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

LincolnCentMan · November 4, 2006 11:32PM

You throw some coins in a trunk, then place the trunk in the attic for the sole purpose of toning the coins. After a couple of years, you go up to the attic, dig the trunk out, and open it to find some knock out toned coins. Are the coins AT?

-David

SilverEagles92 · November 4, 2006 11:35PM

If you throw the coins in the trunk with the express purpose of toning them, and store them in a warm environment where toning is the optimal product, then the coins were artificially toned. Now, if you dropped some coins in a trunk, didn't know they were there for a long while, and upon cleaning the trunk out, you found that the coins had toned, I guess that would be NT.

Bikingnut · November 5, 2006 12:05AM

You throw a thousand white Morgans into a canvas bag, put them in a vault in the basement for decades and later find that you have some very attractiely toned silver dallars. Are they AT or NT?

Dennis

anablep · November 5, 2006 12:34AM

Maybe we need to change the terminology to intentionally NT vs. unintentionally NT. How one would distinguish the two during grading is impossible, but for the sake of this argument, we can make that distinction.

Isn't all toning AT technically speaking? Coins are not naturally colored, so anything that happens post-mint, has to be AT, whether it happens "naturally" intentionally or accidentally.

The Statue of Liberty is green. Copper is red/brown. Is she AT or NT?

Baley · November 5, 2006 12:46AM

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

bhartman35 · November 5, 2006 12:55AM

They're AT. All toning happens by natural processes (whether they're environmental or chemical). The difference between AT and NT is the intent. If you put them in a box in your attic just to save them, that's NT. If you do it with the intention of toning them, that's AT. And no, there's no way to tell the difference, in that case. But it's still not NT, IMHO.

Shamika · November 5, 2006 1:05AM

NT or not, if they look AT then they won't be "market acceptable". End of story!

mach19 · November 5, 2006 1:11AM

Why would this make a difference?

lathmach · November 5, 2006 1:17AM

Lets look at this the way it'd happen to me.
I throw some blast white coins in a trunk, place them in my attic and leave them there a few years.
Upon retreiving them, they are all heavily toned.
But by then, collecting interests have changed again, and everybody wants blast white coins again.

Ray

goose3 · November 5, 2006 1:20AM

#4....they'd be Junk in the Trunk

pharmer · November 5, 2006 1:21AM

"for the sole purpose of toning"-intent

bhartman35 · November 5, 2006 1:34AM

<< You throw a thousand white Morgans into a canvas bag, put them in a vault in the basement for decades and later find that you have some very attractiely toned silver dallars. Are they AT or NT?

Dennis >>

That would be NT. You didn't put them in the bag for the purpose of toning them.

RNCHSN · November 5, 2006 1:35AM

Intent is NOT the deciding factor. Method is it, NOT intent.

I think ACCELERATING the process is the deciding factor; as in direct exposure to high levels of chemical and or baking them.

How many people bought Wayte-Raymond books to tone their coins beautifully? Are these AT coins? I think not.

JrGMan2004 · November 5, 2006 1:36AM

<< If you throw the coins in the trunk with the express purpose of toning them, and store them in a warm environment where toning is the optimal product, then the coins were artificially toned. Now, if you dropped some coins in a trunk, didn't know they were there for a long while, and upon cleaning the trunk out, you found that the coins had toned, I guess that would be NT. >>

By your definition, if I were looking at a coin, there is absolutely no way for me to tell between an AT and an NT coin...

ricko · November 5, 2006 1:44AM

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

bhartman35 · November 5, 2006 1:45AM

<< Intent is NOT the deciding factor. Method is it, NOT intent.

I think ACCELERATING the process is the deciding factor; as in direct exposure to high levels of chemical and or baking them.

How many people bought Wayte-Raymond books to tone their coins beautifully? Are these AT coins? I think not. >>

What method of toning is not "natural"? They all are. The only difference is the intent. If you spill a chemical on a coin (which has happened to me with change lying around), there's nothing artificial about that. It's a natural process. The speed with which it happens is irrelevant. What matters (and what everyone who debates whether a coin was AT or NT seems to be looking for) is whether or not the toning was put there intentionally. The reason something gets designated AT has nothing to do with the speed with which it was done. AT gets flagged because you can tell it was done on purpose.

And putting your coins in a book to preserve them sounds like NT, to me.

Gemineye · November 5, 2006 1:47AM

<< You throw some coins in a trunk, then place the trunk in the attic for the sole purpose of toning the coins. After a couple of years, you go up to the attic, dig the trunk out, and open it to find some knock out toned coins. Are the coins AT?

-David >>

Replace the word **toning*...to **storing**.......?!?!?!?
..It makes a world of difference.......!!!!!
The intent is the deed.......the result is debatable.

bhartman35 · November 5, 2006 1:49AM

<< 

<< If you throw the coins in the trunk with the express purpose of toning them, and store them in a warm environment where toning is the optimal product, then the coins were artificially toned. Now, if you dropped some coins in a trunk, didn't know they were there for a long while, and upon cleaning the trunk out, you found that the coins had toned, I guess that would be NT. >>

By your definition, if I were looking at a coin, there is absolutely no way for me to tell between an AT and an NT coin... >>

Just like a lot of other situations, it's often difficult to tell intent. But you have to admit that what collectors look for is whether or not it appears someone messed with a coin on purpose. NT can't possibly mean simply that it was done through a natural process, because chemical processes in and of themselves are natural.

BBQnBLUES · November 5, 2006 3:17AM

What if......

I'm buried with my entire coin collection.....

Years later my heirs dig me up to cash in on the coins.....

AT or NT ?

Bikingnut · November 5, 2006 10:51AM

That would be NT. You didn't put them in the bag for the purpose of toning them.

Yeah, but I think at times there is a fine line between AT and NT. Regardless of intent, the coins get toned by the same process.

JMO of course, and I am in no way condoning the act of ATing coins.

Dennis

53BKid · November 5, 2006 11:17AM

Gosh, this is such a fun topic! Certainly it always draws a crowd. Thanks.

DNADave · November 5, 2006 11:25AM

NT coefficient is directly proportional to time

AT coeffecient is indrectly proportional to time

pharmer · November 5, 2006 11:33AM

Very good, Dave. And I concur.

coinguy1 · November 5, 2006 11:37AM

In my opinion, they were artificially toned, whether they were accidentally or intentionally left in the trunk (edited to add: and attic). The reason is because they were stored by means other than those intended for coins.

bhartman35 · November 5, 2006 11:38AM

<< What if......

I'm buried with my entire coin collection.....

Years later my heirs dig me up to cash in on the coins.....

AT or NT ?

>>

1) You presumably didn't bury the coins to tone them, so the coins themselves would be NT.
2) You would definitely be NT (but I don't think that particular chemical process is as aesthetically appealing with humans.

)

IGWT · November 5, 2006 12:49PM

Natural toning is the formation of oxides, sulfides, or other compounds on the surfaces of a coin as the result of gaseous compounds that are present in the ambient atmosphere where coins are placed (1) for purposes consistent with their intended use in commerce, or (2) for storage in a manner traditionally accepted by numismatists.

Artificial toning is the formation of oxides, sulfides, or other compounds on the surfaces of a coin by any process other than that which causes natural toning.

JoeLewis · November 5, 2006 2:19PM

I don't mean to be rude, but this discussion is ridiculous.

All toning is the same. It all happens from the same chemical reaction(s.) There is no way of telling if a coin was intended to tone or if it toned without direct action taken by a person.

I really do think this AT vs. NT debate is one of the rare problems in numismatics that was actually created by US!

DNADave · November 5, 2006 9:02PM

<< I don't mean to be rude, but this discussion is ridiculous.

All toning is the same. It all happens from the same chemical reaction(s.) There is no way of telling if a coin was intended to tone or if it toned without direct action taken by a person.

I really do think this AT vs. NT debate is one of the rare problems in numismatics that was actually created by US! >>

All toning is not the same.

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

Comments

Leave a Comment