I would say "ask Insider2 for his thoughts", as he is more explanatory on this like these, but I don't think that can be done now.
For me, I look at the toning and I look around the devices. I don't like the colors, I don't like the look. I don't think it is natural (or, without "help", intentional or not).
I would say "ask Insider2 for his thoughts", as he is more explanatory on this like these, but I don't think that can be done now.
For me, I look at the toning and I look around the devices. I don't like the colors, I don't like the look. I don't think it is natural (or, without "help", intentional or not).
I would pass on that coin....it has the look of a well done AT job...on a coin with a lot of dings/scratches...This will/has sold on the tarnish alone....Cheers, RickO
@amwldcoin said:
I'm betting your post caused it to sell. While it maybe AT'd, it's a purdy coin!
@amwldcoin Posted this thread after it already sold. I try to stay away from posting live listings unless I think theyre defintely malicious in some form.
I would say that this coin is NT, re-toned after an old dip. It certainly (IMO) isn't BU. High AU would be my guess. Also, (IMO) the photos are juiced giving a more suspicious look to the toning.
I dunno. I think this kind of toning can be appropriate, but I'm also a bit skeptical about how many cool colors are magically appearing to meet demand. I don't ever buy raw coins worth that much unless I can see them in-hand prior to purchase. The photo technique is a bit weird - almost like they're trying to hide something. I'd pass on this, but it wouldn't ruin my view of the world if it was later shown to be appropriate and magnificent.
This coin, that lives in a rattler, has kinda-sorta the same kind of look, yet it's still different. There is a bit of complexity and depth to the toning, some irregularity in areas of relief (elevation chromatics), and an "old" appearance. The 1880s seated quarters were produced in spectacularly small numbers and have a bit of a prooflike looks that sometimes tones this way.
The coin in the OP's post has more of a "cooked up yesterday" look, but again, it's hard to be sure from those photos.
Edited to add:
..... upon further review, the OP's coin is most likely AT in my book.
I would say "ask Insider2 for his thoughts", as he is more explanatory on this like these, but I don't think that can be done now.
For me, I look at the toning and I look around the devices. I don't like the colors, I don't like the look. I don't think it is natural (or, without "help", intentional or not).
Thanks.....I don't "do" other coin forums, even cointalk, really, so I wouldn't have seen that.....he sure is a lot more brief over there than he was here.
goldrealmoney79
Posts: 417 ✭✭✭
Comments
Gone now. The toning looks like a lot of coins posted here, but I wouldn’t venture a guess.
QT although the pictures are also not of great quality. Hard pass for me...
Raw for a reason?
Something just looks off about it
A Barber Quartet is made up of Nickels, Dimes, Quarters, and Halves.
It looks okay on the obverse, but from the reverse, it looks totally messed with.
I would pass.
I'm betting your post caused it to sell. While it maybe AT'd, it's a purdy coin!
Not natural toning
I would say "ask Insider2 for his thoughts", as he is more explanatory on this like these, but I don't think that can be done now.
For me, I look at the toning and I look around the devices. I don't like the colors, I don't like the look. I don't think it is natural (or, without "help", intentional or not).
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
He shared some thoughts here:
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/at-or-nt-1855-seated-liberty-quarter.358972/
It sold on April 22nd (3 days before this thread started).
AT
It looks like NT to me. I like the coin!
I would pass on that coin....it has the look of a well done AT job...on a coin with a lot of dings/scratches...This will/has sold on the tarnish alone....Cheers, RickO
AT I have become suspicious of all these type coins suddenly appearing with turquoise edge toning.
Commems and Early Type
Thanks for all your comments guys, it was very insightful
@amwldcoin Posted this thread after it already sold. I try to stay away from posting live listings unless I think theyre defintely malicious in some form.
Looks AT.
I would say that this coin is NT, re-toned after an old dip. It certainly (IMO) isn't BU. High AU would be my guess. Also, (IMO) the photos are juiced giving a more suspicious look to the toning.
I dunno. I think this kind of toning can be appropriate, but I'm also a bit skeptical about how many cool colors are magically appearing to meet demand. I don't ever buy raw coins worth that much unless I can see them in-hand prior to purchase. The photo technique is a bit weird - almost like they're trying to hide something. I'd pass on this, but it wouldn't ruin my view of the world if it was later shown to be appropriate and magnificent.
This coin, that lives in a rattler, has kinda-sorta the same kind of look, yet it's still different. There is a bit of complexity and depth to the toning, some irregularity in areas of relief (elevation chromatics), and an "old" appearance. The 1880s seated quarters were produced in spectacularly small numbers and have a bit of a prooflike looks that sometimes tones this way.
The coin in the OP's post has more of a "cooked up yesterday" look, but again, it's hard to be sure from those photos.
Edited to add:
..... upon further review, the OP's coin is most likely AT in my book.
Thanks.....I don't "do" other coin forums, even cointalk, really, so I wouldn't have seen that.....he sure is a lot more brief over there than he was here.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
I've seen many old time collections and seated coins like that . I'll say N.T.
Sold this one
100% Positive BST transactions
I wouldn't question that 1864 quarter, but I would question the coin which is the subject of this thread.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Hmmm. Really? That is an old time holder before the boom in A/T. I think our host got that one right. BUT I am wrong sometimes. Beautiful 1889!
100% Positive BST transactions
BTE put up the 1864 for a comparo. Sorry for the old school pic. Taken decades ago.
100% Positive BST transactions