Can natural toning look like this?
Wahoo554
Posts: 1,151 ✭✭✭✭✭
This coin has a details grade for a scratch. Absent the scratch, would it be a risk for an AT designation (it seems a lot of details graded slabs only highlight one of several problems).
4
Comments
Looks NT to me. I am far from an expert though.
http://www.silverstocker.com
Anyone can PM me Any Time about Any thing.
I think it is NT
I'd vote AT for this one.
Dave
I vote fingerprint.
It can look that way, but it can also come from re-toning after a less than perfect dip. Whether or not you call the "natural" is up to your definition of the term. Personally I don't have a problem with it if the toning is attractive.
This coin was dipped and re-toned. It was bright white when I bought it 30+ years ago.
That coin (OP) should have straight graded anyway.
I love toned coins, but that one doesn't look right to me.
Natural toning, over time and without human help in any way, can look like ANYTHING.
I've personally seen colors and patterns on silver rounds and art bars thrown in buckets and left for years (cobweb covered) that are unbelievable. Folks have removed coins from safe deposit boxes, furniture, and all types of storage that are NT yet no one would believe. Consequently, they are often labeled AT by those who were not around.
If I just saw the obverse, my initial reaction would be AT;
if just shown reverse, I would have said NT.
Would someone AT just one side of a coin?
Not saying it is AT, just wondering...
Successful BST Transactions: erwindoc, VTchaser, moursund, robkool, RelicKING, Herb_T, Meltdown, ElmerFusterpuck, airplanenut
Yes, happens al the time and usually is done to hide something.
Tarnish can appear many different ways....all depends on the environment.... It does seem to look like it tarnished after a poorly rinsed dip.... Now, does that make it AT?? Not necessarily...This perennial debate over AT/NT is never ending....I just avoid tarnish... then there is no problem.
Cheers, RickO
To me the coin is AT, but to you it might be something else. Regardless, there is a well-known and fairly archaic method for getting silver to look that color intentionally and the method is definitely AT.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
NT. Here's the closest example I could dig up from my collection to compare.
AU53.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I see what looks like a die crack at 11:00 on the reverse. Is that the scratch? Otherwise I'm not seeing it.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Do you think my 140 year old Morgan can be NT? I'm wondering if it can get straight-graded.
Silver does cool and bad things when exposed to bags, summer heat and humidity plus time will make very exotic colors and very ugly color. I think it’s NT!
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/quarters/washington-quarters-major-sets/washington-quarters-date-set-circulation-strikes-1932-present/publishedset/209923
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/quarters/washington-quarters-major-sets/washington-quarters-date-set-circulation-strikes-1932-present/album/209923
Intentional or not, the toning had some kind of outside help.
Even discounting the fingerprint, the obv. is unappealing to me which may be affecting my opinion that it is AT. I find the reverse appealing though whether NT or AT.
- Jim
I think that must be the scratch. It isn’t my coin so I don’t have the benefit being able to look at it in hand.
That looks like of the work of a guy named unqiue and toned on ebay from 2008/2009 if i recall
Is the scratch on reverse between ST of STATES? or is that a die break?
I'm with Bill Jones on this one.
PROBABLY dipped and then left out to retone and they forgot to turn it over every few months.
it looks Market acceptable to me and I like the color. I don't like fingerprints but I'm not bothered by this particular one.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
Okay, @Zoins, and all the experts on toned coins...
Please, please explain the DOUBLE toning pattern on the reverse for many of us reading this thread. How does that happen?
Also how it lays on top of the coin with no pull away effect is another no go imho
Probably NT, but our hosts are tough on toning, so AT
BHNC #203
Ride away, Cavalier, ride away from this one!
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
It is difficult to properly address the keyboard when my eyes are bleeding from the above
There is an ongoing discourse between the executives and graders of PCGS,NGC and CAC about "ongoing developments" in, among other areas, identifying and classifying artificial toning by the results of certain techniques and technologies. Pictures are shared, as have been PH.D-level scientific studies/consultations. The least part of this may be that JA and I have discussed this many times, and I served as technical consultant to the PNG Coin Doctoring Definition committee at his behest. I've seen pictures of toning patterns that can't possibly exist, like the above, especially if you understand the science.
In the past, some have "gotten through".
Lately, some think that "whoever" "have thrown out the baby with the bath water".
This I can tell you from my "friends in low places": The TPGs are all doing a better job than ever at sharing and consolidating their knowledge of what's being done, how it's being done, and in some specific instances, who's been doing it.
I'd like to offer a different context than @TomB in regards to the "archaic" toning method that was first taught to me by Abe Kossoff in 1976, A fifth-grader's mail-order chemistry set could have supplied the ingredients for most of it. Myself, and all of my progeny, have graduated fifth grade, I was fascinated, but not challenged. It's mostly Arts and Crafts.
its technological evolution, and the current "results". In some instances, of combining Art and Science can induce sometimes astonishingly similar toning patterns to those from Mother Nature. ("It's all corrosion - @ricko - 1948). Sometimes market-acceptable and sometimes not. I've seen completely natural slammed because it's a match for the expertly produced that mimics the completely natural. Don't be confused. Sometimes somebody knows, other times it's "questionable" or "artificial". Mother Nature can produce funky-looking coins. I disagree with @Tomb, albeit with some understanding of his interpretation. Fair and balanced reporting requires that I've broken bread with him many times and admire his talents and his philosophy, and I could also marshal facts that plead the case from his viewpoint.
Per @insider2, "it 's usually done to hide something". I disagree on "usually", and can't quantify my alternative, "sometimes", but the intent to mask distractions is "quite often" the reason toning is induced. The bulls-eye Morgan (ROFLMAO) is pure gratuitous sizzle with no problems beyond its otherwise profound ordinariness. Many Artificially White coins were drab originals before they dazzled those who like "like-new".
I use this as part of my analysis of this coin. Dipped at some time in the past, stored in a way that produced toning some believe should not be considered "market-acceptable". I do know this, as would any other pro who's seen coin doctors' work and how they think. If you wanted to control the toning on this coin, you would thoroughly tone the reverse to obscure the scratch rather than leave it sticking out there in an open field. OTOH, maybe it's cleaned on the obverse, and/or since that's also where it's sustained more rub, so that's where the culprit concentrated his efforts. Though I doubt it. Not having seen this piece "in-hand", or, even if I had, I'm making an educated guess that many would discount since my opinion is contrary to currently accepted application of grading standards. So, while you might easily disagree with my opinion on this coin, don't discount what more might be had when you consider the technical and esthetic aspects of what I've described.
NT
There’s a lot of good stuff in the above post!
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
.> @Realone said:
They both are "shiny" and "white", but, in terms of scientifically measurable surface quality, the dipped coin has degraded through corrosion from exposure to the acid..
The newbie makes a lot of sense
What I am looking to learn/pass on/confirm is an explanation from a knowledgeable member (several have posted already w/o answering my question) is HOW this double rainbow occurs.
That asked, I am not questioning the authenticity of the toning. I see something on the coin itself in the double pattern of color progression that probably explains how this double ring happened.
I want to hear from toning experts and don't wish to post what I see.
PS I've posted, published, and taught my opinion of the AT/NT debate for years. For me, if it looks NT (I don't care how, who, how long, what, etc.) it is NT.
So, the coin is posted, the coin is certified, now can someone tell us what do they think the circumstances were to get the rings of color? I believe the answer is simple.
@Insider2 You do know the Morgan is in a questionable color designated holder?
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
Curious about how the luster is in hand on the the 79 good debate so far!
I realize I wrote about the 1835 CBQ in this thread and stated that I would consider it AT, but did not go further into the how of the reason. This coin looks very similar to what can be produced with liver of sulfur treatment. This method has been known for decades and has been used in numismatics and other antique-centered businesses. It can turn silver surfaces a light brown, deep gold, deep chestnut, navy blue or purple and can be used to make the color "to taste". In the mid-1990s I first started to note an enormous number of similarly toned CBQs and CBHs in Ch VF-Ch AU pop up raw in local shows and they were, as far as I can tell, oftentimes produced by this method. I had mentioned the method was "archaic", but that was not a slam on the method rather, it was a nod to its long and successful history of imparting color and darkening surfaces.
As for the Morgan dollar, I have no idea how it was done, but do not doubt for one second it was created recently. It is in a PCGS "Questionable Color" holder and has not been given a straight grade.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Nope. That didn't concern me at all.
I ONLY want to know how the toning pattern occurred. Since there were no answers, here is what I see. The rim and the wreath are basically the same color. Next to them, the surface turns reddish and then mostly yellow to greenish blue. That means there is a basic color progression from the high points to the low points. These colors are very intense and even - often a bad sign.
I think the coin was on a surface that contacted the high points while the field did not touch. This caused the double ring emanating from each high point - the rim and the wreath. Does that make sense?
liver of sulfur
Edited: Never mind, I see you beat me to posting it.
Couldnt make sense but the way the green looks at o o'clock and 2 o'clock is completey different shades of green. Just the way it lays on top of everything without a slight pull away effect is kindve a giveaway of AT
The half looks artificially induced and the Morgan looks downright silly IMO.
Your hobby is supposed to be your therapy, not the reason you need it.
Hard to say. Modern coins come out of the Mint with a film of oil on them, applied to planchets so that they go through the feeding mechanisms smoother. I do not know if they did that back in 1835. (Whale oil applied with a bellows?)
Also, this coin is circulated. Who knows what was on the surface when it was "set aside."
And, I suspect that dipping a silver coin subtly changes the composition of the surface, leaching out a bit of the alloy and leaving the surface different than when it left the Mint.
@Colonialcoin
LOL all you
wish. Then please 
answer my question. How was this double toning ring produced? Thanks in advance.
It's my personal opinion that the OP's coin and the Morgan are both AT.
Rick Montgomery of NGC and earlier in his career PCGS once said at a seminar that
they see a lot of AT added to NT coins to give them a better look.
That how I see this one. my opinion AT obv, More NT on rev.
Krueger
Coin from OP sold for $358 w/shipping. Pretty strong money considering it’s details grade. The scratch didn’t look bad. I imagine the price would have probably been much lower if the coin was designated QC or AT.
Here's the cert page and full TrueView for the 1835 Capped Bust Quarter.
https://www.pcgs.com/cert/36236138
The AT vs NT debate will continue forever until the knowledge of the process and materials used is disseminated to the end users. All too often in these threads someone says they know how a look is done and what is used to do it but refuse to actually say how and what. Fearful of persecution, afraid they will have let the cat out of the bag, I'm not sure why so many in the business keep secret the coin doctors methods and recipes.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Really? REALLY?
BTW, the best folks to detect most AT coins are the folks who can produce them if they wished. I'm not one of them.