AT, Market acceptable, no one will ever completely know the difference
stman
Posts: 11,352 ✭✭✭✭✭
Okay here it goes. I've held out on this for sometime now, but I've felt it all along. Sometimes I gave the benefit that the graders know more than me and others, sometimes not. Not only did NGC grade this ms63, but they said they loved it by giving it the coveted star. And as many of you know Peace$ don't tone like Morgans. I have seen many toned Peace$ and the color sits on the surface light and kind of translucent. As this one does.
I also own a few and although they are album toned the color sits on the surface the same as this one does. Peace$ don't tone as nice as Morgans having something to do with the way the planchets were acid washed and not rinsed good. Well, you know as soon as a beauty like this would come across the graders eyes it would put the red flag up, and they would look real close. they said it was Market acceptable by slabbing it.
I have shown this to quite a few knowledgeable dealers, and one ex grader. Some said they think it's real, some said it can't be real because they just don't tone like this. Now since I've brought it up you will find all kinds of reasons why you don't think it's real.
The color sits on the surface just fine. Here is what I see, there is no break in toning on any of the bag marks, And on Peace$ that are toned there is almost always breaks. And I know the big one is the almost mirror image on both sides.
Now here is a big one for me and I'm no expert but none of the "experts" mentioned this. The pattern is supposed to be consistent with bag tone, But look at the brilliant parts of the coin. No kind of original skin, crust, patina or whatever you want to call it. It just is too fresh. Any toned Peace$ I've seen has all this or even the spots that many of these coins have due to the process at the mint.
Now they might have slabbed it because it's basically a $20.00 coin. But they know these bring premiums. Maybe they did it because they don't bring the kind of money Morgan's do, Yet. The coin is what it is. And for what it is it's fine, if that makes any sense.
Anyway, many people have mentioned market acceptable on here and many are probably wondering OK what's that? I have learned a lot on this board and hope maybe this contribution will give some back.
Oh yea, so I guess by this post I won't be able to sell it to you guys huh?
Here is market acceptable.
obv
rev
I also own a few and although they are album toned the color sits on the surface the same as this one does. Peace$ don't tone as nice as Morgans having something to do with the way the planchets were acid washed and not rinsed good. Well, you know as soon as a beauty like this would come across the graders eyes it would put the red flag up, and they would look real close. they said it was Market acceptable by slabbing it.
I have shown this to quite a few knowledgeable dealers, and one ex grader. Some said they think it's real, some said it can't be real because they just don't tone like this. Now since I've brought it up you will find all kinds of reasons why you don't think it's real.
The color sits on the surface just fine. Here is what I see, there is no break in toning on any of the bag marks, And on Peace$ that are toned there is almost always breaks. And I know the big one is the almost mirror image on both sides.
Now here is a big one for me and I'm no expert but none of the "experts" mentioned this. The pattern is supposed to be consistent with bag tone, But look at the brilliant parts of the coin. No kind of original skin, crust, patina or whatever you want to call it. It just is too fresh. Any toned Peace$ I've seen has all this or even the spots that many of these coins have due to the process at the mint.
Now they might have slabbed it because it's basically a $20.00 coin. But they know these bring premiums. Maybe they did it because they don't bring the kind of money Morgan's do, Yet. The coin is what it is. And for what it is it's fine, if that makes any sense.
Anyway, many people have mentioned market acceptable on here and many are probably wondering OK what's that? I have learned a lot on this board and hope maybe this contribution will give some back.
Oh yea, so I guess by this post I won't be able to sell it to you guys huh?
Here is market acceptable.
obv
rev
Please... Save The Stories, Just Answer My Questions, And Tell Me How Much!!!!!
0
Comments
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
To answer you question and as one person that has looked at hundreds of toned, semi-toned, rainbow toned, rim toned, russet toned, blah blah blah peace $, my initial reaction is AT. But after drooling over the pics for a little while and comparing them in my head to other toned Peace $, it just maybe real.
Of course I don't like the comments about it not having original skin and it being too "new" but it could happen, unlikely, but possible. It is a common date and one that you do see toned quite often, but monster rainbows on Peace $ is oh, so rare. I personally wouldn't worry about AT, market acceptablility or anything else. It's a great coin, with unbelievable toning that others (NGC Graders, and I mean graders since they all probably looked at that one) have deemed to be real and worth a *. Leave well enough alone and if you really don't like it, PM me with a price. It'll make a nice addition to my set
Otherwise, enjoy that coin for it really is a GEM!
Michael
Thought maybe I could contribute something, no more to it than that. Please don't take it out of content.
I'll tell you something you may not want to hear,,,,,,,,about 3 yrs. ago(?) at the C.S. show, I saw a dealers case with about 20 or 30 !RAW! Peace dollars that all had nearly that exact same toning pattern and coloration.
dragon
Dennis
Looking for PCGS AU58 Washington's, 32-63.
<< <i>I'll tell you something you may not want to hear,,,,,,,,about 3 yrs. ago(?) at the C.S. show, I saw a dealers case with about 20 or 30 !RAW! Peace dollars that all had nearly that exact same toning pattern and coloration. >>
What's your point? Are you saying that because there were a bunch of these that means it's not AT? Please elaborate...
jom
dragon
in light of this on-going argument, my current project is to try and simulate the kind of rainbow toning on morgans that go for stupid money. the bad news right now is: i'm surprising myself at how easy it is to do.
K S
TBT
Not all toning comes from bags. It can also come from holders. I have 1991 silver eagle that was kept in a plush box for several years. It went in as a white coin but the obverse, which came into contact with the satin lid liner has some half way decent toning (see attached - forget it the picture thingy is down again!!!). I've see a few of the coins with much better than half way decent toning of the same ilk that have sold for big premiums.
Do you call it AT because it formed from a holder that happened to be in the right circumstances for several years? I'd say no, but if you could ever patent the process you would be doing well for a while until the market go flooded with toned coins. Then white coins would come back into style, and the all the toned ones would get dipped!
What bag tone are you saying this is supposed to look like? If you're comparing it to Morgans, you yourself said they "...don't tone like Morgans...".
Biking nut, you don't know what you are talking about regarding tones. All toning is AT? Yes, toning is caused by a reaction with something. Surface contact, environment, etc. The problem is AT is instant. Natural toning occurs over time, and has a distinct pattern and set of colors, proven over time.
AT is intentional toning. Useed to hide or cover flaws. Either way, its used, it's means are to decieve.
Mint issued sets are AT? Bank bags AT? Natural toning naturally occuring in albums. My suggestion, continue to buy what you like, leave the tones to others. Don't blast what you don't know.
I think the term MARKET ACCEPTABLE is BS. If that's the case, slab ALL tones, and truly say let the market decide. Not some slab company with a division selling coins!
As always, buy what you prefer. Good Luck. Kscope
obv
rev
Greg
That really isn't the issue. Does anyone ever know with absolute certainty that a coin is MS-66 rather than MS-65. How many coins are in MS holders with "a little bit of rub."
Absolute certainty is a lofty ideal but it's not what you're going to find in the real world of coin collecting. In the real world of coin collecting it's about market acceptability.
I don't want to go around in circles about what constitutes ATing. You can broaden the definition to mean any toning but I don't know if that really contributes anything of value to the discussion. My definition of ATing a coin is anything done "intentionally" to create what's considered market acceptable toning using a method known to increase the level of certainty that a particular outcome will be the result.
Can you ever know with absolute certainty regarding a particular coin? Only if you know the history of the coin from the time it left the Mint. What I try to do is eliminate, based on the knowledge I have about the "natural" toning process and the ways coin naturally tone, those coins that don't have the appearance that matches what I know about the toning process and the methods of natural toning. I aim for a high level certainty that translates into market acceptability. I don't make a claim of "absolute" certainty although there are a lot of coins that you can be near certain were helped in attaining the color they have.
<< <i>No kind of original skin, crust, patina or whatever you want to call it. >>
Just pulling out another tidbit of knowledge I hadn't considered. It makes sense that a coin that toned over a long period of time would have some kind of original patina to it, something other than just the colors that have developed.
Good thread, Stman. Especially for us newbs.
Russ, NCNE
Toning is a combination or chemisty and metallurgy - nothing more. The same kind of chemical reactions may take 50 years in a Mint bag or 50 minutes in a coin doctor's oven. Experts who claim to always know the difference are talking from their egos, not from science. But, does it matter? If you like the coin why spend sleepless nights worring about whether it spent 70 years sitting in the drawer of an old desk in a chemical factory office, was discovered wrapped in original Mint tissue in great-aunt Deborah's cosmetic case, or it just popped out of an oven in a lab New Jersey?
I just don't understand all of this worry, anxiety, and controvery over chemical reactions?
Thank you for your attention.
<< <i>AT is intentional toning. Useed to hide or cover flaws. Either way, its used, it's means are to decieve >>
so nobody had ever applied toning to a coin simply because they like it? you've given a blanket statement that you have no proof of.
it's the same old argument that goes round & round, & shows up on this forum time & again. yet it is an absurd issue, because of the false argument that somebody can distinguis between "artificial" & "real" toning, terms that are meaningless.
ALL of the wild-n-crazy colors are artificial. ALL of them!
the ONLY issue that matters in the context of this discussion is whether somebody else (ie. ngc/pcgs, whatever) deems it allowable for you to collect it. admit it! isn't that the real question? if you didn't give a lick about whether a plastic company would slab it or not, why would you even be arguing this subject? you would simply buy the coin if you liked the toning, or vice versa.
it is BLINDLY ABSURD for these threads to always babble on about whether something is "a-t" or not. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE, and even if it were, there is NO ANSWER. an "issue" only arises when you allow a plastic compnay to dictate what you may or may not collect. it really is - THAT SIMPLE.
try this simple test, a thought-experiment. imagine that you are a collector with unlimited means who will buy a coin strictly on the basis of whether you like it or not. you don't care what the seller thinks , you don't care what ngc thinks , you don't care what pcgs thinks. you don't care what the pope thinks, you don't even care what your mama thinks! your purchasing decisions are COMPLETELY, 100% UP TO YOU to decide what you want to buy.
now, imagine the peace dollar subject of this thread is available. there is ONE, & only one question that you must ask yourself to determine whether the coin is market-acceptable or not: DO YOU WANT THE COIN?
sorry to go on a rampage, but far too many threads have garbaged up the forum with tiresome, non-ending jabbering about whether this or that or another is "a-t", when the real question is: "do i like the coin or not", and sadly, for almost everyone here, what they like is determined solely by whether pcgs/ngc permits them to like it.
K S
<< <i>sorry to go on a rampage >>
Karl, your post is no rampage. It is the application of solid logic and the expression of a well thought through position. A joy to read.
I'm wouldn't take it to the extreme of "anxiety" or "sleepless nights" but there are important issues with respect to the natural toning (attractive toning as a matter of happenstance) versus artifical toning (obtained via intention processing to duplicate what is market acceptable) debate. There are matters of economics and honesty involved.
Economics: If one Franklin out of every ten-thousand that was part of a mint set ends up with monster toning that coin tends to command a premium for the toning and maybe a heft one at that. If I could somehow take the other 9,999 and by some magical process duplicate that monster toning the effect is to diminish the market value of the one that obtained the toning via happenstance.
Honesty: Anything intentional done to alter the surfaces of a coin in an attempt to enhance the market value of the coin that is not disclosed to the buyer is IMHO an attempt to commit fraud. Those that make the statement "it shouldn't matter how the coin obtained the toning" should encourage those that doctor coins to disclose the doctor and let the market determine the value of the coin. The fact that the doctors aren't forthcoming in disclosing the doctoring is strong evidence in my mind that most collectors don't agree with the "doesn't matter" comments.
"false argument that somebody can distinguis between "artificial" & "real" toning"
Two problems with your argument dorlkarl. The first is that you want everyone to agree with your definition of what constitutes ATed. The second is your erroneous claim that in the vast majority of cases a high level of certainty regarding how a coin obtained it's toning CAN'T be achieved.
When you begin the discussion with those two flawed premises it's difficult to have rational conversation regarding the market for toned coins.
<< <i>There are matters of economics and honesty involved.
Economics: If one Franklin out of every ten-thousand that was part of a mint set ends up with monster toning that coin tends to command a premium for the toning and maybe a heft one at that. If I could somehow take the other 9,999 and by some magical process duplicate that monster toning the effect is to diminish the market value of the one that obtained the toning via happenstance. >>
so what? what does that matter? your point is that such action affects the price, ie greater supply = lesser demand = falling prices. so what? do you buy every coin with the caveat that the price must never fall on it? is it such a horrible thing to buy a coin for $120 that in 2 years falls to a book value of $100? are you only buying coins with the idea of financial gain? if so, then that is the problem. you have exited from the hobby & entered the realm of business, where all the rules change. so sad. but if you buy the coin because you LIKE IT - no, REALLY REALLY LIKE IT, & you don't care what everyone else thinks, PRICE IS NOT AN ISSUE EITHER. if you were honest with yourself when you bought the coin, and you really like it, you would not care one iota about the book value.
<< <i>Honesty: Anything intentional done to alter the surfaces of a coin in an attempt to enhance the market value of the coin that is not disclosed to the buyer is IMHO an attempt to commit fraud. >>
sure, just like waxing a car prior to selling it is fraud. just like painting a house before you put it on the market is fraud. of course, washing the clothes before you sell them in your yard sale is also fraud, as is getting the blown tweeters on your speaker system replaced before you sell 'em is fraud. & of course, let's don't forget all the fancy packaging of the stuff on your grocery shelves, that's fraud too, because it has nothing to do w/ what's INSIDE that matters, right? c'mon, are you going to tremble in your shell while worrying about all those scary doctors out there maiming coins by the millions & coimmiting fraud? what if instead of worrying about all the horrible, nasty, scary things that you can't even see, you just simply worry about whether you like the coin or not?
<< <i>Those that make the statement "it shouldn't matter how the coin obtained the toning" should encourage those that doctor coins to disclose the doctor and let the market determine the value of the coin. >>
again, you missed the point. NOBODY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH, not pcgs, not ngc, NOBODY can tell the difference between changed surfaces w/ any kind of consistency. NOBODY. whether you like coin doctors or not IS NOT the issue. they are going to be there no matter what you do, as long as fools are willing to spend any kind of money on coins.
if you want to get rid of coin doctors, if you REALLY, TRULY want to get rid of coin doctors, everyone who buys coins must agree to spend only the bare minimum for them, so that their value does not become attractive to would-be thieves.
if you think about it for, oh, i don't know, ten seconds, it becomes very clear that slabbing of coins is the root cause of the proliferation of coin-doctors.
yeah, i know your laughing with disbelief. dorkkarl has really gone off the deep end this time - bitter hatred of plastic has put him over, right?
THINK ABOUT IT. without slabs, nobody would spend the outrageous, laughable sums that now exchange hands in heritage, teletrade, superior, etc. auctions, for unseen coins. the very instant that even one single "doctored" coin enters a slab, pandora's box is opened up, & suddenly every single doctor-wannabe realizes that a zap of this & a quick dip of that, & voila! just get it in the slab, & the coin is worth SO much MORE, now, righ?. oh, & all the screwed up doctored coins, the ones that DIDN'T make it into the slab??? TOO BAD.
yeah, i hear it all the time: "things were a lot worse in the old days before slabs". bull. i've been through the old times & the new, & there are FAR, FAR more doctored coins around today than there ever were before. the difference is that today, the amount of money is FAR greater too, & you know what happens to a fool & his money.
K S
applied treatments merely act to speed up the toning proces rather then coat the coin with
chemicals and or bake. The process of accelerating a natural phenominon would seem
to be difficult to differentiate from what we would consider natural market acceptable toning.
This has been a very informative and interesting thread, thank you for posting it as well
as for the pictures.
Camelot
<< <i>Two problems with your argument dorlkarl. The first is that you want everyone to agree with your definition of what constitutes ATed. >>
hold it right there. this is another point that has gone round & round & round again, & never stops, & you claim it is the basis of an irrational argument. the reality is: NOBODY has defined A-T at all! so at least, i have provided something solid, a point that CAN be argued. arguing endlessly w/out even defining the basis of your argument - THAT'S irrational!
<< <i>The second is your erroneous claim that in the vast majority of cases a high level of certainty regarding how a coin obtained it's toning CAN'T be achieved. >>
i challenge you to produce even ONE single person who can prove his capacity to consistently identify how a coin obtained it's toning. name ONE person.
<< <i>When you begin the discussion with those two flawed premises it's difficult to have rational conversation regarding the market for toned coins. >>
goes w/out saying that any conversation based on flawed premise is difficult. but the lack of a useful definition of a-t is what is flawed here. i have attempted to provide a demonstrable definition.
K S
Bottom line: Who cares whether the coin is AT or NT, do you LIKE it at the price it's being offered at? It's that simple.
jom
<< <i>It just my opinion that of the number of AT processes, a number of the more subtle and skillfully
applied treatments merely act to speed up the toning proces rather then coat the coin with
chemicals and or bake. The process of accelerating a natural phenominon would seem
to be difficult to differentiate from what we would consider natural market acceptable toning. >>
Yes, all toning is oxidation of the metal on the coin's surface, and how light is reflected and absorbed by that surface. The oxidation processes can take decades or can possibly be accomplished in hours. Accelerate various oxidation reactions and you have AT.
So all AT is the acceleration of certain possible chemical reactions. What is the big deal?
Anyway, lets just call AT "accelerated toning", maybe that would cause fewer folks' blood to boil?
As for who decides AT from "natural" in light of the lack of knowing the coin's history - well, the tooth fairy is just as good a candiate as some slabbing company - at least when it comes to the work of real artists.
it's an improvement, but the underlying issue would still remain, ie. who defines the market? you, the buyer? or a faceless, nameless plastics corporation?
K S
<< <i>or a faceless, nameless plastics corporation? >>
Yes! Everyone without a face! Lead the way....!
jom
I read and understood dorlkarl's statement just fine and as I mentioned I don't agree with the two main points of his argument (you can't tell if it's ATed and it shouldn't matter).
"Whether the coin is AT or NT, regardless of how you define it, or whether that "high level of certainty" of how the toning was obtained is irrelevant."
It may be irrelevant to you but it's not to me and it seems it's not irrelevant to the vast majority of those that collect toned coins, otherwise the doctors would freely admit to the doctoring rather than leaving it up to the collector to determine how a coin obtain its toning.
It also won't be irrelevant to those who have paid premiums for attractively toned coins if someone were able to duplicate (without the telltale sights of doctoring) what happenstance and time created, and do that on a consistent bases.
I've made two fairly simple points in my earlier post. The best eyes in the industry (mine are pretty good
<< <i>sorry to go on a rampage, but far too many threads have garbaged up the forum with tiresome, non-ending jabbering about whether this or that or another is "a-t", >>
Sorry, But I thought this to be a very informative thread. Why do I say this? Because we always see folks talking about what is AT and what might be AT but "Market Acceptable" but nobody ever shows an example of one in a holder.
I chose to do this, and with all do respect I see you the one to keep it going with your opinion that you expect others to agree with which they don't. This is a thread that's on topic if I ever saw one.
No it's not an Ebay auction or slamming a seller. Just like when a lot of people here will say they know a CoinDR. but will not say who.
There has been a lot of talk of "Market acceptable" on this forum, and many people probably wanted to see an example of it. I chose to show IMO what is an example of this.
Like I've said I have enjoyed being a member of this forum and wanted to give something what I feel is very educational back.
If you feel it is a bunch of garbage then don't keep clogging up the thread and move on.
<< <i>"Whether the coin is AT or NT, regardless of how you define it ... is irrelevant." It may be irrelevant to you but it's not to me and it seems it's not irrelevant to the vast majority of those that collect toned coins >>
... but these are the kinds of statements that are bothersome. how do you know? do you claim to have research demonstrating that "the vast majority" care about the toning? if you are trying to base your argument on statistical probability, it is unfair to make unsubstantiated claims like this. i am staking my argument on (hopefully) logic, which requires FIRST: definition of terms.
<< <i>It also won't be irrelevant to those who have paid premiums for attractively toned coins if someone were able to duplicate (without the telltale sights of doctoring) what happenstance and time created, and do that on a consistent bases. >>
i am sorry, but you are well behind the times w/ this statement. i KNOW coin dr's who CONSISTENTLY tone coins in their labs & get them into their holders. if you don't believe this, you are hopelessly in trouble, friend. for my own education, i am constantly searching for & learning new tricks, & my latest is how to duplicate rainbow tone on morgan dollars. to my dismay i now know that rainbow toning can easily be simulated. i am no expert yet, but am sure that if i keep at it, i promise that i WILL get a "rainbow toned morgan" into any holder of your choice.
<< <i>The best eyes in the industry (mine are pretty good ) can usually identify a coin that has been ATed with a high level of certainty >>
again, you have made a statistical claim, w/ NO substantiation! furthermore, as i said, i am willing to offer you a challenge, whereby i will send you five coins w/ wild-n-crazy colors, & i would ask you to identify the FOUR that have been lab-toned. i fear that you may have a wee bit too much confidence in your ability! & i do NOT say this in a belittling way, not at all. just that you might be warned that being overconfident in such a skill is extremely risky!
<< <i>Intentionally altering the surfaces of a coin in order to enhance it's market value and selling the coin without disclosing the alteration is fraud. >>
"fraud" is a legal term, & i ask you to please reference the legal documents that exhibit this determination.
again, i am NOT trying to attack, but just want to point out that you are attempting to base an argument on statistics, but have provided no documentation. i am trying to base an argument on deductive logic (right term?).
<< <i>...we always see folks talking about what is AT and what might be AT but "Market Acceptable" but nobody ever shows an example of one in a holder. >>
so, you propose that a coin MUST be in a slab to be market-acceptable? c'mon.
<< <i>...I see you [as] the one to keep it going with your opinion that you expect others to agree with which they don't. >>
on the contrary, i am presenting a side of the argument that i would expect very few to agree with! i expect the other argument to be based strictly on what a plastic co. would say, ie. that if it's in a slab, it's not "a-t" (a bogus term) & is "market-acceptable" (a bogus definition). as i have tried to say before, it is an argument that goes round & round & round, because if you rely on the plastic like MOST of the forum participants appear to, then the opinion you are trying to defend doesn't even belong to you - it belongs to pcgs! somebody please explain the reasoning?
<< <i>There has been a lot of talk of "Market acceptable" on this forum, and many people probably wanted to see an example of it. I chose to show IMO what is an example of this. >>
that's fine, but your example was extremely narrowly-focused, ie. it relies on the premise that a coin must be in a slab to be market-acceptable. again - that's fine. i guess i am at odds with defining the market as solely those coins that are in slabs.
K S
This is pure BS. Care to explain how there are "wild-n-crazy" colors on coins that were sold DECADES ago? Were there AT doctors back then?
Are you are in the category that calls ANY toning AT?
So I assume wear is unnatural also, since it occurred when something foreign came in contact with the coin?
<< <i>...simple fact: all wild-n-crazy colors are a-t ... This is pure BS. Care to explain how there are "wild-n-crazy" colors on coins that were sold DECADES ago? >>
gmarguli's question points out that i am assuming that MY definition of a-t (actually my definition of "natural toning") has been read by others. i don't have a link, so i'll try to reiterate here. i do not try to define "a-t", instead ...
i define "natural toning" as toning acquired by a coin as a by-product of it's intended environment.
ie, a silver franklin half dollar, intended for circulation, tones to grey. a copper wheat cent, intended for circulation, tones to brown. it really is that simple. variation from this implies that the environment is NOT natural. ie. if a cent turns pink, then it is because it was placed in acid - not it's intended environment. wayte-raymond holders are NOT the intended environment for bust halves, so YES, bust halves placed in gmarguli's holders decades ago ARE A-T. the issue is: is the a-t acceptable, & for me w-r a-t IS acceptable, but it is still a-t. morgan dollars w/ bizarre toning sat in paper wrappers at the bank - NOT their intended environment, as they were meant to circulate (as far as i know). thus, a-t.
so what about seated-proofs w/ wild-n-crazy toning? proofs were INTENDED to be placed in paper wrappers for storage, therefore, they would be expected to have wild-n-crazy colors. hence, such toning on a seated half IS NOT a-t.
that is how my def'n works. it attempts to remove as much subjectivity as possible, & make it possible for the def'n to be duplicable (sp?). the def'n that "natural toning is what plastic companies allow in their holders" cannot be duplicated & is by definition, subjective.
good question, hopefully my answer makes sense.
K S
dragon
<< <i>It may be irrelevant to you but it's not to me and it seems it's not irrelevant to the vast majority of those that collect toned coins, otherwise the doctors would freely admit to the doctoring rather than leaving it up to the collector to determine how a coin obtain its toning. >>
You like a coin, you buy it. What is used in that decision by each individual is UP TO THEM. Unfortunately, the "vast majority" don't use what is "UP TO THEM" on whether they'll buy but whether it will "slab" or "get holdered". And that, my friend, is the problem, IMO.
jom
"how do you know?"
Personal experience and conversations with a wide range of collectors. A secondary reason is the reluctance of openly disclosing the fact that a coin has been ATed. That lack of forthrightness is another indication that the market (the majority of collectors and the grading services) don't accept the intentional alteration of a coins as market acceptable. Actually the ANA guidelines don't allow for intentional alterations and non-disclosure.
As far as statistics go there are very little to go on in the coin industry in general and the ones we do have are questionable as far as accuracy is concerned.
As far as legal is concerned I'd again point out the ANA guides and just general knowledge of what constitutes fraud. You'll have to rely on Fratlaw for details on that
But just because we don't have precise statistics and I don't claim a vast knowledge of the law does not prelude me from drawing what are IMHO sound conclusions regarding this subject.
Come on dorlkarl! We not talking absolutes or issues you can weight or calculate with precision
A great example of Market Acceptable. Thanks for sharing that. Most people that paid a lot of $$ for a coin like that would want to keep quite about it.
And for the people that said who cares if it's real or not, it's beautiful and you want to own one like it, well the Coin Doctors thank you for keeping them in business. Without collectors like you they would have no demand for their talent.
<< <i>someone here needs to turn off their black & white TV >>
Ahhhh, black and white!
"Senorita HepKitty"
"I want a real cool Kitty from Hepcat City, to stay in step with me" - Bill Carter
"You like a coin, you buy it. What is used in that decision by each individual is UP TO THEM."
Yes, if I like a coin I buy it. But what I like are coins that to the best of my knowledge have not been intentionally doctor to produce a particular appearance. In many cases that doctoring is evident.
"Unfortunately, the "vast majority" don't use what is "UP TO THEM" on whether they'll buy but whether it will "slab" or "get holdered". And that, my friend, is the problem, IMO."
Unfortunately (or fortunately) in many cases I agree with the grading service's educated opinion that a particular coin has been doctor and is therefore not to my (or the vast majorities) liking. Can you fault them for being correct most of the time
<< <i>And for the people that said who cares if it's real or not, it's beautiful and you want to own one like it, well the Coin Doctors thank you for keeping them in business. >>
Dog,
Are you suggesting that one not buy a toned coin unless they have 100% certainty that the oxidation reactions occured via some "natural" process. Don't you think there is a difference between some reasonable uncertainty of how the coin oxidized and knowledge that the oxidization was accelerated by a coin doctor? I don't advocate purchasing knowingly AT's coins, but there will always be some uncertainty with most coins.
Perhaps what we need is the equivalent of "legalized doctoring". The services could slab coins as either "highly questionable" or "probably natural". Then people could buy what they like. I don't like being told "you can't buy that coin, I think its AT'd". Perhaps I'm not understanding you. I would like to rid the hobby of the deception, but at the same time give collectors alternatives.
Also, it might be a good idea to have educational programs on metal oxidation - give collectors an opportunity to learn about what causes toning - not just hints on how coin doctors work or a few paragraphs on how Mint bags and Mint paper contain sulfur compounds. I'm for reducing deception, but I'd also like the opportunity to make an informed, educated decision about my purchases.
Maybe the ANA could start a series of mini-courses on metal oxidation, the basics of light absorption and reflection, and how various oxidations create different toning? [Of course the down side is a population of more educated collectors might encourage scondrals to become coin doctors!]
not important. The only times in my life price was not important were:
1) When I got dysentery, was in intense pain and was at a doctor's office to get me well
2) When I woke up the day after Christmas and knew I needed a root canal on a molar ASAP.
Coins are a discretionary purchase, and to me, price is always a factor on any discretionary purchase I make.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know much about Peace $s, as I don't collect them. However, on 19th Century type,
I try and avoid silver coins with purple, brown, or orange toning and copper coins with pink or purple toning, as often -- but not always -- this indicates a coin has been AT'd.
I'm with PMH on this. If a coin has been knowingly enhanced and this is not disclosed, it constitutes fraud. I'd prefer the butt ugly Morgan I got from Tom Killian in exchange for my badly cleaned IHC slider rather than any coin which I know was AT'd. How do I know? Usually I do, but I'm not perfect. If I have any reservations about a coin, I simply don't buy it.
.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."