Is this toning AT or NT?

They can. That's their prerogative. I don't have to play along. All that is is an admission they can't tell the difference. To me, that's categorical proof the entire toner market is "BS". Same thing as if counterfeits ever became undetectable. Then it's "game over".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Originally I figured your question was wacko; however I see what you referred to. I was not clear. IMO, the OP's coin is AT. The 1958 can go either way as I have seen this color on several Franklins. My vote is "Market Acceptable."

In fact, the OP's coin has a 50% chance also. However, nobody can pick how a TPGS will rule on "close calls" with any certainty.

ALL THIS ANSWER REFERS TO THE OP'S COIN:

I've been asked: "But do you believe the picture's color is right?"

Sorry, I'm not qualified to answer that. IMHO, expert photographers such as you and the other esteemed and highly regarded member who has me on "Ignore," tend to be too finicky about color balance, heck and every other thing that I am ignorant about in a photographic image. That said, I'm very sure lighting is one thing that affects colors.

Bottom line: Who cares? When an ignorant , wanna-be photographer such as myself can tell just about everything necessary to see in a less than perfect image , the nit picks don't matter to me. IMO, the coin is BORDERLINE. 50% a TPGS will AT or NT. I'm AT.

I should have guessed you were asking about the color on the '58.

 

Are you "okay with that"? I mean, we're talking about an entire sub-specialty built on something that the "paid to know" experts have decided to punt on! Wow! Just because some people think they're interesting? If that's going to be the standard, what's next? The "road rash" that newbies keep posting in the the Error Coins section? They're interesting to some people too, OBVIOUSLY. I don't get the whole toning fascination at all. What is happening to people's minds?

Try to explain the virtue of toning to even ONE native Asian collector. They won't "get it" either. Culturally, to them, it's "damage". We've got people intentionally putting .999 silver in contact with high-sulfur paper, and they're buying ultra-expensive copper-laden strips to PREVENT toning their silver.

That's a lot of value risked on a coin's flip proposition, isn't it?

 

V. Kurt Bellman, asked: "Are you "okay with that"?"

NO!

IMO, a TPGS should charge for an opinion. That opinion should be yes, no, or we don't have a clue one way or the other! IF it turns out that a lot of mistakes were made in the past (discovered as more knowledge/info/tests became available), due to the guarantee to "make good," a lot of $$$$ is on the line. That's too bad as now you either pay up or let slide.

If there were a clause in the TPGS form stating that in the advent of new info about deceptive methods of alterations or counterfeits becomes available that was not known to the professional numismatic community at the time our opinion was rendered...all guarantees are void, then we could clean out any mistakes about toning for example w/o financial loss except to the submitter (who should take the loss for not educating himself). BTW, that was how it was done in the 1970's. ANACS and INSAB gave their best opinion on the authenticity of a coin. THERE WAS NO GUARANTEE THAT OPINION WAS CORRECT!

Anyway, many decades ago, I learned and accepted that my opinion on any subject - anywhere - means NOTHING! I suggest that everyone else get a life and realize that what they think is not important either.

 

When I read your first and second paragraph (post 44) a voice in my head keeps saying, "They started this 'guaranty' stuff for marketing purposes, and now want to back off of it".

 

They aren't punting on it. In all honesty I like the new approach much better. Far to many people had far to much conviction or preconceived notions of what toning should be otherwise it had to be AT. Silver eagles are a world of their own, being essentially pure silver some of them do crazy things with really no help. Get a roll and just leave them around the house for a summer or two and a lot of people would be surprised what some will do on their own and how fast some will do it. Just like with grading applying one "look" standard for toning across various metal compositions and purity is a mistake.

 

I'm having a ball parsing your posts as if you were talking to yourself, because that's what it looks like to me.

I very much appreciate the beauty of nicely-toned silver. If I ever want to own some, though, I'll save the money and make it myself.

 

It never did exist because it's...big word ahead: "arbitrary." Meaning, we were taken for a buggy ride...

 

.

 

Careful, "base", that sounds awfully close to saying, "Yeah, I'm okay with coin doctoring as long as I can make a buck on it." Funny, though, I have ASE's in Saflips in 2x2 boxes, and others in Dansco albums, and still others in OGP, and NONE of them show that wild color, none. Yes, there's a little edge coloring, even a touch of near-black on some reeds, but nothing like these manufactured monstrosities. You wanna play in that sandbox? Fine. I know those dark things are cat poo.

 

IF the colors are "True", that appears to be a NT 1958-D Mint Set coin, still in the Mint Set card. The pink is fine, if anything the orangish colors from about 10 to 2 o'clock, and around TRUST, are the concern. If that orangish color is actually more golden than orange there would be no concern whatsoever. At a minimum the Franklin should certainly be MA. Here's one of mine...

 

Very nice coins @Skyman and @GDJMSP. Love em.

Wow it seems I opened a can of worms with this one...very informative can of worms though.

 

I put this in an envelope for three months for the sole intent of toning it. NT or AT? Am I an evil good-for-nothing coin doctor?

 

And who's driving the 'buggy'? Who determines 'market acceptability'? The Jim Jones afficienados.........

 

Very good question. I would say we do. Most people who have responded to this thread have said mine is not "Market Acceptable". While this may be, I bid on this one as well as several other people. In fact I sniped it. Doesn't that make it market acceptable"?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What may be ugly to one person may be beautiful to another. Toned coins fit this very well. Some people like golden toning. I do too but I also like "Rainbow" toning with purples and blues and reds.

IMO all it takes is someone willing to buy what you have for sale to make it market acceptable.

 

By MY personal standard, which NOBODY ON THE PLANET is obligated to follow, yes, you are. But... you have lots and lots of company, most of whom use more extreme methods.

 

I refuse to drink the toning Kool Aid. If it isn't the golden tone of 12-year-old "Jack", I ain't quaffing it.

 

Okay, you are personally entitled to that personal definition but just as nobody is obligated to adopt my extremely "tight" standard, nobody is obligated to your "loose" one. In the hobby at large, "Market Acceptable" means one thing and one thing only - a TPGS will give it a straight numerical grade. Your standard sounds looser than that, and mine is WAY WAY tighter. Mine requires complete accident and lack of intent to create OR accelerate.

In tort law there is a standard called "ordinary and prudent care". Anything less than that is "partially passive coin doctoring", or if you prefer, "passive aggressive coin doctoring".

Paying somebody a higher price for sticking a coin in a high-sulfur paper envelope for three months strikes me as pure lunacy and the end of common sense as we've known it.

 

Then "Market Acceptable" is the wrong term to use. Sounds like it should be "TPG Acceptable".

Market Acceptable to me means: When you put a coin or, anything for that matter, on the "Market", or up for sale to word it differently, and it sells. Simple as that.