Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;medoraman, post: 1750300, member: 26302&quot;]Ah, a good old toning controversy thread. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>If someone likes the look of this neon colored ASE, well good for them I guess. Not any worst than Tuvalu issues I guess. People can spend their money how they see fit.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>As to NT-AT debate, it kind of highlights the fact that this hobby went on for over a century, ANY toning is damage. Yes, its almost impossible to keep a silver coin untoned for long, but that does not change the fact that toning is damage. So is dippping, which is what they used to do to most toned coins. Both are versions of damage, and what a collector should REALLY look for is a coin with the least damage possible. I used to collect toned coins back in the day simply because they were usually less damaged than overdipped white ones, but a white coin that was bright and lustrous was always worth more than a toned or dipped coin.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>This is the point too many newbies do not &quot;get&quot;. Its not necessarily the color that drives up toned coin prices, its the fact they are less damaged than most white coins, since most white silver coins 100+ years old have been dipped, (or overdipped), to make them white.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>If this had been a &quot;real&quot; coin, it would have made me very sad of course. Any intentional toning is by its definition intentional damage. To think people intentionally damage coins makes a guy sad, but of course has been practiced forever. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie3" alt=":(" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in