Just a regular "your opinions on this toning" post

Good Sunday morning all, I hope this post helps entertain our snow bound friends on the east coast. Id appreciate your opinions on this toning. Sorry it has to be based on these cell phone images.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Just as a matter of personal preference, that toning doesn't do much for me. But that is only one collector's set of eyeballs.

 

I like it but don't love it. Totally acceptable but not spectacular

 

It looks natural, from what I can tell.

I don't find it particularly attractive, however. That's just my opinion, do with it what you will.

 

I like it! Very pretty blues, pinks, and purples. No clue on premium though.

 

I'm going to bet the coin is in a PCI holder Labeled "Artificialy Toned" or "Questionable Toning"

 

If you look at the picture, it is very clearly in a PCGS holder...

 

I like the coin's color, and IMO it should be "market acceptable"; however, there is more evidence that the toning is NOT NATURAL (8) rather than NATURAL (2). Crack it out and sell it for $$$ if it is detailed graded. IMO, 95% of the buyers would say natural toned beauty!

 

I agree toning does very little for me when it comes to collector value i see undercirculation condition and mint marks make a coins value personally. But to be honest i like some rainbow toning like i saw on the morgans sum nickels and sum select very fine grade pennies like the large cents. Thank you glad to be here

 

Did I tell you all I was a blind old man too? I just saw a "P, C" and assumed...however, my opinion of the label and toning (post#8) still stands.

 

I'm starting to think that you just enjoy trashing other folks thread with false information.

 

I like the toning on OP's coin and most toning on coins in general. One thing I don't like is the high prices associated with it........

 

Perhaps we could find out what PCGS thinks of the toning BEFORE you assume something like I did.

 

I would like someone to refute any false info in this post. The fact that the coin is not in a PCI slab has been corrected (post#10).

So far all posters say the toning is original. I'm saying the coin should pass most people, it is attractive, and IMO the TPGS didn't like it.

 

I like it. I have a very similar looking 1883 that is about to go to NGC.

I'm curious as to how the reverse looks. Mine is a mix of champaign and rum coloring on the back.

 

I'll go with looks nice and in my opinion it appears to be natural toning, but not monster toning. Seeing the reverse could also have an effect (is it blast white, dark, etc...).

 

Looks like good NT at first glance to me. I see pullaway above some letters and below the date. However better pics are needed for a definate answer on that. You omitting the label is making me and others think it's labeled AT though. As for the toning itself I think it's OK but not great. The full coverage is nice but it's a touch too random and plotchy for a non 21 morgan. Can we get reverse pics please

 

Thanks for all the replies. For the record I didn't take any comments as trashing, I did post this to get other collectors opinions.

The coin was purchased originally in this holder



I was 50/50 on straight grading or a genuine. The reverse is untoned.
PCGS's opinion



Not surprised and it's still a pretty coin. I understand why they QTed it, I dont believe it is AT, and think it had some interesting time in storage in an uncommon holder, but understand why it came back the way it did. The material at the top of the case is a sort of heavy, silky material you see on the inner top lid of jewelry holders. I'm sure whatever is in that material caused the toning (of coarse along with other factors)

 

That holder is cool and I bet the top lining had dies with sulfur or other toning compounds in it that explains the random color pattern and splotchyness. Can you post a large, crisp, cropped pic of the obverse please. (And reverse too) I want to look for pullaway and elevated chromatics.

See though, your op post was a tell that it was slabbed AT because of how you presented the question while posting pics without the full slab. I assume you don't play poker much

Why are you "not surprised" at the AT out of curiosity? Look at the 1881, I see heavy pullaway on the date and the rest of the coins match the type of toning in color and pattern for the most part. I'm leaning heavily towards all coins being NT and having been in there for 25-40yrs. I would resub it on the next batch if it was mine

 

Thanks Cascade. As I was writing the post I felt that it was coming across as slanted towards QT, just journalistic laziness I guess.

Like I said I belive it to be natural. I think it was in that holder for 25-30 years, shuffled from closet to basement to attic to basement, etc. but understand why it QTed. If PCGS is really not sure of the toning, as a grading company they have to put it in a genuine holder. I guess it's that level of security they want collectors to feel when they buy PCGS straight graded coins.

I'm with you 100%, send it in again.