Why don't we use terms like "Intentional Toning"? Why do we argue intent?

You know, when left with enough time to think I can have some pretty silly thoughts and I figured that I might share this one although I hope it can be discussed rather than argued.

The terms "Artificially Toned" and "Artificial Toning" might better be replaced with "Intentional Toning" and "Unintentional Toning".

My argument is that all toned coins have toned "naturally" since the toning is nothing more than oxidation and oxidation is itself a natural process. Toning that is either lauded and prized by the collecting community, or scorned and treated with disdain at the end of the day is all still just oxidation.

The questions to collectors are usually "Is it attractive?" and "Does it look natural?"

My point is that I am wondering if we can get past whether or not the process has been aided or accelerated and just prize what looks good and what we like? Can we describe toning as "Intentional" or "Unintentional" rather than try to ascertain how it occurred?

Why do we have to constantly determine intent in order to describe our coins as "natural and pristine" when nobody can really tell? Aren't we just fooling ourselves? and possibly frustrating ourselves in the process?

What say you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I would say a lot of toning is either intentional or unintentional, but even in such a situation there would be room for AT. If a coin tones accoding to normal metal reaction, it can be either intentional or unintentional. However, there is another way to "tone" a coin, and that is by intentional deposition on a coin surface.

Maybe its not as big a deal, since many here could always tell, I am just saying there IS a difference between tonings. Some AT today is simply speeding up a natural reaction, other is intentionally placing "color" on the surface where it normally would never occur.

Just my view of it. I hear what you are saying, but in my mind there would then be 3 types of toning, unintentional NT, intentional NT, and AT with a foreign substance.

 

I would say that you have come to the same conclusion that the TPG's have come to after the same such consideration. The only difference is that your proposed vernacular is dangerous to your cause. If you are going to include the word "intent" in your description, you are sure to perpetuate the debate about how the toning formed. I like the current system and terminology employed by the TPG's. They use the terms "questionable toning" and "market acceptable." These terms achieve two things. First, they eliminate the responsibility of the the graders to have to determine intent which is impossible. Second, it simply classifies toned coins as either a problem coin (questionably toned) or a grade worthy coin (market acceptable). Now the critics of this system will argue that it will occasionally relegate coins that were not intentionally toned in the questionably toned category and some intentionally toned coins will be deemed market acceptable. And while I agree, I believe the current system best classifies the largest number of coins correctly.

 

Fair enough. I would agree errors are made on both sides of the judgment, but there isn't a better way I can see.

 

"Artificially Toned" doesn't mean chemically-induced and manipulatively-processed?

I suppose 'how it got that way' is the the all-&-everything to patina's value. Same with 'aged' Oriental carpets, no?

 

Mike, I agree with the premise in that intent, or how a coin toned is secondary to whether one likes or dislikes it for any reason. However, the reason why a coin may have been toned intentionally may be nefarious in multiple ways. If a seller is altering a coin surface for the intent of profit, is this not different from a person selling a coin that has naturally changed over time without assistance? The intent of the toner is paramount in redefining the concept.
Guy

 

That is a good point. All toning is "natural" unless the toning was created using an element that doesn't exist.

 

Many people can't tell a well made Chinese fake from an authentic US coin. Does that mean they shouldn't care about the difference if they can't see it? Ignorance is not an excuse to remain ignorant or blind to the fact that something may not be what it is represented to be. If intent is malicious then it is wrong, regardless of any argument one may concoct.
Guy

 

I offer an example of "unintentional artificial toning:"



I found this coin in my camera bag while looking for a lost bit of camera gear. I don't really remember putting it in the bag, but there 'ya go. This isn't a natural way to store coins, and I strongly suspect it would come back as a "details grade" if I sent it to NGC or PCGS, but it certainly wasn't intentional.