So...I am finally starting to appreciate toning. Not for the wild color's sake but simply for the f

TheLiberator

...old coins look strange "blast white." I saw a barber dime the other day and I thought..."you know, a coin from 1894 just shouldn't look like that." Oh, I know there are some original white ones but I think you guys know what I mean...right?

Dave99B

Yup......


Dave

Tonelover

I thought..."you know, a coin from 1894 just shouldn't look like that."

I believe they call that a moment of clarity.

ziggy29

Yes, that's a good reason! And 99% of the time you'd be right. I've seen a small number of "blast white" coins (even non-Morgans) a century or more old, and they are knock-your-socks-off spectacular. But the vast majority of them are relatively dull (compared to when minted), dipped and luster-impaired. You can usually assume if you see a blast white 1894 coin, it's been dipped. (Millions of Morgans that were kept in Treasury vaults until the 1960s are a notable but almost unique exception.)

I'm not usually a fan of outrageous toning (but I do absolutely love toning on the peripheries with white centers)...and while I'm willing to consider a lightly dipped coin that has retained virtually all of its luster (and sometimes a little of its toning), the ones that are horribly dipped are becoming easier for me to spot.

Hadleydog

You're in big trouble now!

majorbigtime

<< <i>...old coins look strange "blast white." Oh, I know there are some original white ones but I think you guys know what I mean...right? >>



IMO, original toned coins are preferable to dipped "white" silver. I beleive part of the problem relates to the Government's release of mostly white dollars that were unwanted for commerce and sat in treasury vaults for a century. The're white, so shouldn't all silver be white too?