Let me add some fuel to the NT/AT Debate... two FLASHY Roosies

airplanenut · February 25, 2004 7:03AM

Two Raw coins I have--pictures are exactly how the coin looks, nothing hidden, nothing added (hehe

). Are they NT or AT, and why?

1967 SMS

Unbelieveably jumbo picture--I warned you (somewhere around 2 megs)

1968-S Proof

Unbelieveably jumbo picture--I warned you (somewhere around 2 megs)

Russ · February 25, 2004 7:05AM

They are both naturally toned, likely from long storage in whatever holder in which they resided - possibly an album.

Russ, NCNE

kamehameha00 · February 25, 2004 7:09AM

Top is NT and bottom is AT.Why?Because the bottom one has that AT look to it.And the top one looks natural.I'm probably wrong but i'm just in this for fun and to see how my skills are compared to others.

kamehameha00

Russ · February 25, 2004 7:14AM

<< <i>Because the bottom one has that AT look to it >>

Does it?

Russ, NCNE

sinin1 · February 25, 2004 7:15AM

the top had hand lotion on the finger that left the obverse print so AT

the bottom looks good so NT

both would get into a slab

airplanenut · February 25, 2004 7:16AM

If we're posting slabbed examples, I offer to the jury for comparison:

Monstavet · February 25, 2004 7:53AM

Clearly something has been added to the top example! I am gonna compare that print to some others I have seen...I think we have finally found who is responsible for so many greasy prints! It's Jeremy!

airplanenut · February 25, 2004 8:04AM

<< <i>Clearly something has been added to the top example! I am gonna compare that print to some others I have seen...I think we have finally found who is responsible for so many greasy prints! It's Jeremy! >>

I got it this way

airplanenut · February 25, 2004 10:14AM

'scuse me, but I need more opinions!

FC57Coins · February 25, 2004 10:21AM

They're both NT - too bad about that top one with the fingerprint on it that kinda ruins the look. I recently got some toned clads to go with my silvers - they look pretty neat:

darktone · February 25, 2004 10:31AM

Both look good to me also. mike

airplanenut · February 25, 2004 10:42AM

Frank, actually, the fingerprint doesn't look so bad--it kinda looks cool... at least it didn't block toning like on a lot of Morgans

airplanenut · February 26, 2004 4:05AM

Anymore opinions?

dorkkarl · February 26, 2004 4:06AM

both coins are NOT m-a (mkt acceptable)

K S

dorkkarl · February 26, 2004 4:15AM

oh, the slabed 1954 IS m-a.

K S

airplanenut · February 26, 2004 9:45AM

<< <i>both coins are NOT m-a (mkt acceptable)

K S >>

What makes you say that, Dork?

dorkkarl · February 26, 2004 10:14PM

the 1967 dime has been heat treated. you could duplicate that look w/ an alcohol flame. the spots on the second coin are where the chemical agent that colored it pooled up & evaporated. not saying that either coloring job was done intentionally, either could happen accidentally, but the process COULD be done intentionally/non-naturally, rendering them mkt-unacceptable.

the 1954 ngc coin was w/out question colored by storage in paper - a natural environment for a proof coin of that vintage. therefore, it's m-a.

K S

Let me add some fuel to the NT/AT Debate... two FLASHY Roosies

Comments

Leave a Comment