Well , I found out the hard way that ATS they don't like toned proofs...

SUMORADA

I posted a little while back about finding several obv/rev toned 1961 and 1962 dimes, quarters and a few Lincolns in sealed boxes of proof sets......one box 0f 70-75 and another of 100
sets, stilled sealed in the original mint shipping box, while a lot of these are dark,

they are super colorful, I just had a mixture of dimes ,quarters and a couple of Lincolns graded, about 50 total........all came back 65-66....most were 65..no stars !

I can imagine that these would be harder to grade then blast white coins, but I think I got the "Rubber Stamp" if you know what I mean. here are a couple
examples..................

Opinions are welcome.

TomB

The two coins you posted would not have received a star designation from me. The star is not for intensely toned coins, it is for coins with exceptional eye appeal and those two fall well short, in my opinion. By the way, I am one of the original toning freaks.

lordmarcovan

When it comes to color, I'm a fan of symmetry and of lighter, pastel colors.

Those are pretty neat, though, if they're NT. I like the colors on the dime. The purples are nice.

Tbar

I think they are quite nice.


What is this rubber stamp you speak of?

GoldenEyeNumismatics

Wouldn't surprise me if you got body bags.

SUMORADA

Wouldn't surprise me if you got body bags.

Only (1) BB in the group.


As I said some are a little dark, the one in the pics below (still in the mint set) is a boomer......they did not like that one either.....the colors are bright teal to maroon.

golfer72

Huh? If those coins dont have exceptional eye appeal I dont know what does. And I have no interest in either series. Beautiful coins though.

Cameonut

I've run into the same problem with some toned dimes and nickels. None received anything higher that a 66 and none received the cameo designation (although a couple deserved it).

TwoSides2aCoin

Feel free to PM me for my address. After I see them in hand, I will make a determination. Thank you !

Joe

jgrinz

They are tightening their standards in that area ... I have seen a few beauties not get the designation including one
of mine - Mine is so autumn like too with the tree leaves changing colors hehe

Also I think the OP coins look AT to me or juiced ... but thats just my opinion

originalisbest

Original posted coins border on too dark. The '50 dime is fairly attractive.

dorkkarl

those are rather ugly. you wasted $$$ on slabing fees

K S

Bochiman

<< <i>those are rather ugly. you wasted $$$ on slabing fees

K S >>



Another stupid dorkkarl post. You haven't seen them in person, you don't know what someone intends to do, and you do not know that they wasted the fees. Too bad you have NOTHING to add worth any positive value.

originalisbest

It may have been a "stupid" post, but I gotta agree with him, those are ug-ly.

Bochiman

<< <i>It may have been a "stupid" post, but I gotta agree with him, those are ug-ly. >>



It's fine to think they are ugly...adds nothing to the thread though
I just love when people show they are better than others by stating how they wasted fees on ugly coins. Everyone likes different things, thankfully.

Personally, I find those coins to be nice looking. I would much prefer them over blast white counterparts. Not everyone likes that though, and I am fine and don't go around shouting "ugly blast white coins! you wasted money slabbing them!".

SUMORADA

Also I think the OP coins look AT to me or juiced ... but that's just my opinion

Opinions are good.......in this case you are not correct, I pulled these from sealed mint shipping boxes personally, and the photos are not "juiced"

those are rather ugly. you wasted $$$ on slabbing fees

DK........you didn't have to sugarcoat it................

airplanenut

I agree with Tom. While I don't always agree with the star, they tend to require very flashy, brightly toned pieces to give it out. These are both a bit on the dark side, and not nearly flashy enough. That said, I also see very few mid-1900s proof singles with stars, but that's probably more of a function of their tendency to tone as these pieces have.

Connecticoin

<< <i>The two coins you posted would not have received a star designation from me. The star is not for intensely toned coins, it is for coins with exceptional eye appeal and those two fall well short, in my opinion. By the way, I am one of the original toning freaks. >>



I agree with Tom. And they may not be AT, but they look AT.

Jsayre

If I had the chance to buy any of those for a good price, I certainly would. I think they look great! Does the last 1961 quarter look like that in hand?

Goldbully

<< <i>If I had the chance to buy any of those for a good price, I certainly would. I think they look great! Does the last 1961 quarter look like that in hand? >>



Welcome to the coin forum, Jsayre!!!

nicetoning42107

The 2 OP toned proofs look AT to me and I'd say if they made it in any kind of NGC holder, you did okay. Sometimes numeric grade affects what toned proofs are worth, sometimes it doesn't. I see these proofs from the 60's mostly in PF66 holders also. Every once in a while a 65, maybe a 67.

Then there was this one. Only a PF63, but that didn't stop it from bringing high dollar. So I stand by my opinion that you did okay if they at least made it into slabs.

ricko

Welcome aboard JSayre... Cheers, RickO

sinin1

to get high NGC grades on colorful proofs, the fields need to still be mirror-like


if you took the colors away, how would you grade them?

BlindedByEgo

<< <i>

<< <i>those are rather ugly. you wasted $$$ on slabing fees

K S >>



Another stupid dorkkarl post. You haven't seen them in person, you don't know what someone intends to do, and you do not know that they wasted the fees. Too bad you have NOTHING to add worth any positive value. >>



Dorkkarl stupid? No. Dorkkarl make a stupid post? Constantly.

He has a reputation to live up to. Which is to add nothing of value.

Another resounding success

As to the coins - I think that they're pretty, but risk aversion seems to be taking place in more than the stock market.

mojoman

I like them
I also have some toners still in the mint cello, some are gold toned while others have a blue/purple tone as soon as I get my new camera (tuesday) I will post some of them

nicetoning42107

<< <i>to get high NGC grades on colorful proofs, the fields need to still be mirror-like


if you took the colors away, how would you grade them? >>



That's a good point. Because from certain angles, the toning could look like nothing more than haze. Then you tilt it just right and WOW. Maybe the TPGs grade it from the haze perpective.

SUMORADA

That could be the reason....the first pic is angled with very little light, the second is how the coin really looks but it is more white then the pic, the third is using diffused light and then making a correction in the photo program, this shows the true color but makes it look flat.......

kryptonitecomics

I have yet to get higher than a PF66 on any of the 1960's proof coins I have submitted....toned or untoned. Quite frankly I can't grade the buggers so I don't know if I am getting hosed or not. I like the coins you posted.......I do agree they are not star worthy but they still look nice to me.

dorkkarl

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>those are rather ugly. you wasted $$$ on slabing fees

K S >>



Another stupid dorkkarl post. You haven't seen them in person, you don't know what someone intends to do, and you do not know that they wasted the fees. Too bad you have NOTHING to add worth any positive value. >>



Dorkkarl stupid? No. Dorkkarl make a stupid post? Constantly.

He has a reputation to live up to. Which is to add nothing of value.

Another resounding success >>

gee your funn-ee. har. har.

K S

BlindedByEgo

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>those are rather ugly. you wasted $$$ on slabing fees

K S >>



Another stupid dorkkarl post. You haven't seen them in person, you don't know what someone intends to do, and you do not know that they wasted the fees. Too bad you have NOTHING to add worth any positive value. >>



Dorkkarl stupid? No. Dorkkarl make a stupid post? Constantly.

He has a reputation to live up to. Which is to add nothing of value.

Another resounding success >>

gee your funn-ee. har. har.

K S >>



Hey - at least I think that you are intelligent.

TwoSides2aCoin

some of the best ping pong matches in the world are right here

ksteelheader

<< <i>some of the best ping pong matches in the world are right here >>



Along with a lot of ding-dong posts.

YaHa

<< <i>That could be the reason....the first pic is angled with very little light, the second is how the coin really looks but it is more white then the pic, the third is using diffused light and then making a correction in the photo program, this shows the true color but makes it look flat.......



>>




As I see this nice coin, can I say that Boch? Mr George looks like he has a rainbow AFRO Kinda fits for that time of minting year. Very nice toned coins keep posting I like em. Again is this ok to say Boch? Man?

dorkkarl

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>

<< <i>those are rather ugly. you wasted $$$ on slabing fees

K S >>



Another stupid dorkkarl post. You haven't seen them in person, you don't know what someone intends to do, and you do not know that they wasted the fees. Too bad you have NOTHING to add worth any positive value. >>



Dorkkarl stupid? No. Dorkkarl make a stupid post? Constantly.

He has a reputation to live up to. Which is to add nothing of value.

Another resounding success >>

gee your funn-ee. har. har.

K S >>



Hey - at least I think that you are intelligent. >>

well, your wrong!!!

BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

K S

Windycity

I think you're lucky that they graded the coins. I have many 1960-1963 proof sets which have "environmental damage" such as the coin shown below. These sets were prone to ugly toning, more like a "sooty" surface, but some have very attractive toning... but still a layer of heavy tarnish. Don't know what causes this but often times the jefferson nickel is a spectacular blue color and shows none of the "sooty" appearance of the rest of the coins. I have a bunch and sent in some of the best along with a full set still in the mint plastic just to prove the were original and not AT... PCGS said "Environmental Damage" and body bagged all of them.

SUMORADA

think you're lucky that they graded the coins. I have many 1960-1963 proof sets which have "environmental damage" such as the coin shown below. These sets were prone to ugly toning, more like a "sooty" surface, but some have very attractive toning... but still a layer of heavy tarnish. Don't know what causes this but often times the jefferson nickel is a spectacular blue color and shows none of the "sooty" appearance of the rest of the coins. I have a bunch and sent in some of the best along with a full set still in the mint plastic just to prove the were original and not AT... PCGS said "Environmental Damage" and body bagged all of them.

Out of about 50 coins,only (1) green toned Lincoln got BB for corrosion, here is one of the green Lincolns that graded.