Opinions - AT or NT?

spyglassdesign

I've been given a decent offer on this coin (for me to purchase), however I'm concerned about the toning...

What do you think? Artificial or natural?

P0CKETCHANGE

If raw, I’d assume it was AT and offer accordingly. I don’t know toning on SLQs very well, but the bright blues and splotchiness raise an eyebrow for me.

airplanenut

The shades and splotchiness are red flags for me, and honestly, overall it isn’t very appealing to me. Something about the photo makes the coin look somehow off, whether it’s the surfaces (and perhaps it’s “natural” retoning) or the color just being no good. That’s not a coin I would buy from those photos, and perhaps it goes without saying, but the coin has wear, in case it’s being sold as an Unc.

spyglassdesign

@airplanenut yeah the splotchiness is concerning more than anything. His pictures aren't the best but I've been pretty happy with other purchases from the seller. Just seems like the coloring is a bit wild.

I do see the wear on the bottom left of the shield so at best it would be au anyways even if natural?

Connecticoin

Toning looks borderline to me, but also looks AU - hope you are not purchasing it as mint state.

spyglassdesign

@Connecticoin said:
Toning looks borderline to me, but also looks AU - hope you are not purchasing it as mint state.

He does have it priced at mint state, which I do now see the wear on the shield in particular.

Thanks!

fathom

Probably artificial, unappealing and, strike three...overpriced if its priced at mint state.

Jzyskowski1

Known for not caring about AT or NT the coin ( I’m trying to be more polite when commenting on hidious toning 😁) is not very attractive. 👍🏼
If you like it and come to terms that seems reasonable, well collect what you like. It does look AU so price accordingly and good luck 🍀

spyglassdesign

@fathom said:
Probably artificial, unappealing and, strike three...overpriced if its priced at mint state.

He has a little video that shows its not as unappealing as his shots indicate but the other factors are enough for me to tap out

Thanks!

tincup

Looks like it may have been stored for a few years in a 2x2 manila coin envelope. Some I had put away in those envelopes showed a similar type of toning. So is it natural... or AT? I'd say natural.

Cougar1978

It appears AT to me.

ricko

Coin pictures can be so deceptive. Based on the OP picture, it looks AT... in hand, maybe I would think NT... Sorry I cannot be more definitive. Cheers, RickO

jedm

If this is a '29 S and you say he's got it priced as an uncirculated coin, then at that price level if it were me I'd think about buying one that's certified or at the very minimum having the coin in hand to see for myself the level or absence of wear and what the toning looks like in real life.

MS66

However it may have gotten that way, I think it's a very attractive SLQ.

airplanenut

@spyglassdesign said:
@airplanenut yeah the splotchiness is concerning more than anything. His pictures aren't the best but I've been pretty happy with other purchases from the seller. Just seems like the coloring is a bit wild.

I do see the wear on the bottom left of the shield so at best it would be au anyways even if natural?

There’s west down the leg and on the midsection. It’s AU because of wear, not because of surface issues.

icsoccer

AT

spyglassdesign

@ricko said:
Coin pictures can be so deceptive. Based on the OP picture, it looks AT... in hand, maybe I would think NT... Sorry I cannot be more definitive. Cheers, RickO

Thanks. I'm going to pass as others have pointed out there's far too much wear for what he's asking anyways. If it was a close call I'd probably risk it (I can return it), but it's not even close on the mint VS au the more I look at it. So it seems it's definitely overpriced.

Flatwoods

Looks AT to me.

BillJones

I would say probably artificial.

I had a 1917 Type I Quarter, that was a bit more convincing ,t when I was dealer. I sent it in for grading, and it came back in an AT body bag. I sold it to collector with full disclosure that it had flunked at the grading service. He liked it and bought it any way.

jesbroken

I have never been a collector of this series and have no books in its regards, but after viewing a dozen or so via CoinFacts, I would truly be concerned regarding the "S" mm. Unless there are different mm stamps, it appears rather larger than any I have seen today. Just an opinion. As to the AT/NT I don't feel the photos are enough to decide. If someone here has a better knowledge basis for the mm's for this date, I would appreciate the education.
Jim

spyglassdesign

@jesbroken I believe his lack of photography skills on shiny objects could be causing the glaring 's'... I suspect it's legit as I've bought and had other coins verified by pcgs from him.

Even if it's natural toning (as one member noted they had coins tone that way in certain sleeves), it definitely has too much wear to be mint state as a few have noted.