The Monster Toned Coin Game Thread

Is it a 6 relative to other Jefferson Nickels - but the colors come no where close to a 6 on the absolute scale as was proposed in the opening post of this thread. It doesn't matter if it's the best Jefferson toner in existence, that doesn't automatically make it a 6.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I thought that ppl were gonna rate my toning on the penny but oh well

 

have you ever seen green and blues on a penny? Also it looks like b/t 1 and 2

 

To add to that the war nickel is beat severely by grade. The 41-D is pretty much top pop and registry fever worthy with a full step, toning, and star premium. This is the type of coin that will pull moon money. It’s one grade from being a 5 figure coin. This is the type of coin that you see in a year in a 68 slab with CAC and hits the market. @Lehigh96 do you still own the coin? I have not seen your registry set in awhile but I remember this coin being in your top 5 and believe it was named “The King.”

 

The point that Paul and I were making is that Jeffersons are not capable of producing the same color patterns as Morgan Dollars can, as the metallic content is very different. I understand that there is an implied “absolute” scale, with the OP’s standards for toning on Morgans. However, I think some flexibility, and interpolation is required. That Jefferson is a maximum toned coin, in extremely desirable coloration. Using a relative evaluation, and comparing it to the Morgans requires judgement. I would agree with my other two collectors that from an absolute standard for that coin series, the Jefferson is a 6 Godzilla monster, by any collection standard. Penalizing it for not being Silver is silly, IMHO.

When it is my turn next, I will post a Franklin that is a similar situation—not toned in the same ways that Morgans necessarily tone, but maximum, in my opinion.

 

Sorry, got distracted. I give it a 2.

 

Colors are colors. Thin film optics are a physical process. The fact that Nickel doesn't tone like Silver means that nickel may not tone to a level higher than a 4 or 5 on an absolute scale.

It doesn't matter that it's a monster in the series (relative). You can only give relativity-based toning score ratings if you know the series. If we give absolute toning scores, you don't need to know the series. IMO we were supposed to be giving absolute scores for toning. That Nickel is not a 6 on an absolute scale - metal content or otherwise. Period.

 

Colors are colors. You are right. I love the colors on the Jefferson, as much as I like monster toned Morgans. So, to me, it is not absolute, but relative. The a Nickel is a 6 in my opinion, period.

 

When collecting something other than Morgan Dollars, do you ever compare them to Morgan Dollars? My answer would be no, I compare Jefferson Nickels to other Jefferson Nickels. You could make an argument for comparing Jefferson Nickels to Buffalo or Liberty Nickels since they are the same size and alloy, but comparing them to Silver Dollars and employing an "absolute" scale makes this thread basically a 20th Century Silver and Morgan Dollar thread.

The coverage of emerald green on that nickel puts it very close to a 6, even on the absolute scale. I can understand people calling it a 5, anything else is insulting. The fact that a war nickel with a negative eye appeal reverse pulled a 4.8 in this thread, and my 41-D pulled a 4.7 is insulting.

We get it, you are using an "absolute" scale. If we were supposed to be using an absolute scale, that was not adequately communicated in the OP. The only examples provided for the scale were Morgan Dollars so I assumed that was the scale for Morgan Dollars and that when a coin other than a Morgan Dollar was posted, people would use a relative scale to evaluate the toning on a coin with a different alloy and size.

 

Yes I still own it, and yes it is still the centerpiece of my collection and is still named the KING. Honestly, this coin belongs in an MS68 holder. I have owned 2 MS68 Jefferson Nickels in my life and this coin is far superior to both of them.

 

Yes, I have.

 

Oh ok so much long responses. It feels like that all my responses are insignificant to this thread

 

The relative versus absolute scale was discussed earlier in this thread. If you can read, you should have already seen it there. I get your arguments - but they don't make for a cogent argument. You can only assign series-specific (relative) scores if you know the series of every coin posted. For example, I have posted two coins that are foreign - you assigned them scores for toning, and I seriously doubt you know the series - thus, you have done the very thing you said you didn't know we were doing (i.e., assigned an absolute toning score).

The problem with relative assessments is that they are relative to God knows what. That series? That date within the series? That toning color combination? Relative scores of toning don't work in any consistent way.

I'm not going to harp any more on this, but it is humorous how people get defensive of their own coins posted, but can be so nonchalant and dismissive about other people's coins.

Knowing you're stubbornness historically, I don't expect any admission of a double standard. Carry on, and try not to be "insulted" by others disagreeing with your coins. As they say, ownership is always worth 1 or 2 points - I guess that applies to both grade and toning scale.

 

votes confuses me. I wanna know all the votes for my coin if it is in range b/t 1-10 then good more than that is bad

 

I can show you my toned Morgan that @One Mans Trash gave to me as a gift but I’m waiting 1 decade in the bag to mak it monster toned

 

I'll give the Lincoln cent a 2
(the picture is blurry, so I'm giving it the benefit of doubt)

 

oh
ok

 

As far as the scores, my initial plan was to focus on Morgans. So that definitely causes problems when we evaluate other series (and has led to confusion since I didn't specifically mention how to address such issues).

The best way in my opinion is to compare all coins to the Morgan scale. As @brg5658 says, it is harder to do a relative comparison to the series since we don't know the details for every series. We can talk about relative scores as part of the discussion and it will obviously still be a part of our individual scores (especially when someone knows a certain series better). With a few of my world coins, I did mention relative scores but my personal score was still based on my interpretation of the Morgan scale (which again can easily be quite different than someone else's interpretation).

And ownership (as well as other biases) will play a big role in the scores. Given that our sample size is pretty small, this can lead to significant variances. That is normal and we can discuss that too. That happened with my world coin and now it has happened with the nickel. The following debate (plus comments from people with different opinions) made me think about each coin. I might still not agree with some of the conclusions, but I do find it interesting to read.

 

I won't argue with your opinion here. As far as any toned Jefferson I've seen, I can't recall one better. So yes, I probably should have gone with a 6.

 

The pictures of the cent are too poor for me to rate it.