The Toning Premium Thread

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I like it ! Guessing it was very reasonably priced.... I'll say $5

 

Proof Jeffersons from the early 60's with rose to violet toning are a dime a dozen and carry very little premium even when certified. This coin doesn't appear to be a cameo and since it is raw I will assume it is middle of the road grade wise (PR65-66). I say $15.

 

I will say $9.

 

Deceiving photo . What Grade do you assign the coin Doug ?

 

$10

Nice looking proof, by the way.

 

Since Doug grades very conservatively, I am going to guess that he called this a 65. Then I am going to guess that in 2005 the market price would be about $3. Now, that leaves me to guess what he paid. How about $5.

 

I am sticking to my guns, $15.

 

Well , I'll say $1.00 U.S.

 

To be fair I think that people should guess what the market value was in 2005, or what is the point of all of this? To insult Doug? I know he is sneaky and will post items that may challenge peoples ideas, it just seems that people aren't serious about some of their guesses.

I for one am reading this thread and would like to know the value of a coin like this, and WHY it has a value of XXXXX. I know this is a common coin, but how can a proof Jeff get much better? I would guess $22 and I am a cheap.......person.

 

The cameo part rather surprises me and I am having a problem finding the market price back then. Just a stab - $20?

 

$8.50

 

Pictures are worth a thousand words.

 

Don't think I've used that one before....

 

$6.50

 

I hope no one minds if I backtrack to this image but I've been curious about it ever since and haven't had a chance to write.

I'm pretty good at interpreting photographs of coins but less experienced with toners. When I first saw this image I found the color attractive and relatively consistent across the obverse surface (save for the dings and scratches, of course). I never would have guessed that, in hand, Liberty's face is "charcoal approaching black." Certainly the face appears gray or grayish to me but no more—or not much more—so than, for example, parts of the field where the coin is not reflecting the source lights (such as at 9:30, noon, 2:30 and the date). In fact I would have ascribed the grayness of the face simply to the absence of these reflections, which is common in images of other denominations as well, such as the V nickel (i.e., parts of the face tend to appear darker than the field).

There is a bit less color in the face than in the fields, of course, but "charcoal approaching black" sounds extreme and has me doubting my own eyes. What would be the telltale signs distinguishing charcoal toning from the ordinary results of lighting? Thanks.

 

Well that brings up another extremely important point about toned coins. When you see a photo of a toned coin for sale, odds are that the photo is going to show the coin from the most positive angle. From my photo, it seems hard to believe that the coin is very dark "approaching black" in some areas, but if you saw the coin in hand, you would have no doubts.

As far as telltale signs, there is no substitute for experience. Personally, it takes me a few coins before I can accurately predict what a coin will look like in hand based on the seller's photos. Each photographer has their own style and are consistent in their methods of photography. This consistency allows you to predict what the coins will look like in hand. But you have to pony up in the beginning using blind faith.

 

Oh dear, I'll have to find another toned example . I'll post up in a bit.