Questionable Color?
sellitstore
Posts: 2,871 ✭✭✭✭✭
I'm not offering an opinion nor do I have any agenda. I'm posting this now because I don't have any interest and if anyone here would like to collude to purchase this, I have no interest in that, either. Fight it out for this beauty? or trash? among yourselves.
So what do you think, natural or artificial? Is anyone sure or close to sure?
Collector and dealer in obsolete currency. Always buying all obsolete bank notes and scrip.
1
Comments
Absolutely gorgeous & original certified 2005-S proof U.S. Kennedy half dollar
Umm... it's certified as questionable color.
Lmfao
I sometimes see dealers at coin shows with a bunch of raw coins that look like that in their cases. I can spot them from very far away. I just keep walking past when I see a bunch of those.
Mr_Spud
I know that.....just got a laugh reading the description.
But we specifically asked, dammit!!! UNC Detail is a humorous listing error too.
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
The color appears to be fake as a $20 Rolex
Ummm..sometimes experts have different opinions and Ummmm, maybe if I thought that it was good but had ANY question, I might grade it exactly as the TPG has done, even though it's probably good.
Anybody can see how it's certified but that's not what I asked, is it? I asked your opinion., but glad that you were amused, even if you misunderstood and couldn't answer the question with YOUR opinion, not what anyone can read.
Has anybody here actually done any business with this seller? That seems like it might be an important clue. I'm not seeing other AT coins in this auction or collection, giving a bit more credibility to the sellers claims.....but, I, too am not convinced-just trying to consider ALL of the evidence instead of making the case one way or another.
And since the holder may just have influenced the response, I should ask if anyone here thinks that the color might be original. I've certainly seen naturally toned coins with some of that same color, particularly Canadian issues in OGP but on some U.S. proof sets, too. There's another thread with toned coins that shows some of the Canadian issues with coloration.
I've seen dealers with inventories full of AT coins but the norm is that many of their coins have AT by the same processes. Sure, a single coin, bought from one of these dealers shows up from time to time but typically there would be more than one in a collection. Hardly proof that this coin is OK, I don't necessarily have a problem with the color. Questionable, maybe, but this one doesn't scream AT to me. I'd have a hard time making this call and might very well have labelled it "Questionable", too, not because I thought that the toning was AT (most times I'm 100% sure), but because I wasn't sure.
If you think that this might be good, I'd like to know and if you are SURE it's artificial (as some appear to be), tell us exactly why you think so in words that will educate us to be able to tell the difference, too. What method was used to produce this patina? Anyone have a guess? Or you can laugh, if you prefer.>
It's already marked questionable toning, who cares, jmo
If that’s questionable,
then we should credit the artist - an excellent use of color!
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!
It looks AT to me but I am not familiar with how modern proofs tone. I am generally very suspicious of any strong color on a proof < 20 years old. I don’t have a strong reason not to trust the seller and I have not dealt with them. It seems possible that it looked like that in the original set. Maybe a prior owner exposed it to some strange environmental contaminant or maybe it really did tone that way naturally. Either way, I don’t think that blue/purple is market acceptable, no matter the source.
Let's keep it civil. We should endeavor to be like the Currency forum and not challenge anyone.
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US & World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
Hard pass!
Do you like JFK half dollars with your eggs?
Can nobody here put into words just exactly why they don't like this coin? Well, now that I have spent five minutes looking at images of other proof Kennedy Halves, both certified and non certified, I HAVE developed an opinion on this coin. Yes, it looks like AT to me, too.
As I mentioned before, I've seen this kind of toning on Canadian coins in OGP, making me think that this coin could be OK. But I'm not finding any toning, MS or Proof, on certified Kennedy Halves that look like this. This toning is only seen on non certified Kennedy Halves and that's a big red flag.
The other characteristic that I would have hoped that someone would have pointed out is that the color is way too vivid for a Kennedy Half. Like I said, there are coins that do tone naturally something like this. I've bought Canadian collections with coins that look like this. AT? NO, these coins come like this right out of collections. It must be something in the Canadian Gov't Packaging.
Glad that you noticed that I was mocking an uncivil response leveled by another. That's the M.O. of some posters, isn't it?
Boy you coin guys are just a bit too sensitive, aren't you? Nah, It just COULDN'T be that there is a more civil discussion board run by these same hosts. Now that's funny.
Some of you can't seem to respond on topic. C'mon, let's see what you actually know about coins, not how unpleasant one can be without crossing the line. What do you think of the above Canadian dollar? AT? How about a useful comment?
It's the foam they packed they dollars with.
That makes sense but this toning looks similar to me.
Now if we happen to place some of our Kennedy proofs in proximity to some of this foam for say, ten years and use no heat, light or other means to enhance the process, and they end up looking like this (or the coin in the O/P), questionable or natural?
If you like it, go for it. In a genuine holder you should be able to get it for a discount, no?
Might be hard to resell though…..
You can store OGP in an environment that has hydrogen sulfide (rotten egg anyone) and yes, it's OGP, but that doesn't make the toning market acceptable.
ANA 50 year/Life Member (now "Emeritus")
FYI - just to clarify my response, I know to keep walking when I see a bunch of that golden/purple/blue from when I did AT experiments about 20 years ago. That golden/purple/blue was one of the easiest forms of AT to produce. It doesn’t mean that these colors never occur naturally, just that they are common on AT. Here’s an old picture from some of my AT experiments with coins that show those golden/purple/blue colors.
Mr_Spud
It's not "natural" but it is often market acceptable. The same with album toning from a cheap, high sulfur cardboard album. It's, to me, a silly argument. There's nothing"natural" about sulfur in cardboard or canvas bags. But the hobby accepts it.MOST of the time but not all of the time.
Most of us have done those experiments. I started over 50 years ago by holding coins in the flame of our gas stove and progressed to other experimentation from there. But this coin looks nothing like the results of those experiments.
@jmlanzaf Album toned coins have always been considered naturally toned, as far as I know. Sulphur in paper products may not be natural but the process of sulphur toning coins when in close proximity is natural. And the hobby more than accepts it, it prizes it. Example: Colorful bag toning on MS Morgan Dollars.
That's what I said. But while it is "market acceptable", it is no doubt artificial as it would not happen without putting the sulfur laden paper/canvas in proximity.
You can take a bright white Morgan that is 120 years old and put it on a cheap album for 10 years and get it to tone and then call it "natural". It's rather ludicrous. You induced in 10 years what hadn't happened in 120 years by intentionally introducing a chemical agent. It is ludicrous to call that "natural". It is "market acceptable " which is the more accurate term. IMHO
The Morgans weren't put into bags deliberately to tone them. Coins come into contact with sulphur accidentally, as they did for decades with the high sulphur albums that we used. Yes, you can put them in close proximity, too, now that we understand the effects.
Artificial and natural shouldn't be distinguished by intent when the results and chemistry is identical, should it? Is whiskey that is put into charred oak casks considered artificial because it was done deliberately? In Vermont, they artificially put a culture from a cow's intestine into their milk to make cheddar cheese. Natural or artificial? It could happen by accident, too and that's how many discoveries are made, including toning from high sulphur albums. Numismatists didn't invent this method of toning-they discovered it after years of use of these albums.
So, again, how can we tell if toned coins in holders acquired their color over 20 or 100 years if the process is the same and they look the same. I don' think that we can or that it matters at all.
I've had Proof sets with debris or even cracked edges that have allowed some very vivid coloring to happen especially like what I'm seeing here on the obverse. Most likely the corner of the case was cracked allowing in the elements but only after it had golden toning from when it was still intact.
I agree with the TPG that the coin is AT. Obviously toning is very subjective. but the lack of gradation between colors and the colors themselves make me think AT.
I am a newer collector (started April 2020), and I primarily focus on U.S. Half Cents and Type Coins. Early copper is my favorite.
You can't - at least, not by any scientifically reliable, provable-in-a-court-of-law method. Chemicals follow the laws of chemistry and physics; they can't read your mind so therefore they know nothing about the "intent" of the humans that handle them.
So issues like the AT/NT debate, or whether a coin's toning is "questionable" or not, ultimately boil down to market expectations - by which I mean, what the coin collecting community as a whole regards as "normal" or at least "highly probable to have occurred naturally". And this market expectation differs from coin to coin.
A 100+ year old Morgan can, and indeed should, have "100-year toning" on it. But a 2019 ASE shouldn't have 100-year toning on it (yet), because it literally isn't 100 years old (yet).
Canadian specimen coins from the 1960s and 1970s can have "naturally occurring" funky colours, because Canada unwittingly used noxious substances in its OGP specimen coin cases, so any coin left in the OGP for a couple of decades (which is a vast majority of such coins) will show that colour. American proof coins from the 1960s and 1970s are not granted the same leeway, because the OGP cases used by the US Mint did not have those same noxious substances. Occam's Razor therefore strongly suggests that any USA proof coin from the 1970s that looks like a Canadian coin, has likely been exposed to an adverse chemical environment to make it look that way. Whether or not this exposure was "intentional" is irrelevant.
Likewise, there's an overall pattern of toning expected to be seen on USA proof sets from the early 2000s; a 20 year old silver coin should have naturally toned this much, but no further. Any such coin that crosses the line - which the OP coin seems to do - will then be reasonably considered "questionable".
TLDR: coins are "questionable" because the coin collecting community, as a whole, is subjectively pointing to it and saying "that's questionable", not because of some objective well-calibrated scientific standard.
Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, "Meditations"
Apparently I have been awarded one DPOTD.
This is exactly what I thought too. The sudden changes in toning color and the vividness of the colors are suspect. 'Natural' toning typically has more gradual color changes (but not always).
https://www.the4thcoin.com
https://www.ebay.com/str/thefourthcoin
We are but human and limited as such.
I would enjoy the coin regardless of what some other humanoid may have determined 😂 @humanssuck
If I haven’t sold them yet I will post pics later of the colorful toners created by the colorful proof packaging of the 80s and 90s. And yes they looked gassed and not natural but guess what…
https://nnp.wustl.edu/library/book/560383
2001 David Lisot Video Series deep in the NNP archives.
Video on Toning.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
Many people here agree with the QC grade. I would avoid the coin. Why buy someone else's problem?
These two toned, clad Kennedy proofs straight graded. The color on both coins is much darker in hand than as shown in the photos.
PF67
PF67CAM
These clad proof minors also straight graded.
PF66
PF67
PF67CAM
PF67CAM
PF67
PF67CAM
PF67
PF67
For these coins do you agree with the straight grade/NT, or do you think the coins are QC/AT?
those all look right somehow
Agree, those look alright for the toning depicted in photos. Nothing wildly toned and as mentioned, there is some transitional toning.