I know it's only anecdotal, but I've had a few Peace dollars pick up some very nice album toning from sitting in my blue Whitman bookshelf album. Others stayed white the whole time. I also have a Peace in one of those plastic/cardboard savings bank holders that toned all kinds of colors, but not the same as a Morgan. They just don't tone the same.
Thanks, I'll count this as 1 of the remaining 1,006,472. Perhaps we'll get to see a rainbow 21 Morgan so it will become 1 of the remaining 44,689,999.
One explanation is that from 1904 until the next dollars were struck (1921) many changes took place that prevented the newer issues to become beautiful toners. YET, the more valuable Peace dollars are often seen toned ALTHOUGH toning was long out of favor after the were struck. Toned dollars were dipped!
Thanks, I'll count this as 1 of the remaining 1,006,472. Perhaps we'll get to see a rainbow 21 Morgan so it will become 1 of the remaining 44,689,999.
One explanation is that from 1904 until the next dollars were struck (1921) many changes took place that prevented the newer issues to become beautiful toners. YET, the more valuable Peace dollars are often seen toned ALTHOUGH toning was long out of favor after the were struck. Toned dollars were dipped!
Did you check out the link from Pcgs? The first three high condition coins they show have toning
@Zoins said:
Not sure if these qualify as "rainbow" as being discussed here, but I've across this sequence of Peace dollars recently: PCGS: 37810806 - 37810821. A few select coins are below.
@Zoins said:
Not sure if these qualify as "rainbow" as being discussed here, but I've across this sequence of Peace dollars recently: PCGS: 37810806 - 37810821. A few select coins are below.
@Zoins said:
Not sure if these qualify as "rainbow" as being discussed here, but I've across this sequence of Peace dollars recently: PCGS: 37810806 - 37810821. A few select coins are below.
No, I dont. Unfortunately, many people will. Blue and brown toners should be avoided at all costs.
I’ve been following an eBay seller “reputablediamondbuyers” who is selling a lot of AT coins in NGC slabs. Electric blue and purple crescent toning is their hallmark:
@Zoins said:
Not sure if these qualify as "rainbow" as being discussed here, but I've across this sequence of Peace dollars recently: PCGS: 37810806 - 37810821. A few select coins are below.
No, I dont. Unfortunately, many people will. Blue and brown toners should be avoided at all costs.
I’ve been following an eBay seller “reputablediamondbuyers” who is selling a lot of AT coins in NGC slabs. Electric blue and purple crescent toning is their hallmark:
@Zoins said:
Not sure if these qualify as "rainbow" as being discussed here, but I've across this sequence of Peace dollars recently: PCGS: 37810806 - 37810821. A few select coins are below.
No, I dont. Unfortunately, many people will. Blue and brown toners should be avoided at all costs.
I’ve been following an eBay seller “reputablediamondbuyers” who is selling a lot of AT coins in NGC slabs. Electric blue and purple crescent toning is their hallmark:
You made a statement about AT coins in NGC coins, followed by a colon. However, only one of the three coins you then linked was even graded by NGC.
I don’t disagree with your statement. I went as far back as their sold listings went. I have been watching them selling hundreds of slabbed coins with the exact same electric blue/purple crescent toning. These were the only examples I could bring up. I have mentioned them multiple times on this forum, so if you search, I’m sure you can find where I have mentioned them before (with many other examples).
@Zoins said:
Not sure if these qualify as "rainbow" as being discussed here, but I've across this sequence of Peace dollars recently: PCGS: 37810806 - 37810821. A few select coins are below.
No, I dont. Unfortunately, many people will. Blue and brown toners should be avoided at all costs.
I’ve been following an eBay seller “reputablediamondbuyers” who is selling a lot of AT coins in NGC slabs. Electric blue and purple crescent toning is their hallmark:
You made a statement about AT coins in NGC coins, followed by a colon. However, only one of the three coins you then linked was even graded by NGC.
I don’t disagree with your statement. I went as far back as their sold listings went. I have been watching them selling hundreds of slabbed coins with the exact same electric blue/purple crescent toning. These were the only examples I could bring up. I have mentioned them multiple times on this forum, so if you search, I’m sure you can find where I have mentioned them before (with many other examples).
Thanks.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Zoins said:
Not sure if these qualify as "rainbow" as being discussed here, but I've across this sequence of Peace dollars recently: PCGS: 37810806 - 37810821. A few select coins are below.
None of those look original to me. Even if they were original, the coins look dull and uninspiring to me.
Three of them are listed as AU and the fourth is noted as cleaned. Toned or color-free, I wouldn’t expect to be inspired by them.
AU coins can be beautifully toned, but I agree generally than anything less than Gem or Superb Gem is pretty boring for this series with rare exception
@jmski52 said: it just seems illogical to me that new colors would suddenly appear naturally on coins.
I don't remember ever seeing a toned silver dollar in the '60s or '70s. I think that the first ones I saw were in the mid-eighties.
I saw a few. No one wanted to buy them---collectors only wanted white coins. I also repeatedly saw some dealers dip silver coins while the customer waited (in the '70s).
It also makes no sense that Morgans are capable of toning and not peace dollars. In 1921, the planchets were likely identical. If the storage was different, what happens if you dumped your Peace dollars in the same canvas bag as your Morgan?
If there is a difference in older Morgan's, then the likely difference is planchet cleaning having changed over time or some other pre- or post-strike treatment of the coins. If that's so, should we call all toned Morgan's AT?
I wish you'd get over this recent obsession of trying to redefine the widely-accepted meaning of AT. It's really not useful or helpful (or valid) in any sense.
There is no widely accepted meaning. And the point about Morgan's vs. Peace is quite valid.
@btcollects said:
I have a background in metallurgical chemistry, too. It seems to me that it would be a real technical and scientific challenge to non destructively discern the differences between toning that takes place under natural conditions and toning that's accelerated. Paint, grease, epoxy, etc. are relatively easy to detect, but the difference between different species of silver oxides, sulfides, and chlorides - I don't know how you would even start with that project. My gut tells me that scanning electron microscopy might reveal more than XRF, OES, or ICPMS, that you'd want to use multiple instruments and labs to work out reliable calibrations, and that you'd need a lot of data to figure out what the curves of each salt looks like, if there's even any difference. We had SEM that allowed spot XRF measurements, but as far as I know, nobody is doing this work, so calibrations wouldn't exist. Interesting problem.
I agree with all of this.
There MAY be a morphological difference with accelerated toning, but it is no small task to determine it.
The other problem with any analysis: do we have a sample that is obviously an NT standard? And how many different recipes are there for AT?
@Zoins said:
Not sure if these qualify as "rainbow" as being discussed here, but I've across this sequence of Peace dollars recently: PCGS: 37810806 - 37810821. A few select coins are below.
None of those look original to me. Even if they were original, the coins look dull and uninspiring to me.
Three of them are listed as AU and the fourth is noted as cleaned. Toned or color-free, I wouldn’t expect to be inspired by them.
Does anyone else missing being a kid just starting out? Back then I could be inspired by a VF 1930s wheat cent found in change. Today, a 66 CAC Morgan makes me yawn.
@jmski52 said: it just seems illogical to me that new colors would suddenly appear naturally on coins.
I don't remember ever seeing a toned silver dollar in the '60s or '70s. I think that the first ones I saw were in the mid-eighties.
I saw a few. No one wanted to buy them---collectors only wanted white coins. I also repeatedly saw some dealers dip silver coins while the customer waited (in the '70s).
It also makes no sense that Morgans are capable of toning and not peace dollars. In 1921, the planchets were likely identical. If the storage was different, what happens if you dumped your Peace dollars in the same canvas bag as your Morgan?
If there is a difference in older Morgan's, then the likely difference is planchet cleaning having changed over time or some other pre- or post-strike treatment of the coins. If that's so, should we call all toned Morgan's AT?
I wish you'd get over this recent obsession of trying to redefine the widely-accepted meaning of AT. It's really not useful or helpful (or valid) in any sense.
There is no widely accepted meaning. And the point about Morgan's vs. Peace is quite valid.
It is in fact widely accepted that bag toned Morgans, mint set silver, and silver stored in albums for a long time do not fall under the heading of AT. In another thread recently, you floated the idea that all toning could be considered AT. I guess it could also be considered NT since chemical reactions are natural phenomena. Neither such extreme is useful in the practical discipline of coin collecting.
@Zoins said:
Not sure if these qualify as "rainbow" as being discussed here, but I've across this sequence of Peace dollars recently: PCGS: 37810806 - 37810821. A few select coins are below.
None of those look original to me. Even if they were original, the coins look dull and uninspiring to me.
Three of them are listed as AU and the fourth is noted as cleaned. Toned or color-free, I wouldn’t expect to be inspired by them.
Does anyone else missing being a kid just starting out?
@ likely difference is planchet cleaning having changed over time or some other pre- or post-strike treatment of the coins. If that's so, should we call all toned Morgan's AT?
I wish you'd get over this recent obsession of trying to redefine the widely-accepted meaning of AT. It's really not useful or helpful (or valid) in any sense.
There is no widely accepted meaning. And the point about Morgan's vs. Peace is quite valid.
It is in fact widely accepted that bag toned Morgans, mint set silver, and silver stored in albums for a long time do not fall under the heading of AT. In another thread recently, you floated the idea that all toning could be considered AT. I guess it could also be considered NT since chemical reactions are natural phenomena. Neither such extreme is useful in the practical discipline of coin collecting.
Actually, a "bag toned Morgan" has to be "original". I can bag tone a Morgan more quickly with an original back and a dry oven, but most people want to call that AT.
It is also inaccurate to claim that silver stored in alums do not fall under AT. Lots of coins have gotten the "questionable color" label from TPGS's. I know a dealer who had some ASEs all in the same cardboard holders that had toned with red/yellow toning. He sent them to a TPGSs in a couple different submissions. Some straight graded. Some got questionable color. All from the same source. The fact is that even experts can't tell.
A better example of the lack of a "widely-accepted" definition is the blue color on copper. Many feel it comes from detergents like MS70. At least one major copper expert believes the blue color is exposed by the detergent removing grime. There is no consensus on the sisue.
@Zoins said:
Not sure if these qualify as "rainbow" as being discussed here, but I've across this sequence of Peace dollars recently: PCGS: 37810806 - 37810821. A few select coins are below.
None of those look original to me. Even if they were original, the coins look dull and uninspiring to me.
Three of them are listed as AU and the fourth is noted as cleaned. Toned or color-free, I wouldn’t expect to be inspired by them.
Does anyone else missing being a kid just starting out?
This conversation is wandering all over the place a bit..... so I'll throw my two cents in.
When it comes to the toning differences between Morgans and Peace dollars, I suppose you could write a book on it. I wish Roger was still here. He had some information about differences in planchet preparation between 1904 and 1921. Also, IIRC there may have been some differences in the storage of those coins vs coins from the earlier era. If nothing else, they sat in the vaults for 17 fewer years.
Still, there are differences in the way 1921 Morgans and 1921 Peace dollars tone. There are also very real differences in between 1921 Peace dollars and the lower relief 22-35 issues that go beyond the relief of the design. The quality of the luster is different, for one. When they do tone, they seem to do it.... differently.
If you consider the microscopic crystaline structure of the metals, there are mechanical differences between areas that experienced high flow during striking and subsequently strain hardened more than areas where flow was minimal. I believe (but have no proof) that the chemical susceptibility of the surface to toning is different in these different areas. It makes sense..... think about it. Some designs tone really nicely and others are seldom seen with nice toning patterns. Some of it is attributable to storage, processing, and packaging, but some of it is probably inherent to the surface strain patterns on the coin.
This could easily explain why pull-away toning happens. On this photo you see it around the date and the star to the left of the date. Radial metal flow around sharp devices like this is quite high and presumably the mechanical properties of the metal in this area affected the ability of the metal to tone:
It's also, I believe, why a whisp of toning often causes the design to really pop. We're seeing a bit of a shadowing or highlighting as the toning varies subtly as it lays across the devices. I think this is why AT colors often look like they "float above the coin".
Now, with respect to the chemistry, one sulfur atom is identical to the next one so some of the arguments above are silly. Once the stuff is there on the coin it's impossible to prove how it got there. There are points here that are useful to consider though. Yes, thin-film interference causes refraction and pretty colors. I think everyone is basically OK with the physics behind this one. The distribution of the thin film over the surface of the coin can be very different between AT and NT processes. For one, consider elevation chromatics. The idea here is that toning differs in various parts of the coin based on relief. Why should that happen?
If a sulfur molecule in a cardboard album is lying in close proximity to the high point of the coin it has a higher chance of diffusing there than it does moving into the more recessed areas of the coin. On a microscopic scale, the difference in the distance the molecule has to travel is enormous. This sort of slow diffusion takes years, maybe decades to occur and is harder (not impossible) to replicate in accelerated ways. It is the slow, gradual diffusion of molecules across the surface of a coin that makes the layer ever-so-gradually thicker and thinner in some areas than others. It's the pattern of the toning that is important!
Mostly we recognize NT patterns from an accumulated empirical knowledge of what coins usually look like when they come out of old albums, pouches, or original packaging. Mostly we recognize AT patterns as "anything different". Like all subjective things, there are almost as many exceptions as there are clear-cut cases.
Now, when it comes to market acceptability...... that's just a study of human behavior, which is just like the world of fashion..... completely incomprehensible to this left-brained engineer/scientist/doctor.
Finally, for the record, I think the majority of the colorful Peace dollars on the market today had help. Not all of them, but most of them. I also think that in many cases it's impossible to know for sure.
So....people are suspicious but nobody can prove anything. Seems the takeaway is - if you choose to pay more for a color toned coin understand it may not be a rarity that occurred over 50 years - but something created over a short time. So you aren’t paying thinking “there aren’t many more like this around - it’s more valuable” but more “I like the look so it’s more valuable to me even if it was baked last month”
Jumping in to a long running thread... once Weimar White, et al, proved they could replicate almost any toning, ALL toning premiums could have gone away and didn't, so we will be forever stuck with the consequences. Forever, actually meaning until we go through another long cycle and dip all that stuff again.
Oh, one other thought. Most of the rainbow peace dollars I’ve seen are on coins that could otherwise be acquired for under 50 bucks. I wonder why I’ve never seen a rainbow 1928, 25-S, or 1923-S?
@BryceM said:
Oh, one other thought. Most of the rainbow peace dollars I’ve seen are on coins that could otherwise be acquired for under 50 bucks. I wonder why I’ve never seen a rainbow 1928, 25-S, or 1923-S?
Hmmmmmm........
I agree that cheap coins will be the first ones to be experimented on because losses are always minimal; however, in this context, there is an equally plausible explanation. In the 1970s throughout the 1980s, blast white coins were preferred. A better date coin is more likely to have been "conserved" (i.e. dipped) than a cheap roll of common date coins that few people outside of bullion stackers will care about.
@Zoins said:
Not sure if these qualify as "rainbow" as being discussed here, but I've across this sequence of Peace dollars recently: PCGS: 37810806 - 37810821. A few select coins are below.
None of those look original to me. Even if they were original, the coins look dull and uninspiring to me.
Three of them are listed as AU and the fourth is noted as cleaned. Toned or color-free, I wouldn’t expect to be inspired by them.
Does anyone else missing being a kid just starting out? Back then I could be inspired by a VF 1930s wheat cent found in change. Today, a 66 CAC Morgan makes me yawn.
@shorecoll said:
Jumping in to a long running thread... once Weimar White, et al, proved they could replicate almost any toning, ALL toning premiums could have gone away and didn't, so we will be forever stuck with the consequences. Forever, actually meaning until we go through another long cycle and dip all that stuff again.
I have his book and several articles he wrote. Somehow I missed the "proof" you mention. I'd like to know where to find it. Did he show before/after images?
Idk what was shown and to whom. I think some of the older timers on here can talk about some of the how to videos and images that were posted on here and then poofed. If I'm wrong I apologize, but I think it was shortly before I joined.
I'm late to the party, but thought I would comment on the part about peace vs morgan. There is one distinct difference. The peace dollar dies were purposely left in a more "matte" finish. See following quote from Leroy Van Allen article "Do Prooflike Peace Dollars Exist?":
_
"...the key fact revealed is that from 1916 onwards, the silver coins were struck from working dies that were not basined. Thus, the working dies did not have their fields polished to produce mirror surfaces that resulted in the proof-like fields of the of the pre-1916 silver coins.
The sculptured models of the designs from 1916 onwards were prepared with no intention of basining the working dies. In addition, the designs were not retouched with a graver in any way during the intermediate steps from sculptured plaster model through working hubs and working dies in order to preserve the exact quality and texture of the original sculptor’s work. These changes in die preparation procedures resulted in a number of appearance differences between the Morgan and Peace dollars."
_
Unfortunately the link to the original article no longer exists. I found this quote via @oih82w8 , so thanks to him!
Thin film interference produces the prettiest colors when the underlying 'mirror' substrate is just that... mirrored. A matte surface will make it harder to make those wild colors. Why is it still possible to create these patterns then, artificially? I'm not sure, but I am sure this is an important piece of the puzzle.
Some very interesting discussion here guys, l'm learning some stuff
Edit to add: @Insider2 is also smart to consider 1921 Morgans, which were made after this 1916 switch. Consider: PCGS estimates 1 in 200 1881-S Morgans in MS-60 or better are DMPL. Only 1 in 10000(!) are DMPL for a 1921. And 1921-S doesn't even have an entry on the PCGS guides for DMPL!
@BryceM said:
A bit OT perhaps, but man oh man, it would be fun to study an actual 64-D Peace dollar.......
I'll bet Mr. Carr's Peace dollar looks much more "finished" and "artful."
@Aercus said:
I'm late to the party, but thought I would comment on the part about peace vs morgan. There is one distinct difference. The peace dollar dies were purposely left in a more "matte" finish. See following quote from Leroy Van Allen article "Do Prooflike Peace Dollars Exist?":
_
"...the key fact revealed is that from 1916 onwards, the silver coins were struck from working dies that were not basined. Thus, the working dies did not have their fields polished to produce mirror surfaces that resulted in the proof-like fields of the of the pre-1916 silver coins.
The sculptured models of the designs from 1916 onwards were prepared with no intention of basining the working dies. In addition, the designs were not retouched with a graver in any way during the intermediate steps from sculptured plaster model through working hubs and working dies in order to preserve the exact quality and texture of the original sculptor’s work. These changes in die preparation procedures resulted in a number of appearance differences between the Morgan and Peace dollars."
_
Unfortunately the link to the original article no longer exists. I found this quote via @oih82w8 , so thanks to him!
Thin film interference produces the prettiest colors when the underlying 'mirror' substrate is just that... mirrored. A matte surface will make it harder to make those wild colors. Why is it still possible to create these patterns then, artificially? I'm not sure, but I am sure this is an important piece of the puzzle.
Some very interesting discussion here guys, l'm learning some stuff
Edit to add: @Insider2 is also smart to consider 1921 Morgans, which were made after this 1916 switch. Consider: PCGS estimates 1 in 200 1881-S Morgans in MS-60 or better are DMPL. Only 1 in 10000(!) are DMPL for a 1921. And 1921-S doesn't even have an entry on the PCGS guides for DMPL!
Interesting. Nevertheless, there is some reason why Morgans and Peace dollars appear to tone differently. If we assume their composition is identical, than something having to do with the planchet preparation, strike, or storage conditions (observable fact for Morgans) must be different. The coin doctors have been around since toning became more desirable to many collectors.
@BryceM said:
A bit OT perhaps, but man oh man, it would be fun to study an actual 64-D Peace dollar.......
I'd be happy to have the opportunity to view the dies or other paraphernalia for the 64-D Peace Dollar and the 64 Morgan Dollar that never came to fruition but for which galvanos (sp?) exist.
@BryceM said:
Oh, one other thought. Most of the rainbow peace dollars I’ve seen are on coins that could otherwise be acquired for under 50 bucks. I wonder why I’ve never seen a rainbow 1928, 25-S, or 1923-S?
Hmmmmmm........
I agree that cheap coins will be the first ones to be experimented on because losses are always minimal; however, in this context, there is an equally plausible explanation. In the 1970s throughout the 1980s, blast white coins were preferred. A better date coin is more likely to have been "conserved" (i.e. dipped) than a cheap roll of common date coins that few people outside of bullion stackers will care about.
There is also a matter of mintage. 370k 1928 is much smaller pool from which coins can tone versus the 30mil of other dates. That also affected how they sat while un-used im sure.
@BryceM said:
Oh, one other thought. Most of the rainbow peace dollars I’ve seen are on coins that could otherwise be acquired for under 50 bucks. I wonder why I’ve never seen a rainbow 1928, 25-S, or 1923-S?
Hmmmmmm........
I agree that cheap coins will be the first ones to be experimented on because losses are always minimal; however, in this context, there is an equally plausible explanation. In the 1970s throughout the 1980s, blast white coins were preferred. A better date coin is more likely to have been "conserved" (i.e. dipped) than a cheap roll of common date coins that few people outside of bullion stackers will care about.
There is also a matter of mintage. 370k 1928 is much smaller pool from which coins can tone versus the 30mil of other dates. That also affected how they sat while un-used im sure.
Another conisderation, in my experience the finger print is one of the leading cause of toning for p dollars. People handle rarer coins more carefully. In the case of the condition rarirties like the 23-S the blast whites probably had a higher chance of a higher grade so those seeking them probably dipped them.
When I collected these in the late 70's and early 80's. Toned Peace Dollars were
non existent and considered rare. Bag toning just did not show up.
at that time everyone was focused on Morgans and some dealers had a few legit bag toned Morgans as bag hords came out.
So I say all these toned peace dollars I and you all see are AT.
Peace dollars had at least 50 years less time in bags.
@krueger said:
When I collected these in the late 70's and early 80's. Toned Peace Dollars were
non existent and considered rare. Bag toning just did not show up.
at that time everyone was focused on Morgans and some dealers had a few legit bag toned Morgans as bag hords came out.
So I say all these toned peace dollars I and you all see are AT.
Peace dollars had at least 50 years less time in bags.
"Non existent" and "rare" are two very different things. And regardless of how rare toned Peace dollars were when you collected in the 70's and 80's, thirty and more years have passed since then - that's plenty of time for large quantities of coins to tone naturally.
It defies logic to believe that "all these toned peace dollars I and you all see are AT." That's far too general of a remark to be realistic.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@ElmerFusterpuck said:
I know it's only anecdotal, but I've had a few Peace dollars pick up some very nice album toning from sitting in my blue Whitman bookshelf album. Others stayed white the whole time. I also have a Peace in one of those plastic/cardboard savings bank holders that toned all kinds of colors, but not the same as a Morgan. They just don't tone the same.
This is an old thread but I was recently looking at something that reminded me of this. Here's a link to an auction lot with not so great photos: https://scoins.com/lot.aspx?a=27&l=822
@Insider2 said: @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.
I dont disagree with the science. But I disagree with the idea behind it. At the quantum level a toned coin is no different than your big toe nail. So now what?
Ummm, that I disagree with. My big toe nail has no silver in it, so it is quite different at the "quantum level"...well, unless my kinky girlfriend painted my toe nails with silver nail polish...
Sub-atomic particles dont know if they are toe nails or silver dollars.
But YOU do and that's what matters. A proton in silver is the same as a proton in carbon or nitrogen.
This was a fun thread. To repeat, I've never seen an NT toned Peace dollar that looks like a monster 1882-S Morgan, though I've seen quite a few very attractive ones. While this Peace dollar below is not a monster, it does have some cool and unusual patterns which appears to have been picked up in the bank holder it was stored in.
When I first saw that Peace dollar in the bank holder my first thought was that someone tried to duplicate textile toning with a paper towel. I could be wrong, but why would the bank holder create a uniform pattern of dots like that 🧐🤔
@Hadleydog said:
I searched for 20 years for a toned peace dollar that satisfied my tastes and was within my budget. I settled on this one.
The color progression is correct It also appears to show some textile toning, as the pattern does extend into the fields. It has that 'crackled' appearance that one would expect from 1921 dollars.
Finally, in hand, it just has that look that is so difficult to explain.
Sadly, the images do not portray the luster.
Cool reverse presentation. What does the obverse look like?
Here's the TrueView (first one below) along with a few others, all PCGS CAC.
These are from the PCGS CAC Rainbow Peace Dollar Thread:
@Zoins Looking at coin 3 - 1922, I just had to look up to confirm that CAC blessed it in it's MS62 condition since I found the toning so fantastical and wrong, IMHO. And yes, they did.
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
@Catbert said: @Zoins Looking at coin 3 - 1922, I just had to look up to confirm that CAC blessed it in it's MS62 condition since I found the toning so fantastical and wrong, IMHO. And yes, they did.
This has been blessed 3 times, by PCGS, CAC, and Legend.
Here's the info from the Legend sale with a 9.5 of 10 on the Legend Color Scale.
The majestic blend of amazing color on this dramatically toned Peace dollar is truly captivating and alluring! Having seen (and rejected) many toned Peace dollars, this one is the REAL DEAL!
Vivid golds, oranges, blues, and greens swirl together on the obverse. The satiny underlying luster glows wonderfully, accenting and backlighting the color bringing it to its full visual impact. We rate the color a 9.5 on our 10-point color scale.
These are ultra rare and ultra popular. Many of the "monster toned" Peace dollars are not CAC approved for a reason. This one has a great look and will bring very strong bidding. We note in our December 2019 Regency Auction a reverse toned MS62 CAC sold for $3,643 (an all time record for the grade). This coin, with its color on the obverse should see very strong bidding as well! Good luck!
And now that coin 4 (1925) has been added, I'll include it as well in my amazement that it was blessed. Obviously, my opinion doesn't rank with PCGS and CAC, but it is primary whether I'd buy it for my collection (not that you asked).
edit to add date
Seated Half Society member #38 "Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
@Catbert said:
And now that coin 4 (1925) has been added, I'll include it as well in my amazement that it was blessed. Obviously, my opinion doesn't rank with PCGS and CAC, but it is primary whether I'd buy it for my collection (not that you asked).
No idea, but here is my one and only, in 64. Certainly not what I would call vibrant, but it is attractive and pleasantly toned, IMO. The reverse toning is a distraction to some, but I like it. It has not been to CAC, and I have no idea how it would do. I do think the toning is original, but I graded it a point lower than designated.
Here is a Trueview of a toned 1926 S MS64 Peace Dollar I had graded last year. It was previously in a Redfield holder that I purchased about 15-20 years ago. The toning on the coin when I bought it is same as it is today.
Comments
I know it's only anecdotal, but I've had a few Peace dollars pick up some very nice album toning from sitting in my blue Whitman bookshelf album. Others stayed white the whole time. I also have a Peace in one of those plastic/cardboard savings bank holders that toned all kinds of colors, but not the same as a Morgan. They just don't tone the same.
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
Thanks, I'll count this as 1 of the remaining 1,006,472. Perhaps we'll get to see a rainbow 21 Morgan so it will become 1 of the remaining 44,689,999.
One explanation is that from 1904 until the next dollars were struck (1921) many changes took place that prevented the newer issues to become beautiful toners. YET, the more valuable Peace dollars are often seen toned ALTHOUGH toning was long out of favor after the were struck. Toned dollars were dipped!
Did you check out the link from Pcgs? The first three high condition coins they show have toning
None of those look original to me. Even if they were original, the coins look dull and uninspiring to me.
Three of them are listed as AU and the fourth is noted as cleaned. Toned or color-free, I wouldn’t expect to be inspired by them.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I’ve been following an eBay seller “reputablediamondbuyers” who is selling a lot of AT coins in NGC slabs. Electric blue and purple crescent toning is their hallmark:
https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https://www.ebay.com/ulk/itm/223738991099
https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https://www.ebay.com/ulk/itm/223841275520
These are the two in their recently sold item, but they sold hundreds over the last 6 months.
Here is another they have for sale. All the same colors and same crescent pattern.
https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https://www.ebay.com/ulk/itm/223486334852
You made a statement about AT coins in NGC holders, followed by a colon. However, only one of the three coins you then linked was even graded by NGC.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I don’t disagree with your statement. I went as far back as their sold listings went. I have been watching them selling hundreds of slabbed coins with the exact same electric blue/purple crescent toning. These were the only examples I could bring up. I have mentioned them multiple times on this forum, so if you search, I’m sure you can find where I have mentioned them before (with many other examples).
Thanks.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
AU coins can be beautifully toned, but I agree generally than anything less than Gem or Superb Gem is pretty boring for this series with rare exception
There is no widely accepted meaning. And the point about Morgan's vs. Peace is quite valid.
I agree with all of this.
There MAY be a morphological difference with accelerated toning, but it is no small task to determine it.
The other problem with any analysis: do we have a sample that is obviously an NT standard? And how many different recipes are there for AT?
Who said "dip 'em all"? LOL
Does anyone else missing being a kid just starting out? Back then I could be inspired by a VF 1930s wheat cent found in change. Today, a 66 CAC Morgan makes me yawn.
It is in fact widely accepted that bag toned Morgans, mint set silver, and silver stored in albums for a long time do not fall under the heading of AT. In another thread recently, you floated the idea that all toning could be considered AT. I guess it could also be considered NT since chemical reactions are natural phenomena. Neither such extreme is useful in the practical discipline of coin collecting.
No.
Actually, a "bag toned Morgan" has to be "original". I can bag tone a Morgan more quickly with an original back and a dry oven, but most people want to call that AT.
It is also inaccurate to claim that silver stored in alums do not fall under AT. Lots of coins have gotten the "questionable color" label from TPGS's. I know a dealer who had some ASEs all in the same cardboard holders that had toned with red/yellow toning. He sent them to a TPGSs in a couple different submissions. Some straight graded. Some got questionable color. All from the same source. The fact is that even experts can't tell.
A better example of the lack of a "widely-accepted" definition is the blue color on copper. Many feel it comes from detergents like MS70. At least one major copper expert believes the blue color is exposed by the detergent removing grime. There is no consensus on the sisue.
LOL. I guess it's just my mid-life crisis.
This conversation is wandering all over the place a bit..... so I'll throw my two cents in.
When it comes to the toning differences between Morgans and Peace dollars, I suppose you could write a book on it. I wish Roger was still here. He had some information about differences in planchet preparation between 1904 and 1921. Also, IIRC there may have been some differences in the storage of those coins vs coins from the earlier era. If nothing else, they sat in the vaults for 17 fewer years.
Still, there are differences in the way 1921 Morgans and 1921 Peace dollars tone. There are also very real differences in between 1921 Peace dollars and the lower relief 22-35 issues that go beyond the relief of the design. The quality of the luster is different, for one. When they do tone, they seem to do it.... differently.
If you consider the microscopic crystaline structure of the metals, there are mechanical differences between areas that experienced high flow during striking and subsequently strain hardened more than areas where flow was minimal. I believe (but have no proof) that the chemical susceptibility of the surface to toning is different in these different areas. It makes sense..... think about it. Some designs tone really nicely and others are seldom seen with nice toning patterns. Some of it is attributable to storage, processing, and packaging, but some of it is probably inherent to the surface strain patterns on the coin.
This could easily explain why pull-away toning happens. On this photo you see it around the date and the star to the left of the date. Radial metal flow around sharp devices like this is quite high and presumably the mechanical properties of the metal in this area affected the ability of the metal to tone:
It's also, I believe, why a whisp of toning often causes the design to really pop. We're seeing a bit of a shadowing or highlighting as the toning varies subtly as it lays across the devices. I think this is why AT colors often look like they "float above the coin".
Now, with respect to the chemistry, one sulfur atom is identical to the next one so some of the arguments above are silly. Once the stuff is there on the coin it's impossible to prove how it got there. There are points here that are useful to consider though. Yes, thin-film interference causes refraction and pretty colors. I think everyone is basically OK with the physics behind this one. The distribution of the thin film over the surface of the coin can be very different between AT and NT processes. For one, consider elevation chromatics. The idea here is that toning differs in various parts of the coin based on relief. Why should that happen?
If a sulfur molecule in a cardboard album is lying in close proximity to the high point of the coin it has a higher chance of diffusing there than it does moving into the more recessed areas of the coin. On a microscopic scale, the difference in the distance the molecule has to travel is enormous. This sort of slow diffusion takes years, maybe decades to occur and is harder (not impossible) to replicate in accelerated ways. It is the slow, gradual diffusion of molecules across the surface of a coin that makes the layer ever-so-gradually thicker and thinner in some areas than others. It's the pattern of the toning that is important!
Mostly we recognize NT patterns from an accumulated empirical knowledge of what coins usually look like when they come out of old albums, pouches, or original packaging. Mostly we recognize AT patterns as "anything different". Like all subjective things, there are almost as many exceptions as there are clear-cut cases.
Now, when it comes to market acceptability...... that's just a study of human behavior, which is just like the world of fashion..... completely incomprehensible to this left-brained engineer/scientist/doctor.
Finally, for the record, I think the majority of the colorful Peace dollars on the market today had help. Not all of them, but most of them. I also think that in many cases it's impossible to know for sure.
So....people are suspicious but nobody can prove anything. Seems the takeaway is - if you choose to pay more for a color toned coin understand it may not be a rarity that occurred over 50 years - but something created over a short time. So you aren’t paying thinking “there aren’t many more like this around - it’s more valuable” but more “I like the look so it’s more valuable to me even if it was baked last month”
Jumping in to a long running thread... once Weimar White, et al, proved they could replicate almost any toning, ALL toning premiums could have gone away and didn't, so we will be forever stuck with the consequences. Forever, actually meaning until we go through another long cycle and dip all that stuff again.
Oh, one other thought. Most of the rainbow peace dollars I’ve seen are on coins that could otherwise be acquired for under 50 bucks. I wonder why I’ve never seen a rainbow 1928, 25-S, or 1923-S?
Hmmmmmm........
I agree that cheap coins will be the first ones to be experimented on because losses are always minimal; however, in this context, there is an equally plausible explanation. In the 1970s throughout the 1980s, blast white coins were preferred. A better date coin is more likely to have been "conserved" (i.e. dipped) than a cheap roll of common date coins that few people outside of bullion stackers will care about.
@Ricko... (Just kidding but it sounds like something he might think).
What’s stopping you from enjoying the VF Wheatie?
I have his book and several articles he wrote. Somehow I missed the "proof" you mention. I'd like to know where to find it. Did he show before/after images?
Idk what was shown and to whom. I think some of the older timers on here can talk about some of the how to videos and images that were posted on here and then poofed. If I'm wrong I apologize, but I think it was shortly before I joined.
I'm late to the party, but thought I would comment on the part about peace vs morgan. There is one distinct difference. The peace dollar dies were purposely left in a more "matte" finish. See following quote from Leroy Van Allen article "Do Prooflike Peace Dollars Exist?":
_
"...the key fact revealed is that from 1916 onwards, the silver coins were struck from working dies that were not basined. Thus, the working dies did not have their fields polished to produce mirror surfaces that resulted in the proof-like fields of the of the pre-1916 silver coins.
The sculptured models of the designs from 1916 onwards were prepared with no intention of basining the working dies. In addition, the designs were not retouched with a graver in any way during the intermediate steps from sculptured plaster model through working hubs and working dies in order to preserve the exact quality and texture of the original sculptor’s work. These changes in die preparation procedures resulted in a number of appearance differences between the Morgan and Peace dollars."
_
Unfortunately the link to the original article no longer exists. I found this quote via @oih82w8 , so thanks to him!
Thin film interference produces the prettiest colors when the underlying 'mirror' substrate is just that... mirrored. A matte surface will make it harder to make those wild colors. Why is it still possible to create these patterns then, artificially? I'm not sure, but I am sure this is an important piece of the puzzle.
Some very interesting discussion here guys, l'm learning some stuff
Edit to add: @Insider2 is also smart to consider 1921 Morgans, which were made after this 1916 switch. Consider: PCGS estimates 1 in 200 1881-S Morgans in MS-60 or better are DMPL. Only 1 in 10000(!) are DMPL for a 1921. And 1921-S doesn't even have an entry on the PCGS guides for DMPL!
Aercus Numismatics - Certified coins for sale
A bit OT perhaps, but man oh man, it would be fun to study an actual 64-D Peace dollar.......
I'll bet Mr. Carr's Peace dollar looks much more "finished" and "artful."
Interesting. Nevertheless, there is some reason why Morgans and Peace dollars appear to tone differently. If we assume their composition is identical, than something having to do with the planchet preparation, strike, or storage conditions (observable fact for Morgans) must be different. The coin doctors have been around since toning became more desirable to many collectors.
I'd be happy to have the opportunity to view the dies or other paraphernalia for the 64-D Peace Dollar and the 64 Morgan Dollar that never came to fruition but for which galvanos (sp?) exist.
There is also a matter of mintage. 370k 1928 is much smaller pool from which coins can tone versus the 30mil of other dates. That also affected how they sat while un-used im sure.
Another conisderation, in my experience the finger print is one of the leading cause of toning for p dollars. People handle rarer coins more carefully. In the case of the condition rarirties like the 23-S the blast whites probably had a higher chance of a higher grade so those seeking them probably dipped them.
When I collected these in the late 70's and early 80's. Toned Peace Dollars were
non existent and considered rare. Bag toning just did not show up.
at that time everyone was focused on Morgans and some dealers had a few legit bag toned Morgans as bag hords came out.
So I say all these toned peace dollars I and you all see are AT.
Peace dollars had at least 50 years less time in bags.
"Non existent" and "rare" are two very different things. And regardless of how rare toned Peace dollars were when you collected in the 70's and 80's, thirty and more years have passed since then - that's plenty of time for large quantities of coins to tone naturally.
It defies logic to believe that "all these toned peace dollars I and you all see are AT." That's far too general of a remark to be realistic.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
This is an old thread but I was recently looking at something that reminded me of this. Here's a link to an auction lot with not so great photos: https://scoins.com/lot.aspx?a=27&l=822
See what you think.
On the web: http://www.earlyus.com
Several reasons not to like that lot.
Though very marketable from a retail perspective.
That's ok as long as you know which is which.
But YOU do and that's what matters. A proton in silver is the same as a proton in carbon or nitrogen.
This was a fun thread. To repeat, I've never seen an NT toned Peace dollar that looks like a monster 1882-S Morgan, though I've seen quite a few very attractive ones. While this Peace dollar below is not a monster, it does have some cool and unusual patterns which appears to have been picked up in the bank holder it was stored in.
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
When I first saw that Peace dollar in the bank holder my first thought was that someone tried to duplicate textile toning with a paper towel. I could be wrong, but why would the bank holder create a uniform pattern of dots like that 🧐🤔
Mr_Spud
Here's the TrueView (first one below) along with a few others, all PCGS CAC.
These are from the PCGS CAC Rainbow Peace Dollar Thread:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1038753/rainbow-toned-peace-dollars-pcgs-cac
@Zoins Looking at coin 3 - 1922, I just had to look up to confirm that CAC blessed it in it's MS62 condition since I found the toning so fantastical and wrong, IMHO. And yes, they did.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
This has been blessed 3 times, by PCGS, CAC, and Legend.
Here's the info from the Legend sale with a 9.5 of 10 on the Legend Color Scale.
https://legendauctions.hibid.com/lot/64274999/-1-1922-pcgs-ms62-cac
Well, I acknowledge the first two, but don't place much credence in marketing hype.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
And now that coin 4 (1925) has been added, I'll include it as well in my amazement that it was blessed. Obviously, my opinion doesn't rank with PCGS and CAC, but it is primary whether I'd buy it for my collection (not that you asked).
edit to add date
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
See this thread about that 1925. It no longer exists with that cert. number.
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1068139/when-should-a-c-or-d-coin-be-pushed-over-the-line-to-an-a-or-b-coin
No idea, but here is my one and only, in 64. Certainly not what I would call vibrant, but it is attractive and pleasantly toned, IMO. The reverse toning is a distraction to some, but I like it. It has not been to CAC, and I have no idea how it would do. I do think the toning is original, but I graded it a point lower than designated.
Tom
Here is a Trueview of a toned 1926 S MS64 Peace Dollar I had graded last year. It was previously in a Redfield holder that I purchased about 15-20 years ago. The toning on the coin when I bought it is same as it is today.