Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;desertgem, post: 960213, member: 15199&quot;]If these are to possibly be used in legal cases, the phrase </p><p>will be interesting as it would eliminate &quot;dipping&quot; ( adding chemicals) which is probably done 1,000X more than adding chemicals for AT. Also there is no known <span style="color: Cyan"><span style="color: Red">objective test<span style="color: Black"> to distinguish the resulting chemicals from natural toning and well done artificial toning, and to add the philosophical difference between such things as &quot;accidentally&quot; putting the coin in a sulfur containing envelope and &quot;intentionally &quot; putting it into the envelope.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="color: Cyan"><span style="color: Red"><span style="color: Black"><br /></span></span></span></p><p><span style="color: Cyan"><span style="color: Red"><span style="color: Black">&quot;speed up&quot;, &quot;accelerate&quot;, have little relationship to AT/NT, as someone in the deserts of the west may have minimum sulfur in the air and take 20 years to tone, whereas some one living in an area where high sulfur coal or oil is used for heating or </span></span></span><span style="color: Cyan"><span style="color: Red"><span style="color: Black"> manufacturing </span></span></span>, may see it in less than 2 years.</p><p><br /></p><p>I think PCGS was correct to go after the physical alterations as that can be tested and validated by comparison of their coin laser ID process. If they had tried to use toned coins as a case, I would bet against them. IMO.</p><p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000"><br /></span></p> <p style="text-align: left"><span style="color: #000000"><br /></span></p><p>[/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