Circ find....AT or NT????

AnkurJ

I found this in change, sent to NGC, came back AT. But what do YOU think? It seems to have a little bit of a greasy look to it which I dont remember being there when I sent it. Anyway, here are pics of the obv and rev.







AJ

dieabolical

The green splotches on the reverse are strangely random.
Maybe the AT category should be subdivided into intentional and unintentional.
You know, to make things even easier.
This whole toning thing is just a big headache.
You must make a lot of submissions, I've yet to make one and I can't imagine sending in a nugget from my pocket change.

Zoins

<< <i>Maybe the AT category should be subdivided into intentional and unintentional. >>

Some people say AT is defined by intentional. Unintentional is NT, intentional is AT.

dieabolical

You bring up another aspect of the discussion.
I personally think of AT/NT as chemical/non-chemical (or additive/non-additive) vs. intentional/accidental.
I don't consider album toners AT, or manilla envelopes.
People intentionally place coins in envelopes to develop tone.
But adding compounds to the surface means AT, to me anyway.
I look at Ankur's coin and think, at some point in it's life cycle it got seriously mishandled, maybe exposed to chemicals or a magic marker.
And then was put in a vending machine (or whatever).
So an 'accidental' AT.
Before anything constructive can be accomplished in regards to the AT/NT question, there has to be a concensus as to what 'AT' and 'NT' actually mean.
Until the issue approaches a resolution, the prudent thing to do is avoid obvious clown coins.

Zoins

<< <i>Before anything constructive can be accomplished in regards to the AT/NT question, there has to be a concensus as to what 'AT' and 'NT' actually mean. >>

A job for the ANA?

basestealer

The coin is heavily damaged. Looks like it was run over by a car and sat in a pool of motoroil, then found again and put back into circulation. Toning is toning.

dieabolical

Has the ANA approached the subject?
I couldn't find anything on their website.
If the only difference between AT and NT is intent, how do you possibly go about measuring that?
If the terms are instead defined by process, you can at least imagine that it might be possible to scientifically differentiate the two.
For now, MOST AT can be spotted by those with a discerning eye. But it's getting more and more difficult to do so.
If AT coins are accepted alongside NT as simply 'toned', then soon every coin will look like the notorious ASE.
And premiums for legimately toned specimens will disappear.
And all those potential collectors burned on clown coins will leave the hobby in disgust.

Zoins

I haven't heard of the ANA working on this but this seems like the type of collector interest issue that they should perhaps work on. They are the ones that picked the Sheldon Scale for the industry after all.

I doubt collectors could create any kind of standard given the differing opinions posted on this board and even if this board came up with a consensus how would that propagate to the rest of the industry?

The ANA has the clout to create a standard and promote it with the TPGs and auction houses. This is an issue that seems to be of intense interest to collectors because it comes up over and over again without a solution. Should the ANA address collector issues?

If the ANA can't do it then perhaps it's an unsolvable issue for the hobby?