Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;medoraman, post: 1197857, member: 26302&quot;]So did I, but this just reinforces the conundrum of toned coins to me. I believe almost any toning can be either &quot;naturally&quot; occuring, or AT, or forced to occur. So......if the OP didn&#039;t MEAN for it to happen, is it NT? Or is a certain color pattern ALWAYS AT regardless of source? If the difference is intent, how to prove it? If its color patterns, aren&#039;t you penalizing a coin like the OP who did not AT a coin? Where is a boundary?</p><p><br /></p><p>This post is a poster child for the problem with paying extreme amounts for toning on a coin. If there cannot be an answer for this situation, then the same logic applies to all toning. Either you have to say the style of toning is the determinant factor, in which you are saying an innocent collector has just damaged a coin with AT without knowing it, or you have to say a persons INTENT is deciding when judging toning, which is unknowable. If toned coin colelctors wish to protect their market, (meaning high premiums paid for toning), and at first glance this coin looks AT, then I think they would be forced to say this toning is AT and damaging to the coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>Me? I like toned coins, and like the OP coin. I would buy it if it was priced like the past at a tiny premium over a white coin.[/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