Do you think this is really AT?

ajaan

1971 Canada $

coinpictures

I saw that one the other night. Yes, I think it's AT. I have a bazillion of those particular specimens, and while they do tone wildly, those obverse colors are too "fluorescent" in my opinion. The reverse looks ok to me.

TwoKopeiki

I was going to say the same - reverse colors definitely look messed with. On the other hand, I have seen a few of those with similar obverse toning.

coinpictures

<< <i>I was going to say the same - reverse colors definitely look messed with. On the other hand, I have seen a few of those with similar obverse toning. >>



Urgh?

Unless my logic skills are off (possible, it's been a long day), you're saying the exact opposite of me... you think the side with the bust is ok and the logo side is AT???

Doogy

AT to me; looks like someone had a bunch of white ones, and wanted to try to replicate the wild toning you often see on PL Canadian dollars from this era. The reverse looks pretty close to what you'd see on a lot of NT ones, while he got too much in the way of neon colors on the obverse.

TwoKopeiki

<< <i>

<< <i>I was going to say the same - reverse colors definitely look messed with. On the other hand, I have seen a few of those with similar obverse toning. >>



Urgh?

Unless my logic skills are off (possible, it's been a long day), you're saying the exact opposite of me... you think the side with the bust is ok and the logo side is AT??? >>



I always thought the Queen side was the reverse on these?

Mesquite

The raw examples I show below are not AT (as far as I'm aware) - granted I have not been with them since their production. The 1971s, 72s and 73s can be found that wonderfully and wildly toned in the RCM packaging - I really don't have any reason to think that the one in the ANACS slab is AT'ed. Unlike the Morgan dollars these Canada dollars typically don't carry a premium so there does not seem to be a monitary incentive for someone to AT them. My guess is that if you sent this in to PCGS (even in the ANACS slab) it might well cross. It would be nice to know what the graders saw that drew them to the AT conclusion. Just my two cents worth.

TwoKopeiki

I have seen dozens of these and have never encountered one with "acid green" and "sunblast orange" colors.

Mesquite

So you're basing an AT call on the ANACS coin on an unusual color combination on the obverse? Well, I can accept that. I don't have the same inclination (but I'm not going to argue the point). The attribution of AT vs NT, particularly on the Canadian $s (even on US coins) can be difficult. On that particular '71 I don't see enough to make the call AT with any sense of conviction.

How much is that coin going for? It might be interesting to buy it, crack it out and submit it to NGC or PCGS. I'm not suggesting you do it for that coin is not worth the expense. I'll bet you'd find that either NGC or PCGS would grade it straight up. That is , of course, only my guess.

coinpictures

<< <i>I always thought the Queen side was the reverse on these? >>



Hehe, and I always thought it was the obverse.

Mesquite, it's not that the coin is garishly toned, rather it's the nature of the colors themselves shown in the photo. Too neon. I suppose it's possible that the lighting is off and the color isn't as indicated in the pics...

The colors in the pictures you posted look natural to me. What's the difference, you ask? The toning colors in your pictures, while light in hue, are primarily pastels, which I would expect, and have seen repeatedly on examples I've viewed. The pictures of the coin below (included for comparison) are just too darned fluorescent.

See the difference between the obverse and reverse below? The image on the right is predominantly pastel, the image on the left is neon toned. The left just doesn't look "right". The right image looks very natural to me.

Anything is possible, but if I had to pick one side or the other, I would have to say AT.

newbiecollector

I have never see a coin that was AT, that had such a straight line between colors.

That doesn't it can't happen but seems real strange to me.

Of course my opinion and a couple of bucks you can get a coffee at a nice place

Doogy

<< <i>

<< <i>I always thought the Queen side was the reverse on these? >>



Hehe, and I always thought it was the obverse.

Mesquite, it's not that the coin is garishly toned, rather it's the nature of the colors themselves shown in the photo. Too neon. I suppose it's possible that the lighting is off and the color isn't as indicated in the pics...

The colors in the pictures you posted look natural to me. What's the difference, you ask? The toning colors in your pictures, while light in hue, are primarily pastels, which I would expect, and have seen repeatedly on examples I've viewed. The pictures of the coin below (included for comparison) are just too darned fluorescent.

See the difference between the obverse and reverse below? The image on the right is predominantly pastel, the image on the left is neon toned. The left just doesn't look "right". The right image looks very natural to me.

Anything is possible, but if I had to pick one side or the other, I would have to say AT.

>>




Right now, i've got 62 of these wild Canadian toner dollars, ranging from 1967-1974. I concur with Dan in how and what shade the colors are; the colors on all 62 of mine are more of a pastel tone, some more rich than others. However, none are of this screaming neon looking tone, especially when you consider the vertical lines seperating the colors that this ANACS version shows that makes the toning colors more deliberate. I also think you'd have to see this coin in hand; many of the US toner guys say AT is obvious by the way it seems to "float" on the surface like a oil slick. NT is generally more a "part of the coin", if that makes sense. With this neon type toning, i'd bet if you looked at it from the side or with a loupe, you'd get a clear oily effect.

just my 2 shillings

Mesquite

Well, I can't disagree with anything that has been written. I wonder what the opinion is of the one who threw this bone out into the yard?

Ajaan, any input?

Doogy

lemme' add this guys:

one of the many reasons i love this forum is it's civility. We can openly have a 'bone thrown in the yard', as Mesquite aptly puts it, and we all act like civilized pure-bred show dogs. Compare that with the wild and wooly NT vs. AT threads on the US coin forum where the bone would have been attacked and mauled by a pack of junk yard dogs.

ajaan

My gut feeling is it is NT. I would have to see the coin in person though. I think the imaging of the coin may be off. I have seen similar colors on SP cased dollars but the straight lines might be a problem or it might be that the foam wasn't fitting perfectly over the coin and shifted over time from the handling of the case.