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

I think we were both proved correct in that there are definitely more AT coins in than I expected, but they are mostly concentrated in modern series that I don’t get to see much.

FWIW, I don’t remember the fierce words. I enjoy vigorous debate and don’t hold anything against someone who defends their position as passionately as I defend mine. If there were any harsh words written, they have long been forgotten.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Ahhh I see, Market Acceptable?

 

Thank you

 

I see that no one has responded to my query as to why it makes any difference if the toning is natural or artificial. Could that be that the answer is that it makes no difference?!!! Nice to debate, but really of no consequence and nor should it be!!!

 

@Southpawdon I'm no expert on this and other members can reply with better definitions. IMO it makes a big difference if a coin is Naturally toned or Artificially toned. Natural toning usually occurs over a period of time and tones according to how the coin was stored (In an album, capsule, paper envelope, etc.). The toning pattern progresses in a certain order and the majority of cases enhances the eye appeal of the coin. Artificial toning can be applied to a coin in a very short period of time using different chemical processes, by heat, and many other methods. Usually done by a unscrupulous person to jack up the price. Take a look at the Sacagawea dollar posted on page 63 of this site. @ddddd posted a photo of the coin gassed (artifically toned) after it was slabbed by PCGS. Scroll down to the bottom of the page to see what it looked like went it was sent in to be graded. Which coin would you prefer to buy? There's many threads on Coin Talk discussing this issue. Try using Google to look at Naturally toned and Artificially toned coins. See which ones appeal to you and which ones don't.

 

Sorry @Southpawdon that I didn't get to your question. @thomas mozzillo gave a good answer.

I'll add that it does make a difference. Just like anything else, people prefer natural to artificial. Yes some artificial items (including coins) can be made well and compete with their natural counterparts. However, the majority of artificial items are just not quite equal to natural items.

Artificial toning often makes the coin look gaudy if not completely ugly; meanwhile natural toning can enhance the eye appeal and make a coin really stick out. It's not for everyone and no one is forced to pay a premium for toning. Some of us just enjoy it and believe it adds to the collecting experience.

 

Thanks for the responses, but it seems to me that there has been very enlightened discussion that suggest it is almost impossible to tell if natural of artificial toning has occurred. Then, shouldn't it be the appearance of the coin that determines both value and desirability? Thanks

 

@Southpawdon You should also start watching "The Toning Premium Thread Part 2"
It's a fun thread where a member will post a toned coin and the rest of the members are asked to guess the price of the coin.

 

I somewhat in a way feel that the distinction between some natural toners and artificial toners is somewhat of a fine line and can be nearly arbitrary. Now coins that were found toned in an OBW roll vs ones someone put in an oven have a strong distinction, say sunlight toned coins, ones that sit on a window sill and catch a tone through that. It could be toned through natural processes, as the sunlight helps speed the reaction between the metal and the materials around it, but it could be considered toned through artificial processes due to someone purposefully setting it there to tone. That's where I find it hard to tell. Anybody can set up a coin in exactly the right conditions to gather a natural tone, but then it would be artificial, or would it? You're right, it would be a good idea for a debate topic

 

It is true that some are almost too close to call while others are obvious (like the baked ones you mentioned). And there has been plenty of discussion on your other point about intent (and there will be more in the future; you'll see if a new thread is started ). Since it is difficult to determine intent, that is part of the reason for the term market acceptable. The toning could have been accelerated by replicating known "natural" conditions but it can still be acceptable in the market.

 

The appearance does usually determine the value and desirability. In many cases though, artificial toning will make the appearance inferior and so the value would go down. I also would not say that it is almost impossible to tell natural vs artificial. Yes there are quite a few examples that are difficult, but many artificial toners are obvious.

 

Very interesting. I see how the term market acceptable is rather useful and almost more accurate than standard AT/NT. Thanks for the response, I've learned a good bit!

 

I think that coin is a fraud, and who or what is going to stop PCGS? thier little system of thier buddies friends and relatives all comitting RICO !!!

 

RICO requires a concerted effort to commit at least two predicate offenses. What would those predicate offenses be and what evidence exists to support such bold allegations?

 

Not mine - from Coin Facts
PCGS 65 BN

 

QC
...something about it suggests heat/chemicals were applied...although messing with a semi-key date isn’t something I’d expect, this result (if indeed manufactured) will improve the market value

 

I am MA on this one. It could have sit in a type holder for a while.

 

Questionable.

 

I would lean towards MA but this is a coin that I would like to see in hand before making a final decision. I don't trust that photo.

 

MA