Natural or man made?

"Market acceptable" vs. "Not market acceptable". The result matters and now how it came to be.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

My answer - 40 years makes it NT. Don't ask where the dividing line is. But if it involves intentionally doing something to a coin that normally one would not do while trying to preserve a coin, then it's AT. And if I believe it was accelerated, I ain't buying it, period. I frankly don't care what a TPGS says. I trust me and MY eye more than I trust ANY of them. How can I say that? Easy. I spend 99% of my coin time observing and studying, and only 1% acquiring stuff. To me, I'm not into "he who dies with the most cool coins wins". Most assuredly NOT a registry type of collector.

 

Without reading any further.........looks cooked.

 

Heck.......I just do that to keep track of things...........

 

I like it looks good.

 

Me too. I use NGC's collector' s database without ever establishing any sets. Sets are an option I choose not to use. Can you tell that I'm an extremely active trend non-follower? It's what makes me, me. I may be the country's first counter-counter-counter-counter culturalist.

 

Kurt? You're a 'hoot'. And a blessing........

 

Yeah, I'm most certain I'm getting closest to ultimate truth when I observe people accidentally doing the right thing with the worst possible motivations. That is pretty much all that I've decided the modal homo sapiens is capable of.

 

Quite obvious you're in politics.........

 

I use the PCGS inventory and a dozen or so sets in the hope that some idea will click. So far, I'm just a "pretty coin" collector.

 

You owe it to yourselves to go over to Angel Dee's website and look at them. The whole collection is imaged, they're all in PCGS plastic, and there is some simply outstanding color in the group.

 

It looks natural to me, but I've been duped before.

 

I learnt this hypothesis by watching "up close and personal" the work of the Pennsylvania General Assembly. 253 guys and ladies who are utterly convinced all virtue relies on their personal ability to retain their seats. Wow.

 

A skeptic would say it is highly unlikely to get that perfect rainbow toning naturally. It is possible, but easier to attain that pattern and those colors after experimentation. It's just too nice and looks AT to me.

 

I am in the nt camp - I have seen a few higher grade buffalo nickels with some nice color just floating in the luster.

 

Okay, here's one "plausible" history that I can imagine for the 1915-D nickel at the top of the thread, especially given that when you initially look at it, it could be mistaken for a matte proof, until you see the mintmark.

I can imagine a serious collector of almost a century ago who was a collector of then-current matte proofs who stashed away in one envelope both the original 1915 matte proof, with its tissue paper, and the best 1915-D he could get his hands on at the time. Remind me, were there S's in 1915, too? If so, there's likely a bangin' rainbow 1915-S out there somewhere too.

Now, fast forward to a more recent time, and someone discovers this dead guy's collection in the family safe and takes them to a numismatist to see if they're worth anything. He lies to the family, gives them a pittance for them, sends them to PCGS for slabbing, and the rest is history. Voila!

Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. (Especially the part about a dealer "stealing" them from an unwary family.)

 

There is no such thing as AT/NT, as you said....a coin is either market acceptable or not.

These debates/discussions will NEVER end!

 

Yes, ... and I am not personally bound to agree with the people currently making those acceptability rulings; I get to make up my own. By the way, all of a sudden we have "QT" - questionable.

 

I am in the camp that it is toned, and very nicely! The only thing that seperares this one from a toned modern pulled from a set is 101 years. Yes, this can lead to scepticism, I would have it in my collection.
Nice Buffaloe!