I've been told this is A.T. ...

AuldFartte

A couple of people have told me this Walker is A.T.; a few have told me it's N.T. Now, I don't really care - I only have a few bucks in it - but I am trying to LEARN to identify A.T. coins, so for those who say it's A.T., could you please take a moment to tell me what specific indicators you see that tell you it's A.T. ???

I'm not wanting to start a war here. I just really want to learn more from you guys who are toning experts.

Thanks for your time

Russ

Obverse looks close to the way these can tone up, but the reverse looks suspicious. Toning is too abrupt. No smooth transition.

Russ, NCNE

pharmer

Read your post first, didn't scroll down to the image.

Scrolled down to the image.

OMG!

fc

65 years is a long time.

braddick

Definitely AT and not very good at that. When's the last time anyone showed you a Walker that had pink and deep blue on the same coin?

One way to spot AT is to ask if you've ever seen the same colors naturually tone on a coin before. Second, ask yourself if the same toning pattern existed on coins 20 years ago.

If the answer is NO and NO than you're smack dab in the middle of id'ing an AT coin.

ER

Beats me.

But, I really like your collection, AuldFartte.

Russ

OOPS! Just realized this is a Walker, not a SAE. That's what I get for posting before I've had my coffee.

Russ, NCNE

curly

To me, it depends on what is called AT and NT.

I don't think that the coin was covered with chemicals and baked and to me that is AT.

NT (to me) is a coin that has toned over a period of time by laying in contact with something else.


It looks to me that this coin was purposely placed in some type of active paper and the toning process was speeded up. I wrapped up a SAE in toilet paper for about two years and it came out looking like this one.

While I don't consider this "street legal", I guess it qualifies as NT

Thats my take on it anyway

BAJJERFAN

Here AT could be Altered Toning; Advanced Toning or Alotta Toning.

kryptonitecomics

If that was an ASE......I could duplicate the colors very easily and have done so via experimentation.......here's one that I did a while back by storing the coin in a high sulfer environment under a heat lamp......so the Pink and royal blues are dead giveaways for me on a Walker...............I just don't see those vibrant color combos on an NT Walker with that type of coverage????







While not the same pattern....neon pink, Purple, and royal blue are the most common colors created when one attempts to AT a coin.......here's another example of a 1964 Quarter and both of these were done with no real knowledge of chemistry etc....simply incorporating a Silver coin in to a hot sulfer tainted environment

CoastGuard

Another MS-69 Kennedy ruined. Won't be long and the supply will be tight.

TomB

I don't like that coin at all and would have nothing to do with it.

SUPERCARCOINS

...........It looks TOO good to be real........., but there are many coins slabbed with more questionable

colors . I would submit it -

mozin

I would not want this coin. It looks AT to me because the different colors are not in the correct places, no proper transitioning from one color to another. As the toning builds thickness, the colors are supposed to change. I don't see that happening on this coin.

In a PCGS or NGC holder, the coin would be saleable, likely at a premium to someone who really like it. Raw, not.

michael

oh my

my my my my my my my my my my my my my my my my my my my my my..........................

Steve27

Your coin is DEFINATELY AT, the colors tell me that it was a sulfur job, and the matching obverse/reverse toning confirms it for me. Want a nice commemorative to go along with it?

Connecticoin

Blatant AT.

MikeKing

too much methane...

SamByrd

AT Yes, market acceptable perhaps either way for a few buck its one hell of a coin

Myqqy

I agree with the others that it looks like blatant AT, and the type of color along with abruptness of pattern make it look like cooked crap.....

AuldFartte

Thank you all very much for the input. I've learned a lot from it, and I really appreciate your time, and your valuable explanations

dizzyfoxx

<< <i>I don't like that coin at all and would have nothing to do with it. >>



Coming from TomB, I'd say that pretty much sums it up.

Shamika

Probably okay, but I don't care for it.

carl

I'd have to go along with what is really AT or NT. I've left coins out in the sun, wind, rain after a bath in dish soap that turned like that after a long period of time. The variatioins in color suggest what is usually ment by AT but could be the results of leaving the coin in an invironment where that could occur naturally but done intentionally.

Deadhorse

AT all the way.

That's looks too close to a sulfer solution on the revrse, seen too many just like it to think otherwise.

The problems the average doctors have is not being able to stop the darkening once it begins.

Give that coin another 6 months and the reverse will be nearly black where it's currently blue.

BAJJERFAN

Ya know just because a coin is AT or Intentionally Toned doesn't automatically make it lacking in eye appeal or butt-effen fugly. I wouldn't immediately condemn it because smoeone else thinks its AT or its not an A box monster rainbow obverse toner. There are plenty of bag toned Morgans that are uglier than a can of smashed buttholes.

This one is in all probability IT but its in a holder and aint all that bad lookin in hand.

majorbigtime

<< <i>OOPS! Just realized this is a Walker, not a SAE. That's what I get for posting before I've had my coffee.

Russ, NCNE >>



You're forgiven--kinda' like my posts, pre-martini!

Ssur,ENCN

TwoSides2aCoin

I like colors on flowers and rainbows in the sky and in people.... but coins ought to be silver, gold , or brown- if copper (unless it is the original color of copper-- RED)

Any other color , it is either CHEMICAL or THERMAL Toning, in my opinion. To say it is NATURAL or ARTIFICIAL is actually a moot point.

Here is the coin in grayscale.


AT or NT shouldn't make any difference.

It surely isn't in it's original MINT STATE !

cape

most definitely heated and at

MikeKing

nobody gets my jokes...boo hoo...

Artist

I am by no means an expert on this subject, but since my take on this coin differs from the posts thrown out thus far, here goes:

Every so often, someone will post 'moster toner' walker on these boards - and they usually look like the obverse of your coin: fields of weaving, overlapping color. HOWEVER, the colors on your coin are EXCEPTIONALLY neon - REG FLAG #1.

The orange & blues of the reverse of your coin are very consistant with the album toning I sometimes see on Barbers & Morgans. And I suppose silver being silver, and albums being albums, that it is very possible that such toning could occur on a Walker. HOWEVER, album toning is generally runs more symetrical, especially when the center is still so white - RED FLAG #2.

Taken together, why would the same coin display such differnt toning on each side? True, I have seen some Mint sets from this era where this sort of happens, but then usually when that happens, one side gets much 'louder' than the other - on this coin, both sides are loud, but it's a different loud, and the odds are against - RED FLAG #3.

Taken singularly, these Red Flags may be inconclusive, but together they point to to AT.

lava

It's AT ... I made it. Never though I'd see it here.