To my knowledge, the coin in the video has never been dipped. I got it about 12 years ago. However presuming that at some point this coin had been briefly dipped to remove color, I would still say it has 99% original surfaces while the previous example has maybe 30% original surfaces at best.
You can go from a blast white lustrous coin to the dull MS65 example I posted first. All you need is a lot of years and oxidation. However you can NEVER go in the other direction. Coin A can never become coin B no matter what you do with it.
So honestly, which is more original?
Coin B will also reoxidize at some point and look like coin A... again.
Not necessarily. Do you know what was also in the mint sewn bags of Morgan dollars that contained toners? Blast white Morgans 120+ years old. It depends on the environment.
To my knowledge, the coin in the video has never been dipped. I got it about 12 years ago. However presuming that at some point this coin had been briefly dipped to remove color, I would still say it has 99% original surfaces while the previous example has maybe 30% original surfaces at best.
You can go from a blast white lustrous coin to the dull MS65 example I posted first. All you need is a lot of years and oxidation. However you can NEVER go in the other direction. Coin A can never become coin B no matter what you do with it.
So honestly, which is more original?
Coin B will also reoxidize at some point and look like coin A... again.
Yes, but the point is Coin A cannot become Coin B, not that Coin B cannot become Coin A.
@Iwog said:
The supply of toned coins will always be able to increase while the supply of coins with intact luster can only decrease. Oxidation is a one way process.
Many toned coins remain lustrous although not all of them.
To my knowledge, the coin in the video has never been dipped. I got it about 12 years ago. However presuming that at some point this coin had been briefly dipped to remove color, I would still say it has 99% original surfaces while the previous example has maybe 30% original surfaces at best.
You can go from a blast white lustrous coin to the dull MS65 example I posted first. All you need is a lot of years and oxidation. However you can NEVER go in the other direction. Coin A can never become coin B no matter what you do with it.
So honestly, which is more original?
Coin B will also reoxidize at some point and look like coin A... again.
Yes, but the point is Coin A cannot become Coin B, not that Coin B cannot become Coin A.
With a light dip, it may. You don't always know how nicely a toned coin will dip out. I have been surprised more than a few times.
To my knowledge, the coin in the video has never been dipped. I got it about 12 years ago. However presuming that at some point this coin had been briefly dipped to remove color, I would still say it has 99% original surfaces while the previous example has maybe 30% original surfaces at best.
You can go from a blast white lustrous coin to the dull MS65 example I posted first. All you need is a lot of years and oxidation. However you can NEVER go in the other direction. Coin A can never become coin B no matter what you do with it.
So honestly, which is more original?
Coin B will also reoxidize at some point and look like coin A... again.
Yes, but the point is Coin A cannot become Coin B, not that Coin B cannot become Coin A.
With a light dip, it may. You don't always know how nicely a toned coin will dip out. I have been surprised more than a few times.
Good point. I do need more experience with and understanding of what dip can accomplish.
@cameonut2011 said:
With a light dip, it may. You don't always know how nicely a toned coin will dip out. I have been surprised more than a few times.
Yes however you are probably talking about dark toning on an otherwise brilliant coin. Also there are often spots that can be removed through dipping a coin that still leave the brilliant luster intact.
However I can say I will never be surprised, and neither would anyone else, if any of those MS67-MS68 beauties I posted above were dipped. All of them would be returned in body bags. The coin market is a very odd one indeed.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I'm sorry I honestly don't understand. How is posting pictures of actual coins in actual holders misrepresenting anything?
I've seen some of those coins myself. I know what they look like in person. I used to flip past them at a typical heritage auction desperately looking for something with a little brightness to it.
I can accurately and unapologetically say that the luster on those coins is between mostly and totally destroyed. I don't think there's any doubt and I know what they would look like if I dipped them for 8 seconds in a diluted solution. They would be toast yet they are sitting in MS66, MS67, and yes MS68 holders.
Why? If you disagree so strongly perhaps you can explain it to me?
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Connecticuts can be lustre bombs with attractive toning. I've seen dozens of great examples.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Iwog said:
I'm sorry I honestly don't understand. How is posting pictures of actual coins in actual holders misrepresenting anything?
I've seen some of those coins myself. I know what they look like in person. I used to flip past them at a typical heritage auction desperately looking for something with a little brightness to it.
I can accurately and unapologetically say that the luster on those coins is between mostly and totally destroyed. I don't think there's any doubt and I know what they would look like if I dipped them for 8 seconds in a diluted solution. They would be toast yet they are sitting in MS66, MS67, and yes MS68 holders.
Why? If you disagree so strongly perhaps you can explain it to me?
You wrote: "This is what most connecticut commemoratives look like today in MS65-MS67 holders"
While some may look like the photos you posted, most means over 50%. Are you saying over 50% of PCGS MS65-MS67 Connecticuts look like the photos you posted?
While some may look like the photos you posted, most means over 50%. Are you saying over 50% of PCGS MS65-MS67 Connecticuts look like the photos you posted?
Absolutely without a doubt over 50% of MS66-MS68 Connecticuts have impaired luster.
I define impaired luster as any coin that cannot withstand a momentary dip that ALL, and I do mean ALL blast white silver coins can easily pass though and still be graded by PCGS and NGC. These MS68 wonders would be body-bagged as overdipped and/or cleaned.
You have no idea how many hundreds and hundreds of slabs I've personally inspected trying to find the one coin that looked like the one in the video.
It's pretty easy to verify. After you get past the first few rows of show off coins, you'll see what I mean.
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Commens are great coins... Although I do not own any. I certainilly enjoy looking at them. I have seen a lot of them "just seen".
Although I am in no way questioning ones thoughts or theories on toning.
I find myself at this conclusion! The surfaces of each coin are different. The way they where bathed at the mint when when minted. The things the coin has been in contact with or stored in. That being a original mint bag, old tissue, old bank roll or stored in a album for instance.
I'm sure people will always attempt to recreate toning which can be done of course. But most toner collectors can spot it out a mile away. Usually the progression will not be right, color flow will not be right, evenness of toning on the coin, high points of the coin will be even.
I feel that each different coin series is unique and different when tones in different ways. When a Morgan dollar for instance tones. It will tone like a Morgan Dollar. When a commem toned it will tone as a commem will or should. I also do not recall any commens stored in original mint burlap bags.
All other toned acceptable market coins environments will fall into play though. It's once again, what is acceptable and what's not. What's considered AT or accelerated and what's considered not.
IMO most coins that are white from back in the days. Should have some forum of toning to them.
Comments
Not necessarily. Do you know what was also in the mint sewn bags of Morgan dollars that contained toners? Blast white Morgans 120+ years old. It depends on the environment.
Yes, but the point is Coin A cannot become Coin B, not that Coin B cannot become Coin A.
Many toned coins remain lustrous although not all of them.
For those that want to look for themselves, here's the PCGS CoinFacts page to find some examples. Some look pretty nice.
With a light dip, it may. You don't always know how nicely a toned coin will dip out. I have been surprised more than a few times.
I have EXTENSIVE evidence to prove I'm right.
MS67
MS67
MS68
MS67
I will remind everyone again that PCGS is not supposed to grade any coin with impaired luster above MS64.
Good point. I do need more experience with and understanding of what dip can accomplish.
Yes however you are probably talking about dark toning on an otherwise brilliant coin. Also there are often spots that can be removed through dipping a coin that still leave the brilliant luster intact.
However I can say I will never be surprised, and neither would anyone else, if any of those MS67-MS68 beauties I posted above were dipped. All of them would be returned in body bags. The coin market is a very odd one indeed.
@Zoins
Thanks for posting. I've owned a couple of those. Connecticuts can come with very attractive toning with light blue undertones
@Iwog
Nice try to misrepresent.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I'm sorry I honestly don't understand. How is posting pictures of actual coins in actual holders misrepresenting anything?
I've seen some of those coins myself. I know what they look like in person. I used to flip past them at a typical heritage auction desperately looking for something with a little brightness to it.
I can accurately and unapologetically say that the luster on those coins is between mostly and totally destroyed. I don't think there's any doubt and I know what they would look like if I dipped them for 8 seconds in a diluted solution. They would be toast yet they are sitting in MS66, MS67, and yes MS68 holders.
Why? If you disagree so strongly perhaps you can explain it to me?
No rabbit hole for me Iwog
Connecticuts can be lustre bombs with attractive toning. I've seen dozens of great examples.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
You wrote: "This is what most connecticut commemoratives look like today in MS65-MS67 holders"
While some may look like the photos you posted, most means over 50%. Are you saying over 50% of PCGS MS65-MS67 Connecticuts look like the photos you posted?
Absolutely without a doubt over 50% of MS66-MS68 Connecticuts have impaired luster.
I define impaired luster as any coin that cannot withstand a momentary dip that ALL, and I do mean ALL blast white silver coins can easily pass though and still be graded by PCGS and NGC. These MS68 wonders would be body-bagged as overdipped and/or cleaned.
You have no idea how many hundreds and hundreds of slabs I've personally inspected trying to find the one coin that looked like the one in the video.
It's pretty easy to verify. After you get past the first few rows of show off coins, you'll see what I mean.
https://www.ha.com/c/search-results.zx?No=0&Nty=1&Ntk=SI_Titles-Desc&N=0+790+231&Ntt=connecticut+1935+ms67
I never said otherwise.
Save your sanity Zions......mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Commens are great coins... Although I do not own any. I certainilly enjoy looking at them. I have seen a lot of them "just seen".
Although I am in no way questioning ones thoughts or theories on toning.
I find myself at this conclusion! The surfaces of each coin are different. The way they where bathed at the mint when when minted. The things the coin has been in contact with or stored in. That being a original mint bag, old tissue, old bank roll or stored in a album for instance.
I'm sure people will always attempt to recreate toning which can be done of course. But most toner collectors can spot it out a mile away. Usually the progression will not be right, color flow will not be right, evenness of toning on the coin, high points of the coin will be even.
I feel that each different coin series is unique and different when tones in different ways. When a Morgan dollar for instance tones. It will tone like a Morgan Dollar. When a commem toned it will tone as a commem will or should. I also do not recall any commens stored in original mint burlap bags.
All other toned acceptable market coins environments will fall into play though. It's once again, what is acceptable and what's not. What's considered AT or accelerated and what's considered not.
IMO most coins that are white from back in the days. Should have some forum of toning to them.