"End of roll" toning is also geometrically distinctive - something not seen on many modern examples. Here's a quick and dirty edition of cameonut's obverse (from above):
With a little time and patience it could be made much brighter.
@coinkat said:
Seems there will likely never be an answer to Boosbri's question that will satisfy everyone. I was unable to attend the ANA so I obviously did not see the coins. Toning and whether it is NT or AT is not always as black and white as we would like to assume. With respect to Peace Dollars, I can say that I clearly do not recall seeing many that have rainbow toning or just eye popping color. How and where coins are stored have so much to do with it. And there is likely a small surviving population that few collectors are able to see. So it is probable that when certain types of coins start fetching moon money or when they are found, the interest and perceived demand will bring more out from unanticipated sources. For a moment think of the commems that were housed in Wayte Raymond albums. I have personally seen some amazing Mercury Dimes pulled out of the inexpensive Whitman folders that graded 66 and above. At times it seems to the majority here that it is easier to just write and comment about what is not possible instead of what is possible.
So part of the issue with the question is perception along with personal experience with influences what is and is not possible in numismatics. There are coins still waiting to be found. And I believe this based on what I have personally experienced. And with Peace Dollars, considering the quantity struck and those that survive, there are likely some colorful examples...just not in the same quality or numbers as Morgans.
This is what DH had to say on the subject of toned/colored Peace dollars. I would add my own comment to the OP and say that the title could have been better as colored instead of colorful as the term colorful suggests color of a pleasing or desirable nature which is hardly the case.
Market supply and demand.
Once people saw the astronomical prices they were bringing they started seeking them out.
Look at these below that recently sold
We might change the discussion from NT/AT to MAT/MUT [market acceptable toning, market unacceptable toning]. Honestly, the NT/AT distinction is problematic.
To wit:
Isn't all paper roll toning artificial?
Isn't all album toning artificial?
Isn't bag toning artificial?
I would argue that it is "artificial" as the paper/album/bag are responsible for introducing an external chemical substance that results in the toning. But those forms of toning have been "market acceptable" even though quite probably "artificial".
@jmlanzaf said:
We might change the discussion from NT/AT to MAT/MUT [market acceptable toning, market unacceptable toning]. Honestly, the NT/AT distinction is problematic.
To wit:
Isn't all paper roll toning artificial?
Isn't all album toning artificial?
Isn't bag toning artificial?
I would argue that it is "artificial" as the paper/album/bag are responsible for introducing an external chemical substance that results in the toning. But those forms of toning have been "market acceptable" even though quite probably "artificial".
Great point! Then I guess we can agree that EVERY coin out of its original container/packaging since leaving the Mint (ballistic bags included) is CIRCULATED." See how easy it is to add complexity to what should be a simple discussion.
@jmlanzaf said:
We might change the discussion from NT/AT to MAT/MUT [market acceptable toning, market unacceptable toning]. Honestly, the NT/AT distinction is problematic.
To wit:
Isn't all paper roll toning artificial?
Isn't all album toning artificial?
Isn't bag toning artificial?
I would argue that it is "artificial" as the paper/album/bag are responsible for introducing an external chemical substance that results in the toning. But those forms of toning have been "market acceptable" even though quite probably "artificial".
Great point! Then I guess we can agree that EVERY coin out of its original container/packaging since leaving the Mint (ballistic bags included) is CIRCULATED." See how easy it is to add complexity to what should be a simple discussion.
AT/NT isn't a simple discussion. All pink/red hues on a silver dollar probably come from the SAME chemical compound. Only the silver part of that compound should have come from the original coin. For the sake of argument, let's say it is silver sulfide.
So, silver met sulfur. Where did the sulfur come from?
Well, there are traces of sulfides in hard water. Did it get wet? Is getting a coin wet "natural" or "artificial"?
The sulfur may have come from cardboard. Is a coin touching cardboard "natural" or "artificial"?
In both cases, the coin touched a chemically distinct item (hard water or cardboard) which was 100% necessary for the toning to occur. It's really not so obvious whether one MUST consider it natural or artificial. It really is more a question of what the market accepts.
And then there is the time issue:
I break open a Mint-sealed bag of bright white peace dollars and innocently put one in an album, come back 20 years later. Natural or artificial?
I put the peace dollar in an album and leave it in a sunny spot in the Nevada desert and come back only 5 years later. Natural or artificial?
I put a peace dollar in an album and put it in my oven at 250 degrees for 2 days. Natural or artificial?
I have then toned the coin using nothing but "acceptable" album cardboard but I did it over 3 different time frames. Is one or two of those methods "natural"? Are they all?
While I respect Mr. Hall and other numismatists whom I consider prominent, the one thing I have learned is that there are numismatic surprises yet to be found and they surface when you least expect it. And there is no numismatist that has a monopoly on the knowledge of what does and does not exist in small towns or safe deposit boxes that have been passed through generations with an indifference to numismatic significance.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@northcoin said:
Thanks for showing that photo. My guess is that if that coin (like most all rainbow toned coins) were tilted another way the impressive toning would look less stunning. Seems toned coins always look better in photos than in real life unless they are tilted just the right way to match the photographed view. Maybe having to tilt the coin to just the right angle under the right light is a price many are willing to pay?
I agree in general that many individuals use selective lighting, positioning, or other manipulations to make the coins appear more colorful then what they are in hand. With that said, I owned both of these in the past and can attest that neither is exaggerated. The pieces look like that at all angles.
@jmlanzaf said:
We might change the discussion from NT/AT to MAT/MUT [market acceptable toning, market unacceptable toning]. Honestly, the NT/AT distinction is problematic.
To wit:
Isn't all paper roll toning artificial?
Isn't all album toning artificial?
Isn't bag toning artificial?
I would argue that it is "artificial" as the paper/album/bag are responsible for introducing an external chemical substance that results in the toning. But those forms of toning have been "market acceptable" even though quite probably "artificial".
Great point! Then I guess we can agree that EVERY coin out of its original container/packaging since leaving the Mint (ballistic bags included) is CIRCULATED." See how easy it is to add complexity to what should be a simple discussion.
AT/NT isn't a simple discussion. All pink/red hues on a silver dollar probably come from the SAME chemical compound. Only the silver part of that compound should have come from the original coin. For the sake of argument, let's say it is silver sulfide.
So, silver met sulfur. Where did the sulfur come from?
Well, there are traces of sulfides in hard water. Did it get wet? Is getting a coin wet "natural" or "artificial"?
The sulfur may have come from cardboard. Is a coin touching cardboard "natural" or "artificial"?
In both cases, the coin touched a chemically distinct item (hard water or cardboard) which was 100% necessary for the toning to occur. It's really not so obvious whether one MUST consider it natural or artificial. It really is more a question of what the market accepts.
And then there is the time issue:
I break open a Mint-sealed bag of bright white peace dollars and innocently put one in an album, come back 20 years later. Natural or artificial?
I put the peace dollar in an album and leave it in a sunny spot in the Nevada desert and come back only 5 years later. Natural or artificial?
I put a peace dollar in an album and put it in my oven at 250 degrees for 2 days. Natural or artificial?
I have then toned the coin using nothing but "acceptable" album cardboard but I did it over 3 different time frames. Is one or two of those methods "natural"? Are they all?
Artificial would be adding a substitute color to the coin to mimic the real thing like adding a green dye to lime flavored jello to make it resemble lime. None of your situations represent an artificial situation. Natural toning is the result of a coin's innocent exposure to certain storage conditions be it bag, album or envelope. Placing coins in an environment which will give a predictable outcome that you can take financial advantage of then you can say that that's intentional toning, done on purpose for a specific reason which is usually to enhance the sale value of the coin.
I put a peace dollar in an album and put it in my oven at 250 degrees for 2 days. Natural or artificial?
I have then toned the coin using nothing but "acceptable" album cardboard but I did it over 3 different time frames. Is one or two of those methods "natural"? Are they all?
Artificial would be adding a substitute color to the coin to mimic the real thing like adding a green dye to lime flavored jello to make it resemble lime. None of your situations represent an artificial situation. Natural toning is the result of a coin's innocent exposure to certain storage conditions be it bag, album or envelope. Placing coins in an environment which will give a predictable outcome that you can take financial advantage of then you can say that that's intentional toning, done on purpose for a specific reason which is usually to enhance the sale value of the coin.
STRONGLY disagree - unless you are of the camp that all the coins are NT.
The coin doctors are NOT coloring the coin with a different substance, they are adding sulfur. That's why you can't do chemical analysis on a coin to determine NT or AT. All the coin doctors are doing on "AT" coins is accelerating the process.
So, you would say that if I put a coin in my oven with an intentionally high sulfur cardboard that the resulting 2 day rainbow toning is "natural"?
@jmlanzaf said:
We might change the discussion from NT/AT to MAT/MUT [market acceptable toning, market unacceptable toning]. Honestly, the NT/AT distinction is problematic.
To wit:
Isn't all paper roll toning artificial?
Isn't all album toning artificial?
Isn't bag toning artificial?
I would argue that it is "artificial" as the paper/album/bag are responsible for introducing an external chemical substance that results in the toning. But those forms of toning have been "market acceptable" even though quite probably "artificial".
Great point! Then I guess we can agree that EVERY coin out of its original container/packaging since leaving the Mint (ballistic bags included) is CIRCULATED." See how easy it is to add complexity to what should be a simple discussion.
AT/NT isn't a simple discussion. All pink/red hues on a silver dollar probably come from the SAME chemical compound. Only the silver part of that compound should have come from the original coin. For the sake of argument, let's say it is silver sulfide.
So, silver met sulfur. Where did the sulfur come from?
Well, there are traces of sulfides in hard water. Did it get wet? Is getting a coin wet "natural" or "artificial"?
The sulfur may have come from cardboard. Is a coin touching cardboard "natural" or "artificial"?
In both cases, the coin touched a chemically distinct item (hard water or cardboard) which was 100% necessary for the toning to occur. It's really not so obvious whether one MUST consider it natural or artificial. It really is more a question of what the market accepts.
And then there is the time issue:
I break open a Mint-sealed bag of bright white peace dollars and innocently put one in an album, come back 20 years later. Natural or artificial?
I put the peace dollar in an album and leave it in a sunny spot in the Nevada desert and come back only 5 years later. Natural or artificial?
I put a peace dollar in an album and put it in my oven at 250 degrees for 2 days. Natural or artificial?
I have then toned the coin using nothing but "acceptable" album cardboard but I did it over 3 different time frames. Is one or two of those methods "natural"? Are they all?
You STILL don't get it! Nevertheless, I'll answer your questions:
WHO CARES!!!!!
If YOU or anyone else do something to speed up a NATURAL CHEMICAL REACTION that may happen anyway (often with the exact same color and result) the toning is considered to be ARTIFICIAL!
However, If NO ONE ON EARTH except you is going to know one way or the other it is artificial toning that is Market Acceptable.
As soon as all the "Ex-Perts" stop trying to play God and stop trying to decide AT/NT because of circumstances involving time, intention, color combo's, and SILLY "WHAT IF" questions, all that will matter is the coin's "Market Acceptability." I don't care if a coin was toned in ten seconds by a coin doc using dangerous chemicals or if it toned in "grannies safe" over four decades! Look at the coin and take your pick because in just about every case only one person was around who knows the answer of how it toned and unfortunately, it was not you, me, or any other poster here.
@BAJJERFAN said:
Placing coins in an environment which will give a predictable outcome that you can take financial advantage of then you can say that that's intentional toning, done on purpose for a specific reason which is usually to enhance the sale value of the coin.
What if someone places a coin in such an environment, not knowing the predictable outcome?
@BAJJERFAN said:
Placing coins in an environment which will give a predictable outcome that you can take financial advantage of then you can say that that's intentional toning, done on purpose for a specific reason which is usually to enhance the sale value of the coin.
What if someone places a coin in such an environment, not knowing the predictable outcome?
Then it would be natural, same as the description I gave if you read the first part. If you put it there knowing what it would end up as and you want to get uber pedantic then call it intentional natural toning. Of course the person that you sell it to likely won't be able to tell which one it was.
I put a peace dollar in an album and put it in my oven at 250 degrees for 2 days. Natural or artificial?
I have then toned the coin using nothing but "acceptable" album cardboard but I did it over 3 different time frames. Is one or two of those methods "natural"? Are they all?
Artificial would be adding a substitute color to the coin to mimic the real thing like adding a green dye to lime flavored jello to make it resemble lime. None of your situations represent an artificial situation. Natural toning is the result of a coin's innocent exposure to certain storage conditions be it bag, album or envelope. Placing coins in an environment which will give a predictable outcome that you can take financial advantage of then you can say that that's intentional toning, done on purpose for a specific reason which is usually to enhance the sale value of the coin.
STRONGLY disagree - unless you are of the camp that all the coins are NT.
The coin doctors are NOT coloring the coin with a different substance, they are adding sulfur. That's why you can't do chemical analysis on a coin to determine NT or AT. All the coin doctors are doing on "AT" coins is accelerating the process.
So, you would say that if I put a coin in my oven with an intentionally high sulfur cardboard that the resulting 2 day rainbow toning is "natural"?
I think Insider2 answered your question. If you can't tell the difference then it doesn't really matter.
Then it would be natural, same as the description I gave if you read the first part.
I read the first part. It appears your position is that the exact same coin could be natural or artificial toning, depending on the intent of the person who put it where he did.
Then it would be natural, same as the description I gave if you read the first part.
I read the first part. It appears your position is that the exact same coin could be natural or artificial toning, depending on the intent of the person who put it where he did.
Exactly. Especially if you can't tell the difference.
I put a peace dollar in an album and put it in my oven at 250 degrees for 2 days. Natural or artificial?
I have then toned the coin using nothing but "acceptable" album cardboard but I did it over 3 different time frames. Is one or two of those methods "natural"? Are they all?
Artificial would be adding a substitute color to the coin to mimic the real thing like adding a green dye to lime flavored jello to make it resemble lime. None of your situations represent an artificial situation. Natural toning is the result of a coin's innocent exposure to certain storage conditions be it bag, album or envelope. Placing coins in an environment which will give a predictable outcome that you can take financial advantage of then you can say that that's intentional toning, done on purpose for a specific reason which is usually to enhance the sale value of the coin.
STRONGLY disagree - unless you are of the camp that all the coins are NT.
The coin doctors are NOT coloring the coin with a different substance, they are adding sulfur. That's why you can't do chemical analysis on a coin to determine NT or AT. All the coin doctors are doing on "AT" coins is accelerating the process.
So, you would say that if I put a coin in my oven with an intentionally high sulfur cardboard that the resulting 2 day rainbow toning is "natural"?
There may be a way to tell, but it might not be worth the effort.
You STILL don't get it! Nevertheless, I'll answer your questions:
WHO CARES!!!!!
If YOU or anyone else do something to speed up a NATURAL CHEMICAL REACTION that may happen anyway (often with the exact same color and result) the toning is considered to be ARTIFICIAL!
However, If NO ONE ON EARTH except you is going to know one way or the other it is artificial toning that is Market Acceptable.
As soon as all the "Ex-Perts" stop trying to play God and stop trying to decide AT/NT because of circumstances involving time, intention, color combo's, and SILLY "WHAT IF" questions, all that will matter is the coin's "Market Acceptability." I don't care if a coin was toned in ten seconds by a coin doc using dangerous chemicals or if it toned in "grannies safe" over four decades! Look at the coin and take your pick because in just about every case only one person was around who knows the answer of how it toned and unfortunately, it was not you, me, or any other poster here.
Which is EXACTLY why I think we should drop the AT/NT argument and go with "market acceptable"/"market unacceptable".
I put a peace dollar in an album and put it in my oven at 250 degrees for 2 days. Natural or artificial?
I have then toned the coin using nothing but "acceptable" album cardboard but I did it over 3 different time frames. Is one or two of those methods "natural"? Are they all?
Artificial would be adding a substitute color to the coin to mimic the real thing like adding a green dye to lime flavored jello to make it resemble lime. None of your situations represent an artificial situation. Natural toning is the result of a coin's innocent exposure to certain storage conditions be it bag, album or envelope. Placing coins in an environment which will give a predictable outcome that you can take financial advantage of then you can say that that's intentional toning, done on purpose for a specific reason which is usually to enhance the sale value of the coin.
STRONGLY disagree - unless you are of the camp that all the coins are NT.
The coin doctors are NOT coloring the coin with a different substance, they are adding sulfur. That's why you can't do chemical analysis on a coin to determine NT or AT. All the coin doctors are doing on "AT" coins is accelerating the process.
So, you would say that if I put a coin in my oven with an intentionally high sulfur cardboard that the resulting 2 day rainbow toning is "natural"?
I think Insider2 answered your question. If you can't tell the difference then it doesn't really matter.
Which is exactly why I suggested we drop the NT/AT debate and go to "market acceptable"/"market unacceptable"
Take it a step further and drop the binary determination with a "line" and instead assign an expert opinion of probability percentage to the toning's appearance.
While we're at it, drop the binary "make it or doesn't " strike designations for one area of coins and give strike a percentage too.
Most folks aren't equipped to understand nuance and probability though, they think in black and white.
All pink/red hues on a silver dollar probably come from the SAME chemical compound.
unless I have missed something for a long time the above statement reflects a gross misunderstanding of what toning really is. the color isn't a product of a certain chemical: sulfur isn't why a coin is blue, chlorine isn't why a coin is green, etc., etc. ---
the color we see is a result of the light refraction/reflection and the thickness of the "skin" formed by the silver reacting with a contaminant.
this is a silly argument that comes around all the time, gets argued in circles by members to attain their understood conclusion and then goes away for a week or two. no matter how eloquently it is explained it never gets settled. coins seem to end up in three groups: those that everyone seems to agree are OK, those that everyone seems to agree are bogus and maybe the largest group of all, those that everyone can't seem to agree on either way.
back to toned Peace Dollars.......................I have looked at thousands of Dollars, not as many as HRH, Morgan and Peace. it isn't unusual at all to find attractive Morgan Dollars, not "Monsters" or rainbow toned five-figure coins, just coins with appealing tone that looks nice. I can't say the same for Peace Dollars, they are usually brown/gold and sort of splotchy. I am not an expert but I have my suspicions as to why this is.
I put a peace dollar in an album and put it in my oven at 250 degrees for 2 days. Natural or artificial?
I have then toned the coin using nothing but "acceptable" album cardboard but I did it over 3 different time frames. Is one or two of those methods "natural"? Are they all?
Artificial would be adding a substitute color to the coin to mimic the real thing like adding a green dye to lime flavored jello to make it resemble lime. None of your situations represent an artificial situation. Natural toning is the result of a coin's innocent exposure to certain storage conditions be it bag, album or envelope. Placing coins in an environment which will give a predictable outcome that you can take financial advantage of then you can say that that's intentional toning, done on purpose for a specific reason which is usually to enhance the sale value of the coin.
STRONGLY disagree - unless you are of the camp that all the coins are NT.
The coin doctors are NOT coloring the coin with a different substance, they are adding sulfur. That's why you can't do chemical analysis on a coin to determine NT or AT. All the coin doctors are doing on "AT" coins is accelerating the process.
So, you would say that if I put a coin in my oven with an intentionally high sulfur cardboard that the resulting 2 day rainbow toning is "natural"?
I think Insider2 answered your question. If you can't tell the difference then it doesn't really matter.
Which is exactly why I suggested we drop the NT/AT debate and go to "market acceptable"/"market unacceptable"
@keets said: All pink/red hues on a silver dollar probably come from the SAME chemical compound.
unless I have missed something for a long time the above statement reflects a gross misunderstanding of what toning really is. the color isn't a product of a certain chemical: sulfur isn't why a coin is blue, chlorine isn't why a coin is green, etc., etc. ---
the color we see is a result of the light refraction/reflection and the thickness of the "skin" formed by the silver reacting with a contaminant.
this is a silly argument that comes around all the time, gets argued in circles by members to attain their understood conclusion and then goes away for a week or two. no matter how eloquently it is explained it never gets settled. coins seem to end up in three groups: those that everyone seems to agree are OK, those that everyone seems to agree are bogus and maybe the largest group of all, those that everyone can't seem to agree on either way.
back to toned Peace Dollars.......................I have looked at thousands of Dollars, not as many as HRH, Morgan and Peace. it isn't unusual at all to find attractive Morgan Dollars, not "Monsters" or rainbow toned five-figure coins, just coins with appealing tone that looks nice. I can't say the same for Peace Dollars, they are usually brown/gold and sort of splotchy. I am not an expert but I have my suspicions as to why this is.
Yes, thin film effect. Thickness of the layer matters. But that is a secondary argument. The toning is due to a limited st of compounds, oxides or sulfide typically. The sulfide tend to be the more colorful. That's why hydrogen sulfide is the coin doctors favorite compound.
@keets said:
I think it's the choice because sodium is so reactive, it works very fast, not because of what color it may produce.
That is not completely correct.
The point of the H2S, which does work fast, is to introduce sulfur.
And sodium won't do anything to silver. I'm not sure what sodium compound you are referring to. But sodium metal won't react with silver metal and neither will sodium ion. If you are using a sodium compound, is the other half of the compound that you are interested in.
@keets said:
I think it's the choice because sodium is so reactive, it works very fast, not because of what color it may produce.
That would be incorrect.
The point of the H2S, which does work fast, is to introduce sulfur.
And sodium won't do anything to silver. I'm not sure what sodium compound you are referring to. But sodium metal won't react with silver metal and neither will sodium ion. If you are using a sodium compound, is the other half of the compound that you are interested in.
He's likely referring to sodium sulfide aka liver of sulfur which is generally used as a solution in water.
@keets said:
I think it's the choice because sodium is so reactive, it works very fast, not because of what color it may produce.
That would be incorrect.
The point of the H2S, which does work fast, is to introduce sulfur.
And sodium won't do anything to silver. I'm not sure what sodium compound you are referring to. But sodium metal won't react with silver metal and neither will sodium ion. If you are using a sodium compound, is the other half of the compound that you are interested in.
He's likely referring to sodium sulfide aka liver of sulfur which is generally used as a solution in water.
Maybe, but it's still the sulfide that matters, not the counterion.
@keets said:
I think it's the choice because sodium is so reactive, it works very fast, not because of what color it may produce.
That would be incorrect.
The point of the H2S, which does work fast, is to introduce sulfur.
And sodium won't do anything to silver. I'm not sure what sodium compound you are referring to. But sodium metal won't react with silver metal and neither will sodium ion. If you are using a sodium compound, is the other half of the compound that you are interested in.
He's likely referring to sodium sulfide aka liver of sulfur which is generally used as a solution in water.
Maybe, but it's still the sulfide that matters, not the counterion.
Send me your Peace Dollars. I'll throw them in my EZ Bake Oven with a few hardboiled eggs from the girls and crank you out rainbow toners all day long.
Willing to save you hundreds maybe even thousands of dollars from purchasing your so called natural toners. lol
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
From working in semiconductors, manufacturing chip, the thickness of various films creates vivid colors. The chart above is just SiO2 showing that the same molecule totally changes color based on thickness. Also, the color, since the film is so thin, varies tremendously based on what the underlying material or color is.
Mix in other films, nitrides, oxides, copper, arsenic, boron, phosphorus, etc. and the colors go berserk. I had some good manufacturing specialists who could basically determine the thickness of a specific film based on the color coming out of a furnace, deposition tool, sputter tool, plater, etc.
This thickness is measured straight on. Tilt the wafer, and the relative thickness changes, (angle of incidence) thus the color changes. The thickness film on the chart above, 9900 angstroms, is about 1/10,000th of a millimeter.
Here`s a rock I found while exploring our local hill sides with my wife a few years ago... I have posted this before on here and I found it on a sandy gravel hill side many miles from any city or town or people for that matter... Took these pics the other evening for a friend of mine... AB
If the many beautifuly toned P$ that are deemed natural by us few P$ collectors were in fact AT, then there would be countless examples that looked very much the same. But in reality what makes toned P$ so appealing to me, is that they all seem to be rather unique.
@AuroraBorealis said:
Here`s a rock I found while exploring our local hill sides with my wife a few years ago... I have posted this before on here and I found it on a sandy gravel hill side many miles from any city or town or people for that matter... Took these pics the other evening for a friend of mine... AB
From working in semiconductors, manufacturing chip, the thickness of various films creates vivid colors. The chart above is just SiO2 showing that the same molecule totally changes color based on thickness. Also, the color, since the film is so thin, varies tremendously based on what the underlying material or color is.
Mix in other films, nitrides, oxides, copper, arsenic, boron, phosphorus, etc. and the colors go berserk. I had some good manufacturing specialists who could basically determine the thickness of a specific film based on the color coming out of a furnace, deposition tool, sputter tool, plater, etc.
This thickness is measured straight on. Tilt the wafer, and the relative thickness changes, (angle of incidence) thus the color changes. The thickness film on the chart above, 9900 angstroms, is about 1/10,000th of a millimeter.
At the risk of being called combative, isn't that a different issue?
SiO2 is a semiconductor. The band gap changes, changes the absorption profile. The absorption is going from red to blue in the chart resulting in the perceived color going from blue to red.
The thin film effect is an interference effect an the color goes from red to blue to black because the interference goes from blue to red.
@keets said: I think it's the choice because sodium is so reactive.
I think he just meant to say sulfur but I don't want to put words in my mouth.
LOL. Ha! Yes, H2S is more reactive than sulfur because of the oxidation state and the presence of the acid. But, again, it's the sulfur they are after.
You could make the same argument about oxide formation and increasing film thickness, but they don't seem to show the same range of color. It might be the way the layer forms but it doesn't seem to go red to blue to black as readily as the sulfides do.
Either way, my only point is that there is no chemical difference between an AT an an NT coin.
@AuroraBorealis said:
Here`s a rock I found while exploring our local hill sides with my wife a few years ago... I have posted this before on here and I found it on a sandy gravel hill side many miles from any city or town or people for that matter... Took these pics the other evening for a friend of mine... AB
At the risk of being called combative, isn't that a different issue?
Not combative. I was showing for a SINGLE molecule, in this case SiO2, the color changes multiple times across the full spectrum just based on thickness. The same full color range can be made for many elements or molecules just by varying the thickness. This is why the coin changes color depending on the tilt.
This was in response to the statement that the color was due to the elemment, not the thickness.
And yes, if needed, I could deposition SiO2 onto silver, to create rainbows. As we all know, SiO2 is merely rock dust, totally natural. No nasty sulphur or chlorides.
It's due to the interaction of the light with the thickness of the layers; the degree to which light is slowed through the films' molecules; the prooerties of reflectivity vs absorption vs scattering etc. of the surface, the amount of constructive-destructive interference which shifts wavelengths, and several other characteristics.
Like most interesting phenomena, Toning on Coins is complicated, and doesn't lend itself to blanket, glib, or trite pronouncements.
But no doubt, more are produced every day, of varying quality on purpose because collectors like them and buy them.
Most monster peace dollars are simply done by the best artists.
You STILL don't get it! Nevertheless, I'll answer your questions:
WHO CARES!!!!!
If YOU or anyone else do something to speed up a NATURAL CHEMICAL REACTION that may happen anyway (often with the exact same color and result) the toning is considered to be ARTIFICIAL!
However, If NO ONE ON EARTH except you is going to know one way or the other it is artificial toning that is Market Acceptable.
As soon as all the "Ex-Perts" stop trying to play God and stop trying to decide AT/NT because of circumstances involving time, intention, color combo's, and SILLY "WHAT IF" questions, all that will matter is the coin's "Market Acceptability." I don't care if a coin was toned in ten seconds by a coin doc using dangerous chemicals or if it toned in "grannies safe" over four decades! Look at the coin and take your pick because in just about every case only one person was around who knows the answer of how it toned and unfortunately, it was not you, me, or any other poster here.
Which is EXACTLY why I think we should drop the AT/NT argument and go with "market acceptable"/"market unacceptable".
I prefer leaving thing as is. Market acceptable coins are straight graded and other coins are called questionable color or artificial color. Besides, QC coins are straight graded and natural coins are called unacceptable ALL THE TIME - until they are sent in again and Bingo, the original opinion is reversed! LOL!
I've also told the story many times of 100% naturally toned coins and silver rounds that I pulled out of cobweb cover containers that NO ONE ON EARTH would believe were not done intentionally due to their colors. They are in storage in TN or I would post some coins you will never see!
@blitzdude said:
Send me your Peace Dollars. I'll throw them in my EZ Bake Oven with a few hardboiled eggs from the girls and crank you out rainbow toners all day long.
Willing to save you hundreds maybe even thousands of dollars from purchasing your so called natural toners. lol
Words, words, just words. Ho hum, please do us all a favor in the interest of education and lets see what you can do in the oven with the eggs.
@ACop said:
If the many beautifuly toned P$ that are deemed natural by us few P$ collectors were in fact AT, then there would be countless examples that looked very much the same. But in reality what makes toned P$ so appealing to me, is that they all seem to be rather unique.
Perhaps this is an important point. I should think that if we rounded up all the toned Peace dollars more of those that were naturally toned would look similar. Is this just a crazy assumption on my part?
Beginning about 10 years ago, several disreputable, greedy people recognized the fascination of people with shiny, rainbow colored coins, especially silver dollars. They saw a lot of such colors on Morgan dollars, and felt they could increase the market and make lots of money by coloring coins. They also decided to add Peace dollars, banking on the ignorance of most and the complete reliance to many on "TPGs" to do all the thinking for collectors.
They set up shop on the island of St. Kitts. They paid local green vervet monkeys to dab colored stain on silver dollars, then squat on the coins to make it look "natural." The altered, colored coins became so popular that the entire island population of monkeys was once employed - at 2 bunches of bananas and a coconut per day - to rainbow tone Morgan and Peace dollars to scam the unwary.
Comments
"End of roll" toning is also geometrically distinctive - something not seen on many modern examples. Here's a quick and dirty edition of cameonut's obverse (from above):
With a little time and patience it could be made much brighter.
I have little doubt that some, but relatively few, Peace dollars have toned naturally.
there, all fixed!!!
This is what DH had to say on the subject of toned/colored Peace dollars. I would add my own comment to the OP and say that the title could have been better as colored instead of colorful as the term colorful suggests color of a pleasing or desirable nature which is hardly the case.
https://pcgs.com/news/Coinfacts-Any-Peace-Dollar-With-Rainbow-Colors-Is-Artificially-Toned
Market supply and demand.
Once people saw the astronomical prices they were bringing they started seeking them out.
Look at these below that recently sold
$995 MS65*
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1922-GEM-RAINBOW-TONED-PEACE-SILVER-DOLLAR-NGC-MS65-STAR-BINION-PEDIGREE-RARE/233275216788?hash=item3650495394:g:tEQAAOSwgMxdErys
$593 MS64
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1923-P-MS64-Peace-Silver-Dollar-1-PCGS-Graded-Rainbow-Crescent-Toned/173837353295?hash=item287983814f:g:q8kAAOSwu4Jci69r
$575 ms64+
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1923-S-RAINBOW-TONED-PEACE-SILVER-DOLLAR-PCGS-CAC-ENDORSED-MS64-RARE-TONER/233287819465?hash=item365109a0c9:g:5AAAAOSwZ~ldCEDS
We might change the discussion from NT/AT to MAT/MUT [market acceptable toning, market unacceptable toning]. Honestly, the NT/AT distinction is problematic.
To wit:
Isn't all paper roll toning artificial?
Isn't all album toning artificial?
Isn't bag toning artificial?
I would argue that it is "artificial" as the paper/album/bag are responsible for introducing an external chemical substance that results in the toning. But those forms of toning have been "market acceptable" even though quite probably "artificial".
Great point! Then I guess we can agree that EVERY coin out of its original container/packaging since leaving the Mint (ballistic bags included) is CIRCULATED." See how easy it is to add complexity to what should be a simple discussion.
AT/NT isn't a simple discussion. All pink/red hues on a silver dollar probably come from the SAME chemical compound. Only the silver part of that compound should have come from the original coin. For the sake of argument, let's say it is silver sulfide.
So, silver met sulfur. Where did the sulfur come from?
Well, there are traces of sulfides in hard water. Did it get wet? Is getting a coin wet "natural" or "artificial"?
The sulfur may have come from cardboard. Is a coin touching cardboard "natural" or "artificial"?
In both cases, the coin touched a chemically distinct item (hard water or cardboard) which was 100% necessary for the toning to occur. It's really not so obvious whether one MUST consider it natural or artificial. It really is more a question of what the market accepts.
And then there is the time issue:
I break open a Mint-sealed bag of bright white peace dollars and innocently put one in an album, come back 20 years later. Natural or artificial?
I put the peace dollar in an album and leave it in a sunny spot in the Nevada desert and come back only 5 years later. Natural or artificial?
I put a peace dollar in an album and put it in my oven at 250 degrees for 2 days. Natural or artificial?
I have then toned the coin using nothing but "acceptable" album cardboard but I did it over 3 different time frames. Is one or two of those methods "natural"? Are they all?
There is a proliferation of toned peace $'s out there now and the number seems to be rising.
While I respect Mr. Hall and other numismatists whom I consider prominent, the one thing I have learned is that there are numismatic surprises yet to be found and they surface when you least expect it. And there is no numismatist that has a monopoly on the knowledge of what does and does not exist in small towns or safe deposit boxes that have been passed through generations with an indifference to numismatic significance.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I agree in general that many individuals use selective lighting, positioning, or other manipulations to make the coins appear more colorful then what they are in hand. With that said, I owned both of these in the past and can attest that neither is exaggerated. The pieces look like that at all angles.
Artificial would be adding a substitute color to the coin to mimic the real thing like adding a green dye to lime flavored jello to make it resemble lime. None of your situations represent an artificial situation. Natural toning is the result of a coin's innocent exposure to certain storage conditions be it bag, album or envelope. Placing coins in an environment which will give a predictable outcome that you can take financial advantage of then you can say that that's intentional toning, done on purpose for a specific reason which is usually to enhance the sale value of the coin.
STRONGLY disagree - unless you are of the camp that all the coins are NT.
The coin doctors are NOT coloring the coin with a different substance, they are adding sulfur. That's why you can't do chemical analysis on a coin to determine NT or AT. All the coin doctors are doing on "AT" coins is accelerating the process.
So, you would say that if I put a coin in my oven with an intentionally high sulfur cardboard that the resulting 2 day rainbow toning is "natural"?
You STILL don't get it! Nevertheless, I'll answer your questions:
WHO CARES!!!!!
If YOU or anyone else do something to speed up a NATURAL CHEMICAL REACTION that may happen anyway (often with the exact same color and result) the toning is considered to be ARTIFICIAL!
However, If NO ONE ON EARTH except you is going to know one way or the other it is artificial toning that is Market Acceptable.
As soon as all the "Ex-Perts" stop trying to play God and stop trying to decide AT/NT because of circumstances involving time, intention, color combo's, and SILLY "WHAT IF" questions, all that will matter is the coin's "Market Acceptability." I don't care if a coin was toned in ten seconds by a coin doc using dangerous chemicals or if it toned in "grannies safe" over four decades! Look at the coin and take your pick because in just about every case only one person was around who knows the answer of how it toned and unfortunately, it was not you, me, or any other poster here.
What if someone places a coin in such an environment, not knowing the predictable outcome?
Then it would be natural, same as the description I gave if you read the first part. If you put it there knowing what it would end up as and you want to get uber pedantic then call it intentional natural toning. Of course the person that you sell it to likely won't be able to tell which one it was.
I think Insider2 answered your question. If you can't tell the difference then it doesn't really matter.
I read the first part. It appears your position is that the exact same coin could be natural or artificial toning, depending on the intent of the person who put it where he did.
Exactly. Especially if you can't tell the difference.
There may be a way to tell, but it might not be worth the effort.
Which is EXACTLY why I think we should drop the AT/NT argument and go with "market acceptable"/"market unacceptable".
Which is exactly why I suggested we drop the NT/AT debate and go to "market acceptable"/"market unacceptable"
Take it a step further and drop the binary determination with a "line" and instead assign an expert opinion of probability percentage to the toning's appearance.
While we're at it, drop the binary "make it or doesn't " strike designations for one area of coins and give strike a percentage too.
Most folks aren't equipped to understand nuance and probability though, they think in black and white.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
All pink/red hues on a silver dollar probably come from the SAME chemical compound.
unless I have missed something for a long time the above statement reflects a gross misunderstanding of what toning really is. the color isn't a product of a certain chemical: sulfur isn't why a coin is blue, chlorine isn't why a coin is green, etc., etc. ---
the color we see is a result of the light refraction/reflection and the thickness of the "skin" formed by the silver reacting with a contaminant.
this is a silly argument that comes around all the time, gets argued in circles by members to attain their understood conclusion and then goes away for a week or two. no matter how eloquently it is explained it never gets settled. coins seem to end up in three groups: those that everyone seems to agree are OK, those that everyone seems to agree are bogus and maybe the largest group of all, those that everyone can't seem to agree on either way.
back to toned Peace Dollars.......................I have looked at thousands of Dollars, not as many as HRH, Morgan and Peace. it isn't unusual at all to find attractive Morgan Dollars, not "Monsters" or rainbow toned five-figure coins, just coins with appealing tone that looks nice. I can't say the same for Peace Dollars, they are usually brown/gold and sort of splotchy. I am not an expert but I have my suspicions as to why this is.
Consider it dropped then.
Yes, thin film effect. Thickness of the layer matters. But that is a secondary argument. The toning is due to a limited st of compounds, oxides or sulfide typically. The sulfide tend to be the more colorful. That's why hydrogen sulfide is the coin doctors favorite compound.
I think it's the choice because sodium is so reactive, it works very fast, not because of what color it may produce.
That is not completely correct.
The point of the H2S, which does work fast, is to introduce sulfur.
And sodium won't do anything to silver. I'm not sure what sodium compound you are referring to. But sodium metal won't react with silver metal and neither will sodium ion. If you are using a sodium compound, is the other half of the compound that you are interested in.
You can make oxides as well as sulfide, mind you, but sulfur seems to be both faster and more colorful, maybe because of layer thickness.???
In both cases, when the layer gets thick enough you'll be gray or black.
He's likely referring to sodium sulfide aka liver of sulfur which is generally used as a solution in water.
Maybe, but it's still the sulfide that matters, not the counterion.
yes tis
Send me your Peace Dollars. I'll throw them in my EZ Bake Oven with a few hardboiled eggs from the girls and crank you out rainbow toners all day long.
Willing to save you hundreds maybe even thousands of dollars from purchasing your so called natural toners. lol
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
Thickness of the film:
From working in semiconductors, manufacturing chip, the thickness of various films creates vivid colors. The chart above is just SiO2 showing that the same molecule totally changes color based on thickness. Also, the color, since the film is so thin, varies tremendously based on what the underlying material or color is.
Mix in other films, nitrides, oxides, copper, arsenic, boron, phosphorus, etc. and the colors go berserk. I had some good manufacturing specialists who could basically determine the thickness of a specific film based on the color coming out of a furnace, deposition tool, sputter tool, plater, etc.
This thickness is measured straight on. Tilt the wafer, and the relative thickness changes, (angle of incidence) thus the color changes. The thickness film on the chart above, 9900 angstroms, is about 1/10,000th of a millimeter.
Beautiful toned coins are bringing premiums like never before... Current auctions are proof! These are the elements in a Peace Dollar...............
Composition
I think it's the choice because sodium is so reactive.
I think he just meant to say sulfur but I don't want to put words in my mouth.
PCGS 66....A beautiful piece with what I call natural toning.
Here`s a rock I found while exploring our local hill sides with my wife a few years ago... I have posted this before on here and I found it on a sandy gravel hill side many miles from any city or town or people for that matter... Took these pics the other evening for a friend of mine... AB
If the many beautifuly toned P$ that are deemed natural by us few P$ collectors were in fact AT, then there would be countless examples that looked very much the same. But in reality what makes toned P$ so appealing to me, is that they all seem to be rather unique.
Looks AT to me. 🤣
At the risk of being called combative, isn't that a different issue?
SiO2 is a semiconductor. The band gap changes, changes the absorption profile. The absorption is going from red to blue in the chart resulting in the perceived color going from blue to red.
The thin film effect is an interference effect an the color goes from red to blue to black because the interference goes from blue to red.
LOL. Ha! Yes, H2S is more reactive than sulfur because of the oxidation state and the presence of the acid. But, again, it's the sulfur they are after.
You could make the same argument about oxide formation and increasing film thickness, but they don't seem to show the same range of color. It might be the way the layer forms but it doesn't seem to go red to blue to black as readily as the sulfides do.
Either way, my only point is that there is no chemical difference between an AT an an NT coin.
Without saying it... It was my point!
Not combative. I was showing for a SINGLE molecule, in this case SiO2, the color changes multiple times across the full spectrum just based on thickness. The same full color range can be made for many elements or molecules just by varying the thickness. This is why the coin changes color depending on the tilt.
This was in response to the statement that the color was due to the elemment, not the thickness.
And yes, if needed, I could deposition SiO2 onto silver, to create rainbows. As we all know, SiO2 is merely rock dust, totally natural. No nasty sulphur or chlorides.
It's due to the interaction of the light with the thickness of the layers; the degree to which light is slowed through the films' molecules; the prooerties of reflectivity vs absorption vs scattering etc. of the surface, the amount of constructive-destructive interference which shifts wavelengths, and several other characteristics.
Like most interesting phenomena, Toning on Coins is complicated, and doesn't lend itself to blanket, glib, or trite pronouncements.
But no doubt, more are produced every day, of varying quality on purpose because collectors like them and buy them.
Most monster peace dollars are simply done by the best artists.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I prefer leaving thing as is. Market acceptable coins are straight graded and other coins are called questionable color or artificial color. Besides, QC coins are straight graded and natural coins are called unacceptable ALL THE TIME - until they are sent in again and Bingo, the original opinion is reversed! LOL!
I've also told the story many times of 100% naturally toned coins and silver rounds that I pulled out of cobweb cover containers that NO ONE ON EARTH would believe were not done intentionally due to their colors. They are in storage in TN or I would post some coins you will never see!
Words, words, just words. Ho hum, please do us all a favor in the interest of education and lets see what you can do in the oven with the eggs.
Perhaps this is an important point. I should think that if we rounded up all the toned Peace dollars more of those that were naturally toned would look similar. Is this just a crazy assumption on my part?
OK.OK.....The truth can be told....
Beginning about 10 years ago, several disreputable, greedy people recognized the fascination of people with shiny, rainbow colored coins, especially silver dollars. They saw a lot of such colors on Morgan dollars, and felt they could increase the market and make lots of money by coloring coins. They also decided to add Peace dollars, banking on the ignorance of most and the complete reliance to many on "TPGs" to do all the thinking for collectors.
They set up shop on the island of St. Kitts. They paid local green vervet monkeys to dab colored stain on silver dollars, then squat on the coins to make it look "natural." The altered, colored coins became so popular that the entire island population of monkeys was once employed - at 2 bunches of bananas and a coconut per day - to rainbow tone Morgan and Peace dollars to scam the unwary.
@jmlanzaf said: "Either way, my only point is that there is no chemical difference between an AT an an NT coin."
Anyone disagree? I don't.
LOL. I'm not sure. Sometimes people agree with me very loudly. LOL