Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Dima, post: 24577052, member: 18037&quot;]Maybe.&nbsp; I always thought TPGs were pretty good at calling out artificially toned coins, but certainly possible they missed it.</p><p><br /></p><p>To me (and I could be wayyy off) it almost looks like it was held in an older cardboard album with tape - unfortunately, a relatively common practice back in the day from what I&#039;ve read.&nbsp; Look at the obverse, almost at 3:00 running horizontally to 9:00, you can see a slight difference in color.&nbsp; I think this could&#039;ve been remnants of tape.&nbsp; If it was held in a Whitman type cardboard book, it would explain why the reverse got darker; exposed to more sulfur by constant contact against the paper/cardboard. </p><p><br /></p><p>Again, I could be mistaken; always curious to learn more about the toning process and telltale signs of funny business and artificial toning.</p><p><br /></p><p>Also, re:&quot;putting the 57 number 4 instead of 3.&quot;&nbsp; I ordered them by date in the poll, but listed the &#039;52-S last since it doesn&#039;t have TruView (yet) <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in