What makes a toner a monster?

blu62vette · October 19, 2007 12:34AM

Is this just a term that is used loosely or is there a certain amount of color that should be associated with a monster. Sure on ebay most white coins with slight rim tone are monsters but what do people think here? Is it also depth of color? I have a toner that has lighter more pastel colors that I dont consider monster though it is fully obverse toner. Then I have a neon blue Morgan that is mainly blue on the obverse with some godl underlaying it and the reverse is almost all gold. That one seems to be a monster. Just wanted to see what people consider a monster and of course pics are more than welcome, I will post mine when I get home today.

Cladiator · October 19, 2007 12:38AM

<< <i>What makes a toner a monster? >>

The price.

kryptonitecomics · October 19, 2007 12:39AM

It a wow coin.....typically featuring a banded rainbow pattern if we are talking about Morgans......clean surfaces....so higher grades are usually required for a coin to be a true monster (MS64+)................but when all is said and done.....everyone is going to have a different definition because beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

JZrarities · October 19, 2007 12:42AM

<< <i>What makes a toner a monster? >>

An Ambitious Seller....

Sunnywood · October 19, 2007 12:43AM

The term "monster" is certainly over-used, particularly by those looking to sell the coins in question. Of course, what one considers a "monster" depends on what one has seen in one's numismatic lifetime. Consider that if each of us calls the one or two very best toners that we've seen "monsters," then someone who has seen a great many toned coins will have a much higher standard of what constitutes a monster.

Here are a few of my own coins that I consider to be "monsters" for toning; others might disagree:

WTCG · October 19, 2007 12:43AM

I define a "monster" toned coin as a coin that is fully enveloped by toning on at least one side while being so colorful and intruiging that you can't take your eyes off of it.

Although the term is way overused, some true "monster" toned coins are justifiable for the prices asked.

Broadstruck · October 19, 2007 12:51AM

It's probably one of the most idiotic terms in the hobby for an attractively toned coin description. I guess to be classified as a monster a coin would need 4 ingredients Superb Surfaces, Superb Strike, Superb Natural Toning, and a Superb Price... yet most fall short on all 4 and just have mediocre toning, but still the Superb Price. I've seen this description used mostly on Early Commems over the last 20 years, and by sellers who are scared of the dark.

TomB · October 19, 2007 12:55AM

In my opinion, this term would most heavily rely upon overall eye appeal regardless of if the coin was toned or essentially untoned or even if circulated.

Zoins · October 19, 2007 1:03AM

With so many colorful AT coins out there and general over-use of the term, "monster" doesn't mean much for me anymore. Before looking at the coin, the word indicates something is wrong or scary with the coin to me. Of course, monsters are generally scary so this fits.

"Moose" still carries meaning for me but few coins qualify for this.

pharmer · October 19, 2007 1:23AM

Moose is the term that seems odd. I've seen a few in the wild, so the term conjures notions like very large and unafraid of people and huge antlers. Not a coin term. Monster seems like the appropriate penultimate phrase.

Zoins · October 19, 2007 1:26AM

<< <i>Moose is the term that seems odd. I've seen a few in the wild, so the term conjures notions like very large and unafraid of people and huge antlers. Not a coin term. Monster seems like the appropriate penultimate phrase. >>

If Moose conjures up images of antlers, does Monster conjure up images of Frankenstein? Monsters are typically ugly and scary so if you mean blatant AT coins, then I agree with you.

From what I've seen, Moose is definitely more, often much more, penultimate than Monster, when typically applied.

Monster is applied to many so-so coins (and some down-right nasty ones) while Moose isn't, from my observation. Often there seems to be no comparison, with Moose coins being far more desirable than Monster coins.

The fact that Moose may not be a "cool" term may also limit abuse and dilution through over-use.

Fairlaneman · October 19, 2007 1:39AM

A couple of Monsters, IMO, are attached. One from a forum member, who has replied to this thread, and the other from Heritage I think.

Ken

Sunnywood · October 19, 2007 1:41AM

Only on these Boards could there be an argument over whether "monster" or "moose" is more appropriate !!! Of course, for those dealers in search of ever more extreme superlatives, there is always the more specific monster term: "Godzilla" !!! I have seen toned coins described as "neon fluorescent Godzilla monster," just as their untoned brethren are notoriously descirbed as having "screaming frosty Godzilla headlight luster."

pharmer · October 19, 2007 2:28AM

And Godzilla is a monster, not a moose. Point made, nuff sed.

Colorfulcoins · October 19, 2007 9:00AM

Problem is, Godzilla is an AM (Artifical Monster) and his color is, well, horrid. Godzillia is not a monster MONSTER by an means.

dizzyfoxx · October 19, 2007 9:07AM

A monster is described as a coin that has the following attributes to a superior degree: Luster, toning uniformity, vibrant toning color with underlying luster, and accurately graded. Please note that a MS63 can be considered a MONSTER just like a MS67, as long as all of the previous attributes are present.