@MFeld said:
Regarding the 1884-O - I figure it at $200 plus, easily, another poster figured it at $200 plus and a colleague of mine values it at $300+. Odds are excellent that the three of us aren’t the top three potential buyer/bidders for the coin.
@291fifth said:
What the market will bear. There are apparently a good number of new collectors who have been told that toned coins are good and deserve premiums. Put your up for sale with accurate photos and description and take what the market brings.
Personally, I wouldn't pay any premium for the toning on your coin. I just don't buy into the toning premium craze.
@MFeld said:
Regarding the 1884-O - I figure it at $200 plus, easily, another poster figured it at $200 plus and a colleague of mine values it at $300+. Odds are excellent that the three of us aren’t the top three potential buyer/bidders for the coin.
Even with the black/charcoal terminal toning?
All three of us saw the pictures and based on them, yes. Of course if the coin looks different in hand, the answer could be different.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@291fifth said:
What the market will bear. There are apparently a good number of new collectors who have been told that toned coins are good and deserve premiums. Put your up for sale with accurate photos and description and take what the market brings.
Personally, I wouldn't pay any premium for the toning on your coin. I just don't buy into the toning premium craze.
@MFeld said:
Regarding the 1884-O - I figure it at $200 plus, easily, another poster figured it at $200 plus and a colleague of mine values it at $300+. Odds are excellent that the three of us aren’t the top three potential buyer/bidders for the coin.
Even with the black/charcoal terminal toning?
All three of us saw the pictures and based on them, yes. Of course if the coin looks different in hand, the answer could be different.
Whether any one individual likes it or not is a separate question from the market value.
I personally hate the look of that coin, but it definitely would sell for a premium.
@291fifth said:
What the market will bear. There are apparently a good number of new collectors who have been told that toned coins are good and deserve premiums. Put your up for sale with accurate photos and description and take what the market brings.
Personally, I wouldn't pay any premium for the toning on your coin. I just don't buy into the toning premium craze.
@MFeld said:
Regarding the 1884-O - I figure it at $200 plus, easily, another poster figured it at $200 plus and a colleague of mine values it at $300+. Odds are excellent that the three of us aren’t the top three potential buyer/bidders for the coin.
Even with the black/charcoal terminal toning?
All three of us saw the pictures and based on them, yes. Of course if the coin looks different in hand, the answer could be different.
Whether any one individual likes it or not is a separate question from the market value.
I personally hate the look of that coin, but it definitely would sell for a premium.
He didn't say his assessment of value was based on his "liking" the coin. I don't like the coin either, but I know approximately what similar examples have sold for in recent years.
@291fifth said:
What the market will bear. There are apparently a good number of new collectors who have been told that toned coins are good and deserve premiums. Put your up for sale with accurate photos and description and take what the market brings.
Personally, I wouldn't pay any premium for the toning on your coin. I just don't buy into the toning premium craze.
@MFeld said:
Regarding the 1884-O - I figure it at $200 plus, easily, another poster figured it at $200 plus and a colleague of mine values it at $300+. Odds are excellent that the three of us aren’t the top three potential buyer/bidders for the coin.
Even with the black/charcoal terminal toning?
All three of us saw the pictures and based on them, yes. Of course if the coin looks different in hand, the answer could be different.
Whether any one individual likes it or not is a separate question from the market value.
I personally hate the look of that coin, but it definitely would sell for a premium.
He didn't say his assessment of value was based on his "liking" the coin. I don't like the coin either, but I know approximately what similar examples have sold for in recent years.
As different and subjective as opinions about NT/AT can be, I’m surprised that the originality of this one would be doubted.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@291fifth said:
What the market will bear. There are apparently a good number of new collectors who have been told that toned coins are good and deserve premiums. Put your up for sale with accurate photos and description and take what the market brings.
Personally, I wouldn't pay any premium for the toning on your coin. I just don't buy into the toning premium craze.
@MFeld said:
Regarding the 1884-O - I figure it at $200 plus, easily, another poster figured it at $200 plus and a colleague of mine values it at $300+. Odds are excellent that the three of us aren’t the top three potential buyer/bidders for the coin.
Even with the black/charcoal terminal toning?
All three of us saw the pictures and based on them, yes. Of course if the coin looks different in hand, the answer could be different.
Whether any one individual likes it or not is a separate question from the market value.
I personally hate the look of that coin, but it definitely would sell for a premium.
He didn't say his assessment of value was based on his "liking" the coin. I don't like the coin either, but I know approximately what similar examples have sold for in recent years.
As different and subjective as opinions about NT/AT can be, I’m surprised that the originality of this one would be doubted.
Plus the elephant in the room is that PCGS didn't flag it as AT. Are they perfect? NO. But what's the point in sending coins in to be graded if you can't put some degree of faith that they can properly grade/authenticate coins?
@291fifth said:
What the market will bear. There are apparently a good number of new collectors who have been told that toned coins are good and deserve premiums. Put your up for sale with accurate photos and description and take what the market brings.
Personally, I wouldn't pay any premium for the toning on your coin. I just don't buy into the toning premium craze.
@MFeld said:
Regarding the 1884-O - I figure it at $200 plus, easily, another poster figured it at $200 plus and a colleague of mine values it at $300+. Odds are excellent that the three of us aren’t the top three potential buyer/bidders for the coin.
Even with the black/charcoal terminal toning?
All three of us saw the pictures and based on them, yes. Of course if the coin looks different in hand, the answer could be different.
Whether any one individual likes it or not is a separate question from the market value.
I personally hate the look of that coin, but it definitely would sell for a premium.
He didn't say his assessment of value was based on his "liking" the coin. I don't like the coin either, but I know approximately what similar examples have sold for in recent years.
As different and subjective as opinions about NT/AT can be, I’m surprised that the originality of this one would be doubted.
To be clear, I believe the coin is certainly NT. My not liking it refers to its aesthetic qualities. I'm not sure if that is how you interpreted my comment, but just in case.
I will also mention that the notion that lack of pull away toning is an indicator of AT was debunked in a recent thread. I see some elevation chromatics on the lower right stars, but the bag dimple patterns are the main NT tell for me. Also the color progression is legit. And yes, PCGS did grade it. A gassed slab would have toned the reverse as well.
@291fifth said:
What the market will bear. There are apparently a good number of new collectors who have been told that toned coins are good and deserve premiums. Put your up for sale with accurate photos and description and take what the market brings.
Personally, I wouldn't pay any premium for the toning on your coin. I just don't buy into the toning premium craze.
@MFeld said:
Regarding the 1884-O - I figure it at $200 plus, easily, another poster figured it at $200 plus and a colleague of mine values it at $300+. Odds are excellent that the three of us aren’t the top three potential buyer/bidders for the coin.
Even with the black/charcoal terminal toning?
All three of us saw the pictures and based on them, yes. Of course if the coin looks different in hand, the answer could be different.
Whether any one individual likes it or not is a separate question from the market value.
I personally hate the look of that coin, but it definitely would sell for a premium.
He didn't say his assessment of value was based on his "liking" the coin. I don't like the coin either, but I know approximately what similar examples have sold for in recent years.
The comment wasn't aimed at Mark but at the people who were saying there should be no premium.
@291fifth said:
What the market will bear. There are apparently a good number of new collectors who have been told that toned coins are good and deserve premiums. Put your up for sale with accurate photos and description and take what the market brings.
Personally, I wouldn't pay any premium for the toning on your coin. I just don't buy into the toning premium craze.
@MFeld said:
Regarding the 1884-O - I figure it at $200 plus, easily, another poster figured it at $200 plus and a colleague of mine values it at $300+. Odds are excellent that the three of us aren’t the top three potential buyer/bidders for the coin.
Even with the black/charcoal terminal toning?
All three of us saw the pictures and based on them, yes. Of course if the coin looks different in hand, the answer could be different.
Whether any one individual likes it or not is a separate question from the market value.
I personally hate the look of that coin, but it definitely would sell for a premium.
He didn't say his assessment of value was based on his "liking" the coin. I don't like the coin either, but I know approximately what similar examples have sold for in recent years.
As different and subjective as opinions about NT/AT can be, I’m surprised that the originality of this one would be doubted.
To be clear, I believe the coin is certainly NT. My not liking it refers to its aesthetic qualities. I'm not sure if that is how you interpreted my comment, but just in case.
I will also mention that the notion that lack of pull away toning is an indicator of AT was debunked in a recent thread. I see some elevation chromatics on the lower right stars, but the bag dimple patterns are the main NT tell for me. Also the color progression is legit. And yes, PCGS did grade it. A gassed slab would have toned the reverse as well.
Thanks. I didn’t think you were questioning the coin’s classification as NT.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@291fifth said:
What the market will bear. There are apparently a good number of new collectors who have been told that toned coins are good and deserve premiums. Put your up for sale with accurate photos and description and take what the market brings.
Personally, I wouldn't pay any premium for the toning on your coin. I just don't buy into the toning premium craze.
@MFeld said:
Regarding the 1884-O - I figure it at $200 plus, easily, another poster figured it at $200 plus and a colleague of mine values it at $300+. Odds are excellent that the three of us aren’t the top three potential buyer/bidders for the coin.
Even with the black/charcoal terminal toning?
All three of us saw the pictures and based on them, yes. Of course if the coin looks different in hand, the answer could be different.
Whether any one individual likes it or not is a separate question from the market value.
I personally hate the look of that coin, but it definitely would sell for a premium.
He didn't say his assessment of value was based on his "liking" the coin. I don't like the coin either, but I know approximately what similar examples have sold for in recent years.
As different and subjective as opinions about NT/AT can be, I’m surprised that the originality of this one would be doubted.
To be clear, I believe the coin is certainly NT. My not liking it refers to its aesthetic qualities. I'm not sure if that is how you interpreted my comment, but just in case.
I will also mention that the notion that lack of pull away toning is an indicator of AT was debunked in a recent thread. I see some elevation chromatics on the lower right stars, but the bag dimple patterns are the main NT tell for me. Also the color progression is legit. And yes, PCGS did grade it. A gassed slab would have toned the reverse as well.
Again, it partly boils down to what you call NT/AT. I argued that coin came into contact with a chemical agent either before strike or after strike. If it is after strike, whether you call it NT or AT is a matter of perspective.
I, personally, do not ascribe to the pull away toning theory. However, a lot of people do and it pops up all the time on this forum. So, I'm rather surprised no one raised it.
@291fifth said:
What the market will bear. There are apparently a good number of new collectors who have been told that toned coins are good and deserve premiums. Put your up for sale with accurate photos and description and take what the market brings.
Personally, I wouldn't pay any premium for the toning on your coin. I just don't buy into the toning premium craze.
@MFeld said:
Regarding the 1884-O - I figure it at $200 plus, easily, another poster figured it at $200 plus and a colleague of mine values it at $300+. Odds are excellent that the three of us aren’t the top three potential buyer/bidders for the coin.
Even with the black/charcoal terminal toning?
All three of us saw the pictures and based on them, yes. Of course if the coin looks different in hand, the answer could be different.
Whether any one individual likes it or not is a separate question from the market value.
I personally hate the look of that coin, but it definitely would sell for a premium.
He didn't say his assessment of value was based on his "liking" the coin. I don't like the coin either, but I know approximately what similar examples have sold for in recent years.
As different and subjective as opinions about NT/AT can be, I’m surprised that the originality of this one would be doubted.
To be clear, I believe the coin is certainly NT. My not liking it refers to its aesthetic qualities. I'm not sure if that is how you interpreted my comment, but just in case.
I will also mention that the notion that lack of pull away toning is an indicator of AT was debunked in a recent thread. I see some elevation chromatics on the lower right stars, but the bag dimple patterns are the main NT tell for me. Also the color progression is legit. And yes, PCGS did grade it. A gassed slab would have toned the reverse as well.
Again, it partly boils down to what you call NT/AT. I argued that coin came into contact with a chemical agent either before strike or after strike. If it is after strike, whether you call it NT or AT is a matter of perspective.
I, personally, do not ascribe to the pull away toning theory. However, a lot of people do and it pops up all the time on this forum. So, I'm rather surprised no one raised it.
Silver dollars that toned as the result of sitting in mint storage burlap bags with sulfur content are considered NT. Full stop.
@291fifth said:
What the market will bear. There are apparently a good number of new collectors who have been told that toned coins are good and deserve premiums. Put your up for sale with accurate photos and description and take what the market brings.
Personally, I wouldn't pay any premium for the toning on your coin. I just don't buy into the toning premium craze.
@MFeld said:
Regarding the 1884-O - I figure it at $200 plus, easily, another poster figured it at $200 plus and a colleague of mine values it at $300+. Odds are excellent that the three of us aren’t the top three potential buyer/bidders for the coin.
Even with the black/charcoal terminal toning?
All three of us saw the pictures and based on them, yes. Of course if the coin looks different in hand, the answer could be different.
Whether any one individual likes it or not is a separate question from the market value.
I personally hate the look of that coin, but it definitely would sell for a premium.
He didn't say his assessment of value was based on his "liking" the coin. I don't like the coin either, but I know approximately what similar examples have sold for in recent years.
As different and subjective as opinions about NT/AT can be, I’m surprised that the originality of this one would be doubted.
To be clear, I believe the coin is certainly NT. My not liking it refers to its aesthetic qualities. I'm not sure if that is how you interpreted my comment, but just in case.
I will also mention that the notion that lack of pull away toning is an indicator of AT was debunked in a recent thread. I see some elevation chromatics on the lower right stars, but the bag dimple patterns are the main NT tell for me. Also the color progression is legit. And yes, PCGS did grade it. A gassed slab would have toned the reverse as well.
Again, it partly boils down to what you call NT/AT. I argued that coin came into contact with a chemical agent either before strike or after strike. If it is after strike, whether you call it NT or AT is a matter of perspective.
I, personally, do not ascribe to the pull away toning theory. However, a lot of people do and it pops up all the time on this forum. So, I'm rather surprised no one raised it.
Silver dollars that toned as the result of sitting in mint storage burlap bags with sulfur content are considered NT. Full stop.
IF that's what happened. GO!
So, if I put a coin in a high sulfur burlap bag to intentionally tone it, still NT. Good to know.
@291fifth said:
What the market will bear. There are apparently a good number of new collectors who have been told that toned coins are good and deserve premiums. Put your up for sale with accurate photos and description and take what the market brings.
Personally, I wouldn't pay any premium for the toning on your coin. I just don't buy into the toning premium craze.
@MFeld said:
Regarding the 1884-O - I figure it at $200 plus, easily, another poster figured it at $200 plus and a colleague of mine values it at $300+. Odds are excellent that the three of us aren’t the top three potential buyer/bidders for the coin.
Even with the black/charcoal terminal toning?
All three of us saw the pictures and based on them, yes. Of course if the coin looks different in hand, the answer could be different.
Whether any one individual likes it or not is a separate question from the market value.
I personally hate the look of that coin, but it definitely would sell for a premium.
He didn't say his assessment of value was based on his "liking" the coin. I don't like the coin either, but I know approximately what similar examples have sold for in recent years.
As different and subjective as opinions about NT/AT can be, I’m surprised that the originality of this one would be doubted.
To be clear, I believe the coin is certainly NT. My not liking it refers to its aesthetic qualities. I'm not sure if that is how you interpreted my comment, but just in case.
I will also mention that the notion that lack of pull away toning is an indicator of AT was debunked in a recent thread. I see some elevation chromatics on the lower right stars, but the bag dimple patterns are the main NT tell for me. Also the color progression is legit. And yes, PCGS did grade it. A gassed slab would have toned the reverse as well.
Again, it partly boils down to what you call NT/AT. I argued that coin came into contact with a chemical agent either before strike or after strike. If it is after strike, whether you call it NT or AT is a matter of perspective.
I, personally, do not ascribe to the pull away toning theory. However, a lot of people do and it pops up all the time on this forum. So, I'm rather surprised no one raised it.
Silver dollars that toned as the result of sitting in mint storage burlap bags with sulfur content are considered NT. Full stop.
IF that's what happened. GO!
So, if I put a coin in a high sulfur burlap bag to intentionally tone it, still NT. Good to know.
I guess you're too lazy (or intellectually dishonest) to have registered my earlier comment:
Unless someone used a burlap bag or fabric to AT the coin, it's clearly NT. Occam's razor, as you would say.
Note to @MFeld : I use the LOL button sometimes because there's no "sophistry alert" option...
@291fifth said:
What the market will bear. There are apparently a good number of new collectors who have been told that toned coins are good and deserve premiums. Put your up for sale with accurate photos and description and take what the market brings.
Personally, I wouldn't pay any premium for the toning on your coin. I just don't buy into the toning premium craze.
@MFeld said:
Regarding the 1884-O - I figure it at $200 plus, easily, another poster figured it at $200 plus and a colleague of mine values it at $300+. Odds are excellent that the three of us aren’t the top three potential buyer/bidders for the coin.
Even with the black/charcoal terminal toning?
All three of us saw the pictures and based on them, yes. Of course if the coin looks different in hand, the answer could be different.
Whether any one individual likes it or not is a separate question from the market value.
I personally hate the look of that coin, but it definitely would sell for a premium.
He didn't say his assessment of value was based on his "liking" the coin. I don't like the coin either, but I know approximately what similar examples have sold for in recent years.
As different and subjective as opinions about NT/AT can be, I’m surprised that the originality of this one would be doubted.
To be clear, I believe the coin is certainly NT. My not liking it refers to its aesthetic qualities. I'm not sure if that is how you interpreted my comment, but just in case.
I will also mention that the notion that lack of pull away toning is an indicator of AT was debunked in a recent thread. I see some elevation chromatics on the lower right stars, but the bag dimple patterns are the main NT tell for me. Also the color progression is legit. And yes, PCGS did grade it. A gassed slab would have toned the reverse as well.
Again, it partly boils down to what you call NT/AT. I argued that coin came into contact with a chemical agent either before strike or after strike. If it is after strike, whether you call it NT or AT is a matter of perspective.
I, personally, do not ascribe to the pull away toning theory. However, a lot of people do and it pops up all the time on this forum. So, I'm rather surprised no one raised it.
Silver dollars that toned as the result of sitting in mint storage burlap bags with sulfur content are considered NT. Full stop.
IF that's what happened. GO!
So, if I put a coin in a high sulfur burlap bag to intentionally tone it, still NT. Good to know.
You didn’t know that, already?
But more seriously, if the storage conditions are identical, why should intent make a difference? And obviously, intent isn’t usually known.
Edited to add: Still, if you showed me two coins that looked identical and told me one was unintentionally toned and the other, intentionally so, I’d have far greater appreciation for the former. Because it had somehow defied the odds (possibly/probably over a fairly long period of time), without any intentional help or interference.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It seems to me like if someone authentically replicates a known NT process but does it intentionally, the coin is considered NT and should be. If someone uses a burlap bag and a heat gun and gets the same effect in a couple of hours, it's AT (but may be hard to detect).
@291fifth said:
What the market will bear. There are apparently a good number of new collectors who have been told that toned coins are good and deserve premiums. Put your up for sale with accurate photos and description and take what the market brings.
Personally, I wouldn't pay any premium for the toning on your coin. I just don't buy into the toning premium craze.
@MFeld said:
Regarding the 1884-O - I figure it at $200 plus, easily, another poster figured it at $200 plus and a colleague of mine values it at $300+. Odds are excellent that the three of us aren’t the top three potential buyer/bidders for the coin.
Even with the black/charcoal terminal toning?
All three of us saw the pictures and based on them, yes. Of course if the coin looks different in hand, the answer could be different.
Whether any one individual likes it or not is a separate question from the market value.
I personally hate the look of that coin, but it definitely would sell for a premium.
He didn't say his assessment of value was based on his "liking" the coin. I don't like the coin either, but I know approximately what similar examples have sold for in recent years.
As different and subjective as opinions about NT/AT can be, I’m surprised that the originality of this one would be doubted.
To be clear, I believe the coin is certainly NT. My not liking it refers to its aesthetic qualities. I'm not sure if that is how you interpreted my comment, but just in case.
I will also mention that the notion that lack of pull away toning is an indicator of AT was debunked in a recent thread. I see some elevation chromatics on the lower right stars, but the bag dimple patterns are the main NT tell for me. Also the color progression is legit. And yes, PCGS did grade it. A gassed slab would have toned the reverse as well.
Again, it partly boils down to what you call NT/AT. I argued that coin came into contact with a chemical agent either before strike or after strike. If it is after strike, whether you call it NT or AT is a matter of perspective.
I, personally, do not ascribe to the pull away toning theory. However, a lot of people do and it pops up all the time on this forum. So, I'm rather surprised no one raised it.
Silver dollars that toned as the result of sitting in mint storage burlap bags with sulfur content are considered NT. Full stop.
IF that's what happened. GO!
So, if I put a coin in a high sulfur burlap bag to intentionally tone it, still NT. Good to know.
You didn’t know that, already?
But more seriously, if the storage conditions are identical, why should intent make a difference? And obviously, intent isn’t usually known.
Edited to add: Still, if you showed me two coins that looked identical and told me one was unintentionally toned and the other, intentionally so, I’d have far greater appreciation for the former. Because it had somehow defied the odds (possibly/probably over a fairly long period of time), without any intentional help or interference.
Hard to measure intent...and yet it happens all the time in this debate. Especially when it comes to old albums and slightly elevated heat. And, I suppose, by extension old burlap bags and elevated heat.
Actually, I have some old mint bags here. Maybe I should throw one in the oven with a coin or two.
@291fifth said:
What the market will bear. There are apparently a good number of new collectors who have been told that toned coins are good and deserve premiums. Put your up for sale with accurate photos and description and take what the market brings.
Personally, I wouldn't pay any premium for the toning on your coin. I just don't buy into the toning premium craze.
@MFeld said:
Regarding the 1884-O - I figure it at $200 plus, easily, another poster figured it at $200 plus and a colleague of mine values it at $300+. Odds are excellent that the three of us aren’t the top three potential buyer/bidders for the coin.
Even with the black/charcoal terminal toning?
All three of us saw the pictures and based on them, yes. Of course if the coin looks different in hand, the answer could be different.
Whether any one individual likes it or not is a separate question from the market value.
I personally hate the look of that coin, but it definitely would sell for a premium.
He didn't say his assessment of value was based on his "liking" the coin. I don't like the coin either, but I know approximately what similar examples have sold for in recent years.
As different and subjective as opinions about NT/AT can be, I’m surprised that the originality of this one would be doubted.
To be clear, I believe the coin is certainly NT. My not liking it refers to its aesthetic qualities. I'm not sure if that is how you interpreted my comment, but just in case.
I will also mention that the notion that lack of pull away toning is an indicator of AT was debunked in a recent thread. I see some elevation chromatics on the lower right stars, but the bag dimple patterns are the main NT tell for me. Also the color progression is legit. And yes, PCGS did grade it. A gassed slab would have toned the reverse as well.
Again, it partly boils down to what you call NT/AT. I argued that coin came into contact with a chemical agent either before strike or after strike. If it is after strike, whether you call it NT or AT is a matter of perspective.
I, personally, do not ascribe to the pull away toning theory. However, a lot of people do and it pops up all the time on this forum. So, I'm rather surprised no one raised it.
Silver dollars that toned as the result of sitting in mint storage burlap bags with sulfur content are considered NT. Full stop.
IF that's what happened. GO!
So, if I put a coin in a high sulfur burlap bag to intentionally tone it, still NT. Good to know.
I guess you're too lazy (or intellectually dishonest) to have registered my earlier comment:
Unless someone used a burlap bag or fabric to AT the coin, it's clearly NT. Occam's razor, as you would say.
Note to @MFeld : I use the LOL button sometimes because there's no "sophistry alert" option...
Note to self: go back to ignoring Coinjunkie
Interesting that the only two options are insults: lazy or intellectually dishonest.
Your second comment says, in its entirety: Silver dollars that toned as the result of sitting in mint storage burlap bags with sulfur content are considered NT. Full stop.
That's all I was replying to. There is no definitive evidence of "mint storage burlap bags with sulfur content" or anything else. What you have is color progression that suggests toning from the center out with a rather abrupt boundary. To me, that could well be AT.
You could disagree without being insulting...oh, wait, no. You can't. Never mind.
@291fifth said:
What the market will bear. There are apparently a good number of new collectors who have been told that toned coins are good and deserve premiums. Put your up for sale with accurate photos and description and take what the market brings.
Personally, I wouldn't pay any premium for the toning on your coin. I just don't buy into the toning premium craze.
@MFeld said:
Regarding the 1884-O - I figure it at $200 plus, easily, another poster figured it at $200 plus and a colleague of mine values it at $300+. Odds are excellent that the three of us aren’t the top three potential buyer/bidders for the coin.
Even with the black/charcoal terminal toning?
All three of us saw the pictures and based on them, yes. Of course if the coin looks different in hand, the answer could be different.
Whether any one individual likes it or not is a separate question from the market value.
I personally hate the look of that coin, but it definitely would sell for a premium.
He didn't say his assessment of value was based on his "liking" the coin. I don't like the coin either, but I know approximately what similar examples have sold for in recent years.
As different and subjective as opinions about NT/AT can be, I’m surprised that the originality of this one would be doubted.
To be clear, I believe the coin is certainly NT. My not liking it refers to its aesthetic qualities. I'm not sure if that is how you interpreted my comment, but just in case.
I will also mention that the notion that lack of pull away toning is an indicator of AT was debunked in a recent thread. I see some elevation chromatics on the lower right stars, but the bag dimple patterns are the main NT tell for me. Also the color progression is legit. And yes, PCGS did grade it. A gassed slab would have toned the reverse as well.
Again, it partly boils down to what you call NT/AT. I argued that coin came into contact with a chemical agent either before strike or after strike. If it is after strike, whether you call it NT or AT is a matter of perspective.
I, personally, do not ascribe to the pull away toning theory. However, a lot of people do and it pops up all the time on this forum. So, I'm rather surprised no one raised it.
Silver dollars that toned as the result of sitting in mint storage burlap bags with sulfur content are considered NT. Full stop.
IF that's what happened. GO!
So, if I put a coin in a high sulfur burlap bag to intentionally tone it, still NT. Good to know.
I guess you're too lazy (or intellectually dishonest) to have registered my earlier comment:
Unless someone used a burlap bag or fabric to AT the coin, it's clearly NT. Occam's razor, as you would say.
Note to @MFeld : I use the LOL button sometimes because there's no "sophistry alert" option...
Note to self: go back to ignoring Coinjunkie
Interesting that the only two options are insults: lazy or intellectually dishonest.
Your second comment says, in its entirety: Silver dollars that toned as the result of sitting in mint storage burlap bags with sulfur content are considered NT. Full stop.
That's all I was replying to. There is no definitive evidence of "mint storage burlap bags with sulfur content" or anything else. What you have is color progression that suggests toning from the center out with a rather abrupt boundary. To me, that could well be AT.
You could disagree without being insulting...oh, wait, no. You can't. Never mind.
What you quoted above was my response to your initial sarcastic/smarmy comment to me, so get off your indignation soapbox. For the record, I have no problem with your ignoring me. Looking forward to seeing your best manufactured approximation of the 84-O in the OP. Knock yourself out, big guy!
@MFeld said:
Regarding the 1884-O - I figure it at $200 plus, easily, another poster figured it at $200 plus and a colleague of mine values it at $300+. Odds are excellent that the three of us aren’t the top three potential buyer/bidders for the coin.
hmmm...it's getting to be time to put my chemistry degree (and lab) to good use.
Someone always says that but not one has come back and shared results that were even remotely similar to market acceptable toners.
If I'm successful, I won't show you either. I will just be quietly submitting and cashing the checks. LOL.
It's really not that hard to tone silver in a relatively controlled fashion. Copper is trickier, although MS-70 will give you the controversial blue color more often than Rick Snow cares to admit.
I hear that too. The ones that are most adamant are usually the ones that produce the worst AT or keep making the same claim in the future without even doing the experiment. If you could replicate market acceptable toning, then you wouldn't have commented at all.
I'm not sure what your point is. I said it's time to put my chemistry degree to use. I didn't say I had produced any fake toners yet.
But you're an idiot if you think there aren't already dozens of people out there who have been doing it. I know a guy who has done it. We've had threads here devoted to large dealers with consecutive True Views that are all suspect toners but are MA because they are in holders.
To be clear, I've never bothered to even try with silver. I did some work with copper but for a different reason. But I'm quite sure it can be done. And we both know that it already has been done, so I'm not sure why you seem to be implying that it can't be done.
I’m implying that people like you that come on these forums and tell us how easy it is are very often wrong.
The dozens of TruViews you referenced are often coins that were gassed and sent to be reholdered. Most of those were very obvious and the only reason they passed is that the reholdering process has a flaw where the coins were never viewed by the graders.
People, like you, who spew what they don’t know often end up regurgitating speculation and false rumors.
P.S. Kind of funny that after 13,000 posts, I'm one of those people that "come on these forums and tell us how easy it is". I think it would be more accurate to say that I'm a forum fixture that doesn't think it is that hard to tone silver. If you wanted, you could lay it down monolayer by monolayer, although I doubt it is worth that much time and expense.
It would be kind of surprising given all the fancy materials and biomaterials that are manufactured in incredibly controlled manners that the hardest thing on the planet to make is a rainbow on a silver dollar.
Have your high school chemistry students try it for a project? Almost posted something rude.
@291fifth said:
What the market will bear. There are apparently a good number of new collectors who have been told that toned coins are good and deserve premiums. Put your up for sale with accurate photos and description and take what the market brings.
Personally, I wouldn't pay any premium for the toning on your coin. I just don't buy into the toning premium craze.
@MFeld said:
Regarding the 1884-O - I figure it at $200 plus, easily, another poster figured it at $200 plus and a colleague of mine values it at $300+. Odds are excellent that the three of us aren’t the top three potential buyer/bidders for the coin.
Even with the black/charcoal terminal toning?
All three of us saw the pictures and based on them, yes. Of course if the coin looks different in hand, the answer could be different.
Whether any one individual likes it or not is a separate question from the market value.
I personally hate the look of that coin, but it definitely would sell for a premium.
He didn't say his assessment of value was based on his "liking" the coin. I don't like the coin either, but I know approximately what similar examples have sold for in recent years.
As different and subjective as opinions about NT/AT can be, I’m surprised that the originality of this one would be doubted.
To be clear, I believe the coin is certainly NT. My not liking it refers to its aesthetic qualities. I'm not sure if that is how you interpreted my comment, but just in case.
I will also mention that the notion that lack of pull away toning is an indicator of AT was debunked in a recent thread. I see some elevation chromatics on the lower right stars, but the bag dimple patterns are the main NT tell for me. Also the color progression is legit. And yes, PCGS did grade it. A gassed slab would have toned the reverse as well.
Again, it partly boils down to what you call NT/AT. I argued that coin came into contact with a chemical agent either before strike or after strike. If it is after strike, whether you call it NT or AT is a matter of perspective.
I, personally, do not ascribe to the pull away toning theory. However, a lot of people do and it pops up all the time on this forum. So, I'm rather surprised no one raised it.
Silver dollars that toned as the result of sitting in mint storage burlap bags with sulfur content are considered NT. Full stop.
IF that's what happened. GO!
So, if I put a coin in a high sulfur burlap bag to intentionally tone it, still NT. Good to know.
Given how many vivid Morgan toners there are, I wonder if this has been happening for some time.
I read that in the 70s, vivid Morgans were virtually unheard of. There were stories of coins here and there before Battle Creek, but now they seem to be everywhere. There's just something strange about how rare they seemed before and how common they seem now.
@291fifth said:
What the market will bear. There are apparently a good number of new collectors who have been told that toned coins are good and deserve premiums. Put your up for sale with accurate photos and description and take what the market brings.
Personally, I wouldn't pay any premium for the toning on your coin. I just don't buy into the toning premium craze.
@MFeld said:
Regarding the 1884-O - I figure it at $200 plus, easily, another poster figured it at $200 plus and a colleague of mine values it at $300+. Odds are excellent that the three of us aren’t the top three potential buyer/bidders for the coin.
Even with the black/charcoal terminal toning?
All three of us saw the pictures and based on them, yes. Of course if the coin looks different in hand, the answer could be different.
Whether any one individual likes it or not is a separate question from the market value.
I personally hate the look of that coin, but it definitely would sell for a premium.
He didn't say his assessment of value was based on his "liking" the coin. I don't like the coin either, but I know approximately what similar examples have sold for in recent years.
As different and subjective as opinions about NT/AT can be, I’m surprised that the originality of this one would be doubted.
To be clear, I believe the coin is certainly NT. My not liking it refers to its aesthetic qualities. I'm not sure if that is how you interpreted my comment, but just in case.
I will also mention that the notion that lack of pull away toning is an indicator of AT was debunked in a recent thread. I see some elevation chromatics on the lower right stars, but the bag dimple patterns are the main NT tell for me. Also the color progression is legit. And yes, PCGS did grade it. A gassed slab would have toned the reverse as well.
Again, it partly boils down to what you call NT/AT. I argued that coin came into contact with a chemical agent either before strike or after strike. If it is after strike, whether you call it NT or AT is a matter of perspective.
I, personally, do not ascribe to the pull away toning theory. However, a lot of people do and it pops up all the time on this forum. So, I'm rather surprised no one raised it.
Silver dollars that toned as the result of sitting in mint storage burlap bags with sulfur content are considered NT. Full stop.
IF that's what happened. GO!
So, if I put a coin in a high sulfur burlap bag to intentionally tone it, still NT. Good to know.
Given how many vivid Morgan toners there are, I wonder if this has been happening for some time.
I read that in the 70s, vivid Morgans were virtually unheard of. There were stories of coins here and there before Battle Creek, but now they seem to be everywhere. There's just something strange about how rare they seemed before and how common they seem now.
The internet wasn’t with us in the 70’s. It’s made countless people aware of all sorts of items about which they had no Knowledge, previously. I used to collect a particular type of antique toys. While I happened upon some of them at major antique shows on occasion, I saw far more on EBay, after it was born.
Additionally, coins have had decades longer to tone, since that time. And I saw them more frequently than “here and there” as far back as the 80’s. I suspect that if I’d entered the business before 1979, I’d be telling you that I’d seen a fair number of toners as far back as the 70’s.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Put it in your online store at your price. The proof will be in the pudding when it sells.
Coin club friend puts these in his online store cost x 2 or x3 or whatever.....
Would not call pricing these an exact science / just gut feel like poker all in. Takes that special buyer.
As far as CAC vs non CAC since price these cost plus (2x cost, 3x, etc) not really a factor but would review CAC bid in sheet (if any) vs non CAC bid in making decision. I have seen where some CAC toned coins took the roulette wheel way up gone 5-10x CPG so decision go for 75 yard TD strike or what. Again function of that special buyer / super potential where aerial threat WR gets breakaway play - TD!
Take a look at how other sellers pricing theirs and see how your coin matches up with theirs.
@Justacommeman said:
I don’t think this particular coins merits a toning premium. It has neutral eye appeal at best to those who collect toners. Vivid Morgan toners literally grow on trees
m
It's fairly rare that I disagree with someone named Mark. But I feel that the coin deserves a nice toning premium - perhaps 5X or more the price of a generic example.
no way !
I manage money. I earn money. I save money . I give away money. I collect money. I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
@Justacommeman said:
I don’t think this particular coins merits a toning premium. It has neutral eye appeal at best to those who collect toners. Vivid Morgan toners literally grow on trees
m
It's fairly rare that I disagree with someone named Mark. But I feel that the coin deserves a nice toning premium - perhaps 5X or more the price of a generic example.
no way !
Thank you for your opinion. Yes, way, according to some who are quite knowledgeable about that segment of the market.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Justacommeman said:
I don’t think this particular coins merits a toning premium. It has neutral eye appeal at best to those who collect toners. Vivid Morgan toners literally grow on trees
m
It's fairly rare that I disagree with someone named Mark. But I feel that the coin deserves a nice toning premium - perhaps 5X or more the price of a generic example.
no way !
Thank you for your opinion. Yes, way, according to some who are quite knowledgeable about that segment of the market.
I would not offer any premium for a one sided toner in 63.... but granted since you are more knowledgeable than i am
you can make the 5x offer for a coin like that.
I manage money. I earn money. I save money . I give away money. I collect money. I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
@Justacommeman said:
I don’t think this particular coins merits a toning premium. It has neutral eye appeal at best to those who collect toners. Vivid Morgan toners literally grow on trees
m
It's fairly rare that I disagree with someone named Mark. But I feel that the coin deserves a nice toning premium - perhaps 5X or more the price of a generic example.
no way !
Thank you for your opinion. Yes, way, according to some who are quite knowledgeable about that segment of the market.
I would not offer any premium for a one sided toner in 63.... but granted since you are more knowledgeable than i am
you can make the 5x offer for a coin like that.
I'm someone who collects toners and I'd buy all the one-sided 63 toners that look like this for no premium. I bid on tons of toners and have yet to win anything close to this for less than multiples of guide.
Looking at auction results, I'm in agreement with @MFeld and am confident this would bring well over $200 in a true auction in a venue like GC (and even more if the seller listed it as a buy-it-now and held out for the right buyer).
@MFeld said:
Regarding the 1884-O - I figure it at $200 plus, easily, another poster figured it at $200 plus and a colleague of mine values it at $300+. Odds are excellent that the three of us aren’t the top three potential buyer/bidders for the coin.
hmmm...it's getting to be time to put my chemistry degree (and lab) to good use.
Someone always says that but not one has come back and shared results that were even remotely similar to market acceptable toners.
If I'm successful, I won't show you either. I will just be quietly submitting and cashing the checks. LOL.
It's really not that hard to tone silver in a relatively controlled fashion. Copper is trickier, although MS-70 will give you the controversial blue color more often than Rick Snow cares to admit.
I hear that too. The ones that are most adamant are usually the ones that produce the worst AT or keep making the same claim in the future without even doing the experiment. If you could replicate market acceptable toning, then you wouldn't have commented at all.
I'm not sure what your point is. I said it's time to put my chemistry degree to use. I didn't say I had produced any fake toners yet.
But you're an idiot if you think there aren't already dozens of people out there who have been doing it. I know a guy who has done it. We've had threads here devoted to large dealers with consecutive True Views that are all suspect toners but are MA because they are in holders.
To be clear, I've never bothered to even try with silver. I did some work with copper but for a different reason. But I'm quite sure it can be done. And we both know that it already has been done, so I'm not sure why you seem to be implying that it can't be done.
I’m implying that people like you that come on these forums and tell us how easy it is are very often wrong.
The dozens of TruViews you referenced are often coins that were gassed and sent to be reholdered. Most of those were very obvious and the only reason they passed is that the reholdering process has a flaw where the coins were never viewed by the graders.
People, like you, who spew what they don’t know often end up regurgitating speculation and false rumors.
@MFeld said:
But more seriously, if the storage conditions are identical, why should intent make a difference? And obviously, intent isn’t usually known.
I don't recall the people and sides in the debate, but many years ago intent was argued as a component for defining AT on these forums.
@MFeld said:
But more seriously, if the storage conditions are identical, why should intent make a difference? And obviously, intent isn’t usually known.
I don't recall the people and sides in the debate, but many years ago intent was argued as a component for defining AT on these forums.
I remember a few discussions about intent. It cracked me up too. I remember one guy put his coins in an envelope inside books for storage. They toned and many people were saying he did it intentionally😂. He was bouncing off the walls about some members responses as they told him what his intent was😂. I believe the members name was, boom.
The bitterness of "Poor Quality" is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
Comments
Even with the black/charcoal terminal toning?
All three of us saw the pictures and based on them, yes. Of course if the coin looks different in hand, the answer could be different.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
And being highly opinionated also doesn't make me wrong.
Your OPINION is that it is NT. It is certainly MA. That doesn't make it NT.
With my opinion, I also provided reasons. You may disagree. However you still have that rather abrupt boundary line to consider.
P.S. Where are all the pull away toning people?
Whether any one individual likes it or not is a separate question from the market value.
I personally hate the look of that coin, but it definitely would sell for a premium.
Unless someone used a burlap bag or fabric to AT the coin, it's clearly NT. Occam's razor, as you would say.
He didn't say his assessment of value was based on his "liking" the coin. I don't like the coin either, but I know approximately what similar examples have sold for in recent years.
As different and subjective as opinions about NT/AT can be, I’m surprised that the originality of this one would be doubted.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Plus the elephant in the room is that PCGS didn't flag it as AT. Are they perfect? NO. But what's the point in sending coins in to be graded if you can't put some degree of faith that they can properly grade/authenticate coins?
Successful BST transactions with: Cameonut, Rob41281
To be clear, I believe the coin is certainly NT. My not liking it refers to its aesthetic qualities. I'm not sure if that is how you interpreted my comment, but just in case.
I will also mention that the notion that lack of pull away toning is an indicator of AT was debunked in a recent thread. I see some elevation chromatics on the lower right stars, but the bag dimple patterns are the main NT tell for me. Also the color progression is legit. And yes, PCGS did grade it. A gassed slab would have toned the reverse as well.
The comment wasn't aimed at Mark but at the people who were saying there should be no premium.
Thanks. I didn’t think you were questioning the coin’s classification as NT.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Again, it partly boils down to what you call NT/AT. I argued that coin came into contact with a chemical agent either before strike or after strike. If it is after strike, whether you call it NT or AT is a matter of perspective.
I, personally, do not ascribe to the pull away toning theory. However, a lot of people do and it pops up all the time on this forum. So, I'm rather surprised no one raised it.
So that's how Morgans get their color!
https://coincommunity.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=186193
Silver dollars that toned as the result of sitting in mint storage burlap bags with sulfur content are considered NT. Full stop.
IF that's what happened. GO!
So, if I put a coin in a high sulfur burlap bag to intentionally tone it, still NT. Good to know.
This is an area I know fairly well. Should be able to get $200+ roughly for the coin in OP
I guess you're too lazy (or intellectually dishonest) to have registered my earlier comment:
Unless someone used a burlap bag or fabric to AT the coin, it's clearly NT. Occam's razor, as you would say.
Note to @MFeld : I use the LOL button sometimes because there's no "sophistry alert" option...
You didn’t know that, already?
But more seriously, if the storage conditions are identical, why should intent make a difference? And obviously, intent isn’t usually known.
Edited to add: Still, if you showed me two coins that looked identical and told me one was unintentionally toned and the other, intentionally so, I’d have far greater appreciation for the former. Because it had somehow defied the odds (possibly/probably over a fairly long period of time), without any intentional help or interference.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It seems to me like if someone authentically replicates a known NT process but does it intentionally, the coin is considered NT and should be. If someone uses a burlap bag and a heat gun and gets the same effect in a couple of hours, it's AT (but may be hard to detect).
Successful BST transactions with: Cameonut, Rob41281
Hard to measure intent...and yet it happens all the time in this debate. Especially when it comes to old albums and slightly elevated heat. And, I suppose, by extension old burlap bags and elevated heat.
Actually, I have some old mint bags here. Maybe I should throw one in the oven with a coin or two.
Note to self: go back to ignoring Coinjunkie
Interesting that the only two options are insults: lazy or intellectually dishonest.
Your second comment says, in its entirety: Silver dollars that toned as the result of sitting in mint storage burlap bags with sulfur content are considered NT. Full stop.
That's all I was replying to. There is no definitive evidence of "mint storage burlap bags with sulfur content" or anything else. What you have is color progression that suggests toning from the center out with a rather abrupt boundary. To me, that could well be AT.
You could disagree without being insulting...oh, wait, no. You can't. Never mind.
What you quoted above was my response to your initial sarcastic/smarmy comment to me, so get off your indignation soapbox. For the record, I have no problem with your ignoring me. Looking forward to seeing your best manufactured approximation of the 84-O in the OP. Knock yourself out, big guy!
Have your high school chemistry students try it for a project? Almost posted something rude.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
Apparently that 84-O in the OP has thicker skin than some of the posters.
Given how many vivid Morgan toners there are, I wonder if this has been happening for some time.
I read that in the 70s, vivid Morgans were virtually unheard of. There were stories of coins here and there before Battle Creek, but now they seem to be everywhere. There's just something strange about how rare they seemed before and how common they seem now.
The internet wasn’t with us in the 70’s. It’s made countless people aware of all sorts of items about which they had no Knowledge, previously. I used to collect a particular type of antique toys. While I happened upon some of them at major antique shows on occasion, I saw far more on EBay, after it was born.
Additionally, coins have had decades longer to tone, since that time. And I saw them more frequently than “here and there” as far back as the 80’s. I suspect that if I’d entered the business before 1979, I’d be telling you that I’d seen a fair number of toners as far back as the 70’s.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Put it in your online store at your price. The proof will be in the pudding when it sells.
Coin club friend puts these in his online store cost x 2 or x3 or whatever.....
Would not call pricing these an exact science / just gut feel like poker all in. Takes that special buyer.
As far as CAC vs non CAC since price these cost plus (2x cost, 3x, etc) not really a factor but would review CAC bid in sheet (if any) vs non CAC bid in making decision. I have seen where some CAC toned coins took the roulette wheel way up gone 5-10x CPG so decision go for 75 yard TD strike or what. Again function of that special buyer / super potential where aerial threat WR gets breakaway play - TD!
Take a look at how other sellers pricing theirs and see how your coin matches up with theirs.
no way !
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Thank you for your opinion. Yes, way, according to some who are quite knowledgeable about that segment of the market.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I would not offer any premium for a one sided toner in 63.... but granted since you are more knowledgeable than i am
you can make the 5x offer for a coin like that.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
I'm someone who collects toners and I'd buy all the one-sided 63 toners that look like this for no premium. I bid on tons of toners and have yet to win anything close to this for less than multiples of guide.
Looking at auction results, I'm in agreement with @MFeld and am confident this would bring well over $200 in a true auction in a venue like GC (and even more if the seller listed it as a buy-it-now and held out for the right buyer).
+1
I don't recall the people and sides in the debate, but many years ago intent was argued as a component for defining AT on these forums.
I remember a few discussions about intent. It cracked me up too. I remember one guy put his coins in an envelope inside books for storage. They toned and many people were saying he did it intentionally😂. He was bouncing off the walls about some members responses as they told him what his intent was😂. I believe the members name was, boom.
I remember boom, good guy. Loved his Washington quarters.