Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;eddiespin, post: 1223400, member: 4920&quot;]Taking them from the bottom up...</p><p><br /></p><p>LineDad, I still have my old Dietzgen from, get this, high school! <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie8" alt=":D" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>BR549 and Larry, I think I like your attitudes. :yes:</p><p><br /></p><p>Medoraman, when the luster is impaired for whatever reason that&#039;s a collateral issue. It may be relative to the &quot;AT&quot; method employed to impart the toning or it may not be. Nobody knows what caused it, really. It&#039;s like these &quot;cleaned and retoned&quot; coins. What&#039;s wrong about those is the &quot;cleaned&quot; part, not the &quot;retoned&quot; part. On the former, we can actually see that dead surface. I&#039;m on board, there. That should negatively affect the technical grade of the coin and in extreme cases even render the coin unmarketable. I&#039;m just talking about so-called &quot;AT,&quot; here, as I had generally defined it, above.</p><p><br /></p><p><b>EDIT</b>: FWIW, just because some people prefer deep, rich oil paintings to thin, superficial water color paintings doesn&#039;t categorically make water color paintings unmarketable. I judge toning on whether it&#039;s eye-appealing to me, and &quot;AT&quot; isn&#039;t even in my vocabulary. I&#039;m a coin collector, not a coin detective. If, from what my eyes can see, the underlying technical condition of the coin is unimpaired, that&#039;s all that matters to me. So, to any of you &quot;AT/NT&quot; guys who may for whatever reason wander into here, yeah, just to make the record clear, I&#039;m one of &quot;those guys.&quot; :smile[/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