Well that is awkward....

Exactly that. I have a pretty freaky Type 1 1913 Buff, but no Jeffs worthy of mention, on color. Nice strong strikes, though. If DID have a colored Jeff, I'd be seeking to replace it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Can't answer that without careful definition of terms.

The answer to your second question is a nullity. Avoid it ALL!

 

What terms do you need defined? And whatever % you give me is going to be a guess, not a number based on statistics, so why not just guess. More important than how many coins that you think have been artificially toned by coin doctors is your plan to separate them from those that haven't.

 

Ignore. Them. All. All of them are damage I do not want in my collection. Period. Why can't you absorb that idea?

 

Wait, wait, wait! So you are so unhappy with the current solution to the AT/NT problem that your solution is to deem any coin with rainbow toning a problem coin? What about coins that have toning, but not rainbow toning?

Honestly, I'm surprised that you haven't gone full Weimar White on me and suggested that all toned coins should be dipped.

And listen, we aren't talking about your personal collection here, you can simply not include toned coins in your collection. We are talking about the way that the numismatic community addresses the NT/AT problem. IMO, ignoring all rainbow toned coins is not a realistic solution to the problem. Furthermore, it seems that you really aren't interested in solving the problem since it doesn't impact you personally. But as someone who is so involved in organizations like the ANA, I think you should be more concerned about problems that face the numismatic community.

 

Well, personally, I am fully "Weimar White". I attempt to avoid ALL toned coins. Sometimes, there simply are no choices at the moment. I consider every toned coin I have ever owned, a target for replacement or experimentation, and I mean that in the Dr. Mengele sense.

 

Yeah, but I'm asking you to treat this problem like you were the President of the ANA, not a personal collector.

FWIW, your personal philosophy reads something like this. I can't accept that 70% MIGHT be artificially toned (messed with), so I will dip them ALL to ensure that 100% of my collection is messed with.

 

But I am convinced that the popularized [white = messed with, toned = original] paradigm is SO FUNDAMENTALLY AND FACTUALLY wrong that the more numerous case is exactly the opposite.

And if I WERE ever the ANA President, and you may call this an early election campaign promise if you like, that 1) This is NOT some dealer organization, it is an EDUCATIONAL ONLY institution focused on collectors, and 2) color on coins is the sole business of people who do or do not like it, and they enter it at their own considerable risk. We WILL NOT get involved. "We don't negotiate with terrorists."

 

By the way, I have a new theory why my Dansco album ensconced coins are WAAAAAAAAY more chemically stable than my slabbed coins. I buy AND USE the anti-corrosion slip covers for each and every Dansco I own. Maybe that helps. The language on the covers sure is pretty about not letting corrosion elements in. And my albums are pretty much page count maxed out, too.

 

Because they were trying to get a 64+ or 65.

 

Would you agree that dipped = messed with?

Absolutes in numismatics are a rarity. Not all white silver and red copper has been messed with. Not all toned coins have been dipped or otherwise cleaned and retoned, or doctored.

 

No. But please understand. What I use to "dip" is NOT what 99.999% of this hobby uses to "dip". EZest is "messed with" (and messed up), yes.

Yes, yes, yes, this. But that is not good enough, even as it stands true.

 

That isn't an acceptable answer to most collectors. The fact is that collectors struggle with the NT/AT problem whether they pay premiums or not. To refuse to address the issue under the guise that it means you have to deal with what YOU consider the unsavory actors involved in the hobby is not going to fly. If you want collectors to look towards the ANA for guidance, you have to actually provide it.

 

YES

 

The ANA is not, AND NEVER HAS BEEN, in the "guidance" business. It literally would be a violation of its Congressional (signed by a President) charter, and its IRS tax-free status, to become so. It may advocate on nearly NOTHING.

However, it may and does provide various forums in which its MEMBERS may advocate aplenty.

 

I consider education to be a form of guidance, and that is the context in which I intended my post to be read. The fact that you thought it was financial speaks volumes about your mindset.

 

The first requirement of any such attempt, IF it were made, and trust me, neither its Parliamentarian, not its Legal Counsel would EVER permit it, would be to be able to reach a consensus on the subject. Given the controversy surrounding the topic, this is and will always likely be, an impossibility.

Many members at the Capitol crank our impossible to pass bills by the hundreds. My boss does not. He ALSO holds the House record for bills passed into law under his name, but only since the Assembly's current size, and due to his longevity.

 

Their struggles are utterly voluntary and avoidable, by refusing to assign a non-zero value to toning, as I refuse to do.

(Actually, I assign it a negative number, but that's just to tweak your nose a little. No, wait, I DO even assign a negative number to toning I'm convinced IS natural.)

 

That sounds like the issue is too difficult to deal with so let's sit this one out.

I understand the criticism of our current system used to handle NT vs AT, but I really don't want to hear it unless it is combined with a proposal that would handle it better. Otherwise, its just complaining!

 

I have the better solution, for everybody. STOP PAYING FOR THE JUNK! If you can't take that simple and wise advice, you're beyond any help that I either am, or care to be, offering.