Featured The Slabbed (NGC/PCGS) AT-QT (Artificial/Questionable Toning) Thread

That’s a classic. Good movie

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Probably AT, but nothing screams it.

The TrueView image makes it look like one of a well known doctor's productions.

MA.

 

Interesting, are you allowed to name the person? I'm starting to get a little into toned Franklin's and that could be pretty useful to look at some of his examples.

 

I'm leaning towards MA. I would not doubt that it had been "helped" along though.

 

The Chicago guy?

 

Goes by Nick if it’s the same person mentioned on a CU thread?

 

Get in your thoughts before we call this one...

 

NT

 

I love these discussions, and toned coins can be quite attractive. I do question why it makes a difference whether or not the toning is natural or NOT. To me GDJMSP has made a very compelling argument in favor of enjoying the toning and paying for it if you wish. How can anyone, especially a TPG, tell the difference. The discussion, while enjoyable, seems to be much ado about nothing.

 

May someone explain to me what MA is?

 

Market acceptable. Like would it buy/sale if put up on the market. Would people have a desire to own it or not.

 

Coin 1 - Clad Dime (pg.1) - 2 (NT/MA) vs 6 (AT/QC)
Coin 2 - Franklin (pg. 1) - 3 (NT/MA) vs 7 (AT/QC)
Coin 3 - CBH (pg. 4) - 5 (NT/MA) vs 0 (AT/QC)
Coin 4 - Silv PR Ike (pg. 5) - 3 (NT/MA) vs 6 (AT/QC)
Coin 5 - Peace Dollar (pg. 7) - 6 (NT/MA) vs 4 (AT/QC)
Coin 6 - Ohio Silv PR 25c (pg. 8) - 0 (NT/MA) vs 11 (AT/QC)
Coin 7 - 1964 MS 25c (pg. 9) - 11 (NT/MA) vs 0 (AT/QC)
Coin 8 - 1974 Clad PR 25c (pg. 11) - 4 (NT/MA) vs 5 (AT/QC)
Coin 9 - 85-O Morgan (pg. 12) - 7 (NT/MA) vs 1 (AT/QC) *no points*
Coin 10 - 1890 IHC (pg. 13) - 7 (NT/MA) vs 3 (AT/QC)
Coin 11 - 1893 Col. Commem (pg. 14) - 10 (NT/MA) vs 2 (AT/QC)
Coin 12 - Silver 3c (pg. 15) - 7 (NT/MA) vs 0 (AT/QC)
Coin 13 - SBA (pg. 16) - 5 (NT/MA) vs 2 (AT/QC)
Coin 14 - Large Cent (pg. 16) - 7 (NT/MA) vs 0 (AT/QC)
Coin 15 - Franklin (pg. 17) - 0 (NT/MA) vs 14 (AT/QC)
Coin 16 - 1964 10c (pg. 18) - 0 (NT/MA) vs 10 (AT/QC)
Coin 17 - 1966 1c SMS 67*(pg. 19) - 7 (NT/MA) vs 0 (AT/QC)
Coin 18 - Silve 25c (pg. 19) - 10(NT/MA) vs 0 (AT/QC)
Coin 19 - Peace Dollar (pg. 20) - 0 (NT/MA) vs 10 (AT/QC)
Coin 20 - 1945 1c (pg. 21) - 14 (NT/MA) vs 0 (AT/QC)
Coin 21 - 1964 50c (pg. 22) - 6 (NT/MA) vs 5 (AT/QC)
Coin 22 - Peace $1 (pg. 23) - 6 (NT/MA) vs 3 (AT/QC)
Coin 23 - Franklin (pg. 24) - 0 (NT/MA) vs 4 (AT/QC)
Coin 24 - Jefferson 5c (pg. 24) - 1 (NT/MA) vs 5 (AT/QC)
Coin 25 - Peace $1 (pg. 25) - 8 (NT/MA) vs 2 (AT/QC)
Coin 26 - 1947 10c (pg. 26) - 10 (NT/MA) vs 4 (AT/QC)
Coin 27 - 1940 Walker (pg. 27) - 7 (NT/MA) vs 6 (AT/QC)
Coin 28 - 1970-S Cent (pg. 28) - 11 (NT/MA) vs 0 (AT/QC)
Coin 29 - Roanoke Commem (pg. 29) - 5 (NT/MA) vs 2 (AT/QC)
Coin 30 - Peace Dollar (pg. 30) - 2 (NT/MA) vs 5 (AT/QC)
Coin 31 - Peace Dollar (pg. 30) - 7 (NT/MA) vs 1 (AT/QC)
Coin 32 - Long Island Commem (pg. 31) - 8 (NT/MA) vs 0 (AT/QC)
Coin 33 - New Rochelle Commem (pg. 32) - 5 (NT/MA) vs 0 (AT/QC)
Coin 34 - 1964 Kennedy (pg. 32) - 0 (NT/MA) vs 7 (AT/QC)
Coin 35 - Proof Franklin (pg. 32) - 6 (NT/MA) vs 2 (AT/QC)
Coin 36 - Wheat Cent (pg. 34) - 1 (NT/MA) vs 6 (AT/QC)
Coin 37 - Wheat Cent (pg. 35) - 7 (NT/MA) vs 0 (AT/QC)
Coin 38 - Franklin (pg. 36) - 1 (NT/MA) vs 12 (AT/QC)
Coin 39 - Franklin (pg. 37) - 1 (NT/MA) vs 7 (AT/QC)
Coin 40 - Mercury (pg. 38) - 10 (NT/MA) vs 1 (AT/QC)
Coin 41 - Silver Washington 25c (pg. 39) - 6 (NT/MA) vs 0 (AT/QC)
Coin 42 - Clad Ike (pg. 39) - 10 (NT/MA) vs 0 (AT/QC)
Coin 43 - Silver Kennedy (pg. 39) - 3 (NT/MA) vs 5 (AT/QC)
Coin 44 - MPL Cent (pg. 40) - 6 (NT/MA) vs 0 (AT/QC)
Coin 45 - Peace Dollar (pg. 42) - 4 (NT/MA) vs 6 (AT/QC)
Coin 46 - 1996 Nickel (pg. 43) - 0 (NT/MA) vs 8 (AT/QC)
Coin 47 - 1928 Peace Dollar (pg. 44) - 2 (NT/MA) vs 7 (AT/QC)
Coin 48 - 1955 Lincoln Cent (pg. 46) - 9 (NT/MA) vs 0 (AT/QC)
Coin 49 - 1963 Nickel (pg. 47) - 5 (NT/MA) vs 1 (AT/QC)
Coin 50 - 1955 Cent (pg. 47) - 1 (NT/MA) vs 4 (AT/QC)
Coin 51 - Walker (pg. 48) - 6 (NT/MA) vs 1 (AT/QC)
Coin 52 - Peace Dollar (pg. 48) - 5 (NT/MA) vs 0 (AT/QC)
Coin 53 - 2004 Lincoln 1c (pg. 49) - 0 (NT/MA) vs 9 (AT/QC)
Coin 54 - Capped Bust Half (pg. 50) - 5 (NT/MA) vs 4 (AT/QC)
Coin 55 - Indian Head 1c (pg. 51) - 1 (NT/MA) vs 4 (AT/QC)
Coin 56 - 1956 Franklin (pg. 53) - 10 (NT/MA) vs 1 (AT/QC)
Coin 57 - 1877-CC 25c (pg. 53) - 6 (NT/MA) vs 0 (AT/QC)
Coin 58 - 1953 25c (pg. 55) - 9 (NT/MA) vs 0 (AT/QC)
Coin 59 - 1955 10c (pg. 55) - 6 (NT/MA) vs 1 (AT/QC)
Coin 60 - 1962 PR 1c (pg. 56) - 1 (NT/MA) vs 6 (AT/QC)
Coin 61 - 1955 50c (pg. 57) - 1 (NT/MA) vs 7 (AT/QC)
Coin 62 - 1837 50c (pg. 58) - 6 (NT/MA) vs 2 (AT/QC)
Coin 63 - 1979 1c (pg. 60) - 1 (NT/MA) vs 6 (AT/QC)
Coin 64 - 1923 $1 (pg. 61) - 7 (NT/MA) vs 0 (AT/QC)
Coin 65 - 1962-D 50c (pg. 61) - 5 (NT/MA) vs 3 (AT/QC)
Coin 66 - 1877 25c (pg. 62) - 5 (NT/MA) vs 0 (AT/QC)
Coin 67 - 1938 50c (pg. 62) - 5 (NT/MA) vs 1 (AT/QC)
Coin 68 - 1960-D 1c (pg. 64) - 0 (NT/MA) vs 7 (AT/QC)
Coin 69 - 1943 1c (pg. 64) - 4 (NT/MA) vs 2 (AT/QC)
Coin 70 - 1962-D 50c (pg. 65) - 7 (NT/MA) vs 2 (AT/QC)
-----------------------

NT/MA: 44 total
AT/QC: 26 total

-----------------------
Points:

ddddd - 17
BlackberryPie - 3
Lehigh96 - 2
TheFinn - 1
EyeAppealingCoins - 1
Mainebill - 1
Morgandude11- 1

 

MA means the general market accepts the toning and it should theoretically get a straight grade from a TPG. QC is for questionable toning where it's generally considered suspect and should theoretically get a details grade from a TPG.

Usually it's hard to prove if something is natural or artificial, so we use these terms to define toned coins.

 

Great thread @ddddd
Glad see the new attendees.

 

This thread was started by @Lehigh96. His rules explaining the terminology is on the first page.

 

I have to give the credit for this thread to @Lehigh96
I may or may not have been part of a discussion that led to this thread though.

Edit: I'd also like to thank all the people that have taken part in this thread from page 1 as well as the new people that come along for the fun.

 

I wouldn't be surprised to find you had a part in it. I read all of your comments and find them very educational. You have contributed so much to this site that I appreciate and Thank You for all of it.

 

I'll admit that there were some fierce words and shots fired before this thread developed (and some of it wasn't pretty).

I do appreciate the compliment!

And we should also give props to @Lehigh96 for his many contributions.

 

I did miss that. Being there was an agreement in the beginning, My bad.

 

No worries.

Let’s get this thread rolling again. Anyone have something to post?