The Monster Toned Coin Game Thread

Ooooh, that obverse is so nice. But the reverse... meh.

Judged on the toned side (which is how I think we're supposed to do it), I'm going to call that a solid 5.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

My understanding is we're approaching this from an absolute scale (the way grading should be conducted). A 4 is a 4, no matter the series. Some series just won't ever get above a 4, and that's ok.

Same with grading - a 63 is a 63, and the same set of standards applies to Morgans and Lincolns and Bust Halves and Queen Anne Shillings. Some coins/series might never get a 63... and that's ok.

Relative grading, that is, applying a different standard and scale for each series, each date, each issue, is a never-ending road to confusion. At least, that's my opinion. Other's may vary...

 

We are just seeing it differently. I’ve looked at a fair share of toners and I stick with my assessment. This thread is useful as toners don’t have widespread agreement. I’ve been just as perplexed by some of your opinions on toners but it happens. That’s what makes things interesting.

 

I’d call the nickel a 5

 

5

 

Agreed with the meh on the reverse, though I’ve come to appreciate it as it lends to the originality of the coin as a whole. Considering how outlandish the toning is on this thing (Bob’s photos are accurate, it’s just as neon in hand) it’s nice that people see the reverse and think “wild album toning” as opposed to if it were blast white, I’m guessing many would suspect AT.

 

That nickel is lovely. I’m a 5 on that one. Just enough coverage and “pop” for a breakthrough to 5 from a 4.

 

Those pictures are not doing us any favors for assessment of the toning. Toned proofs are extremely difficult to photograph, and that axial method almost always makes a coin look flat and lifeless. Based on those photos, I also find the toning unsightly...but in hand it may be gorgeous. Thats why I didn’t feel comfortable assigning a # based on those pics.

 

I bought it using those photos and they seem good to me. I’m not seeing what you all are seeing to say that it’s unattractive. It’s variegated toning where the colors aren’t in a rainbow formation but instead are splashed throughout. It’s different from what one usually sees.

 

In a toning-scale thread.... that's a negative. Look at the scale that John E. Cash posted. Variegated, random, splashed colors are *significantly* less attractive than natural rainbow progressions.

Yeah. That's exactly it. They're splashed throughout like someone spilled something on the coin, rather than a natural toning progression.

..... And that's why we don't like it.

I've been dancing around it for several posts now. I'll come out and say it. I'm not convinced its natural. Something was applied to the coin. It was either cleaned and retoned in a funky way, or someone AT'd it. That toning is just not right.

 

It’s a proof coin so a lot more is possible based on storage methods. There’s plenty of AT in straight graded holders from modern era proofs and ASEs. This isn’t even remotely similar.

And variegated toning can be upper end and even monster toning too. A coin doesn’t need to follow a rainbow pattern.
Here is a great example of a high end variegated toner that I would rank right along many of the best toners.
http://www.jhonecash.com/coins/coin_show_archives.asp?cert=19204709

 

I'm not going to deny that there are high quality, naturally toned, original variegated toners.

I'm not going to deny that proof toners often have a different appearance than UNC coins.

I'm not going to deny that storage methods can play a significant impact on the future result of a coin.

I'm not going to deny that moderns, ASEs, and other coins may acquire toning differently/similarly/faster/slower/etc. than other coins.

The coin you link has *absolutely* no resemblance to the peso you posted. I'm not sure why you chose that example?

The point here is: that peso is distinctly unattractive, borderline AT, and not nearly anywhere near the rating you gave it.

 

Thing is, in the modern world, I've been buying coins from photographs, comparing coins to photographs, and learning to judge coins from photographs. I've learned to interpret photographs on coin forums. It's a skill I've been practicing for 15-20 years (to be fair, my first Ebay purchase was in 1998).

I know how to interpret a coin photograph, and predict what it will look like in hand. There's no way, short of a miracle, that the coin posted and I interpret as a 2 could magically turn into a 4 with better pictures.

 

Jason,

I wasn’t born yesterday, and I have been doing coin photography well for over 10 years (longer than you). You cannot interpret a coin from pictures like those presented of the Peso. They don’t show anything besides washed out surfaces and puddly toning. I have taken axial photos like those - they don’t represent anything like the coin looks in hand. That’s why most people don’t use such photos.

My comments were that the coin was unattractive based on those images. That’s an honest interpretation, and more helpful than the “I’ve seen it all and done it all, and I know exactly what that coin looks like” approach. You’re entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled to disagree.

 

Okay, peace. This is a very subjective activity. Here is another Morgan that I used to own. Yankee Coin resold this one in May. His pictures are pretty much like it looks in hand.

 

@Morgandude11

looking back at the scale and examples of Morgan’s in the OP, this one is a 2 for me. It’s toning, but it doesn’t really add much to the coin IMO. Colors are subdued and ho-hum to my eye.

 

I must have missed that instruction. The obverse looks high 4 or low 5, but the reverse toning has negative eye appeal, and just like we don’t ignore one side of a coin when grading, I don’t think we should ignore one side when evaluating toning.

Since I was on the fence between 4 & 5, the reverse brings that Jefferson squarely back to a 4 for me.

 

Did we finish the Jefferson Nickel? I’m at 3 on the Morgan. Nice coverage and bright pastel colors but it lacks the rainbow progression and deeper colors that toned Morgan collectors covet.

 

@CircCam ’s Jefferson from the prior page is still in play and let’s do the Morgan that @Morgandude11 posted too.

The Morgan looks like a 3

 

Sorry, I jumped in, as it was getting argumentative. I think we need to remember that toning and color are subjective. I, often, go for pastels in toning, as opposed to raging monsters. I would post some of the Golden toned Jeffersons that I bought from Paul, but they would probably be dismissed as 2 or 3. Yet, I consider them quite desirable.