Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;ValpoBeginner, post: 2732773, member: 77066&quot;]I&#039;m sorry but I respectfully disagree with you on toning being Tarnish.&nbsp; Tarnish decreases the value of a coin, while toning increases it.</p><p><br /></p><p>I would not use the words interchangeably. </p><p><br /></p><p>I think I see what direction you must be going in, a scientific one.&nbsp; In which case tarnishing and toning are the same process; the buildup of reactive chemicals on the surface of&nbsp; a metal. Many years ago,&nbsp; I used to be a chemistry minor in college. Please correct me if I&#039;m wrong, but I believe that you too are a science based person. After all, you are a Numismistist. Thus the PROCESS of both tarnishing and toning are one in the same. The RESULT of that process is what I am referring to. </p><p><br /></p><p>To the degree that the sulfur build up on the metal affects the coin and thus determines the color and opacity of this chemically bonded film on top of the reactive metal, the two terms are different.&nbsp; And Tarnish you cannot not see lustre through. Tarnished coins for this reason are incapable of being graded Mint State. Here is a definition of&nbsp; the word tarnish from the premier dictionary of our time, that I hope you will agree with. From the current Oxford dictionary of English. </p><p>[ATTACH=full]621949[/ATTACH] </p><p><br /></p><p>Perhaps it is not my place, as a neophyte collector, to be debating this terminology. But I believe that only through such opposing viewpoints, that the truth is eventually arrived at.&nbsp; I&#039;m only an amateur and you are the Numismistist. So I invite your rebuttal with all due respect.[/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