Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Morgandude11, post: 3658213, member: 37839&quot;]Honestly, the merits of toning debate is old as the hills.&nbsp; As Paul indicated, and I agree with, and accept the FACT that toning is a patina on a coin, as a result of chemical change.&nbsp; Obviously, all coins are subject to chemical change, unless hermetically sealed in a vacuum enclosure against the environment immediately after mintage.</p><p><br /></p><p>&nbsp;Do folks honestly think that their 1870s or 1880s blast white coins are natural in appearance? In my many years as a Morgan collector, I have seen very few white Morgans that were not at least lightly dipped, to remove the “Battleship Gray” natural patina that comes with metallic oxidation.&nbsp; I say oxidation (natural chemical change), NOT damage.&nbsp; Granny’s silverware undergoes the same natural chemical change, and granny’s response is to polish the fine silverware.&nbsp; We don’t do this as an acceptable practice for coins.</p><p><br /></p><p>If individuals and TPGs want to reward toned coins for having a colorful, attractive patina, what is the problem?&nbsp; Some people love that patina, and will pay a lot for it.&nbsp; To those collectors, it is like a beautiful impressionistic painting.</p><p><br /></p><p>If TPGs wish to follow the eye appeal desires of toned coin collectors, and give a coin a bump for attractive patina, what is the big deal?&nbsp; I have seen Morgans getting a bump for being incredibly blast white, so the results are totally analogous.&nbsp; I say again, if one does not like toned coins, and sees that bump as overgrading, DON’T buy those coins.[/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