Poll: You throw some coins in a trunk...

LincolnCentMan · November 4, 2006 1:44PM

You throw some coins in a trunk for safe keeping, then decide to go ahead and put the trunk in the attic to get the trunk out of the way. A couple of years later, you remember those coins that you have up in the attic. You go dig out the trunk and open it up to find knock out toned coins. Are these coins AT?

-David

fengk · November 4, 2006 1:50PM

I think it wouldn't be considered as AT in the sense that we view it now. As long as there was no actual intention to tone the coins, most people wouldn't throw a fit over it. It may be a different story if the coins are toned the same way as injections and other methods of purposely toning a coin.

robertpr · November 4, 2006 1:55PM

There is no such thing as AT or NT, just Market Acceptable and Non.

Baley · November 4, 2006 3:52PM

Depends on what they look like; if they look ok, they're natural, if they look funky, they're AT

pharmer · November 5, 2006 1:20AM

"for safe keeping"-intent

Shamika · November 5, 2006 1:26AM

AT or not, if they look NT then they are "market acceptable". End of story!

bhartman35 · November 5, 2006 1:31AM

Not AT. If there was no intent to tone them, then that's natural toning, IMHO.

ricko · November 5, 2006 1:47AM

Since the thread is a repeat .. I repeat...
This discussion borders on the nonsensical... just how fine can a hair be split? Now AT depends on intent? Certainly artificial toning is intended... usually by the introduction of chemicals. However, if toning occurs in an album of a collector, than I guess that is AT as well, since they were placed there intentionally. What absolute rubbish. The argument progresses from the sublime to the ridiculous. Cheers, RickO

mgoodm3 · November 5, 2006 1:52AM

I agree with Shamika. I don't care if the coins were packed in a box with a chemistry set by tonecoin2003. If they look "NT", that's good enough. How can the distinction be made otherwise?

bhartman35 · November 5, 2006 2:14AM

<< <i>I agree with Shamika. I don't care if the coins were packed in a box with a chemistry set by tonecoin2003. If they look "NT", that's good enough. How can the distinction be made otherwise? >>

Whether anyone cares or not if something is NT or AT is a different issue. Presumably, the reason you'd care is because the intentionally toned coins look that way. But it's still the intentional act of toning that makes it artificial.

Let's look at this another way: Why would anyone care whether a coin was AT or NT? I don't collect toners, but my impression was that the whole point of the distinction was to find original, un-messed-with coins. And that, to me, screams intent.

SanctionII · November 5, 2006 2:43AM

I agree that calling a coin AT or NT by looking at the "intent" of the person who owned or had custody of the coin while it toned is crazy.

How does one define "intent"?

Is it when the person puts chemicals on the coin to change its color so that it can be sold at a higher price?

Is it that a person made the choice to put the coin in a Whitman album at 7 years of age and 35 years later opened the album and sees a toned coin? [If so, I am guilty of being a coin doctor].

Market acceptable v. not market acceptable seems to be more in tune with reality; however, this way to determine AT v. NT only rewards the coin doctors who have the most talent in their craft [since they can produce toned coins which are market acceptable].

No easy answer on this one; and I presume that given the different wants, desires, tastes, etc, of each collector, there will be no end to the variety of coins which are available in the hobby.

Poll: You throw some coins in a trunk...

Comments

Leave a Comment