Interesting Rainbow Olympic Dollar. Comments welcome

MrD

I looked at this coin and the color was reminiscent of the cellophane toning seen on proof walkers. Turn the coin in the light and the color seems to dissipate . Has anyone seen this before on a modern coin?

50cents

Great looking image

Meltdown

Looks nice. I have a pretty colorful one in my type set. I bought it in a small velvet lined box holder.

keets

i have seen some of these tone but i fail to comprehend how exactly the coin could tone only in the fields and not on the lettering or devices. that fact alone makes me believe it's artificially toned, especially the way that the color runs right up to the devices/lettering but doesn't seem to touch anything. i would think that to be a physical impossibility!!!!!! i have plenty of nicely toned Proof Jefferson Nickels and other coins and the tone never, never, never just settles into the fields.

the areas of real suspicion are inside of the letters and the arches on the obverse. the coin looks to me almost like it's been enameled like somne of the trash that flea markets peddle.

Cam40

nah, thats gotta be photoshopped

smokincoin

Photoshopped and a little innocent spam as well!
edited: cause fc corrected me

fc

Orientation of image: 1
File change date and time: 2008:10:04 15:00:43
Image description:
Image input equipment manufacturer: NIKON
Image input equipment model: E995
Software used: Adobe Photoshop 7.0
Exposure time: 0.00877963
F number: 4.1
Exposure program: 2
ISO speed rating: 100
Exposure bias: 0
Maximum lens aperture: 0
Metering mode: 5
Light source: 0
Flash: 0
Lens focal length: 17.4


well the pics were in photoshop for cropping and etc... and who knows
what else.

my opinion is that i never saw a coin tone like that and it leads me
to believe i am getting my leg jerked around. the toning is too convienent.

Meltdown

MrD... you got's some splainin' to do...

Mine's legit.

MrD

Not me. Of course I used a program to crop, adjust the size and make any changes I needed but the coin looks remarkably like the pictures in my opinion.

MrD

I guess we can't play guess the grade anymore.

Broadstruck

<< <i>Looks nice. I have a pretty colorful one in my type set. I bought it in a small velvet lined box holder.
>>



I like this one a lot better!

fc

how does that coin rate a 68 with scratches so obvious?
am i missing something?

MrD

They are more toning streaks than scratches.... and I like mine better

rainbowroosie

I own a 42 Proof Walker that looks much like this. The difference between the two appears to be that the frosted surfaces of the Olympic coin did not tone, whereas my Walker is not cameo, so the color toned more uniformly.

Question: Could the cause of the unusual toning possibly be the difference in the way the frosted surface of the coin was treated vice the mirror surface? I suspect so.

Observation: Olympic coins are some times spectacular. This coin is ok, but not nearly a wonder coin. Years ago Royalty in San Antonio had the most amazing Olympic dollar I can imagine -- hot pink PR 69. It traded at $1000 when that was an obscene price -- I wish I bought it!

adamlaneus

I can't say i've ever seen toning in the fields that has not affected the devices at all. I also can't say i've ever heard of toning streaks. Two firsts in one thread.

As far as the fields versus the devices, I think it is possible that smooth polished fields might show certain forms of toning more than frosted devices. I have an IKE that has a rainbow toned rim. The letters are not particularly affected by the flue, but are affected by the brown. Look at the "I" in Liberty. Looks untoned in a field of tone. But this effect is not consistent and some of the devices show color. This IKE got this way in the original box. It now sits in my Dansco. Too bad about the spittle-spots.



The things that look like scratches in the devices and fields. Well, they seem to catch the light differently in your two photographs. Sure looks like something scratches would do.
I guess scratch shaped voids in the toning can look brighter and very scratch like. But how does that explain the things in the devices that show up alternatively brighter/darker in the two photos?



That is a very nice eagle on the reverse, eh?

I'm not so certain about the headless statues. That's a traditional olympic thing. It's always looked odd to me.

lordmarcovan

That is a very cool looking coin. Usually modern olympic coins bring forth a mighty yawn from me, and the headless torsos on that design give me the willies, but that is really cool.

I fail to see how the fields could have toned without the devices doing so- it looks too good to be true.

But if it is really like that in hand, and apparently NGC saw no reason to bag it, I would have to say I thoroughly agree with the star designation, and would think it worthy of a jellybean, too. (If I was into that whole jellybean thing).

CoinJunkie

<< <i>That is a very nice eagle on the reverse, eh?

I'm not so certain about the headless statues. That's a traditional olympic thing. It's always looked odd to me. >>



I really like the headless statues! In fact, overall this design is one of my very favorites among the
modern commems, whereas the previous year's discus thrower was terrible, IMO.

Raybo

<< <i>That is a very cool looking coin. Usually modern olympic coins bring forth a mighty yawn from me, and the headless torsos on that design give me the willies, but that is really cool.

I fail to see how the fields could have toned without the devices doing so- it looks too good to be true.

But if it is really like that in hand, and apparently NGC saw no reason to bag it, I would have to say I thoroughly agree with the star designation, and would think it worthy of a jellybean, too. (If I was into that whole jellybean thing). >>



You are to kind LM..................it's AT all the way!


Ray


PS I have seen this coin (or one very similar) on the 'Bay.

UtahCoin

<< <i>Looks nice. I have a pretty colorful one in my type set. I bought it in a small velvet lined box holder.
>>



I got one like that too!

nicetoning42107

<< <i>i have seen some of these tone but i fail to comprehend how exactly the coin could tone only in the fields and not on the lettering or devices. that fact alone makes me believe it's artificially toned, especially the way that the color runs right up to the devices/lettering but doesn't seem to touch anything. i would think that to be a physical impossibility!!!!!! i have plenty of nicely toned Proof Jefferson Nickels and other coins and the tone never, never, never just settles into the fields.

the areas of real suspicion are inside of the letters and the arches on the obverse. the coin looks to me almost like it's been enameled like somne of the trash that flea markets peddle. >>



I agree. I've never seen the frosted device not tone and yet have the field just blasted with color. And, actually, that particular color progression is not looking familiar to me. I'm very suspicious of the nature of this toning, but the grading companies know more than I.

lasvegasteddy

here's an interesting reverse...not mine...i like the intials "rg" makes me think rgcoinguy is holding out on us

ElKevvo

I like the one on the right....reminds me a bit of the Golden Dollar collection...oops...I'm not gonna get bammed for mentioning that am I?

As far as the original I agree that the lack of toning on the letters and devices leads to AT...that being said it is a pretty coin!

K

edited to clarify and add a little...

keets

it's interesting to note that every coin beside the OP's shows some degree of tone on the lettering and devices, even the Eisenhower Dollar. that fact plus the quality and combination of the color leads me to the conclusion that the coin is without a doubt Artificially Toned.

lasvegasteddy

i think the op's coin had the toning removed only on the devices and letters for appearance and it passed muster

sinin1

I think it looks cool

coindeuce

It is fitting that an AT coin is in an AT-S holder.

keets