AT and NT are wrong terminology....here is the correct terminology:
my3cents
Posts: 1,411
I just finished a book by Weimar White: Coin Chemistry. He explains and explores a lot of the toning issue and one of his basic premises is that a coin isn't NT or AT - that is wrong terminology. The correct terms are IT or AT: Interntional toning vs. Accidental toning.
The underlying premise is true - sulfide compounds of silver and copper are just that - whether they are produced artificially or naturally - there is no way to tell. They are still just silfide compouds of copper and silver.
The question becomes: was this toning produced INTENTIONALLY over a short period of time or did it happen ACCIDENTALLY over a long period of time.
He also makes a case for INTENTIONALLY toned coins being much more eye-appealing than accidentally toned coins. Coins which are cleaned of all surface oils will tone much more evenly and at a more rapid rate when exposed to sulfurous gases. The reverse of this is that coins that tone accidentally will tend to be splotchy and tone unevenly.
Hmmmmm - watcha think?
The underlying premise is true - sulfide compounds of silver and copper are just that - whether they are produced artificially or naturally - there is no way to tell. They are still just silfide compouds of copper and silver.
The question becomes: was this toning produced INTENTIONALLY over a short period of time or did it happen ACCIDENTALLY over a long period of time.
He also makes a case for INTENTIONALLY toned coins being much more eye-appealing than accidentally toned coins. Coins which are cleaned of all surface oils will tone much more evenly and at a more rapid rate when exposed to sulfurous gases. The reverse of this is that coins that tone accidentally will tend to be splotchy and tone unevenly.
Hmmmmm - watcha think?
0
Comments
Jerry
So where does that leave all the coins that are being toned INTENTIONALY over a LONG period of time, for example in wayte raymond albums or other albums known to produce pretty toning?
maybe we need 4 classifications: Accidental Long (AL) like mint bag toning, Intentional Long (IL) like the case above, Intentional Short (IS) like baked or chemicals applied this morning, and Accidental Short (AS), like those silver eagles you see with recent dates but they were in a certain velvet or TPG holder for a little while.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>maybe we need 4 classifications >>
Oh, geezzz, where will it end? Though I do like the sound of "intentional long toning." With a little Barry White playing in the background, it could almost be quite romantic.
TPN
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
In this thread January 2002............
I wrote: Just thought I'd throw in one more comment. In 20 years of coin experience, the only rational sense I can make from the Artificial toning vs. Natural toning argument is this: Natural toning is coins toned by accident. Artificial toning is coins toned on purpose.
I'm not suprised Weimar White came up with this definition independently for his June 2004 book because it happens to be the only conclusion one can reach, but I do remember a few people going bonkers over the last few years claiming otherwise.
you can never conclusively know the INTENTION or TIME duration of the storage that produced the toning
All you're left with is, "is the appearance market acceptable, or not?"
which is, coincidentally, right where the situation stands now
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Market grading is a reflection on the person doing the MARKETING, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the coin itself. As I've pointed out over and over again, if PCGS was around in 1960 only dipped and stripped coins would be market acceptable and any coin with tarnish on it would be in a body bag. Coin certification companys need to grade and describe the COIN and stop worrying about the opinion (and very often stupidity) of the market.
42/92
what's the definition of "real"?
why, "not artificial", of course!
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
My Auctions
the CORRECT terminology is much simpler than that: MARKET-ACCEPTABLE (m-a) or MARKET-UNACCEPTABLE (m-u).
the source of the toning is irrelevant even if it can be proved. ALL THAT MATTERS is whether the market views it as acceptable or not.
often, "the market" consists of slabed coins.
<< <i>Market acceptability is the lamest standard for giving grades that I've ever heard of. >>
then you are absolutely clueless about how the free market works, & for your own protection, you probably should just move out of the country.
<< <i> For one thing, there is absolutely no honesty with respect to the definition in the first place!! QVC can sell 1 million painted silver eagles on the TV for $3 each over the market value of an unaltered silver eagle. Therefore a painted coin should receive a higher grade than one that hasn't been messed with right? >>
no, becuase it would hae a different "grading standard". a "painted coin" does not equal a "non-painted coin", & the same "grading standards", if that's what your stuck on, DO NOT apply. the old "apples & oranges" thing.
<< <i>Switch to collecting white coins and the issue goes away. >>
i'm glad your joking!
K S
A coin with oxidation on it does not equal a coin without oxidation on it. Ohhhhhhh..........I see we're making exceptions to the exceptions again.
but you may rest pretty well assured that the planchets do NOT have paint on them prior to being struck.
i KNOW you can understand this concept, i just know it.
K S
The vastly accepted terms in the business & hobby are AT & NT. Always will be.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Hey Dorkkarl, way to totally avoid my point. 1 molecule of silver oxide is therefore the same as a few million billion eh? Or a coin toned black is the same as a coin that's so bright it lights up the bourse floor? I suppose that technically you're wrong anyway since the amount of silver sulfide on a newly struck coin is probably in the realm of a microscopic speck of paint that fell off the press and onto the coin while being struck.
I'll make it easy for you. The rule about "no paint on a coin" is totally fictional and not included in any grading book or any grading standard. You simply made it up. What IS included is some nonsense about an altered surface lowering the grade of the coin, without specifically acknowleging that the biggest alteration you can make to any coin is oxidation. (even paint can be removed by a solvent without damage to the coin) A bunch of double talk that is accepted because the ability to market corroded coins GREATLY benefits dealers who are often stuck with large inventories of ugly ducklings.
<< <i>The rule about "no paint on a coin" is totally fictional and not included in any grading book or any grading standard >>
that's exactly right, which is why it makes no sense that you brought it up. i still don't understand what is this "point" that i allegedly "totally avoided".
<< <i>the biggest alteration you can make to any coin is oxidation >>
it's amazing how absurd that statement is. no way is oxidation a more significant alteration to a coin than, oh i dunno, wear for example. or dings. or bagmarks. or hairlines. or cleaning. etc. etc.
your paranoia about oxidation on a coin is incomprehensible, considering it is virtually impossible for a coin to exist w/out at least some oxidation, at least on this planet.
K S
Joe.
heh heh heh....
K S
The Good, The Bad and The Ugly!