Natural Toning Versus Artificial Toning

Hmmm, never really thought about surface being the major difference between Morgan and Peace dollars as far as toning is concerned. Nice investigative work Gem!!
I guess thats plausible, as most of the theories ive ever heard revolve around coal being used 2 basin the dies (for Morgans) Different storage methods/different mint bags used/different silver. I always thought that the different thickness and design of the rims between the 2 might have played a part. Very interesting !!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Inquiring whether tarnish is natural or artificial can be impossible for the ignorant and extremely difficult for the TPGS professionals. While natural tarnish may take a long time to develop (I hate to break this to you as you're evidently just trying to learn the ropes, but you are going to encounter absolute rubbish from uninformed collectors), artificial tarnish exists and can be produced on a coin in seconds! When the tarnish is pretty, we call it toning.

As one member expertly showed, characteristics of the metal surface, its condition, the chemicals in the environment, and a time factor all play a role in determining how a coin tarnishes and what the tarnish it looks like.

 

We have an expression for that malady you're suffering from, we call it, "Being kind to yourself in your own mind."

One more big thing you're neglecting to grasp is these TPG "professionals," as you call them, aren't grading what, by their arbitrary and definitionless standards, they deem, "artificial tarnish." Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to shock you out of your sleep-walking so suddenly. Make that, "artificial toning." Yeah, that's the proper term. Forgive me, I don't know what came over me.

But the point is, they're not grading these coins.

Tell you what. Wake up. Just wake the heck up. You'll feel a lot better for it because you'll no longer feel obliged to defend these crackpot grading standards...

 

@eddiespin,

Let me remind you of what a brand new member of CT wrote to you:

@coldreach, posted on another thread: "You are cranky... I am here because I am reading the tread. I am a newbie. You have knowledge that I would like to know. I wonder why you are on this site if you do not want to share this knowledge. You "seem" to KNOW every thing , and you were kind of nasty to the last guy [Insider]. I Just hope you did not discourage him from collecting."

Again, let me reiterate something you'll eventually need to learn: "While natural tarnish may take a long time to develop, artificial tarnish exists and can be produced on a coin in seconds!

 

Trying to avoid professionally done artificial toning and dipped coins can make collecting difficult .

 

Let the facts reflect for all to see this is the member you're relying on now to do your debating for you and advance your ingenuous position...

 

Thank you for posting enough of his questions to show that the young fella you mistreated (in his opinion) was a brand new, uninformed "newbie" to this site looking for advice. He also was surprised at the way you treated me.

 

So would you support the TPG if they just used the term "Tarnish" and leave it to the end user to decide which it was?

They could use numbers such as for 'dies'
Tarnish Early Stage, Tarnish middle stage, Tarnish End stage" ? Tarnish is a friendlier word than "Corrosion, stage 1", etc., and it would make people who paid big bucks for it as NT drop the TPGs fast.

 

desertgem, posted: "So would you support the TPG if they just used the term "Tarnish" and leave it to the end user to decide which it was?

Great question. Unfortunately, I don't have any influence over PCGS, NGC, or ANACS - all considered the major grading services around here. As you know, many numismatic purists, chiefly one author and chemist (Mr. White) considers all oxidation (tarnish, toning) to be damage. The TPGS don't.

Nevertheless, as you have written, this type of "surface damage" occurs as a progression: "Tarnish Early Stage, Tarnish middle stage, Tarnish End stage. Tarnish is a friendlier word than "Corrosion." That's why Mr. White calls it damage.

The TPGS's and all of us need to decide what stage of tarnish we tolerate and whether it is beautiful or ugly. The better we all become doing this, the more people will agree with our opinion. That's the name of the grading game.

PS My statement that you quoted above was a response to a member who wrote: "... but witches don't exist anymore than artificial tarnish exists." Apparently, this member believes, and tried to convince a "newbie" that there is no such thing as a coin with AT! News Flash Eddie and the rest of you, both witches and artificial tarnish/toning/damage whatever we call it DO EXIST.

 

One, this "young fella" is a female. Two, this "brand new, uninformed 'newbie'" has a join date of May 22, 2006. Three, as regards the significance of those facts, res ipsa loquitur.

 

Wow, I wish I knew Spanish and Had a high IQ!

PS Even worse, you were very mean to a female!

 

Now moderators, will you please do your darn job, and fix this? Look at the string of messages I cited to in Post #47. If you need to verify that string of messages, it's the thread entitled, "2016 Lincoln cent MS68." Was I being "very mean to a female," there, or is @Insider just running off at the mouth with his dirt, again? I don't appreciate this, would you? This is how dirty rumors start. Why don't you get in here and fix this? That would be real fair of you. Sheesh!

 

Ok, the bickering has trashed this thread. I got enough info from those that contributed. Thank you. I'll start reading the other toning threads.

 

Go ahead. You don't have to announce it. Hope you learned something for it.

 

Now you ask??? You two started this, had plenty of places to stop, but couldn't resist as your anonymous persona couldn't bear the thought you had been disrespected. Until one or the other goes over the limits, there is nothing to be done, but both should go back and reread. Yes, both feel slighted, so when one of you step over the line, maybe both will, and then, finis. Who will it be.

Be cautious, Jim

 

I think when one goes from disrespectful slights to false, defamatory affirmations of fact, one steps over that line, Jim, and ought to be reprimanded for it. But then, I'm not a moderator, so who cares what I think?

 

I DO!

 

Eddie, if you had reported it rather than giving a rebuttal, the situation would have been more straight forward if any moderator had decided it was a violation. Once there were exchanges, and escalates, they are both partners in the situation, whatever the outcome of who started it.

 

Very good resource. Thanks for pointing it out!