How do you define Artificial Toning?
nwcs
Posts: 13,386 ✭✭✭
I hope we can have an intelligent conversation about this rather than a flame-fest....
Dorkkarl had an interesting point in another thread. We each define the artificial in artificial toning differently. How do you define it? For me, I define AT as being a chemical reaction created by direct exposure to a chemical liquid or gas. And natural toning as being that which is transferred by exposure in a regular air environment where variables are not in control (such as what colors will come up, when, how long, etc.)
How about y'all?
Dorkkarl had an interesting point in another thread. We each define the artificial in artificial toning differently. How do you define it? For me, I define AT as being a chemical reaction created by direct exposure to a chemical liquid or gas. And natural toning as being that which is transferred by exposure in a regular air environment where variables are not in control (such as what colors will come up, when, how long, etc.)
How about y'all?
0
Comments
With that said, album toning can AND can't be artificial... here's why. The materials they are made of tone a coin over time... my ASE is proof of that- I have no doubt that it spent many years picking up it's color. On the other hand, those same materials, when exposed to the right elements (water, heat...) will tone a coin in an EXTREMELY short amount of time.
Likewise, heating a coin or placing it in chemicals for an instant reaction is DEFINITELY artificial...
I guess the album toning might not be as easy to tell how long it took, but I believe the other forms (placing the coin in a flame) will easily and quickly change the color of the coin and be easily identified as such.
Jeremy
examples:
(1) a seated dime that sits in a wayte-raymont holder for 50 years & takes on beatiful target-toning is a-t
(2) a stone-mountain that is heated on top of an electric stove & turns spotty blue & purple is a-t
(3) a morgan dollar that sits on the bottom of a canvas sack at the federal reserve bank for 100 years & takes on rainbow colors is a-t
(4) a kennedy half that somebody throws up on & it turns green is a-t
the REAL question for me is whether or not you happen to like what you define as a-t. i'd prefer #1, wouldn't mind #4, & would pass on #2 & #4. but i would respect the opinion of someone who just happened to like puce-colored toning on his kennedy halves.
the REAL question for YOU is to decide , i mean really think about & decide for yourself, what do you like? the easy answer is "whatever a plastic company tells me is a-t or not". i will make this suggestion: why not think about the question & come up with your own answer?
K S
But, consider the opposite case, which I have been exposed to recently on at least 2 noteworthy occasions. Suppose you observe a coin that is uniquely toned in your experience, is beautiful, slabbed by a reputable service, but based on 30 years of reviewing coins, you are 99% sure is AT. Should you consider that coin as AT? Does it matter? I guess to me, there is some difference between owning this type of one-of-a-kind piece versus one with more obvious AT characteristics. What I find is that many of us tend to designate an AT coin based on recollections of similar colors or patterns seen. But, if we observe a piece with suspicious AT charateristics, but without similarly seen color or pattern, perhaps we are willing to give the benefit to our doubts -- even if perhaps we learned for sure that the piece we already owned was AT.
Artifical methods of application are damage- NOT toning.
So- "Artifical Toning" isn't.
peacockcoins
For example...I have a Dansco with Morgan dollars in it. Assuming I do nothing else to prompt it, it would take years for those coins to incur album toning...and I would not consider that AT...even if I wanted the coins to tone.
As for appearance....well it's like one before me said...I may not be able to describe it, but I'll know it when I see it. Slabbed or not, if it don't pass the JDLR (just don't look right) test, I'd pass.
i should have asked her for a discount.
2 Cam-Slams!
1 Russ POTD!
<< <i>In Dorks eyes any toned coin is a-t >>
no sir, not at all. in circulation, silver coins tone to grey, copper coins tone to brown. that toning is not a-t. simple!
of course, silver proofs stored in their intended environment (paper for 18'th century, cellophane late 19'th century, etc) tone differently. again, not a-t.
deviation from those circumstances IS a-t. ie. bust quarters were not manufactured for the intent of storing them in wayte-raymond holders, thus wayte-raymond toning is a-t.
now the disclaimer:
some people LIKE some kinds of a-t. i like a-t from a wayte-raymond holder, apparently so do pcgs/ngc/anacs/etc. i do NOT like a-t from a coin being baked in potatoes, apparently neither does pcgs/ngc/anacs/etc.
do y'all see my point here? the question is NOT whether a coin is a-t or not, if you accept that coins deviating from what i stated up front are a-t. the question IS whether the a-t is liked or not.
<< <i>Toning is a protective, natural patina that protects the surface of the coin. >>
braddick hit the nail on the head - no, he postively body-slammed the nail on the head! pile-driver! the natural grey patina on silver coins that everyone seems to hate (or else why would they dip 'em) , the natural brown patina that develops on copper coins that everyone hates (or else why would "RB" & "RD" coins be worth so much more) PROTECTS the coin & should not be removed. changing the patina, such as through dipping or baking or applying cigar smoke or roasting the coin in the thanksgiving turkey - damages the coin.
K S
artificial toning is caused by an act outside of a coin's intended environment that alters its existing patina
K S
I'm almost in agreement. I think no toning is artificial. I think AT should mean "applied toning", or "accelerated toning". All coins tone, and any toning that is on the surface of the coin is not artificial. It really exists, hence artificial is a bad choice of terms. Applied toning gets closer.IMO
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
We're going back and forth and around and around, again and again with "AT"
Instead, why not look at "market acceptable" toning/color/patina and, rather than worrying about defining it, talk about examples of what is "market acceptable ? And please, no fighting!
<< <i>my def'n: a-t is coloration of a coin that occurs outside it's intended environment of use.
examples:
(1) a seated dime that sits in a wayte-raymont holder for 50 years & takes on beatiful target-toning is a-t
(3) a morgan dollar that sits on the bottom of a canvas sack at the federal reserve bank for 100 years & takes on rainbow colors is a-t
>>
<< <i>
of course, silver proofs stored in their intended environment (paper for 18'th century, cellophane late 19'th century, etc) tone differently. again, not a-t.
deviation from those circumstances IS a-t. ie. bust quarters were not manufactured for the intent of storing them in wayte-raymond holders, thus wayte-raymond toning is a-t.
>>
So is KlectorKid right in respone, any circulated coin that did not circulate is AT? While a proof coin not meant to circulate is ok if it sits around for years in paper/cellophane? Maybe I'm splitting hairs because I don't see the distinction though I do agree with your summary - call it what you want!
Coinguy - Instead, why not look at "market acceptable" toning/color/patina and, rather than worrying about defining it, talk about examples of what is "market acceptable ?
But Mark, isn't Dork part of the market that decides what is acceptable? What if thousands of collectors posted to this thread, unexpectedly agreeing with Dork's view that bag toned Morgans are AT!
Stman,
You are correct - no fighting here, so far.
Ronyahski,
You asked "But Mark, isn't Dork part of the market that decides what is acceptable? What if thousands of collectors posted to this thread, unexpectedly agreeing with Dork's view that bag toned Morgans are AT "
Yes, dorkkarl is part of the market that decides what is acceptable. If he were the majority, perhaps the grading services would use a different standard in determining "market acceptablity"
Of course, at this point, the standards, whatever they are, are already in effect and well established. I believe It would take a major shift in sentiment to effect a noticeable change on the part of the major grading services.
<< <i>
"
Of course, at this point, the standards, whatever they are, are already in effect and well established. >>
Mark, I think we've raised an interesting point. When it comes to artificial toning vs. natural toning, are the grading services technical graders or market graders? If the standards are well established, your implication seems to be that grading standards are technical, either a coin is AT or it isn't. You throw in the qualifier of "whatever they are", which would be the next point of discussion - exactly what are the standards? Are they objective enough to reduce to discussion, as you suggest?
Or,are grading services market grading the toning on a coin? (not the grade it begats, but the toning itself.) Is toning on a coin any more or less acceptable to the services as they were, say ten years ago? Is it because of market acceptance of the toning?
Personally, I don't have a clue to answers to any of the foregoing questions. Toning is mostly subjective, which may be Dorkkarl's point. I have a tough enough time figuring it out for myself, let alone what the grading services think. If you have a perspective from the grading service side, I'm all ears.
Here
and
here.
"Artificial toning has been around for a long time. I've seen coins in original B Max Mehl holders that were obviously heat treated...oh Max so it ain't so! And Mehl died in the early 1950s".
And one here
by Mr. Mongomery about toning and grade.
Natural toning is oxidation applied by accident.
In addition, there is an infinite spectrum of gray between the two. How would you classify coins left in a drawer with a box of matches for 5 years? How about coins left near a water heater for 10? How about the Peacok hoard which was stored in a gun cabinet? These are the questions which make toned coin holders nervous because they cannot be quantified into the neat little catagories of NT and AT.
Regarding Mr. Hall's definition of "artificial toning: Coloring added to the surface of a coin by chemicals and/or heat.", I submit that ALL toning is the result of chemicals and/or heat. Natural toning is only possible when a man made oxidizer such as hydrogen sulfide is present at such a temperature that allows the oxidation to take place. Silver does not tarnish in pure air or water. Therefore the definition used by PCGS is not accurate and cannot be used in any strict sense. I think what Mr. Hall means is: Coloring added to the surface of the coin by chemicals and/or heat ON PURPOSE. See my definition above.
she had kept it in an envelope that you would mail a letter in for quite a few years...true
it has deep,uniform amber-golden toning on both sides which is really very nice (my opinion)...true
the little old lady putting this originally brilliant coin in an envelope makes the resultant toning natural (NT)?
me putting a brilliant silver dollar in an envelope to achieve a similar result knowing what i know about what a letter envelope will do to a silver dollar over time makes the toning artificial (AT)?
what do you guys think about this?
Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.-Albert Einstein
klectorkid says
<< <i>In Dorks eyes any toned coin is a-t ... So any uncirculated toned coin is a-t? because it was ment to circ? >>
kid, i say you are on the verge of a breakthrough. i think your trying to be a little sarcastic, but THINK about it, go further w/ it. if i pulled a bu silver dime out of circ in 1950 & put it in a archival holder, the original brilliant patina would be preserved, yes? therefore no a-t possible. but if the bu dime sat at the end of a bankroll until 2002, then got pulled out w/ end-of-roll toning, yes, a-t because the coin was intended to circulate. however, i happen to like that kind of a-t.
DHeath says
<< <i>I'm almost in agreement. I think no toning is artificial. I think AT should mean "applied toning", or "accelerated toning". All coins tone, and any toning that is on the surface of the coin is not artificial. It really exists, hence artificial is a bad choice of terms. Applied toning gets closer.IMO >>
TOTALLY agree that "artifical toning" is a stupid term. in fact, a lot of old-time collector friends & i, we make fun of the term "AT". could stand for a lot of things.
artful tone
amusing tone
applied tone
admirable tone
how about "acceptable" tone? think about that 1.
mark feld says
<< <i>We're going back and forth and around and around, again and again with "AT" and we will never agree upon a uniform definition for it. Instead, why not look at "market acceptable" toning/color/patina and, rather than worrying about defining it, talk about examples of what is "market acceptable ? >>
mark, thats the whole point. the whole point is that the wrong issue keeps getting brought up over & over, because there IS a simple definition for "a-t", but the real argument is over what kind is acceptable (there's that "a"cceptable "t"oning thing-ee again)
what is so gut-wrenching about this is that there are 2 opposing sides. 1 side is the "slabs-only" crowd, the other side is the "i'll buy what i like" crowd. bottom line is that the group that wants to be able to buy coins they like (cointoast for example) keep getting slamed by the "slabs-only" group that thinks if a coin can't be slabed, it ain't acceptable.
ie, it is tiresome to hear over & over, "pcgs won't slab it, so it's a problem coin". well, is that really what determines whether something is collectible or not? what if cointoast just happens to LIKE his stone-mtn? do we all now condemn him as an idiot just because pcgs won't slab the coin? since when does pcgs become the guardian angel of numismatics??? (note i'm using "pcgs" generically - referring to all the pertinent plastic of course!)
Ronyahski says
<< <i>why not look at "market acceptable" toning/color/patina and, rather than worrying about defining it, talk about examples of what is "market acceptable ?... isn't Dork part of the market that decides what is acceptable? What if thousands of collectors posted to this thread, unexpectedly agreeing with Dork's view that bag toned Morgans are AT! >>
it's the crux of the whole problem. mark said "talk about examples of what is "market acceptable", unfortunately, "market accpetable" has come to mean "pcgs acceptable". why? cointoast bought a coin that is NOT "pcgs-acceptable" (we all seem to agree), yet it is obviously 100% "market-acceptable", because it was purchased on the open market!
i do NOT believe that pcgs is trying to represent the "market". if anything, they would state to the contrary. they are trying to represent a tiny sliver, yes a TINY sliver of the market, which is for those folks interested in buying coins sight-unseen. in order to guarantee certain coins as such, ie "sight-unseen-worthy", the coins must fit a generic def'n, such as "no cleaning, no repairs, no scratches, no toasted-on-toning, no this-defect, no that-defect", etc. what is unfair is to assume that this TINY sliver of the market represents what is "market-acceptable", because by definition it violates my rights as a collector to feel free to collect whatever i want.
again, call me crazy, but i DO NOT like a powerful corporation like pcgs telling ME what is market-acceptable.
mark continued
<< <i>Of course, at this point, the standards, whatever they are, are already in effect and well established. >>
again, note how this violates what SHOULD be considered the holy mantra of coin collecting: "collect what you like", because it is assuming that some entity, like a pcgs for example, has the power & capacity to define the market. that is only true - if you let them. & if that's what you want, fine! i actually don't have a problem w/ that!!! PROVIDED, you know that that is what is going on, ie., you are giving up your right to have an opinion about what is collectible & what is not, because you WANT to let a powerful corporation decide FOR YOU what is collectible & what is not. for me, that would be a sad, depressing state of affairs. when you get to that point, why the he11 not move to Cuba & let the government decide what's right for you. at least you'd get a nice climate to live in
<< <i>I believe It would take a major shift in sentiment to effect a noticeable change on the part of the major grading services. >>
agreed. unfortunately, at least where newbies are concerned, the collecting community has become so danged complacent, that its probably too late to effect change. guess we're stuck w/ plastic companies telling us what we are allowed to collect. everyone happy w/ that?
Ronyahski asked
<< <i>Mark, I think we've raised an interesting point. When it comes to artificial toning vs. natural toning, are the grading services technical graders or market graders? If the standards are well established, your implication seems to be that grading standards are technical, either a coin is AT or it isn't. You throw in the qualifier of "whatever they are", which would be the next point of discussion - exactly what are the standards? Are they objective enough to reduce to discussion, as you suggest? >>
ronyahski, you are making too much sense!
<< <i>Artificial toning has been around for a long time. I've seen coins in original B Max Mehl holders that were obviously heat treated...oh Max so it ain't so! >>
again, i ask, is it just possible that some collectors like that sort of thing? heck, my 1797 has had a helluva lot more treatment then just poor old heat! it's been plugged w/ solder, detail re-engraved, black toning applied out the wazoo, toning highlights rubbed back off, etc etc, but you know what? I LOVE THE COIN. it has original VF detail, & there ain't no way i'll ever be able to afford $30,000 for 1 that is "pcgs/david-hall acceptable"
iwog said
<< <i>Regarding Mr. Hall's definition of "artificial toning: Coloring added to the surface of a coin by chemicals and/or heat.", I submit that ALL toning is the result of chemicals and/or heat. Natural toning is only possible when a man made oxidizer such as hydrogen sulfide is present at such a temperature that allows the oxidation to take place. Silver does not tarnish in pure air or water. Therefore the definition used by PCGS is not accurate and cannot be used in any strict sense. >>
that is exactly right
sorry for the humongous, long post, but like someone alluded to, there have been a lot of "flamed" threads about this issue. i hope that this thread has induced a little deeper thought than the gut reaction "if pcgs won't accept it, it's a-t & therefore totally not acceptable".
my opinion is no better than anybody else's, but considering this is a pcgs forum, i'm trying to provide a different slant than the holy mantra you will otherwise get. take my opinion for what it's worth, which in the vast realm of things, means my opinion is worth absolutely nothing. of course, that's also how much you paid for it. you have to pay pcgs for their opinion.
K S
I think coinguy1's comment cuts to chaise on this matter. Because there is that gray area in the end the market (you, me and the rest of the numismatic community) make the decision regarding what coins have been intentionally helped along. It's never going to 100% accurate but I hope the nonchalant attitude some have expressed (they're free to buy what they like) regarding the ATing of coins and the fraud (non-disclosure) that goes along with it doesn't become the prevailing attitude among collectors.
In spite of the many claims that it's easy to fool the major grading services and experienced collectors the proof of those claims (the before and after of a coin that has been ATed that now resides in a PCGS/NGC holder) hasn't and probably won't be forth coming. My personal opinion is that it is not that easy to AT coins and consistently get results that could get passed some of the best eyes in the industry.
Some of you have asked questions and/or commented on some of my remarks here. I am leaving town shortly for a coin show but hope to be able to reply tonight (if I have internet access as I anticipate).
Many of your points deserve more time than I have this morning and I want to "do you right" when I reply. Dorkkarl - I sure don't have to type as much when you're not on the boards!
I don't want to broaden the topic but for me AT (good, bad, acceptable or otherwise) is nothing more than a subset of eye appeal (EA). We all know that EA is factor that affects grade, price and desirability of a coin.
I doubt any of us would contend that there is a consensus definition of EA much less an absolute one. We might be able to agree on what are observable trends with regard to EA in the market. For example some folks like bright, white coins while others like colorful, toned coins. Few would say either approach is wrong since EA after all is a personal preference.
When large numbers of folks share the same opinion about EA it will affect the behavior of others. Coins will be dipped and curated to meet the EA preference of the bright, white crowd. (Maybe a dipped coin should be called artificially untoned?) Likewise some folks will assist the appearance of color by any number of means from WR albums, to baked spuds and even brilliant baked enamel paint all in an effort to feed the desires of the color loving crowd.
Viewing AT or real toning as EA allows one to understand why there is such a varied number of views on what is and isn't AT and what is and isn't acceptable toning. PCGS has taken their position on AT because they believe it best meets the EA preferences of their target customer base. Dorkkarl loves a bent, holed, cleaned and repaired half cent 1797 that perfectly meets his EA standards and that PCGS would call a problem coin. Are either right or wrong? Not in my view, they just possess differing preferences.
ie. if someone buys a replica of the mona lisa and thinks it's original, then what's the big deal that it isn't? if it exhibits all the same age characteristics, patina etc as the original and is undetectable, then who cares?
2 Cam-Slams!
1 Russ POTD!
<< <i>ie, it is tiresome to hear over & over, "pcgs won't slab it, so it's a problem coin". well, is that really what determines whether something is collectible or not? >>
How many times has PCGS (or any service) bagged a coin they later slabbed it? It's happened to me about 6 times and I don't submit very often. I'll bet it's happened gazillions of times. So, I guess one minute a coin is "not collectable" and the next it "is collectable" based on what kind of day the grader is having? Did his wife give him a difficult time that morning? did the kid wake up late for school? Does he have a headache? You all the see the problem here: We are letter OTHERS decide what is collectable or not. It's high time collectors in this market take a good hard look at what they are doing and decide for THEMSELVES to collect. Slabs? ok. Non-slabs? ok. Modern? ok. AT (whatever that means and it really shouldn't matter)? ok. Who cares other than YOURSELF what you pay for and collect? It's YOUR collection. Do you like the damn coin or not (for the price)? It's YOUR decision and YOUR responsibility.
C'mon people! Get a grip!
jom
"i don't really understand all the hubbub about AT. if you like the tone, then get it. what difference does it make if it was applied artificially?"
Your comment along with some of the things mentioned by RLinn focus sole on appearance.
One factor that is associate with but not totally tied to appearance is originality and authenticity. If appearance is all that matters then you can buy a pristine replica of an 1794 Flowing Hair Dollar or 1822 Half Eagle.
As has been mention you can't be absolutely sure about a coins history unless you've owned it from the time it left the mint. That said the surfaces of a coin are an indicator regarding it's history.
My personal preference is a coin that is as close to original as possible WITHOUT having been intentional altered. If that means the coins has some incidental, unintentional toning due to the storage methods that were common 50, 100 or 150 years ago, that would be MY preference over a coin that has been dipped. I won't consider buying a coin that I knew to be ATed no matter it looked like.
I think any intentional alteration of a coins surfaces (dipping, ATing, whizzing, etc.), other than incidental alterations as a result of doing something to protect a coin from some type of agressive environmental damage, is to be avoided.
Clankeye
i agree to some extent. i would much rather have an original piece than an altered one also. that said, if i'm that caught up in originality then i better damn well know what an original piece would look like and appreciate it. because if i can't appreciate originality, then what makes it necessarily more valuable than artificiality?
maybe the best way to explain it is that if someone buys an artificially toned coin and believes it to be original his whole life - does it really matter that it's not? or to another extent, if someone buys what he believes to be the most beautiful and valuable rock in the world and believes that his whole life - does it matter that it's worthless? value is a creation of the senses.
rather than attempt to bend the spoon, try to see the truth - there is no spoon.
alright my head hurts now.
2 Cam-Slams!
1 Russ POTD!
<< <i>Your comment along with some of the things mentioned by RLinn focus sole on appearance. One factor that is associate with but not totally tied to appearance is originality and authenticity. >>
I agree that there is more to a coin than eye appeal. Authenticity and originality (lack of undisclosed defects) are also very important. My primary point is that, for me, toning is a simply a subset of eye appeal. Thus, I readily agree with your point that there are also other factors affecting marketability.
"i better damn well know what an original piece would look like and appreciate it."
Very true.
"because if i can't appreciate originality, then what makes it necessarily more valuable than artificiality?"
Again, very true.
The same goes with art, antiques and a lot of other things.
"maybe the best way to explain it is that if someone buys an artificially toned coin and believes it to be original his whole life - does it really matter that it's not?"
Yes, when he goes to sell it to a knowledgable dealer or collector who's only going to give him ATed money for it.
the smartest coin dealer i ever met told me something once long ago, & i never forgot it. & it's incredibly astute for being such a simple statement:
if you really want the coin, it is impossible to pay too much for it
there was a time when i didn't believe this, sounds stupid at 1st. but if you think about it, apply it to coin collecting, this statement will save you $ & frustration over the long haul, & makes trivial questions like the following:
would this coin certify?
which slab is better, pcgs or ngc?
what's the pop-report on this coin?
is this coin a-t'd?
how much less is it worth due to the cleaning?
how much less is it worth due to the hole?
should i invest in gold bullion coins or early dollars?
what coins are going to rise most in value over the next year?
are colorized coins worthless?
.... & on & on.
think about it. it's a real simple philosophy, 1 that i have from time to time thought i could outsmart, but have always come full circle back to it.
interestingly, it works in reverse too. if you decide you can't afford a particular coin, then isn't the reality that you don't really want it? i mean really really REALLY want it? because if you did, you'd find a way to afford it.
anyway, not saying this should be everyone's philosophy, just saying it works for me.
K S
<< <i>if you decide you can't afford a particular coin, then isn't the reality that you don't really want it? i mean really really REALLY want it? because if you did, you'd find a way to afford it. anyway, not saying this should be everyone's philosophy, just saying it works for me. K S >>
Reminds me of an adage used by an investment advisor friend of mine "People buy emotionally and justify financially."
<< <i>As others have mentioned I think intent is at the core of what consititutes ATed coins. The problem is how do you determine someone's intent. >>
I agree. Earlier I posted that AT is like pornography. It was light-hearted, but it really is a good analogy for me. Intent is an important factor in determining what is pornographic (even the Supreme Court said so). Determining intent is so highly subjective, we all come to our own conclusions.
Lots of good points on toning viz-a-viz the grading services from dorkkarl, RLinn and Jom. The services are (hopefully) not establishing market acceptance, nor are they making much of a defined statement on what AT is. Didn't even PCGS (Hall?) state they were erring on the side of conservatism in grading toned coins? More proof - when PCGS bodybags a coin for toning, they don't call it Artificial, they call it Questionable.
interesting. being an economics major this statement should make perfect sense. but lately i've been questioning adam smith's model of efficient distribution of wealth.
- a loaf of bread may be worth an incredible amount to a poor starving man, but a fat rich man can obviously pay more.
in which case resources are not distributed where they're needed, the whole purpose of economics.
this crossed my mind one time when i saw a celebrity sitting courtside at a bull's game (when they were good). i was thinking about what a serious misallocation of resources it was. this rich guy who probably doesn't know a basketball from a hockey puck is sitting courtside while some die-hard bulls fan who hasn't missed a game in 30 years is sitting in the rafters or worse yet couldn't afford tickets at all. obvoiusly it has nothing to do with who wants it more and in my mind a flaw in economic theory.
2 Cam-Slams!
1 Russ POTD!
Personally I hate the usual things such as wild toning on a 2002 SAE,Blast white, deep mirrored cameo 1800s proof coins.And ,well maybe it is the `scanned coins on the computer` but those colors on some slabbed Morgans seem to have TOO much color.Or the colors are too intense.Looks fakey to me.
Color on coins is so subjective.Like many have said,as long as its got eye-appeal to someone,very many collectors and even non-collectors will buy them just for what the color says to THEM.
Like just because a coin looks like it was slattered with mud,to another its original toning and very desirable
based on that aspect aloneLike they say,.Beauty iis in the eye of the beholder.
Or are grading services market grading the toning on a coin? (not the grade it begats, but the toning itself.) Is toning on a coin any more or less acceptable to the services as they were, say ten years ago? Is it because of market acceptance of the toning?"
I believe that the grading services are both technical graders and market graders when it comes to determining whether coins are AT or not. On the "technical" side, I think they put their knowledge and experience to work and weed out those coins which they know to be AT. On the "market" grading end of it, I think they make allowances for coins that they might not be certian about, but which they think should or will be "market acceptable." Their "standards" are therefore based on the aforementioned considerations. Of course, it can be the "chicken and the egg" syndrome when we talk about "market acceptability". The grading companies can be affected by the market (and its acceptance of various looks of toned coins) and the market can (or must, in some way, out of necessity) be affected by the grading services. This is reality, in my opinion.
dorkkarl - you said "unfortunately, "market accpetable" has come to mean "pcgs acceptable". why? cointoast bought a coin that is NOT "pcgs-acceptable" (we all seem to agree), yet it is obviously 100% "market-acceptable", because it was purchased on the open market!"
I don't feel that your example above qualifies as "market acceptable." Perhaps if the majority of people who saw the coin or images of it thought it was natural/original, I would call it "market acceptable" That was not the case, however.
Edited to add : excellent and highly interesting discussion, gentlemen!
<< <i>The grading companies can be affected by the market (and its acceptance of various looks of toned coins) and the market can (or must, in some way, out of necessity) be affected by the grading services. This is reality, in my opinion.
>>
Alas, out of necessity, I can deal with reality. A healthy balance between the voice of the market and the voice of the grading services...can't disagree with that.
<< <i>On the "market" grading end of it, I think they make allowances for coins that they might not be certian about, but which they think should or will be "market acceptable." Their "standards" are therefore based on the aforementioned considerations. >>
Put another way, if I might try, the poplulation of coins that they might not be certain about has increased, due to more activity and interest lately with toned coins, more questionable toned coins on the market, and admitedly more of a conservative approach when grading them as a result of the foregoing. So maybe their standards have not changed, it is just more difficult lately to try to maintain them.
So what show are you at?
I don't feel that the standards of the major grading companies have changed regarding AT, though, as we all know, those "standards" are not always perfect or perfectly consistent. Perhaps there is more focus on the subject recently, with some of the astronomical prices realized by toned monsters?
I'm at the Mountaineer's coin show with Pete.
Back at you during the weekend if this thread continues that long.
<< <i>dorkkarl - you said "unfortunately, "market accpetable" has come to mean "pcgs acceptable". why? cointoast bought a coin that is NOT "pcgs-acceptable" (we all seem to agree), yet it is obviously 100% "market-acceptable", because it was purchased on the open market!" >>
hey coinguy, note that i made the statement very much tongue-in-cheek, because if you believe it, probabilty is that you are a slabs-only kind of guy. i would contend that the true coin market is very broad & allows for slabed coins, a-t'd coins, junk coins, colorized coins, foreign coins, basically all coins that exist. however, i have stated before that i beleive TWO distinct hobbies exist today due to the presence of slabs. there is the coin-hobby, that broad market which i just described, and there is also a slab-hobby, by which i mean the purchaser's market is limit strictly to coins in plastic. furthermore, that slab-hobby could probably be divided into miniscule sub-markets, a pcgs-hobby, ngc-hobby, etc etc.
i guess what i'm trying to say in a nutshell is that one hobby is based on numismatics, another on numisplastics.
(hey, i just coined a new word!
it's a significant point to my argument, but is straying a little off the subject. bottom line is that where the definition of artificial-toning lies for me, well, i stated it near the top of page 2 of this thread, & i believe it to be more relevant to the broadest possible market then pcgs's un-defined definition.
K S
K S