Blast white versus toned. What's better
route66
Posts: 474 ✭
Back in the 60's really no one liked toned coins much. White was better. Today it seems to be the opposite. Why. Personally, I think most toned coins are ugly, unless the toning just flows with the coin, so to speak. Why is toning so popular, and do you think it will stay popular?? Every dog has its day. Will this one die?? JUMO. Steve
0
Comments
I agree that things move in cycles, and that preference trends change and evolve over time.
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
I like both white and toned coins. If I had to pick between the 2 I would pick toners. To me there is more character to a toned coin and white coins have probably been dipped at one time or another which means they are not original.
BTW, I'm a Coca-Cola man!
IMO
I like both toned and white coins. If I had to pick between the 2 I would pick blast white. To me there is more originality to a white coin and toned coins have probably been AT'd at one time or another which means they are not original.
*sarcasm off*
In other words, just buy what you personally like and who cares about what others think.
I'll have to agree with the rabid tree rat.
Personally I do not like the dark blue (almost black) examples, or the examples that have so much toning that the basic character of the classic coin design itself is relegated to second place. In addition, those coins that the toning looks as if a dog had a diarhea attack over them are just plain fuuuuuuuglyyyyyyy!!!
But when you find a coin that has the colors of the rainbow plainly and evenly growing across 75-85% of the face of the coin or when you have a Morgan like the one Russ posted yesterday with the appearance of the Eagle flying directly away from the Sun, that is breathtaking.
This weekend I picked-up a common Morgan that has a deep pink champaign toning across the obverse, BUT, what makes this coin spectacular (again, in MY minds eye) is the fact that the devices under the toning are frosted and when the light hits the coin the frosted devices change the reflectivity of the toning to an irridescent quality while the cartwheel luster in the fields blazes through the deep champaign toning.
And who could possibly pass on the 1926 Oregon Trali Commerative that was posted yesterday?
So yes, I am and will continue to persue Toners.
So, I think toning definately has its place and will continue to be collected feverously.
Jim
<< <i>Blast white versus toned. What's better >>
Depends on which one YOU like the most. That is the better coin!!
Now me, I like a little toning around the rims of Morgan Dollars!! I might would like some of the Monster some of the other members here own, but I have yet to eyeball one. I have seen a Bust Half that had cobalt blue toning around the rims of the coin, but I just saw it in passing.
Excelcior!!
Please check out my eBay auctions!
My WLH Short Set Registry Collection
Both
Mine= White,White,White
No toning at all
PURPLE!
all the coins in my kennedy & ike albums are blast white. they're new coins. most all my bust halves are toned. they should look old.
nothing looks stupider than a blast white bust half.
well, a blast-white bust half in a slab does look even stupider, but you get my point.
K S
If I had it my way, stupidity would be painful!
Blast white, great surfaces, eye appeal--the whole nine yards. The other coin of this date I have has some toning spots, and a thin tan toning covering parts of the surface--by no means a "rainbow" toner.
But, it's still a hard decision for me, because the longer I participate in numismatics the more I like the "character" coins, and the underdogs.
I've wondered if my standards are loosening, but actually, I don't think so. I still know almost immediately whether I like a coin. I still know what does and does not appeal to me on a basic level. I'm just not bothered by some things that seem to bother other people--and I guess you can turn that around and say I am bothered by some things that don't bother other people.
And now that I've come full circle, I will say that I am going to keep this blast white coin I just got. Because I can appreciate both--toned and untoned.
Clankeye
Steak or Lobster?
Beer or Bourbon?
Peaches or Pears?
White or Toned?
Why must one choose? No reason a person can't enjoy both
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
As I have explained and proven numerous times on this board, a coin that has all of its original luster is far more original than a dull coin covered in a layer of silver sulfide, no matter how many times it has been dipped. Luster cannot be replaced once removed while toning can always be put back on a coin.
Now while I agree it's a matter of personal preference, that preference is STRONGLY influenced by herd mentality. Until the late 1970's, the herd said thou shalt covet white coins and dip where indicated so everyone wanted white coins. Did humans somehow genetically change since then to want black and blue coins? Of course not! An article in coin world ran that gave everyone permission to collect toners so people jumped on the bandwagon. In the 1990's everyone started talking about originality and any coin that had had the slightest bit of color on it is now sold as original.
To answer your question, toning is popular right now because a lot of "experts" say toned coins are better. The secondary answer is that people feel a connection with the past when they perceive a coin to be "original" even if the perception is based on false advertising or a guess. Toned coin prices will crash and never recover when a single book is published showing how an expert can create an "original" toned coin in his shop. Toned coin advocates hang on to a hope (without any evidence at all) that perfect artificial toning is impossible to do.
Below is my favorite example of a "unique" white coin. Blast white Arkansas commemoratives are so rare, this is the only example I have ever found. Keep in mind that all Arkansas coins came from the mint white and brilliant, however almost all of them have been impaired by toning, overdipping, and general neglect. You can put toning back on a coin, but you can never fix luster.
It would stand up to any Arkansas I have ever seen
including my toned one. Well done.
Camelot
I hope you're taking good care of that Pan Pac.
K S
Dennis
Like VOC Numismatics on facebook
Some people do, but not everyone. Let's not generalize.
"...a coin that has all of its original luster is far more original than a dull coin covered in a layer of silver sulfide, no matter how many times it has been dipped."
Are you implying that toned coins do not have luster?
"Luster cannot be replaced once removed while toning can always be put back on a coin."
Few would disagree with that.
"Now while I agree it's a matter of personal preference, that preference is STRONGLY influenced by herd mentality."
Oh really? Then why do so many of us disagree on white versus toned (some don't even have a preference)? Why do we all have our own collecting interest? Why do some like Franklin's while others hate them? Why do some like moderns while others laugh? I'm not seeing herd mentality here. To the contrary, I'm seeing the exact opposite.
"Until the late 1970's, the herd said thou shalt covet white coins and dip where indicated so everyone wanted white coins. Did humans somehow genetically change since then to want black and blue coins? Of course not! An article in coin world ran that gave everyone permission to collect toners so people jumped on the bandwagon. In the 1990's everyone started talking about originality and any coin that had the slightest bit of color on it is now sold as original."
Good grief!
"To answer your question, toning is popular right now because a lot of "experts" say toned coins are better."
A lot of "experts" (such as yourself) say blast white coins are better too.
"Toned coin prices will crash and never recover when a single book is published showing how an expert can create an "original" toned coin in his shop."
Wanna bet?
Herd mentality is the only thing that can explain toned coins, beanie babies, and Republicans. I defy you to offer a different explanation of why large numbers of humans suddenly change what they used to believe simply because their friends do.
You're right, I do say that luster is better but only because it's a very good gauge to the originality of a coin's surface. A coin with luster by definition has not had its luster removed. How many toned monsters have had the flow lines removed by oxidation? How about millions of them.........
Yeah, some toned coins have lots of luster remaining. Go look at a bourse floor and tell me the percentage. I'd be very suprised if the number went over 2%.
Speaking of statistics, how many children prefer bright shiny pennies over oxidized ones? All perhaps? I suppose they are just uneducated.
I've never paid a premium for a blast white coin though I would if I liked it enough. I would also pay a premium for a toned coin as long as the toning is light, attactive, and the luster is full.
"Herd mentality is the only thing that can explain toned coins, beanie babies, and Republicans."
I'm a Democrat so I'll laugh along with you on this one.
"I defy you to offer a different explanation of why large numbers of humans suddenly change what they used to believe simply because their friends do."
I'm not so convinced that "large numbers of humans" have suddenly changed what they used to believe. However, in such cases one might suggest enlightenment as the answer, but I'm sure you'll say I'm just a sheep. BAHHH!
"You're right, I do say that luster is better but only because it's a very good gauge to the originality of a coin's surface. A coin with luster by definition has not had its luster removed. How many toned monsters have had the flow lines removed by oxidation? How about millions of them........."
How many white coins have had their flow lines removed by dipping? I've never actually counted them, but I'm sure it's more than a dozen.
"Yeah, some toned coins have lots of luster remaining. Go look at a bourse floor and tell me the percentage. I'd be very suprised if the number went over 2%."
I wouldn't know the actual percentage, but I certainly wouldn't buy a toned coin that had impaired luster. I suspect few others would too.
"Speaking of statistics, how many children prefer bright shiny pennies over oxidized ones? All perhaps? I suppose they are just uneducated."
Well, since we send children to school, I'd say that in general they ARE uneducated. Seriously, how many children prefer a huge cardboard box as opposed to their own bedrooms? All perhaps? How many children prefer CoolAid as opposed to a fine wine? All perhaps? How many children prefer to spend a day at the playground as opposed to a day at an art museum? All perhaps? While I love kids (and they love beanie babies), I wouldn't presume that they know best nor would I look towards them for guidance.
You shouldn't start me on the elitist rant...........
<< <i>You shouldn't start me on the elitist rant........... >>
what are we suppose to be afraid?
Your opinion is simply that a opinion. quit thinking your right about everything......
"Senorita HepKitty"
"I want a real cool Kitty from Hepcat City, to stay in step with me" - Bill Carter
and if i like it at first glance..............that says it all
if it is special
if it is totally original thick skinned white or original toned and not AT or secondary toning
if the technical merits are there and it is really choice to gem to superb gem
if it has certain extraspecial extraordinary qualities
if it has all of the above then i will like it...................................................... toned or white
michael
they are ruined and being created more and more everyday ...........yay............. makes for mopre ruined coins and coins that turn and it makes the original white eye appeallingt thick skinned white and nicely toned original coins wirth more $$ and scarcer in the process ..........yaY..................and is a really bad thing to strip off the original surfaces even if ugly
if i was a dealer i would need to buy/sell blast white business strike pre 1955 dipped coins and even dip an ugly duckling pre 1955 business strike to make it a so called swan to make a coin prettier AND SALEABLE and more $$$$$$ for resale
i am not a coin seller so i am glad i do not have to sell these coins to make $$$ for a living
michael
Michael, dipping a coin doesn't ruin it. Coins do not have skin, they have a surface of approximately 90% silver and 10% copper. Depending on how oxidized the coin it, it also might contain a small amount of silver sulfide.
Dipping a darkly toned coin is a bad idea because the toning has ALREADY ruined the surface. Revealing the damaged surface just makes the coin look dull and uninteresting. Dipping a bright coin that happens to have a few small spots or ugly color is a good idea because it removes distractions and show what is underneath. Allowing a coin to oxidize/tone will ALWAYS destroy more coins than dipping.
You see that Arkansas on the previous page? The one that in my experience has never been matched by any other Arkansas I have ever seen? It's worth over $2000 and I had the pleasure of dipping several small black spots off it. Now that it's certified, I've been offered $3000. However I wouldn't take $5000 even if it was offered because it's unique. Interesting for a coin "ruined" by dipping.
The current mania for toned coins seems unsustainable. Toned coins are commanding prices that are sometimes many multiples of their blast-white counterparts. The grading services are feeding the frenzy by artificially boosting the grade of what they perceive as a nicely toned coin, even at the expense of the traditional grading criteria. Coin doctors artificially tone coins, and no one can say for sure that their chicanery is always detectable. (Sure, the lousy jobs are obvious. But it's like saying you can always tell when a guy is wearing a toupee. All you're really saying is that you can always tell when a guy is wearing a lousy toupee. The good ones escape notice.)
The passion for toners is also an outlier in the collecting world generally. For example, in the rare book field, condition is critical to value, and a book in fine condition will command a much greater price than a book in merely good condition -- much as in numismatics, an MS 66 coin is worth more than an MS 62 coin.
So it seems weird to me that there would be so much emphasis on toning, which is a coin that has been attacked more by the environment than a white coin. It would be as if a book with "attractive" foxing (dark circular stains that sometimes show up on the pages of old books) commanded a higher price than a book with clean, white pages. The very idea would make folks in the rare book biz laugh. As it would to those who collect virtually every other artifact I can think of: art, stamps, baseball cards, magazines, you name it. The closer the object is to the original state, the more valuable it is. To say that the Rembrandt that has "attractive" mottling on it (but certainly not planned by the artist) is more desirable than one that looks like it just came out of the studio -- well, the very concept is absurd.
To me, it's all-too-reminiscent of the tulip-bulb mania in Holland, all those centuries ago -- a craze that's headed for a nasty fall. But hey, all collecting is inherently irrational, so toners could continue their dominance. Time will tell.
I agree with this - I love the new shiny coins, and I love the ones with the natural toning, as long as it isn't ugly toning... tomato or to-mah-to - just enjoy.
Question:
Ever notice when classic, ultra high-end collections finally come on the market (Benson, Eliasberg, Norweb, etc), the vast majority of the material is originally toned?
Kind of makes you wonder.....hmmmmmm....
Dave