<< <i><<SEVERAL board members said they saw the coin IN HAND and said it was a 66 AND the toning was REAL!>>
Lemmings.
I have to agree with ANACONDA on one note - the toned buffalo nickels, and PCGS slabbing them. I KNOW for a fact how and ******** with those, and their were "chuckles" when they got into PCGS holders.
When there is big-time money to be made (TONING), everyone gets involved. I agree also it shouldn't matter whether it was AT or NT. Slab it anyway. ALL experts can not tell the difference - (this coin as proof of the matter).
I agree on ANOTHER ASPECT: It is NOT NGC's fault. All they do is grade the thing and put it in a piece of plastic. They don't put a price tag on it, nor should they have to pay anymore than $55 for it if anyone goes after them. Their slab doesn't say, NT!!!!!!!!! >>
$55? What limits NGC's exposure to $55?
I'm sot sure how you let NGC off the hook for $55, when the dollar price associated with their assigned grade was in the range of $700, and that doesn't attach any added value (if there is any) to the star on the holder. The limits of their liability are tied to the insured graded, not some ebay transaction in the coin's past.
My question. If had brought this coin to you in a PCI MS-66 holder, would you have still thought NT and paid me good money for it, maybe hoping for it to cross into another holder? Just wondering...
No ones going to get a real NT coin through NGC or PCGS for a year now! Laugh all white guys--they're getting tight as a tick on your dipped stuff too!
Actually, Lloyd, it is in writing. NGC passes out a brochure outlining all the reasons a coin might come back as not graded. The obvious implication is that if the coin gets graded it does not fall in to one of the categories that prevent it from doing so.
<< <i><<I'm sot sure how you let NGC off the hook for $55, when the dollar price associated with their assigned grade was in the range of $700>>
OK. $700. Blip on their financial's radar screen. Next!!! >>
I agree -- it's merely a blip to NGC. I think the lesson for buyers is this: before you plunk down a lot of money for any coin, ask yourself if the amount to be paid is in line with the book value for the assigned grade, since that is the extent of the gauranty from the third-party grader (in the case of PCGS or NGC).
So, a colored coin might be pretty, but there is no way to justify going from $700 to $14,000, not unless NGC is willing to put in writing what it feels its guaranty is worth.
Hey -- there is an idea. Why doesn't NGC state the value of its insurance policy in a writen statement that can be transferred with the coin. Granted coin values fluctuate, but maybe the policy could state "3x the then-listed value of an ms66," or whatever other multiple they want to assign to their "star" rating. It would still put any buyer on notice -- hey, NGC will only go out 3x on this thing, why should I go out 20x."
<< <i>ask yourself if the amount to be paid is in line with the book value for the assigned grade, since that is the extent of the gauranty from the third-party grader (in the case of PCGS or NGC). >>
I'll continue to disagree with that line of thinking.
The guarantee must have some reasonable relation to "current fair market value". And, while it could/might be argued that the most recent transaction does not represent current fair market value, clearly, many coins have a "current fair market value" far in excess of "book value". The grading companies are well aware of this fact and need to take it into account in offering their guarantees.
By the way, there will also be examples where the "book value" is higher, rather than lower, than the "current fair market value".
<< <i>I'll continue to disagree with that line of thinking.
The guarantee must have some reasonable relation to "current fair market value" >>
Well, I suspect that NGC will concur with this. It is funny how many people on this and the other thread are so concerned about saving NGC's money. But NGC is not naive about what they are guaranteeing when they certify a coin and what their willingness to stand behind that guarantee means to their business. I will be very surprised if they don't step up to the plate and pay an amount comensurate with what Adrian paid for the coin. Right now this is all just a tempest in a teapot, but it will turn into a real storm if they stiff Anaconda like some folks here have suggested they should do.
<< <i>ask yourself if the amount to be paid is in line with the book value for the assigned grade, since that is the extent of the gauranty from the third-party grader (in the case of PCGS or NGC). >>
I'll continue to disagree with that line of thinking.
The guarantee must have some reasonable relation to "current fair market value". And, while it could/might be argued that the most recent transaction does not represent current fair market value, clearly, many coins have a "current fair market value" far in excess of "book value". The grading companies are well aware of this fact and need to take it into account in offering their guarantees.
By the way, there will also be examples where the "book value" is higher, rather than lower, than the "current fair market value". >>
I agree that it may be preferable to value coins for guaranty purposes at market value, but unless it is printed somewhere, how is anybody going to know with any certainty what it is? I'd like to have some reasonable assurance of the "value" component of the guaranty, otherwise I'm really not sure if my investment is protected or not, or to what degree. Since book values are published, like the PCGS prices, and least there is somewhere everyone can go to see the ballpark value. No way is it a perfect system, but I'm not sure how people are going to get together on "market value."
Too many pages to read but the guys Adrian and Brandon have always been great to deal with from my perspective..The 2 coins look the same but my bet is these 2 will do the right thing to make any wrong right if a transaction has occured.. Bruce Scher
why send the coin back? someone mentioned that NGC will only take it back for $700 so why not keeping it? ... great way to show someone how "reputable" NGC is...
<< <i>why send the coin back? someone mentioned that NGC will only take it back for $700 so why not keeping it? ... great way to show someone how "reputable" NGC is... >>
It hasn't been determined how much, if anything, NGC will take the coin back for. My guess is that they will make the current owner whole.
Whether the coin was artificially toned or not (and it certainly appears that it was), NGC has egg on its face either way. But, if they reimburse the owner of the coin, they look better/more fair.
<< <i>Whether the coin was artificially toned or not (and it certainly appears that it was), NGC has egg on its face either way. But, if they reimburse the owner of the coin, they look better/more fair. >>
Coinguy1,
How do they have egg on their face if the coin were NT (OK, that is a very low probablility scenario, but what have they done wrong if it is NT, and why would they need to buy it back then)?
<< <i>How do they have egg on their face if the coin were NT (OK, that is a very low probablility scenario, but what have they done wrong if it is NT, and why would they need to buy it back then)? >>
Because, whether the coin was artificially toned or not, the widespread perception is that it was.
This was all about perception. It was believed to be toned by a process (NT) that made it very rare and therefore worthy of a high price. Then it was believed that it was (AT) easy to duplicate, hence not rare and hence not valuable. BUT , the coin hasn't changed. It was pretty then, its still pretty now.
Why has it suddenly become worth less because someone questioned the toning process. Maybe because pretty colors never made it worth 14K to begin with??? only the belief that it was a one in a million rarity and that made it valuable, not the look of the coin, that hasn't changed, just the perception of how rare it is.
This was graded as a $700 coin. If someone paid 20xFMV because they perceived it to be rarer than they think it is now thats not NGCs fault. The colors haven't changed since it was graded so they are still the same as it was when graded. The holder said MS66*, it still is.
So now let's run to NGC in fear that someone can duplicate the colored treasures I paid a huge premium for and make them liable.
Paying 20x market is a choice they made and they shouldn't expect insurance on it. Especially not at 30 bucks a coin.
<< <i>This was graded as a $700 coin. If someone paid 20xFMV because they perceived it to be rarer than they think it is now thats not NGCs fault >>
I believe it could more accurately/correctly be argued that someone paid fair market value than that they paid "20xFMV". In this and many other instances, FMV has nothing to do with published prices.
The coin said NGC MS66*, not "NGC MS66* with original monster 10K toning." Until you have a grading system for toning who's to say it's 10K toning or -300 toning. NT or AT.
It could have been NT and still be ugly toning worth a "less than" rather than a 20X. That's all an opinion, one NGC did not make and one they should not be liable for. If so, then Anaconda should sell it to you for $100,000, you can make the claim and split the proceeds claiming it had 100K toning, thats what you paid and they should reimburse you.
I think the poster said it right, they will either BB all toned coins or better yet, just grade them and leave the the toning decisions/risks up to the buyers.
<< <i>Until you have a grading system for toning who's to say it's 10K toning or -300 toning. NT or AT. >>
The marketplace, seriously. In this instance, the marketplace said it was worth multiples of a generic MS66 example. For other coins which are unappealing, the marketplace might very well say that the listed price is too high.
What marketplace?? 2 or 3 dealers who thought they could each make a buck. Did Anaconda buy it beacuse he thought it was worth that much and he wanted it for his own collection??? No, he thought he could make a profit. the marketplace doesn't exist until you have collectors who are willing to pay to keep it for a long term, not just dealers flipping it.
Again, whats different about the coin, it still looks the same? Why do they not want to pay 14K for it anymore??
Presumptions can certainly be overcome. But, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, the presumption should be that the fair market value of the coin is that which it just traded at in a legitimate (marketplace) transaction between two parties. That applies, even if others think the price was too high or too low.
Fair market value: "The price a property would sell for on the open market".
<< <i>Again, whats different about the coin, it still looks the same? Why do they not want to pay 14K for it anymore?? >>
The perception, based upon newly discovered infomation regarding the nearly certain source of its toning. It might seem silly or worse, that perception could be so significant, but that's reality in this crazy hobby of ours.
Coynclecter, don't get me wrong - I see and understand your points very clearly. I think this whole scenario is quite important, scary and fascinating, all in one. Frankly, I would not want to be the one to decide how to handle it.
Mark, hypothetically, my dealer has a 1967 SMS Kennedy half that he bought, toned, and had graded by NGC for under $50. I buy the coin from him for $10,000, KNOWING that I'm going to return it because of the grade guarentee and I let him know so we can split the profit from the great deal. Mind you, it's a setup, we're working together to rip the company, he would give me my money back and take 5k from the return...
What would NGC do about it? Would they reimburse me for my setup? I spent 10k on the coin, so it SHOULD be the FMV of the coin, since I spent it...
This scenario is the sole reason that I think NGC should reimburse them for the cost of a MS66* Peace Dollar. Who's to say in the future there wont be setups. If NGC reimburses people on "FMV" of all coins, they could really be sticking their neck out a little far on some coins because of opinion.
-Daniel
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
-Aristotle
Dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas. Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
Daniel, the setup type of scenario that you and others have mentioned is certainly possible. There are at least a couple of major safeguards to protect against it, however....
1) The parties involved have no assurance or guarantee that the grading company will agree to remove the coin from the marketplace.
2) The grading company can always dispute the (fair market value) price that the coin allegedly just traded at. Previous auction and bourse transactions/prices realized could certainly be examined in order to try to determine if the reported price for the coin in question appears to be within reason. Outside parties/experts can be consulted. I would also expect that the reputations of the parties involved might be considered and examined.
<< <i>What marketplace?? 2 or 3 dealers who thought they could each make a buck. Did Anaconda buy it beacuse he thought it was worth that much and he wanted it for his own collection??? No, he thought he could make a profit. the marketplace doesn't exist until you have collectors who are willing to pay to keep it for a long term, not just dealers flipping it.
Again, whats different about the coin, it still looks the same? Why do they not want to pay 14K for it anymore?? >>
This is a very valid argument that will be hard to just pooh-pooh away.
Again, whats different about the coin, it still looks the same? Why do they not want to pay 14K for it anymore?? >>
Would you feel the same way if you bought what you believed was an authentic Rembrandt painting for $14,000 only to find out later it was a well-done fake/imitation?
I think not. Nobody would. Same holds for this Peace dollar purchaser, whether they be collector or dealer.
<< <i>Would you feel the same way if you bought what you believed was an authentic Rembrandt painting for $14,000 only to find out later it was a well-done fake/imitation? >>
I think that if somebody offered me an "authentic" Rembrandt for $14K I might be a little suspicious.
This was graded as a $700 coin. If someone paid 20xFMV because they perceived it to be rarer than they think it is now thats not NGCs fault. The colors haven't changed since it was graded so they are still the same as it was when graded. The holder said MS66*, it still is.
this coin is an almost perfect example of the market grading employed by NGC et. al. which takes a coin which is probably MS64, assigns two points for the color and the * for eye appeal. now any buyer has a double premium to pay which was added by the grading service of three price increments. to make things worse, the current market scramble by dealers to obtain coins means that gems, along with more ordinary coins, usually pass through 3-4 sales before the end purchaser gets their hands on the coin.
many fail to recognize what that does to prices and many dealers refuse to even acknowledge the fact. quite often a coin will sell from the collector to a dealer at a show and then 1-2 more times to other dealers at the same show before selling the final time to a collector. the subject coin seems like it isn't far away from that scenario------just going on what we know.
This scenario is the sole reason that I think NGC should reimburse them for the cost of a MS66* Peace Dollar.
this scenario is the reason why the grading company picks the FMV instead of the collector. done exclusively your way---there are certainly exceptions---the grading company with such a guarantee would soon be drowning in red ink.
This thread is one example of why I think it's insane to put a premium on toning. Toning is a chemical process, and any chemical process can theoretically be duplicated. A little toning around the edges might be okay, but "monster" toning just seems like a scam waiting to happen.
If you haven't noticed, I'm single and miserable and I've got four albums of bitching about it that I would offer as proof.
Comments
<< <i>I wanna be #300 !!!!!!!
<< <i><<SEVERAL board members said they saw the coin IN HAND and said it was a 66 AND the toning was REAL!>>
Lemmings.
I have to agree with ANACONDA on one note - the toned buffalo nickels, and PCGS slabbing them. I KNOW for a fact how and ******** with those, and their were "chuckles" when they got into PCGS holders.
When there is big-time money to be made (TONING), everyone gets involved. I agree also it shouldn't matter whether it was AT or NT. Slab it anyway. ALL experts can not tell the difference - (this coin as proof of the matter).
I agree on ANOTHER ASPECT: It is NOT NGC's fault. All they do is grade the thing and put it in a piece of plastic. They don't put a price tag on it, nor should they have to pay anymore than $55 for it if anyone goes after them. Their slab doesn't say, NT!!!!!!!!! >>
$55? What limits NGC's exposure to $55?
I'm sot sure how you let NGC off the hook for $55, when the dollar price associated with their assigned grade was in the range of $700, and that doesn't attach any added value (if there is any) to the star on the holder. The limits of their liability are tied to the insured graded, not some ebay transaction in the coin's past.
<< <i>300?????????? >>
YESSSSSSSS!!!!!! 300! 300! 300! 300! THANK YOU, I'M SO WONDERFUL.
Vietnam Vet 69-70 - Semper Fi
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
<< <i><<in effect, saying it is NT>>
"So, did you actually PUT it in writing?"
"No"
"Did you even SAY it?"
"I don't recall" >>
Actually, Lloyd, it is in writing. NGC passes out a brochure outlining all the reasons a coin might come back as not graded. The obvious implication is that if the coin gets graded it does not fall in to one of the categories that prevent it from doing so.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>but what's the scoop on that awful pretty buffalo nickel in the PCGS book? >>
Many believe that it was artificially toned by a rather well-known Chicago coin doctor.
Russ, NCNE
OK. $700. Blip on their financial's radar screen. Next!!!
<< <i><<I'm sot sure how you let NGC off the hook for $55, when the dollar price associated with their assigned grade was in the range of $700>>
OK. $700. Blip on their financial's radar screen. Next!!! >>
You need to factor in the postage and handling, Lloyd.
<< <i><<I'm sot sure how you let NGC off the hook for $55, when the dollar price associated with their assigned grade was in the range of $700>>
OK. $700. Blip on their financial's radar screen. Next!!! >>
I agree -- it's merely a blip to NGC. I think the lesson for buyers is this: before you plunk down a lot of money for any coin, ask yourself if the amount to be paid is in line with the book value for the assigned grade, since that is the extent of the gauranty from the third-party grader (in the case of PCGS or NGC).
So, a colored coin might be pretty, but there is no way to justify going from $700 to $14,000, not unless NGC is willing to put in writing what it feels its guaranty is worth.
Hey -- there is an idea. Why doesn't NGC state the value of its insurance policy in a writen statement that can be transferred with the coin. Granted coin values fluctuate, but maybe the policy could state "3x the then-listed value of an ms66," or whatever other multiple they want to assign to their "star" rating. It would still put any buyer on notice -- hey, NGC will only go out 3x on this thing, why should I go out 20x."
<< <i>ask yourself if the amount to be paid is in line with the book value for the assigned grade, since that is the extent of the gauranty from the third-party grader (in the case of PCGS or NGC). >>
I'll continue to disagree with that line of thinking.
The guarantee must have some reasonable relation to "current fair market value". And, while it could/might be argued that the most recent transaction does not represent current fair market value, clearly, many coins have a "current fair market value" far in excess of "book value". The grading companies are well aware of this fact and need to take it into account in offering their guarantees.
By the way, there will also be examples where the "book value" is higher, rather than lower, than the "current fair market value".
<< <i>I'll continue to disagree with that line of thinking.
The guarantee must have some reasonable relation to "current fair market value" >>
Well, I suspect that NGC will concur with this. It is funny how many people on this and the other thread are so concerned about saving NGC's money. But NGC is not naive about what they are guaranteeing when they certify a coin and what their willingness to stand behind that guarantee means to their business. I will be very surprised if they don't step up to the plate and pay an amount comensurate with what Adrian paid for the coin. Right now this is all just a tempest in a teapot, but it will turn into a real storm if they stiff Anaconda like some folks here have suggested they should do.
CG
<< <i>
<< <i>ask yourself if the amount to be paid is in line with the book value for the assigned grade, since that is the extent of the gauranty from the third-party grader (in the case of PCGS or NGC). >>
I'll continue to disagree with that line of thinking.
The guarantee must have some reasonable relation to "current fair market value". And, while it could/might be argued that the most recent transaction does not represent current fair market value, clearly, many coins have a "current fair market value" far in excess of "book value". The grading companies are well aware of this fact and need to take it into account in offering their guarantees.
By the way, there will also be examples where the "book value" is higher, rather than lower, than the "current fair market value". >>
I agree that it may be preferable to value coins for guaranty purposes at market value, but unless it is printed somewhere, how is anybody going to know with any certainty what it is? I'd like to have some reasonable assurance of the "value" component of the guaranty, otherwise I'm really not sure if my investment is protected or not, or to what degree. Since book values are published, like the PCGS prices, and least there is somewhere everyone can go to see the ballpark value. No way is it a perfect system, but I'm not sure how people are going to get together on "market value."
Bruce Scher
that i am sure if it only helps one new collector from getting burned it will have all been worth it from this information
which exploded from this infected boil hence start a healing process
and in three weeks all forgotten and onto the next coin game rat a$$ piece of work letting some urchin get screwed all in the name of greed
everyone is such a class act in coindum
<< <i>why send the coin back? someone mentioned that NGC will only take it back for $700 so why not keeping it? ... great way to show someone how "reputable" NGC is... >>
It hasn't been determined how much, if anything, NGC will take the coin back for. My guess is that they will make the current owner whole.
Whether the coin was artificially toned or not (and it certainly appears that it was), NGC has egg on its face either way. But, if they reimburse the owner of the coin, they look better/more fair.
<< <i>Whether the coin was artificially toned or not (and it certainly appears that it was), NGC has egg on its face either way. But, if they reimburse the owner of the coin, they look better/more fair. >>
Coinguy1,
How do they have egg on their face if the coin were NT (OK, that is a very low probablility scenario, but what have they done wrong if it is NT, and why would they need to buy it back then)?
<< <i>How do they have egg on their face if the coin were NT (OK, that is a very low probablility scenario, but what have they done wrong if it is NT, and why would they need to buy it back then)? >>
Because, whether the coin was artificially toned or not, the widespread perception is that it was.
Why has it suddenly become worth less because someone questioned the toning process. Maybe because pretty colors never made it worth 14K to begin with??? only the belief that it was a one in a million rarity and that made it valuable, not the look of the coin, that hasn't changed, just the perception of how rare it is.
This was graded as a $700 coin. If someone paid 20xFMV because they perceived it to be rarer than they think it is now thats not NGCs fault. The colors haven't changed since it was graded so they are still the same as it was when graded. The holder said MS66*, it still is.
So now let's run to NGC in fear that someone can duplicate the colored treasures I paid a huge premium for and make them liable.
Paying 20x market is a choice they made and they shouldn't expect insurance on it. Especially not at 30 bucks a coin.
<< <i>This was graded as a $700 coin. If someone paid 20xFMV because they perceived it to be rarer than they think it is now thats not NGCs fault >>
I believe it could more accurately/correctly be argued that someone paid fair market value than that they paid "20xFMV". In this and many other instances, FMV has nothing to do with published prices.
It could have been NT and still be ugly toning worth a "less than" rather than a 20X. That's all an opinion, one NGC did not make and one they should not be liable for. If so, then Anaconda should sell it to you for $100,000, you can make the claim and split the proceeds claiming it had 100K toning, thats what you paid and they should reimburse you.
I think the poster said it right, they will either BB all toned coins or better yet, just grade them and leave the the toning decisions/risks up to the buyers.
<< <i>Until you have a grading system for toning who's to say it's 10K toning or -300 toning. NT or AT. >>
The marketplace, seriously. In this instance, the marketplace said it was worth multiples of a generic MS66 example. For other coins which are unappealing, the marketplace might very well say that the listed price is too high.
Again, whats different about the coin, it still looks the same? Why do they not want to pay 14K for it anymore??
<< <i>What marketplace?? >>
Presumptions can certainly be overcome. But, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, the presumption should be that the fair market value of the coin is that which it just traded at in a legitimate (marketplace) transaction between two parties. That applies, even if others think the price was too high or too low.
Fair market value: "The price a property would sell for on the open market".
<< <i>Again, whats different about the coin, it still looks the same? Why do they not want to pay 14K for it anymore?? >>
The perception, based upon newly discovered infomation regarding the nearly certain source of its toning. It might seem silly or worse, that perception could be so significant, but that's reality in this crazy hobby of ours.
Coynclecter, don't get me wrong - I see and understand your points very clearly. I think this whole scenario is quite important, scary and fascinating, all in one. Frankly, I would not want to be the one to decide how to handle it.
What would NGC do about it? Would they reimburse me for my setup? I spent 10k on the coin, so it SHOULD be the FMV of the coin, since I spent it...
This scenario is the sole reason that I think NGC should reimburse them for the cost of a MS66* Peace Dollar. Who's to say in the future there wont be setups. If NGC reimburses people on "FMV" of all coins, they could really be sticking their neck out a little far on some coins because of opinion.
-Daniel
-Aristotle
Dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas. Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
-Horace
-Daniel
-Aristotle
Dum loquimur fugerit invida aetas. Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero.
-Horace
1) The parties involved have no assurance or guarantee that the grading company will agree to remove the coin from the marketplace.
2) The grading company can always dispute the (fair market value) price that the coin allegedly just traded at. Previous auction and bourse transactions/prices realized could certainly be examined in order to try to determine if the reported price for the coin in question appears to be within reason. Outside parties/experts can be consulted. I would also expect that the reputations of the parties involved might be considered and examined.
<< <i>What marketplace?? 2 or 3 dealers who thought they could each make a buck. Did Anaconda buy it beacuse he thought it was worth that much and he wanted it for his own collection??? No, he thought he could make a profit. the marketplace doesn't exist until you have collectors who are willing to pay to keep it for a long term, not just dealers flipping it.
Again, whats different about the coin, it still looks the same? Why do they not want to pay 14K for it anymore?? >>
This is a very valid argument that will be hard to just pooh-pooh away.
<< <i>
Again, whats different about the coin, it still looks the same? Why do they not want to pay 14K for it anymore?? >>
Would you feel the same way if you bought what you believed was an authentic Rembrandt painting for $14,000 only to find out later it was a well-done fake/imitation?
I think not. Nobody would. Same holds for this Peace dollar purchaser, whether they be collector or dealer.
Doug
<< <i>Would you feel the same way if you bought what you believed was an authentic Rembrandt painting for $14,000 only to find out later it was a well-done fake/imitation? >>
I think that if somebody offered me an "authentic" Rembrandt for $14K I might be a little suspicious.
Russ, NCNE
this coin is an almost perfect example of the market grading employed by NGC et. al. which takes a coin which is probably MS64, assigns two points for the color and the * for eye appeal. now any buyer has a double premium to pay which was added by the grading service of three price increments. to make things worse, the current market scramble by dealers to obtain coins means that gems, along with more ordinary coins, usually pass through 3-4 sales before the end purchaser gets their hands on the coin.
many fail to recognize what that does to prices and many dealers refuse to even acknowledge the fact. quite often a coin will sell from the collector to a dealer at a show and then 1-2 more times to other dealers at the same show before selling the final time to a collector. the subject coin seems like it isn't far away from that scenario------just going on what we know.
this scenario is the reason why the grading company picks the FMV instead of the collector. done exclusively your way---there are certainly exceptions---the grading company with such a guarantee would soon be drowning in red ink.
Russ, NCNE
-- Adam Duritz, of Counting Crows
My Ebay Auctions
Camelot
<< <i> A little toning around the edges might be okay, but "monster" toning just seems like a scam waiting to happen. >>
Unless you have the skills to tell the difference. As a wise man once said, only buy no-brainer NT coins...Mike
<< <i>Unless you have the skills to tell the difference. As a wise man once said, only buy no-brainer NT coins...Mike >>
Speaking hypothetically, can't any toning effect be produced artificially (e.g., the infamous Taco Bell napkin toning)?
-- Adam Duritz, of Counting Crows
My Ebay Auctions