Options
Coin World letter rant about toned coins
RYK
Posts: 35,802 ✭✭✭✭✭
Did anyone else read the letter in Coin World, ranting about how coin collectors were misguided for collecting toned coins? Obviously, any serious collector should know that toning is surface damage. Twenty years from now, he will be laughing at the rest of us.
This guy needs any honorary membership in the TCCS.
This guy needs any honorary membership in the TCCS.
0
Comments
- Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 BC
<< <i>Actually, he has at least one interesting point in his article. That is, the reason that dipped coins lose their luster is not from the dip from from the luster damage due to the toning "damage." That kinda makes sense to me... >>
I didn't read the letter, but this doesn't make sense to me. Take a nice "blast white" Morgan and dip it 20 times and see how much luster is remaining.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>I didn't read the letter, but this doesn't make sense to me. Take a nice "blast white" Morgan and dip it 20 times and see how much luster is remaining. >>
He's not talking about 20 dips. He's talking about one quick dip.
<< <i>That Trade Dollar gives me wood.
Russ, NCNE >>
You are weird!!!
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>Ahhhh - but it's such pretty surface damage!
wow!
"Senorita HepKitty"
"I want a real cool Kitty from Hepcat City, to stay in step with me" - Bill Carter
<< <i>Was it written by Iwog
About the Trade dollar.
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.
For the more extreme toners I worry that in the future collecting tastes may change and they might be considered corroded and/or that techniques to detect AT may improve, thus resulting in downgrades and loss of value for coins previously considered natural.
"It is possible to keep a mind so open that it is perpetually empty."
--Peter Huber, "Galileo's Revenge"
<< <i>Obviously, any serious collector should know that toning is surface damage. >>
There is confusion between toning and tarnish and I quote, "Tarnish is the quick and irregular process by which a coin deteriorates over a short period of time. A copper coin stored in a moist environment could develop spots, for instance, in a matter of just a few days or even hours.
Toning is the slow and natural process by which a coin develops a patina over a period of months or years. Toning is actually an intermediate stage between complete brilliance-the way a coin looks right after being struck at the Mint-and complete blackness.
Some experts have questioned whether toning is merely a form of corrosion which can be likened to rust on a car. The process which causes silver coins to tone, however, is different from the one that causes iron to rust. Some opinions from a professional chemical engineer are: When moisture reacts with iron, there is "an all-out destructive attack"-corrosion-of the metal. Iron spalls or loses metal when it rusts.
Silver is relatively inactive and does not react with oxygen in the air, even at high temperatures. It reacts with certain chemical compounds, notably those containing sulfur and if a catalyst is present-moisture for example. The reaction, however, stops short of being an all out destructive attack. In the case of silver coins, the sulfur causes a protective coating to form on the surface of the metal. When silver tones, it is not eaten away-corroded-by this limited chemical reaction, and there is no loss of metal."
Most toning on coins is beautiful and universally attractive and gives the coin a distinctive personality which I feel will always be highly desirable in the coin collecting world.
The one trade dollar I own is a pcgs 64 1876 S that looks almost identical in color to that picture on the reverse except the luster isn't quite that thick.
Les
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Dizzy, toning and tarnish are absolutely identical and there is no difference whatsoever. Both are the result of silver reacting with sulphur. Oxidation (toning) is the primary cause of screwing up luster on a coin, NOT DIPPING.
Most toning on coins is beautiful and universally attractive and gives the coin a distinctive personality which I feel will always be highly desirable in the coin collecting world.
This is an absolutely silly assertion. MOST toning on coins will DECREASE the value of the coin with respect to white and lusterous coins. A simple search on auction archives can prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt and if you don't believe me, look up my past posts. Furthermore toning may NOT always be desirable since prior to the 1980s toning was seen as BAD and almost always removed. New collectors are repeatedly screwed because they are convinced toning is desirable thus enabling dealers to unload their ugly dogs. Attractively toned coins with good underlying luster MAY make a coin more valuable but the vast majority of oxidized coins are dogs cluttering up dealer cases, and usually sold at a discount if some sucker can't be found.
For the record, I'll take the one toned on both sides.
* Toning damages flow lines which impart luster, at least at a microscopic level
* Weimar's measurement of removed metal notwithstanding, no one has physically measured how MUCH luster is impaired by toning. TDN's awesome dollar clearly shows that a coin can be beautifully toned and suffer imperceptible (at least to the eye) luster loss. I'd like to see Weimar come up with a repeatable scientific experiment to measure luster and luster loss and correlate that with toning. To just say metal is removed doesn't rigorously demonstrate how the removed metal equates to luster loss.
* Repeated ranting about white coins being "better" encourages unnecessary dipping
* However, there are SOME coins which do benefit from a dip and careful storage - you can only tell which ones with experience
* Attractive original toning has and always will bring premium prices. Although you can argue that an untouched white coin is more "original" than the toner, the marketplace has not agreed with that over the long haul.
* Because toning is valued, coin doctors will always exist and just mess up more coins in the process - just like the overdippers
* The most prized coins are those which exhibit awesome luster AND awesome toning (think: Vermeule 1872 proof seated dollar - its a rainbow headlight!!!!)
* We should ALL heed Weimar's main point, which is to preserve our coins carefully (toned or not) for the next generation of collectors. I'm a big fan of intercept shields and store all my more valuable coins in them.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>Obviously, any serious collector should know that toning is surface damage. >>
Sure! Just like "patina" on antique furniture is damage!
I'll take all the "damaged" coins that look like this and WW can keep his white widgets
<< <i>This guy needs any honorary membership in the TCCS. >>
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
Apropos of the coin posse/aka caca: "The longer he spoke of his honor, the tighter I held to my purse."
<< <i>To join TCCS- tonedcoins.com you have to say Weimar White's White Widgets were Wreaks ten times wreally rast!!
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
<< <i>Dizzy, toning and tarnish are absolutely identical and there is no difference whatsoever. Both are the result of silver reacting with sulphur. Oxidation (toning) is the primary cause of screwing up luster on a coin, NOT DIPPING.
Most toning on coins is beautiful and universally attractive and gives the coin a distinctive personality which I feel will always be highly desirable in the coin collecting world.
This is an absolutely silly assertion. MOST toning on coins will DECREASE the value of the coin with respect to white and lusterous coins. A simple search on auction archives can prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt and if you don't believe me, look up my past posts. Furthermore toning may NOT always be desirable since prior to the 1980s toning was seen as BAD and almost always removed. New collectors are repeatedly screwed because they are convinced toning is desirable thus enabling dealers to unload their ugly dogs. Attractively toned coins with good underlying luster MAY make a coin more valuable but the vast majority of oxidized coins are dogs cluttering up dealer cases, and usually sold at a discount if some sucker can't be found. >>
Actually I've read over and over in quality reference material which I happen to agree with, to the effect that "most veteran collectors find toning extremeley attractive and understand the importance of their original surfaces. Novices, on the otherhand, tend to think all coins should be bright and shiny and with that in mind, they often clean them". A cleaned coin ofcourse is nothing compared to an original white coin with original luster. But there is no way in my mind, as I'm sure many others, that a blast white coin in the same given condition would be valued higher than a beautifully rainbow toned coin in the same given grade-no way, no how. For me as a collector, I will even take what most might call a "not so attractively" toned coin over a white coin for the same price without exception. I know I'm getting a coin with original surfaces and one that has stood the test of "mother nature" and "father time". For me, even though I understand that dipping is an acceptable practice, if I know a coin has been dipped, I would not be at all interested in it because IMHO, a dipped coin is an altered coin
<< <i>This is an absolutely silly assertion. MOST toning on coins will DECREASE the value of the coin with respect to white and lusterous coins. A simple search on auction archives can prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt and if you don't believe me, look up my past posts. Furthermore toning may NOT always be desirable since prior to the 1980s toning was seen as BAD and almost always removed. New collectors are repeatedly screwed because they are convinced toning is desirable thus enabling dealers to unload their ugly dogs. Attractively toned coins with good underlying luster MAY make a coin more valuable but the vast majority of oxidized coins are dogs cluttering up dealer cases, and usually sold at a discount if some sucker can't be found. >>
Iwog, I agree with you.
At coin shows, I observe some horribly toned coins in ms-65 and ms-66 holders. I don't care what grade is assigned to these coins, they are, for the most part unnatractive. Let me rephrase that by saying THEY STINK! The "mother nature" argument holds little water because mother nature can also spell decay, rot, rust, corrosion and damage. Yes, you can always dip them in the future but the toning often hides hairlines and corrosion that etches into the surface. The future might reveal some unpleasant surprises. I see many overdipped dogs but I see more toned nightmares. Only the lightest toning is acceptable in my book. TONING OFTEN IMPEDES THE ORIGINAL LUSTER OF A COIN and splatters the surface with irregular distracting color.
Now we know where all those "whities" came from...
Morgannut2 Wrote: In the 1950's and 1960"s thousands of pieces of rare antique furniture and fine art had their surfaces "restored" and indeed sold for more. Today, these same artworks and rare furniture pieces bring from only 1/10 to 3/4 of their "unrestored" counterparts.
Bingo...!!!
If you see a 100+ year old antique that looks like it was made yesterday, it probably was...
Currently Listed: Nothing
Take Care, Dave
Doesn't to mean. As said earlier, leave that BU morgan in dip overnight. And to those who say dip only once....yeah, but that one dip occurs every few years to the point where it will be ruined eventually.
Most toning on coins is beautiful and universally attractive and gives the coin a distinctive personality which I feel will always be highly desirable in the coin collecting world.
This is an absolutely silly assertion. MOST toning on coins will DECREASE the value of the coin with respect to white and lusterous coins. A simple search on auction archives can prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt and if you don't believe me, look up my past posts. Furthermore toning may NOT always be desirable since prior to the 1980s toning was seen as BAD and almost always removed. New collectors are repeatedly screwed because they are convinced toning is desirable thus enabling dealers to unload their ugly dogs. Attractively toned coins with good underlying luster MAY make a coin more valuable but the vast majority of oxidized coins are dogs cluttering up dealer cases, and usually sold at a discount if some sucker can't be found.
This is only a silly assertion per Iwog. You can sell all your nicely toned widgets and rare coins to TDN, RYK, and myself. Start PMing me with all your toned coins similar to TDN's Trade dollar so we can offer you less than what a similar "white" coin brings...as per Iwog. I don't know where Iwog does his research but my own personal dealings in bust, seated, and Barber coinage is that the attractive toned coin ALWAYS brings more. ALWAYS as in 95%or more of the time. The number of totally original yet fully white 19th century coins is essentially zero so that argument doesn't hold up. IF you can find a 90% or better fully white, orig, blazing gem in seated, bust, or barber please show me. They are 1 in a 100 at best these days. Essentially, non-existant. I have not seen one in years. But dipped "white" coins? Yes, those make up about 30-80% of the market these days. While there are a number of toned dogs too, they do not speak for all toned coins, just like Iwog's dipped coins don't speak for those <1% Michael quality, totally orig. "white" coins.
Iwog is also incorrect about the 1970's and 1980's too. I was around then and dipped 19th coins were a scourge. If you had them, everyone said so and would pass unless you discounted. White was out up until the past 5 years. White was definitely out in the 1988-1990 bull market. Dealers hated to buy those coins and in fact preferred to have somewhat dull, but naturally toned coins....except David Hall. David was pioneer in some respects to all white coins. But he was in the minority in 1989. NGC and PCGS also graded dipped type coins more harshly too because they were unnatural looking. Well welcome to the 21st century where newbies and registries (thanks NCS) like dipped coins.
Iwog, how many coins did you sell in the 1988-1990 market to support your facts? I sold about 1000 coins worth about
$600,000 in that period. Also attended dozens of major auctions. A small amount I know, but enough to tell me what what was right and what wasn't.
I still recalling offering Andy Lustig 2 of my prized S mint seated quarters at the 1988 Cincy ANA. Both were slabbed MS66 and
were finest knowns by a mile. He liked the all orig one but was concerned that the 2nd piece was bright and dipped. It was quite clear what was out at that time. And today, that bright dipped coin would be hotly contested for sure. It's still bright white and still the finest known by far. But the other coin still brings much more money.
roadrunner
Toned coins will come back once all the newly minted "dipped" collectors and investors leave the hobby. Very similar to what happened to GSA holders. Now that few are left, and most were cracked out, everyone wants them in GSA holders. Go figure.
Toning will come back as did orig surfaces on antiques.
roadrunner
<< <i>No I didn't write that letter, but he happens to be right.
Dizzy, toning and tarnish are absolutely identical and there is no difference whatsoever. Both are the result of silver reacting with sulphur. Oxidation (toning) is the primary cause of screwing up luster on a coin, NOT DIPPING.
Most toning on coins is beautiful and universally attractive and gives the coin a distinctive personality which I feel will always be highly desirable in the coin collecting world.
This is an absolutely silly assertion. MOST toning on coins will DECREASE the value of the coin with respect to white and lusterous coins. A simple search on auction archives can prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt and if you don't believe me, look up my past posts. Furthermore toning may NOT always be desirable since prior to the 1980s toning was seen as BAD and almost always removed. New collectors are repeatedly screwed because they are convinced toning is desirable thus enabling dealers to unload their ugly dogs. Attractively toned coins with good underlying luster MAY make a coin more valuable but the vast majority of oxidized coins are dogs cluttering up dealer cases, and usually sold at a discount if some sucker can't be found. >>
Toned coins will go out of favor the same day cleaning of ALL coins comes back in favor just like it was in the good old days when toning was bad and cleaned shinny hairlined coins were good.
There's an inherent problem with this - 1st toning - the interaction of Silver with sulpher atoms (or oxygen, or other reactive substances), is a natural process - if there's hydrogen sulfide (or any source of sulphur) in the atmosphere, silver will react with it - Anyone ever clean the Sterling silver for the Holidays? - funny thing a year later you've got to do it again - it's "tarnished" - again from those nasty sulphur atoms floating around in the air. Unless coins are stored in a completely inert atmosphere, they will all eventually tone to some degree. If they have a protective layer of some kind (which can even be toning!) the rate of tarnish/toning will be retarded - what causes the toning is the environment in which the coins are stored. That said - the real issue is NOT toned/Untoned, but the EYE-APPEAL of the coin. There are some toned coins that are definately ugly - splotchy, streaky & unattractive - sometimes a dip will improve these coins - unfortunately, more often than not the dip will expose other unattractive aspects of the coins surface and you'll end up with an equally unattractivre untoned coin. However, in some instances, removing unattractive toning and other surface contaminents will result in a very attractive coin that has been improved. That is probably the minority of situations, but untractive coins can be improved if "cleaned" or dipped by someone who knows what they are doing.
What it really gets down to is what the coin looks like - (Not to be repetative, but it really is all about the EYE-APPEAL of the coin). I own Killer untoned coins - the look great - they may have been "cleaned" or dipped at one time - I don't know -- because I bought them already slabbed - I also own Monster toned coins - they have NOT been harmed by the toning - they have been enhanced by the years of slow accumulation of a thin film of generaly silver sulfide (my toned Proof Indian Cents have some type of copper "salts" copper-chloride, copper sulfide, maybe something else, I don't know all the copper salts that create color when they from that thin layer on ther surface of the coin), but what I do know is a blemish free, deep mirror proof like silver Morgan dollar is gorgeous when untoned - and SPECTACULAR when nicely toned. I also know that the grading services are much less likely to grade a spectacularly toned deep mirror proof like silver Morgan a DMPL, and White's real gripe may be that he can't get that designation on toned PL coins and therefore they are "diminished" and therefore (again in his world) they are damaged goods - All I can say is: Send them to me - I'll take every "damaged" coin that looks like this and lick my wounds for my foolishness! (BTW - the Obv on this coins is PL, perhaps borderline DMPL, but the reverse has only minimal PL so there is no PL designation on the holder - but it "glows" like it's been lit up by internal batteries, and whether the TPGS call it PL or not - it has the right "look" and as a toned coin it's worth many multiples of its plain-Jane white counter-part - any that look like this send them to me - I'll pay "double sheet"
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
I know the above comment is just plain silly and I like to try to keep my posts along the lines of being constructive, but I couldn't resist...
<< <i>Roadrunner and Numismatist (among others) - thanks for setting the record straight.
Mark - To really set the record streight, you should ONLY buy white coins!
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
<< <i>I still recalling offering Andy Lustig 2 of my prized S mint seated quarters at the 1988 Cincy ANA. Both were slabbed MS66 and
were finest knowns by a mile. He liked the all orig one but was concerned that the 2nd piece was bright and dipped. It was quite clear what was out at that time. And today, that bright dipped coin would be hotly contested for sure. It's still bright white and still the finest known by far. But the other coin still brings much more money.
roadrunner >>
roadrunner
Your response is interesting and informative but doesn't this all boil down a matter of degree? There are some white coins that have been dipped and the luster looks completely original, not flat and dull like an over dipped coin. A toned coin with a medium reddish brown or darker color is often way too overbearing.
Im my opinion, coins are not like other antiques in that they are small, relatively low relief sculptures that are difficult to view when heavily oxiodized. An antique object such as a piece of furniture will mellow over time. an old paper object might yellow a bit, a vintage lamp base will have peeling paint, but these are appreciated on a different level. A coin is first functional and second, appreciated for its design. When I see a bunch of toned silver coins, my eye is all over the place. Yes, the first thing I see is the interesting color variation, but what I eally want to jump out at me is the deisgn, strike, lack of surface marks and luster.
Don't you think at this point that the value of toning is getting a bit overrated? Advertisers use way too many adjectives when describing the myriad of colors, the rainbows, the shimmering pools, the cascade of colors. An old silver tea set can be just as colorful, but in that case, it is usually a negative.
Maybe we are not seeing the same toned coins and maybe the best ones are in hiding, but most of the ones I see today are unnatractive. Again, I don't think anyone in here would object to a lightly toned coin that does not detract from the design.
<< <i>
<< <i>Roadrunner and Numismatist (among others) - thanks for setting the record straight.
Mark - To really set the record streight, you should ONLY buy white coins!
No, No, No!!! Those "tarnished rejects" should be sent to me for I have a perfect place here to keep those "damaged eye sores" away from harming other collections. That also goes for you Newmismatist, if I were you I'd send me that Morgan you recently posted immediately if not sooner!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Roadrunner and Numismatist (among others) - thanks for setting the record straight.
Mark - To really set the record streight, you should ONLY buy white coins!
No, No, No!!! Those "tarnished rejects" should be sent to me for I have a perfect place here to keep those "damaged eye sores" away from harming other collections. >>
The line forms behind me!
<< <i>if I were you I'd send me that Morgan you recently posted immediately if not sooner! >>
If I were Dizzyfoxx, I would - but I'm Newmismatist, so I won't
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
<The line forms behind me!
<If I were Dizzyfoxx, I would - but I'm Newmismatist, so I won't>
Fair enough! I guess...
On the flip side, a blast white 150 year old coin looks pretty odd, somehow. I'm comfortable with the toning on this coin, for example:
And just to horrify the toner guys, here's a blast white proof to gouge out your eyes!
"It is possible to keep a mind so open that it is perpetually empty."
--Peter Huber, "Galileo's Revenge"
<< <i>Another concern I have is that the toning process may continue on my coins and at some point take them from nicely toned to plug ugly. I have them in the Intercept slab holders/box duo, with the box in a mylar bag containing a sack of silica gel. While I see the appeal in the wildly toned coins, they make me a bit nervous... >>
Once the silver coin is removed from its' original storage apparatus which caused the toning in the first place, the toning cycle ends and as long as the coin is stored in a proper environment, you should have nothing to worry about except to figure out where your going to find your next toned-monster for your collection.
The Barber coin you show is an example of a NICELY toned coin. It is not distracting at all.
<< <i>
<< <i>Obviously, any serious collector should know that toning is surface damage. >>
There is confusion between toning and tarnish and I quote, "Tarnish is the quick and irregular process by which a coin deteriorates over a short period of time. A copper coin stored in a moist environment could develop spots, for instance, in a matter of just a few days or even hours.
Toning is the slow and natural process by which a coin develops a patina over a period of months or years. Toning is actually an intermediate stage between complete brilliance-the way a coin looks right after being struck at the Mint-and complete blackness.
Some experts have questioned whether toning is merely a form of corrosion which can be likened to rust on a car. The process which causes silver coins to tone, however, is different from the one that causes iron to rust. Some opinions from a professional chemical engineer are: When moisture reacts with iron, there is "an all-out destructive attack"-corrosion-of the metal. Iron spalls or loses metal when it rusts.
Silver is relatively inactive and does not react with oxygen in the air, even at high temperatures. It reacts with certain chemical compounds, notably those containing sulfur and if a catalyst is present-moisture for example. The reaction, however, stops short of being an all out destructive attack. In the case of silver coins, the sulfur causes a protective coating to form on the surface of the metal. When silver tones, it is not eaten away-corroded-by this limited chemical reaction, and there is no loss of metal."
Most toning on coins is beautiful and universally attractive and gives the coin a distinctive personality which I feel will always be highly desirable in the coin collecting world.