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

On the proof set my question is whether the mint is still using materials that can cause toning? I know the mint sets can get a bit hazy and in the past Ikes got some target toning like on the 74 s. But what would cause target toning in modern mint packaging or is it just in the storage of the "lens"? FWIW I really like the design on the holder on these.

I lile it but seems too perfect and the same on all 4 coins...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

MA ...I agree with the others that it might have been accelerated or helped along the way.

@Razz with the 2009 Lincolns, the mint went back to 95% copper. I believe that composition along with the packaging is the cause of the toning. Some of these cents were also sold as part of the Lincoln Coin and Chronicles set. The packaging there is a felt/velvet material and is the explanation for some of the toners. The coins were each in capsules, but those weren't always sealed tightly (or could have opened while in transit). My set acquired some toning too (although not right away) but it was unattractive.

See picture of packaging here:

http://news.coinupdate.com/united-states-mint-lincoln-coin-chronicles-set-1877/

 

MA, with some help from the paper. I agree that the capsules are far from airtight. Chemicals from the paper stock accelerated the natural process. Given the finish of the cents, the result is that toning, which can be either attractive, or unspectacular. I like this toning.

 

Probably put them on a window sill or on their dashboard and let them cook for awhile heat up the packaging and let the chemicals and sulfur out

 

AT/QC

 

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)
Coin 71 - 1931-S 1c (pg. 67) - 4 (NT/MA) vs 2 (AT/QC)
Coin 72 - 1950-D 5c (pg. 67) - 6 (NT/MA) vs 0 (AT/QC)
Coin 73 - 1948-D 5c (pg. 67) - 6 (NT/MA) vs 0 (AT/QC)
Coin 74 - 1974 50c (pg. 69) - 0 (NT/MA) vs 8 (AT/QC)
Coin 75 - 2007-S 1c (pg. 69) - 5 (NT/MA) vs 1 (AT/QC)
Coin(s) 76 - 2009-S 1c Set (pg. 70) - 6 (NT/MA) vs 1 (AT/QC)
-----------------------

NT/MA: 49 total
AT/QC: 27 total

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

ddddd - 18
BlackberryPie - 3
Lehigh96 - 2
TheFinn - 1
EyeAppealingCoins - 1
Mainebill - 1
Morgandude11- 1

 

Floor is open...

 

This is not my coin.

 

I'll just add that we used this one before, but it was before the upgrade and Legend sale.

I won't reveal what page it was, so that we can see what people think now.
Here is the slab shot from the holder prior to the upgrade.

 

I'll stick with my QC opinion (even if a certain TPG didn't )

 

I'm sorry. I didn't see it in your tabulation page. I must have had another "specialist" moment. This is the second time I've erred in one of these threads tonight.

 

No worries; it wasn't clear as I didn't specify the date in my table. I just remembered that one because it's hard to forget...

I think it's fine to use it and I'd like to see if anyone's opinion has changed since the last time.

 

AT/QC

 

I was on the fence till I saw the reverse. QT/AT

 

Both obverse and reverse are QT. Looks like chemical intervention to me. How did PCGS ever straight grade that coin? Looks obvious to me. Never have I seen a Morgan with that toning pattern occur naturally.

 

Wait, I thought Laura hated the crack out game. Still QC.
At least they didn't say the coin was gem this time around.

 

It only upgraded by a plus (64 to 64+) and the sale price only doubled (~4k to ~9k).

 

That's it?

Even with zero toning I would have that coin at a 63. There is enough evidence on the Eagle to keep me from a 64.

 

From those two appearances, yes; however, there is a back story here. The person who originally submitted this raw had it rejected by NGC and PCGS both multiple times before it graded after almost a year of trying. He finally ended up getting it in a PCGS MS64 holder. It failed CAC as a 64. It was then sold in a no reserve auction at GC where it fetched around $4k. Someone subsequently upgraded it to 64+, it stickered, and it resold in a Legend auction for almost $10k.

 

My point, this is grade flation at it's best.
We are seeing altered coins meet MS grades. These folks have only one interest and that is profit.