White vs. Toned coins Discussion

erwindoc

Between the two, which do you think is more likely to get the plus designation?

Broadstruck

I hope patina isn't needed to get a + as white or toned shouldn't be a factor at all.

Insider2

Colorful toning of course.

skier07

I have two coins with a + designations and neither one has toning, but both have original surfaces.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Ronyahski

Toning no doubt.

ironmanl63

I do not think that either is more likely to get a plus then the other. It just comes down to the coin.

ColonelJessup

Didn't we settle this last week month year century millenium
Except for a few years when telemarketers could only sell white, toning is what has been most appreciated.
0.95 pt differential for visual impact that can't be quantified even if it appears that I am, 'cause it does

grip

stick ball with Willie Mays..Queens

DCW

Some toning tends to up the eye appeal, pushing the slab "grade" past what its technical "grade" should be.
And CAC seems to agree most of the time.

Dave99B

Toned.

Dave

DiggerJim

My personal opinion is toning should not be considered in the grade at all. I believe that I read on this forum that many many years ago toning was considered simply corrosion and did add any value at all and now look at what people are paying for the so called “eye appeal”. It’s insane!! I also don’t like the fact when I go into Coin Facts into the higher end MS grades on some of the coins they put toned coins in there. I have to look past all that crap to try and see the details of the coin. Really??

DiggerJim

MFeld

@Broadstruck said:
I hope patina isn't needed to get a + as white or toned shouldn't be a factor at all.

Plus grades, like many other grades, are based partly upon eye appeal. And it seems as if an attractive or beautifully toned coin is more likely to receive a grade bump for eye appeal than a color-free coin is. Accordingly, I’m guessing that your hopes are at least partially dashed.

MFeld

@DiggerJim said:
My personal opinion is toning should not be considered in the grade at all. I believe that I read on this forum that many many years ago toning was considered simply corrosion and did add any value at all and now look at what people are paying for the so called “eye appeal”. It’s insane!! I also don’t like the fact when I go into Coin Facts into the higher end MS grades on some of the coins they put toned coins in there. I have to look past all that crap to try and see the details of the coin. Really??

DiggerJim

If you read that about toning on the forum, it was an opinion and one that was and is met by a different opinion among a great many market participants. People have been paying large premiums for eye appeal (including colorful toning) for decades.

ilmcoins

Toned for sure!

Broadstruck

@MFeld said:

@Broadstruck said:
I hope patina isn't needed to get a + as white or toned shouldn't be a factor at all.

Plus grades, like many other grades, are based partly upon eye appeal. And it seems as if an attractive or beautifully toned coin is more likely to receive a grade bump for eye appeal than a color-free coin is. Accordingly, I’m guessing that your hopes are at least partially dashed.

That's what * stars are for as + pluses are for grade not eye appeal.

MFeld

@Broadstruck said:

@MFeld said:

@Broadstruck said:
I hope patina isn't needed to get a + as white or toned shouldn't be a factor at all.

Plus grades, like many other grades, are based partly upon eye appeal. And it seems as if an attractive or beautifully toned coin is more likely to receive a grade bump for eye appeal than a color-free coin is. Accordingly, I’m guessing that your hopes are at least partially dashed.

That's what * stars are for as + pluses are for grade not eye appeal.

Not according to PCGS: “"Plus Grades" exhibit exceptional eye appeal for the grade and constitute the top 30% of the coins in the grade.” See bottom of this page https://www.pcgs.com/grades

Broadstruck

@MFeld said:

@Broadstruck said:

@MFeld said:

@Broadstruck said:
I hope patina isn't needed to get a + as white or toned shouldn't be a factor at all.

Plus grades, like many other grades, are based partly upon eye appeal. And it seems as if an attractive or beautifully toned coin is more likely to receive a grade bump for eye appeal than a color-free coin is. Accordingly, I’m guessing that your hopes are at least partially dashed.

That's what * stars are for as + pluses are for grade not eye appeal.

Not according to PCGS: “"Plus Grades" exhibit exceptional eye appeal for the grade and constitute the top 30% of the coins in the grade.”

Okay missed that... No biggie I only buy non pronged older holder PCGS coins.

DiggerJim

@MFeld I understand your stance considering your alignment in the hobby but I consider myself more of a purist I guess.
Reference a piece from last months RCMR. After reading that I could not believe the spread in value. I am very new at this but IMHO I can’t see how either of those two coins can be called beautiful. And secondly, how do you find the degrees or levels of toning to determine value? I know I know, it’s worth what someone is willing to pay.
If anything, you all know what side of the fence I’m on.

DiggerJim

fiftysevener

Seems to me originality should be considered as much as eye appeal. By that I mean dipped white coins should not be put ahead of nicely toned coins that show luster (or mirrors for proofs) showing through the toning.

yspsales

Toning = eye appeal and worth a point.

winesteven

While not a scientific sample, most of my Type Sets and 1936-1942 US Proof Set consist of coins in plus grades (and all coins eligible for a CAC have one, except for one coin). While I purchased many of these coins with pluses already there, I’ve lost count of how many of my pluses have come as a result of upgrades (all from Reconsideration). While some of my coins have some light toning, most of my coins do not. On posts on this forum, I’ve very recently posted about significant value upgrades of an 1858 Flying Eagle Cent a little more than a month ago from 66 to 66+ (no toning), and just this past week a Capped Bust Quarter (very light toning) from 64 to 64+. My Registry Sets are open to public viewing, so you can see what I mean. I’m sure collectors with mainly attractively toned coins might have this same experience. My conclusion is like a couple of posters noted - if a coin merits a plus for being very high end for the grade, toning doesn’t make a big difference, one way or the other.

Ronyahski

@DiggerJim said:
@MFeld I understand your stance considering your alignment in the hobby but I consider myself more of a purist I guess.
Reference a piece from last months RCMR. After reading that I could not believe the spread in value. I am very new at this but IMHO I can’t see how either of those two coins can be called beautiful. And secondly, how do you find the degrees or levels of toning to determine value? I know I know, it’s worth what someone is willing to pay.
If anything, you all know what side of the fence I’m on.

DiggerJim

So how does a very new at this purist see beauty in a coin?

Walkerfan

Attractive toning.

Edthelorax

Eventually, i think they are going to have to come up with a way to quantify toning. Pricing brown proof 66 Indians as all the same is so antiquated. A nicely toned piece should be worth more than a red-brown, probably equal to a red IMHO.
It won't be easy as beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
It took me quite a while to evolve to the point I am at now. Not that long ago I thought the eye-popping of AT or re-toned dipped coins was impressive. As I understand more, I have come to appreciate a certain subtlety in natural toning. Generally the more I have to question if it's AT, the less I like it.

DiggerJim

@Ronyahski
So how does a very new at this purist see beauty in a coin?

There are so many types and designers with so much to look at for me now it seems endless. I am amazed at the details in the engraving that have been accomplished, by hand, long ago versus today’s digital world. I can appreciate some very very mild toning but looking at the examples above they are so over the top. The first thing I think of is that they are comical. And are they real? Im sure the veterans here may start to get bored and approve of the monster toning as they say.
Just look above at “Ben”. If given the choice and at those prices only, which would you choose?

DiggerJim

ricko

Tarnish vs. no tarnish... the debate has raged for decades on this forum and in the hobby. Fact - tarnish is environmental damage. Fact - many collectors like colorful tarnish and pay premium prices for it. Fact - the TPG's consider eye appeal when assigning a grade. Fact - eye appeal is opinion, more so than the technical grade. The final fact - Grades are subjective opinions and can change due to different graders, TPG's and lack of standards.
Collect what you like and enjoy the hobby. Cheers, RickO

MFeld

@DiggerJim said:
@MFeld I understand your stance considering your alignment in the hobby but I consider myself more of a purist I guess.
Reference a piece from last months RCMR. After reading that I could not believe the spread in value. I am very new at this but IMHO I can’t see how either of those two coins can be called beautiful. And secondly, how do you find the degrees or levels of toning to determine value? I know I know, it’s worth what someone is willing to pay.
If anything, you all know what side of the fence I’m on.

DiggerJim

![](https://us.v-cdn

My personal views regarding toned coins have nothing to do with my “alignment in the hobby”. I appreciate attractively toned coins now, just as I did when I collected as a child. However, I also like many untoned coins.

My appreciation is greatly enhanced in cases where coins have defied very long odds against time, environment and man. For example, in the case of color-feee coins, the odds of locating an original, color-feee Seated Liberty coin (as opposed to a more modern coin) of any denomination, are quite slim. Likewise, the odds of a toned coin displaying a spectacular, rather than ugly, neutral or merely pretty appearance, are also very long. The fact that a great many color-free coins and toned ones might appear to be natural but aren’t, doesn’t diminish my appreciation for the ones that are actually natural.

For me, it’s about the odds. And the coins - whether color-free or toned - that have somehow managed to defy those odds are often among the ones that are so special to me.

DiggerJim

I agree about the odds a coin faces to survive for decades or hundreds of years and still achieve a high MS grade especially living most of its life in the raw. And that is why they demand the money that is paid. So on a positive note the attraction to these eye appealing coins brings more interest to our hobby and I’m sure that is something we can all agree on.

Broadstruck

Well now it makes sense why CAC pays no attention to the + grade.