coin has never been messed with". Wow, that is an important statement. I just purchased my first coin recently off ebay. There's a whole story behind it as I have related in other posts so I won't go into it, but it has what I would call a very slight "dirty" look to it (forgive me, I'm sure there are better terms in the coin lexicon). And where as I thought this may be a negative, you have pointed out it could be a positive or at least neutral. As always, beauty is in the eye of the buyer.

 

Then again . . . one problem I see with a coin like this is the toning may be hiding imperfections. Tough to tell.

I can't wait to hear what u have to say.

 

Lehigh, I could see why some would not find the toning on the Franklin to be a positive. There are some breaks in the toning that I don't really love, but I would say it is a positive because the color is just outstanding.

 

I agree luster is a major part of attractive toning. I was going through an album of BU roosevelts at a show recently and there were some with otherwise attractive toning that was most likely natural, but it subdued the luster enough that it negatively impacted the eye appeal. Needless to say I didn't buy any of them.

 

Toning falls under eye appeal and eye appeal is a part of grading (seems to me).