Okay, even in a PCGS holder I really have to wonder about the toning on this Frankie.

Russ

The wildest colors I've seen on a Franklin, even wilder than Easyman.

How exactly does that happen naturally?

Russ, NCNE

littlewicher

I must say it does look a little bit suspicious. There's not even a hint of toning on the obverse, yet the reverse is fully colored.

CLASSICS

<< <i>The wildest colors I've seen on a Franklin, even wilder than Easyman.

ClausUrch

Look what the price is up to!!!! I've been watching this for a few days now and it is way above my price tag...I've never seen anything like it in the way of colors. I'm wondering if it was so "off the wall" or "off the scale" that PCGS had no choice but to grade it.

CLASSICS

rainbowroosie

Not from a mint set, those ended in 1958. It is end of roll toning and looks 100% real...also very nice!!

CLASSICS

ajaan

The mint sets in cardboard ended in 1958.

LucyBop

I am also suspicious of this toning, since the mint sets of the 60s didn't have the cardboard sulphur that is known to produce this type of toning in the late 50s... It is a beautiful half though.....

eagle7

Aw come on Russ, cant you read the guys ebay handle! Thats how it happened!

coinkat

While I agree that the Mint Set concept with the cardboard holder is a good theory but for 1963 I don't think it works. My recollection is that the cardboard holders for the Mint Set was last used in 1958. Starting in 1959, Mint Sets were packaged differently. The toning for this coin, as unusual as it may look, may be from a coin album. It really does not look AT, but a good explanation still may be hard to come by.

CLASSICS

ANACONDA

Nice coin.

adrian

eagle7

I think the toning is original also, just trying a little bit of levity about the handle. I do however think that the pictures have been massaged to present the toning in the best possible light, but everyone does that!

Russ

Obviously, PCGS thinks this toning is real, and obviously some of the experienced members here think this toning is real. That's all well and good, but without some reasoning and explanation as to why and how one can tell that this is geniune, it doesn't do those of us trying to learn any good.

Here is a side-by-side comparison of the coin in that auction and one of Easyman's coins:



Now, in Easyman's auction for this coin it was actually pretty easy even for me to figure out, because both sides of the coin were indentically toned.

But, what if the obverse of his had been brilliant as it is in the auction? What, specifically, are we looking for here that tells us with such certainty that the PCGS slabbed coin is the real McCoy and the other is fake?

Russ, NCNE

CLASSICS

..stupid me...............i swear i need to get my glasses changed...............that coin is a 1963-d i thought it said 1958-d..........oh well. wife call the eye doctor......

LucyBop

Could be end roll toning, its just very hard to pull a ms65 Frankie of this year out of a roll, most are bagmarked galore which almost always drops em to a 4...... I dig this Frankie!

CLASSICS

okay, now i see its a 1963....it appears to be from an end of a roll...... i still beleive it to be original, i do have several 1958 franklins with toning that are a twin to the 1963.

kobrakoins

Nice one!

FC57Coins

Lucy is right - I believe this is a wickedly end-roll toned coin that's probably a knockout - should fetch in the $800 range I would think. It would probably top $1,000 if the toning was on the obverse!

Frank

danglen

<< <i>I must say it does look a little bit suspicious. There's not even a hint of toning on the obverse, yet the reverse is fully colored. >>



It is not unusual to have one side of the coin with wild toning and the other side to be blast white. What is unusual is for both sides to be NATURALLY toned. The toning looks good to me. If the obverse was toned instead of the reverse, it would be a MONSTER

solid

Looks good to me...as you can see I was "testing the waters", but so far
have been unable to find the current top bid...

Ken

solid

Alas, I tried one more feeble attempt to bid at $777, but as you can
see, it would not have made me the owner

That was one perty coin!

Ken

Toadstool1

Hi Guys,

Suspicious is the understatement of the day. The coin is AT. Look at the colors and how they change from one to another without fading, or a slow change. The biggest givaway is that you can see the chemical residue in the dark green area on the left. It is thick and shows sign of heat being used to get the desired color. You see how its blistered, that is the givaway. I am surprised that PCGS passed this. It is really obvious that this is a man made tone job. There is no way that the the metal salts would look like that, they are too thick and you can barely see the surface of the coin. The color is almost like paint, it so thick. I should not say it is AT for sure without seeing it but I spotted this thing afew days ago and looked at it carefully then and I still believe 99.7% that it is AT.

Hadleydog

That sure is one pretty looking piece, and I also see no reason to believe it is not real........it has that 'look'.

gsaguy

I'm no expert on Frankie's but I must say that this one looks original to me. I suspect that it's from a roll in which the ends of the paper are rolled as opposed to being folded over the coin's surface.

I also believe that the luster of this coin is probably above average, at least based on the limited view we get from the scans.

Finally, based on the scans I've seen of easyman's work, I can't imagine one of his 'pieces of art' ever getting by PCGS.

Those opinions and a buck should get you a cup of coffee at the local 7-11.

GSAGUY

FC57Coins

<< <i> I believe this is a wickedly end-roll toned coin that's probably a knockout - should fetch in the $800 range I would think. It would probably top $1,000 if the toning was on the obverse! >>



The dog knows Frankies!

barberlover

If i saw toning like that on both sides of the coin, instead of liking it more my gut reaction would be toning done by "easy bake oven". Still without being an expert on AT coins, i go by my gut instincts and i agree with Russ in that i have a really hard time believing that toning looks natural.

I wish i understood why the latest craze [paying moon money for coins with picaso looking color] got started but i think it's led to more creative artists looking for more creative ways to AT coins.

I am curious if any "reformed" former coin doctors are members here can educate us with some speculation on this type of wild one sided toning, and answer the following 2 questions; 1. Do you as a former coin doctor think this is natural or AT toning, and 2. Is there a way to AT a coin to look like this piece on 1 side only ?

ksteelheader

Russ says....Obviously, PCGS thinks this toning is real, and obviously some of the experienced members here think this toning is real. That's all well and good, but without some reasoning and explanation as to why and how one can tell that this is geniune, it doesn't do those of us trying to learn any good.
I have to agree. I have as of yet not been convinced by anyone on this board of their ability to differenciate betweem AT and natural on a CONSISTENT basis! That is why I truly believe that those who are starting their own web site to "educate" those who supposedly don't know the difference are in for a RUDE legal awakening....IMO...Ken

FC57Coins

<< <i>Obviously, PCGS thinks this toning is real, and obviously some of the experienced members here think this toning is real. That's all well and good, but without some reasoning and explanation as to why and how one can tell that this is geniune, it doesn't do those of us trying to learn any good >>



Here goes what I see on this coin:

When I look at a toning pattern, one of the questions that I ask myself is How was the pattern conceived. In this case it's a concentric toned coin, which would be consistent with the toning one might find on an end roll toned coin which resided in a shotgun roll. Next, the obverese is not toned. Again this is consistent with the above, endroll Franklins are usually toned just on one side. In addition, if the coin had been heat treated, there would likely be some residue coming through on the obverse, so far so good. Next, the colors look "good" - I hate this statement, but that's the only way to quantify it. If you look at the picture that Russ put up showing this coin next to "easyscum's" coin, you see that this coin has nice vibrant toning that lets the mint luster through the toning. If you read up on toning, you realize that toning is basically refraction of the white light as it hits the surface of the coin and comes back to you. This I think is easier accomplished in a naturally forming chemical reaction, as opposed to when you ad something to the coin (personal and unsubstanciated opinion). However, if you look at enough "genuinely toned" coins, you see that AT coins tend to have their color "pasted" on the coin, therefore the luster doesn't come through as vividly. Again, keep in mind this is just one of several diagnostics.

Next, look at how the coin's color flows from orange to blue to orange. Easyscum's coin has its color splotched in an irregular pattern. Think about easter eggs, if you were to try to control the color pattern on top of the egg, which pattern is most likely to come out? I would think that you'd have a million to one shot of getting the pattern on the 63D as opposed to the AT example. Next, look at the rim of the coin, particularly between DOLLAR and AMERICA. Here you see pretty clearly that the toning stops at the rim and the color of the rim is different. This is a good diagnostic for genuinely toned coins. Take that one step further, and if you look at HALF DOLLAR, you notice that the toning is different on the letters than on the field around the letters. This again would be extremely difficult for a coin doctor to accomplish and is a pretty well accepted diagnostic for genuinely toned coins. You can also see the same thing happening on E PLURIBUS UNUM.

So there you have it - am I right? - Dunno, I think I'm right, but obviously that would be something that could be debated for the ages. However, if I had $800+ at my disposal to spend on this bad boy, it'd be in my collection. This is a bonafide rare coin in my humble opinion!

Frank

pmh1nic

Frank does know his Frankies.

Hadleydog

Frank, you do know your Frankies! Nice synopsis on why the toning looks real.

ah

I liked this thread, picked up a lot of GOOD info, Thanks. Very beautiful coin.

gsaguy

Frank,

Thanks for that thoughtful post. It was very late last night when I posted and I just didn't have it in me to try to spell out all my thoughts. On top of that, as I mentioned, I'm not a Frankie specialist. However, I have looked at a lot of toned Frankie's and this one has the right 'look'.

I know saying that this one has the right 'look' is frustrating to those who wish to learn about how to tell AT from original. That statement does little to educate but when Russ asks what others think, that's the best some of us can do. Fortunately, Frank did much better than I.

Ksteelheader expressed his thoughts that those of us who wish to build a website to 'educate' will be in for a RUDE legal awakening. I haven't quite yet figured out how trying to educate others exposes anyone to legal action. Most of us who own many toned coins have seen many (and even perhaps bought a few) that we believe to be questionable. If building a data base of our own photographs of both naturally and artificially toned coins and then discussing the merits of each somehow exposes us to legal action, then so be it. I'll take that risk.

But in discussions to date, I don't believe any of us think that we should be naming coin doctors, posting pictures that don't belong to the members involved, or providing links to auctions that we believe contain AT'd coins.

GSAGUY

jcping

A nice coin. I believe the coin is not an AT. If the color is on obverse, the the price won't be $845, it will be a 4-digit coin.

Russ

Frank,

Thanks. Each time I read an explanation like yours I add a tiny bit of understanding of this issue. Not sure I'll ever completely get it, but I'm going to keep trying.

Russ, NCNE

Bear

You know, Frank is pretty smart for a smal dog smoking a big cigar.

If the coloring on that half was on the obverse ,

I would have bid high on that puppy.

FC57Coins

<< <i>Each time I read an explanation like yours I add a tiny bit of understanding of this issue. Not sure I'll ever completely get it, but I'm going to keep trying. >>



No prob Russ - I don't think any of us will ever get it - but we're getting closer with each post.

Mr. Bear - when are we going to see some pics of the gems you've been accumulating lately? I'll send you a jelly donut for each one you post!

Frank

LucyBop

This coin having the Cigar Smoking Dog of approval sez alot..... It is a amazing find and not just for the toning, but to find a 5 at the end of a roll in a year that is known for bagmarks galore......

If indeed, this is endroll toning which seems to be the way this coin got toned only on one side.....

MadMonk

Here is a nice mintset toned piece. Years ago, there was a saying "Green means Go".
Based on the difficulty of a coin toning green, and especially to artificially tone a coin with green.
What's the current idea on green?

dorkkarl

you'll be surprised to hear that i disagree w/ end-of-roll toning. that just does not look like it to me. personally, i am not excited about that color. it is the kind that i believe can be most easily simulated.

but that is just my worthless opinion! others obviously find it very m-a (market-accepatble).

K S

LucyBop

I Disagree!