Man - we've spawned everything from checker fights to wrestling matches on this thread - there must be some kind of first for this!
Anyway, one thing that I wanted to chip in is this whole idea of what's original and what's not. Granted that everyone has their own opinions driven by whatever motivation they feel is important to them but:
1. I do not agree that "original" toning should be limited to those coins toned in canvas bags.
2. I do not agree that silver turns to grey exclusively (and I say this knowing that there is some tongue in cheeck to this statement)
On the first issue, there are numerous series that have coins with fantastic toning, and did not tone in canvas bags. I will point to two relatively new coins, the SL Quarter and the Franklin half. Both of these coins come with some pretty amazing toning, particularly the SLQ. To the best of my knowledge, the toning on these coins comes from the way they were stored, particularly in some sort of paper or carboard based receptacle. To say that only Morgan, or any other dollar for that matter is the only recepient of "original" toning is too limiting in my opinion. Now, where I draw the line is - did someone purposely set out to change the look of a coin, expediting the process, for gain, or to achieve a look that would otherwise not be present had the coin stayed in it's original condition. If a coin tones a certain way because a collector had it in his/her collectors case, album, mintset holder or what have you, and nature took it's course, then in my book that's original. If Joe Chemistryset decided to do "something" to try to mimick this time honored system, that's where the line has to be drawn and yes - it is very very difficult sometimes to tell the difference.
Does silver turn exclusively grey. No - and the proof is in the above examples. You can chose to believe this or not - that's up to you. One thing that I cannot accept is the premise that if I ask a grading service whether or not the toning that I'm looking at is genuine, then I am somehow betraying my integrity as a collector. When I buy an expensive coin, because I like it, I also think about protecting my investment. I do so by having experts in the field tell me "Yes, the market would consider this a worthy collectible". Now, if this is incorrect thinking, I would challenge you gold collectors, particularly 20th century gold collectors, to go out and buy exclusively raw coins that look pretty to you and not take advantage of verification that you're not buying a counterfit coin (remember COINDAUGHTER's ordeal with her $3 gold piece?)
The certification process does not prostitute yourself to the whims of the grading services. It does put a stamp of approval on your purchase from the standpoint that hey - the price you're paying is pretty well justified based on the product that you're getting. If this were not the case, a lot of people could pay a whole lot of money for coins that are "painted" pretty. For my money, I would, at this stage of the game, rather buy a "wildly" toned Morgan that a few people have looked at and said "yeah - this is the real thing", or even "yeah this will sell again". Am I betting my mortgage on it? Is there a possibility they could be dead wrong? Is there a possibility that the bottom could fall completely out of the "toned market"? Absolutely, but I look at this as a hedged bet.
There - another discourse!
Frank
PS - And thanks for all the kind words on the post. It was a pleasure putting this up and I'm glad folks are enjoying it
Actually, what PMH, Dorkkarl and Dog97 all said was true....each has their own opinion and that is the way it should be.
<< <i>1. I do not agree that "original" toning should be limited to those coins toned in canvas bags. >>
"Should be limited" by whom? You? Me? I say if Dog97 wants to limit what he calls "oringinal" that is his business. I do not hold to the same idea but that's my perogitive.
What I'm trying to say here is that there aren't any "absolutes" in what you can call AT or NT or whatever. IMO, it works just like grading. What one person calls MS65 another calls MS66 and so on. This is why I emphisize not worrying about what everyone else (other collectors, grading services, you mother) thinks about your coins. You should only satisfy yourself....
FC57Coins says: I do not agree that "original" toning should be limited to those coins toned in canvas bags. The Mint did not use Dansco Albums, Wyatt Raymond boards, Whitman Folders or Kraft Envelopes to store Morgans in the Treasury Vaults. Somewhere along the line someone removed the Morgan from it's ORIGINAL holder, that being the mint bag, and placed it in a non-original holder where it recieved it's tone. So album tone is not original to a Morgan Dollar.
I know I'm confusing you guys now but listen, I did not say it was AT or FAKE or anything about a PCGS holder. Don't think I'm making a blanket statement to cover all coins, I'm only refering to Morgan Dollars, not to other issues that are released from the Mint in cardboard, plastic, cellophane, and velvet lined boxes.
As dorkkarl pointed out earlier in this thread just because a toner goes into a PCGS slab does not mean it's original, old, accidental or anything else, it means that it is market acceptable, not whether or not the holder it was stored in was original or aftermarket.
I agree with dorkkarl, he's more purist than I thought.
Change that we can believe in is that change which is 90% silver.
I understand your point but I think intent in addition to certainty of outcome are issues that have a bearing on whether a coin should be classified AT. What do I mean by certainty of outcome? The intent may be there but just because you put a coin in a kraft envelope is no guarantee you'll end up with a monster in 5, 10 or 20 years. You may or may not end up with a coin with beautiful toning and if you do it will have gone through the same process of acquiring that toning as a coin that by happenstance was stored under the same conditions. The same goes for coins in the older paper/cardboard Mint packaging.
A coin doctor does everything possible to take the uncertainty out of the process in order to increase the probability that whatever process he uses will produced the desired affect (a coin that doesn't have the telltale sights of doctoring pointed out in this thread). His intention is to duplicate over and over again the results that random happenstance has produced. If successful it devalues the coins with "original" toning.
There is a certain mystic (at least for me) in knowing that by random happenstance and possibly over decades a coin acquired attractive toning. That mystic and appreciation (again, for me) is just not there for a coin that I know or suspect has been doctor to produce the same or (more likely) close to the same results. I feel the same way about coins that have been dipped.
One of the main attractions coin collecting has for me is my view of them as artifacts of history. I appreciate them in whatever condition they happen to be in as they have made there way through history to the present (toned, blast white or a combination of the two). I don't expect most 100 year old coins to be blast white. I also don't expect that most would end up with beautiful concentric irridicent toning. The ones that do are relative rare and probably should command a premium for originality and beauty. Intentionally alternating the surfaces of coin with the mind to cash in on that premium is in my opinion fraud. But that's just my humble opinion.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
Comments
What happened..... see too many AT (attic toned) ones?
Anyway, one thing that I wanted to chip in is this whole idea of what's original and what's not. Granted that everyone has their own opinions driven by whatever motivation they feel is important to them but:
1. I do not agree that "original" toning should be limited to those coins toned in canvas bags.
2. I do not agree that silver turns to grey exclusively (and I say this knowing that there is some tongue in cheeck to this statement)
On the first issue, there are numerous series that have coins with fantastic toning, and did not tone in canvas bags. I will point to two relatively new coins, the SL Quarter and the Franklin half. Both of these coins come with some pretty amazing toning, particularly the SLQ. To the best of my knowledge, the toning on these coins comes from the way they were stored, particularly in some sort of paper or carboard based receptacle. To say that only Morgan, or any other dollar for that matter is the only recepient of "original" toning is too limiting in my opinion. Now, where I draw the line is - did someone purposely set out to change the look of a coin, expediting the process, for gain, or to achieve a look that would otherwise not be present had the coin stayed in it's original condition. If a coin tones a certain way because a collector had it in his/her collectors case, album, mintset holder or what have you, and nature took it's course, then in my book that's original. If Joe Chemistryset decided to do "something" to try to mimick this time honored system, that's where the line has to be drawn and yes - it is very very difficult sometimes to tell the difference.
Does silver turn exclusively grey. No - and the proof is in the above examples. You can chose to believe this or not - that's up to you. One thing that I cannot accept is the premise that if I ask a grading service whether or not the toning that I'm looking at is genuine, then I am somehow betraying my integrity as a collector. When I buy an expensive coin, because I like it, I also think about protecting my investment. I do so by having experts in the field tell me "Yes, the market would consider this a worthy collectible". Now, if this is incorrect thinking, I would challenge you gold collectors, particularly 20th century gold collectors, to go out and buy exclusively raw coins that look pretty to you and not take advantage of verification that you're not buying a counterfit coin (remember COINDAUGHTER's ordeal with her $3 gold piece?)
The certification process does not prostitute yourself to the whims of the grading services. It does put a stamp of approval on your purchase from the standpoint that hey - the price you're paying is pretty well justified based on the product that you're getting. If this were not the case, a lot of people could pay a whole lot of money for coins that are "painted" pretty. For my money, I would, at this stage of the game, rather buy a "wildly" toned Morgan that a few people have looked at and said "yeah - this is the real thing", or even "yeah this will sell again". Am I betting my mortgage on it? Is there a possibility they could be dead wrong? Is there a possibility that the bottom could fall completely out of the "toned market"? Absolutely, but I look at this as a hedged bet.
There - another discourse!
Frank
PS - And thanks for all the kind words on the post. It was a pleasure putting this up and I'm glad folks are enjoying it
<< <i>1. I do not agree that "original" toning should be limited to those coins toned in canvas bags. >>
"Should be limited" by whom? You? Me? I say if Dog97 wants to limit what he calls "oringinal" that is his business. I do not hold to the same idea but that's my perogitive.
What I'm trying to say here is that there aren't any "absolutes" in what you can call AT or NT or whatever. IMO, it works just like grading. What one person calls MS65 another calls MS66 and so on. This is why I emphisize not worrying about what everyone else (other collectors, grading services, you mother) thinks about your coins. You should only satisfy yourself....
jom
The Mint did not use Dansco Albums, Wyatt Raymond boards, Whitman Folders or Kraft Envelopes to store Morgans in the Treasury Vaults. Somewhere along the line someone removed the Morgan from it's ORIGINAL holder, that being the mint bag, and placed it in a non-original holder where it recieved it's tone. So album tone is not original to a Morgan Dollar.
I know I'm confusing you guys now but listen, I did not say it was AT or FAKE or anything about a PCGS holder.
Don't think I'm making a blanket statement to cover all coins, I'm only refering to Morgan Dollars, not to other issues that are released from the Mint in cardboard, plastic, cellophane, and velvet lined boxes.
As dorkkarl pointed out earlier in this thread just because a toner goes into a PCGS slab does not mean it's original, old, accidental or anything else, it means that it is market acceptable, not whether or not the holder it was stored in was original or aftermarket.
I agree with dorkkarl, he's more purist than I thought.
I understand your point but I think intent in addition to certainty of outcome are issues that have a bearing on whether a coin should be classified AT. What do I mean by certainty of outcome? The intent may be there but just because you put a coin in a kraft envelope is no guarantee you'll end up with a monster in 5, 10 or 20 years. You may or may not end up with a coin with beautiful toning and if you do it will have gone through the same process of acquiring that toning as a coin that by happenstance was stored under the same conditions. The same goes for coins in the older paper/cardboard Mint packaging.
A coin doctor does everything possible to take the uncertainty out of the process in order to increase the probability that whatever process he uses will produced the desired affect (a coin that doesn't have the telltale sights of doctoring pointed out in this thread). His intention is to duplicate over and over again the results that random happenstance has produced. If successful it devalues the coins with "original" toning.
There is a certain mystic (at least for me) in knowing that by random happenstance and possibly over decades a coin acquired attractive toning. That mystic and appreciation (again, for me) is just not there for a coin that I know or suspect has been doctor to produce the same or (more likely) close to the same results. I feel the same way about coins that have been dipped.
One of the main attractions coin collecting has for me is my view of them as artifacts of history. I appreciate them in whatever condition they happen to be in as they have made there way through history to the present (toned, blast white or a combination of the two). I don't expect most 100 year old coins to be blast white. I also don't expect that most would end up with beautiful concentric irridicent toning. The ones that do are relative rare and probably should command a premium for originality and beauty. Intentionally alternating the surfaces of coin with the mind to cash in on that premium is in my opinion fraud. But that's just my humble opinion.