Ugly as hell and I would lean for AT. If it were NT, I wouldn't buy it. I don't like the look on the obverse particulaly and that is what is leaning towards AT for me.
It has a colorful silver sulfide finish. Whether it came from years of time exposed to naturally occuring atmospheric hydrogen sulfide, months of exposure to the atmosphere in an industrial park, or a few minutes at a high concentration nobody can tell unless they witnessed the latter. --Jerry
The light brown to yellow to purple to green gradient, coupled with blotches is a dead giveaway.
However, best way to tell is to tilt the coin at almost a 90 degree angle and look across the coin directly in to a light source.
AT will just sit there on the surface and be almost indistinguishable. NT, will be part of the surface. This is not end-all / be-all, but a down and dirty first test.
The reverse looks like a natural rainbow, but the obverse looks like a chemical spill. Overall, I'd call it AT or environmentally damaged, and I don't like it, either.
I think the obverse is AT while the reverse is NT if that is possible.. I think it is attractive and would still buy it despite the obverse which would be dipped and then the coin would be put in my 7070.
Added: Don't dip the whole thing. Just the obverse.
I could almost live with the reverse. The obverse is quite unappealing and will only get worse as it blackens. I would guess AT and the square frame in the lower right obverse seems pretty suspicious. It's not a paper fold. Clip outline or something laid on top of it?
<< <i>The reverse looks like a natural rainbow, but the obverse looks like a chemical spill. Overall, I'd call it AT or environmentally damaged, and I don't like it, either. >>
TTT. The reverse actually has eye-appeal whereas the obverse makes me want to puke! Whether it is AT or NT is academic. All toning involves the same coin chemistry whether or not it is atrificially expediated or not, IMHO
"Please help us keep these boards professional and informative…. And fun." - DW --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BONGO HURTLES ALONG THE RAIN SODDEN HIGHWAY OF LIFE ON UNDERINFLATED BALD RETREAD TIRES
Yes, I agree with all of you, it is an unattractive obverse to say the least, and actually looks worse in person.
However, the real point of this thread was to show the coin is in an NGC holder and it shouldn't be. While the reverse is 100% attractively bag toned, the obverse is looks like a chem experiment gone bad, and again, it looks even worse in person.
Toned with a torch. Very obvious. I've done a lot of metal work and know what toning by torch looks like. It looks ashy on the obverse. Definitely toned with a torch.
Jonathan
I have been a collector for over mumbly-five years. I learn something new every day.
Comments
If it were NT, I wouldn't buy it.
I don't like the look on the obverse particulaly and that is what is leaning towards AT for me.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
Russ, NCNE
The light brown to yellow to purple to green gradient, coupled with blotches is a dead giveaway.
However, best way to tell is to tilt the coin at almost a 90 degree angle and look across the coin directly in to a light source.
AT will just sit there on the surface and be almost indistinguishable. NT, will be part of the surface. This is not end-all / be-all, but a down and dirty first test.
<< <i>Is it in a rattler ?
No
fugly as all hell.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
2. When you are not sure, let someone else buy it.
rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
==Looking for pre WW2 Commems in PCGS Rattler holders, 1851-O Three Cent Silvers in all grades
Successful, problem free and pleasant transactions with: illini420, coinguy1, weather11am,wayneherndon,wondercoin,Topdollarpaid,Julian, bishdigg,seateddime, peicesofme,ajia,CoinRaritiesOnline,savoyspecial,Boom, TorinoCobra71, ModernCoinMart, WTCG, slinc, Patches, Gerard, pocketpiececommems, BigJohnD, RickMilauskas, mirabella, Smittys, LeeG, TomB, DeusExMachina, tydye
<< <i>toned in a taco bell napkin then gassed with a chili fart! >>
The name is LEE!
Added: Don't dip the whole thing. Just the obverse.
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
link
Oh well, everybody makes mistakes!
<< <i>The reverse looks like a natural rainbow, but the obverse looks like a chemical spill. Overall, I'd call it AT or environmentally damaged, and I don't like it, either. >>
TTT. The reverse actually has eye-appeal whereas the obverse makes me want to puke! Whether it is AT or NT is academic. All toning involves the same coin chemistry whether or not it is atrificially expediated or not, IMHO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BONGO HURTLES ALONG THE RAIN SODDEN HIGHWAY OF LIFE ON UNDERINFLATED BALD RETREAD TIRES
However, the real point of this thread was to show the coin is in an NGC holder and it shouldn't be. While the reverse is 100% attractively bag toned, the obverse is looks like a chem experiment gone bad, and again, it looks even worse in person.
<< <i>toned in a taco bell napkin then gassed with a chili fart!
fugly as all hell. >>
Taco Bell Napkins would give better results. As for the coin I would pass on it.
David
It looks like one of those man o'coins earlier works
Crack and dip - the base coin looks pretty nice, but the surface is a mess.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
I've done a lot of metal work and know what toning by torch looks like. It looks ashy on the obverse. Definitely toned with a torch.
Jonathan
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry