More toners from Mother Nature
Zoins
Posts: 34,287 ✭✭✭✭✭
Here are some recent additions by Mother Nature's Showroom. A pedigree would be useful to trace these in the future.
9
Comments
They has a lot of nice toned coins.
there's that word again after a brief respite!!
to the tone, these coins will in fact tone in the original packaging as a result of storage, similar to the way that the Eisenhower Dollars in the GSA style packaging tone. they just don't usually look this vibrant "in-hand" which leads me to believe that the right angle at TV gives us this result. almost always they look hazed.
I think it's the lighting. You see the same thing with photos at Stack's. When they flood the coin with diffuse light in a close-up, they sometimes look like they are glowing when they are usually far less vibrant in hand. In fact, for the Stack's coins, they usually look completely different just in the full slab photo.
@Zoins Did a quick look of the cert #'s between and around those above. Look at 37589669 to 37589727. Washingtons, SBA's, and Commems in that group. A group of 60, all straight graded.
edynamicmarketing and their offshoot, mother_natures_showroom between them have over 14 thousand listings on ebay. Their "factory" must smell like a sulfur mine.
"It's not nice to fool Mother Nature!!".....
Cheers, RickO
In fact, for the Stack's coins........................
I find that to be true with almost every auction venue, not just Stack's.
Their "factory" must smell like a sulfur mine.
nothing at stake here for me, but not all their listing leave me with that impression which is why I like to see slab shots to check the insert color. it is a Hobby-wide phenomenon that pictures are usually used to show a coin's best assets.
@keets You have been defending this company for over a year when the topic comes up. Maybe this, could have that, it's the angle of the lighting. This was the same company from Orlando that we on the forum proved in 2015 that they had bought slabbed coins on ebay, and then relisted them weeks later toned in the slab. Hideously toned yes, but nonetheless toned without removing them from the slab. I've watched their presence grow on ebay to what is now a staggering offering. Yes, they have other items for sale. They will in fact, buy on occasion, naturally toned coins and relist them on their site. This helps to legitimize their business which is making money from toning coins. If you will take the time to review some of those consecutively numbered submissions in my post above, you will see the pattern. Please look at them and tell me what you think.
You have been defending this company for over a year when the topic comes up.
I have??
just so I understand: if I don't agree with your perception and state what I have seen and what my experience has taught me it means I am defending some company?? I don't see it that way.
Honestly, it is time to stop caring.. if you like blue coins, should it matter if it got that way in 3 hous or 30 years? It's the same chemistry just accelerated.
And, though it need not be said, if I hate blue coins, am I going to like them better because it took 30 years to get that way? I'm just going to dip that mother to get the tarnish off.
Have to keep you on your toes
I use both. Here I picked PCGS's choice because I'm specifically talking about PCGS adding it to their coin tracking.
fair enough and I'm glad we can joke about it!!
It matters because of perceived value. If someone figures out how to tone Morgans with the same colors and elevation chromatics as the examples selling for thousands of dollars AND they produce thousands of them, won't that devalue all of them? In your example, 300 blue coins each produced in 3 hours will drive down the price of the existing population of blue coins that took 30 years to tone.
blues and browns are no bueno
Just went to their store on ebay, several thousand listings, almost all of them colorfully toned. How is that possible? Not........
It should matter, this is a total cop out to 'stop caring'. Yikes. Just IMHO...............
Yes, it would devalue all of them. So what? The distinction between natural and artificial toning is itself artificial.
Here's a question:
Would you rather have a coin with pretty "artificial" toning or ugly "natural" toning?
I would argue that MOST "natural" toned coins are actual artificial. Why is album toning considered natural? You put a coin in low-grade, high-sulfur cardboard and the cardboard causes toning. That isn't any more natural than putting the same coin in an "artificial" sulfur chamber.
What I am saying is, that you have repeatedly given reasons for why these coins might not be AT. Yes, I have seen all types of government packaging causing all types of toning. If you will take the time to pull up the cert #'s above, maybe you will understand where I am coming from. The cert #'s above represent about 60 coins. I have provided PCGS groups of consecutive cert #'s that number over 1000 coins. I'm not just passively whining about it, but trying to change the status quo.
Really? Define "natural" toning. You can't. See my above post. Album toning is unnatural. Proof coins that tone in the original holders is unnatural. Virtually all "natural" toning is unnatural.
STOP PAYING A PREMIUM for coins that have been artificially exposed to sulfur and there will be no one who bothers to speed up the process.
What I am saying is..........................
I'm well aware of what you're saying, there have been many, many threads not much different than this one. it just isn't anything that worries me and I see enough of this sellers listings on eBay to have a sense of what's taking place. I can usually just pass them by because they use recognizable templates in their listings. with that said, the biggest problem I see is that they have toned coins which don't look like the pictures in-hand unless the light is right.
Here's another one. I live in the shadow of a volcano. Returning home after evacuation due to a minor eruption, I find all my coins are a vivid blue color. Natural or unnatural?
So what? I own toned coins and don't want to see them devalued.
I don't want to own any artificial toning nor do I want to own any ugly natural toning.
You already do owned artifically toned coins, that is my point.
Just curious, do you own any toned coins? What do you collect?
I do not own any toned coins for which I paid a toning premium. I will buy toned coins to resell and pay a premium because the market currently has a premium. But that is quite beside the point.
The distinction between "natural" and "artificial" is itself artificial. As @keets has pointed out, those commems will do that "naturally" in their original holders. You are suspicious of those coins because of the source and the sheer number of them, NOT because of the coins themselves. Therein lies the problem. If you can't tell the difference by looking at the coins themselves, the game is already over.
This issue has been debated on this forum over the effect of MS70 on copper. Some believe the MS70 induces blue coloring. Others, including a major copper dealer, believe the MS70 is uncovering blue that was already there. It is a religious argument not a scientific or numismatic argument.
On the day when the Market decides that bright white is the way to go - which used to be the case - then you're going to have to dip all your toned coins to recover the value. Then the Market is your enemy not the Coin Doctors.
You are making an argument based on your wallet. I'm making an argument based on the science and the practicality. My motives are somewhat more pure than yours. You still have failed to address my central tenet: MOST magnificent "natural" toned coins are really "artificially" toned due to exposure to chemicals that are not naturally on the coin's surface or in the air.
One reason I've heard or read that Artificial/Accelerated Toning can be bad is it can create an unstable situation - unpredictable - meaning someone can buy a certified and be very colorful and a few years later it has toned to something ugly/different.
Whereas naturally toned coins are more stable and predictable.
True or False or ?
Why would ANYONE want to own accelerated toned coins? I can tell the difference right away between accelerated toning and natural toned coins, at least with nickel. The color progression is wrong with these ugly false colored coins that garbage up the hobby that edynamicmarketing puts out there on the market and it should be a crime. This guy, or company, are completely destroying a lot of coins and destroying the hobby at the same time. Sure let’s ring a bell and celebrate this jackass for falsely coloring up coins.
My rant is over now.
Joe
Your absolutely wrong about your presumption that I can't tell the difference between
them. The fact that their coins looked different is what caused me to take notice in the first place. It was well after that when their offerings grew exponentially on eBay. If you want to classify all toned coins as artificial, that's your prerogative and your opinion. I believe that your view is in the extreme minority in the collecting community but you are entitled to it. You are one of those guys who loves to get in the last word. It's why I have had you gray for the last year. My mistake for opening up one of your comments.
Don't be so fast with Stack's images! Here is a medal as seen in Stack's auction catalog portrayed it:
And here's the PCGS TrueView (which actually shows how it looks in hand):
Gorgeous medal.
It's not all Stack's pictures, or heritage. They sometimes flood them with light. Gives a weird glow.
Maybe.
The slow exposure to low concentrations of sulfur or other contaminants should be more stable when removed from the sulfured environment than the quick exposure to a high sulfur environment.
BUT:
1. Proper rinsing of the AT coins could result in similarly stable surfaces.
2. Almost any toning is not infinitely stable. Oxides and sulfides tend to "grow" over time. The only way to completely stabilize the surface would be to store under inert atmospheres or in a vacuum.
I doubt anyone can really tell the difference. It's the same chemical compound in all cases. You and I can probably recognize poorly doctored coins. But, think about it, we put a man on the moon. You really don't think we can grow a controlled toning on a hunk of silver?
Not sure this is relevant to the conversation. You can in many cases determine accelerated toning on older coins versus toning that takes a long time. So again, I am not going to stop caring about doctoring even if others, like you don't care. BTW, I study volcanoes and their products - you don't want your coins anywhere near their products because there is more than sulfur in them - there are acids that would corrode them - but of course you knew that didn't you?
LOL. I didn't suggest that the best way to coins was to use the volcano. They are major sulfur emitters. You do get sufuric acid from mixing SO2 and water and you do have some direct hydrogen halide emissions that will become acidic when mixed with water. But, if you keep your coins dry and slabbed during the eruption, I think you'll get more toning and less etching...if you want to "naturally" tone your coins along the Pacific Ring of Fire.
You can, in some cases, tell the difference. But some of that is really numismatic folklore. It's confirmation bias: the coins we think "look right" are deemed NT and the ones we think "look wrong" are deemed AT. I'm not sure a more scientific analysis would yield any clear distinction.
We've all SEEN it. How many times do you submit a coin that comes back QC even if you know the pedigree? If it were so definitive, there would not be any disagreement. I saw a whole slew of ASE's that were in cardboard holders. All of them had toned "naturally" due to the cardboard over 10 years or so. When submitted, some came back QC, some ended up in holders. But none of them had been doctored. They were all essentially album toned.
You see the same thing with Morgan dollars from paper rolls. Even though you know it's a 40 year old paper roll and the color should be "natural", sometimes QC, sometimes not.
And should we open the discussion to the blue color on copper that either does or doesn't come from MS70? I've played with enough copper and enough MS70 to believe that the MS70 does color the copper. However many people, including a major copper numismatist, believe that the MS70 just exposes the underlying blue color. If we can't even agree on MS70 and copper, are we REALLY SURE about any of the NT/AT distinctions we make?
My bigger point is that a LOT of "natural toning" is really artificial. It comes from exposure of the coins to things not naturally on the surface of the coin or naturally in the air.
At the risk of using the M word, isn't the real distinction between "market acceptable" and "not market acceptable" and we tell ourselves it's natural vs. artificial?
Take it easy, Al. We all like you.
Pete
keets didn't say "You have been defending this company for over a year when the topic comes up" someone else did, I quoted him.
I just noticed that PCGS showcased a coin that very much looks like a coin in the OP back in October. It's not the same coin but it looks similar.