Tens of thousands versus hundreds of millions. Yes. I say "very few". If you seek these out, you will feel that they are all over the place. If you consider the whole 'ecosystem', most of 'em aren't tarnished.
The process of toning does cause irreversible damage to the surface of the coin. One cannot reverse that chemical process and put the metallic silver right back where it was. If you attempt to do so, you will find that the silver "flowers", redeposits in a crystalline form and causes a fine, powdery texture. Or, if you chemically strip the tarnish rather than reduce it to metal, you are left with a post-corrosion surface.
The toning on a coin is often hiding something. This is why I think many coins are artificially toned; many of them are hiding something underneath that tarnish. How many folks have dipped a coin and been disappointed with what is hiding underneath; disappointed with the unremovable white deposits that remain?
Don't take 'irreversible damage' to mean something worse than it is. Circulation wear is also 'irreversible damage'. So is cabinet friction. In fact, just about every process is irreversible in some way.
I guess I am using the chemical definition of damage and i'll stick to that. Numismatically, it is not considered damage. Remember that at one point in history, it was! Cleaning your silver used to be more acceptable than it is now.
This is 'irreversible damage'. It's one of the things I still sort of like. An Ike from one of those sets known to color coins. Too bad someone sneezed on it.
Roosies I need a woman on a coin for me SLQ, Walker, Peace, and YES Morgans Luv em' for the heft, history and workmanship. although collection contains bits of almost everything man and woman obverse
Again, words have standard meanings. You don't get to assign your own.
Also, "very few" is not the same as "a small percentage". And lastly, EVERY coin is irreversibly changed by its environment, so by your definition, EVERY coin is "damaged". And you could extrapolate that to every thing is damaged.
Resorting to dictionary definitions and hiding from the context of an argument is like a mental straitjacket.
Most of these toned coins have a reduced value to me. Therefore, I can say that it fits the simplistic dictionary definition of damage. The price someone else pays for a colorful coin does not alter the fact that to me, it's damaged goods. I do not let the whim of the market define my collection tastes; rather I strive to remain sensitive to what I like. It is not a good attitude for the purpose of resale; but it is a satisfying way to collect.
Words have standard meanings? Oh, please. The more technical you get in a field, the worse the English language is at a definitive technical description. I am not 'assigning my own meanings' to a word here.
I believe I have already mentioned the difference between the numismatic concept of damage and the surface chemistry concept of damage. For that matter, there is the numismatic concept of 'questionable color' and 'altered surface'. I guess I should use 'questionable color' when describing most of the toned coins I see. Personally, I don't like that term either, as all it means to me is that I have a question about the color. ALL colored coins cause me to have some questions...such as "how did that happen?"
I wish folks would listen to what I meant rather than what I said. It would make this language stuff much easier.
Where is RickO?
I don't get it and i'm proud of my ignorance. Pride in ones ignorance. It's what makes America great!
I have coins from many differently series and I especially like to collect Jeffersons & Lincolns too, but I don't get those series.
Full steps? Who cares? The building looks hideous on that coin anyway. VDB? Who cares where the initials are or if they are not there at all? I realize people equate those things with rarity and value. I don't really care.
I think the fanboys of each series are the ones who actually "get it." And that's fine. That's for them to get. I don't have to.
I collect what I 'get' and what "gets me."
Its all that matters.
Always looking for attractive rim toned Morgan and Peace dollars in PCGS or (older) ANA/ANACS holders!
"Bongo hurtles along the rain soaked highway of life on underinflated bald retread tires."
<< <i>Gotta admit, he is right... Toning is a reductive process caused by the environment. It would be a more correct comparison if you had said, "Right, and erosion on fine sculpture is a form of damage". Not saying that Toners aren't the best thing since sliced bread, but they are certainly not created that way, it is a, to some degree, a damaging effect caused by chemical reaction. >>
Definition of damage form dictionary.com:
1. injury or harm that reduces value or usefulness
Since colorful toners usually sell for more, you can't argue that their value is reduced. Furthermore, ALL silver and copper (and even gold, more slowly) coins react to the environment and tone over time. Sometimes it just happens in a way that is more aesthetically pleasing. Again, if you don't like it, fine. But, it isn't "damage"! PCGS has a category of non-gradable coin called "damaged". Please don't use language improperly.
Thank you, end of rant. >>
So, if a coin doctor AT's a coin, and the TPG doesn't catch it, and it sells for a slight premium, IT WAS NEVER DAMAGED! I understand what you are saying, but when surface metal is affected, damage has occured. The TPG's also slab "dipped" coins, and they may sell for more than the "original" would have sold for, but the surface has still been changed. Maybe I shouldn't use the term "damaged", but rather "improved value by chemical reduction of surface". I wonder what the dictionary definition for "tarnish" is?
<< <i>So, if a coin doctor AT's a coin, and the TPG doesn't catch it, and it sells for a slight premium, IT WAS NEVER DAMAGED! I understand what you are saying, but when surface metal is affected, damage has occured. The TPG's also slab "dipped" coins, and they may sell for more than the "original" would have sold for, but the surface has still been changed. Maybe I shouldn't use the term "damaged", but rather "improved value by chemical reduction of surface". I wonder what the dictionary definition for "tarnish" is? >>
tarnish 1. to dull the luster of (a metallic surface), esp. by oxidation; discolor.
OK, let me try a different analogy. You build a brand new wood-shingled house. A year later, due to exposure to the sun, the shingles are slightly darker than they were when new. Are the shingles "damaged"? I would say not, since no one would argue that a repair is necessary.
<< <i>Resorting to dictionary definitions and hiding from the context of an argument is like a mental straitjacket. >>
The original statement I responded to was an attempt to disparage colorfully toned coins by calling them "damaged", so yes, I think establishing the standard meaning of the word "damage" has some bearing here. As I've said over and over, if you don't like colorfully toned coins, nobody really has a problem with that.
I'm sure there's somebody somewhere who collects planchets that wonders why all these idiots pay huge bucks for "damaged planchets" (i.e., coins) ...
"OK, let me try a different analogy. You build a brand new wood-shingled house. A year later, due to exposure to the sun, the shingles are slightly darker than they were when new. Are the shingles "damaged"? I would say not, since no one would argue that a repair is necessary."
I guess the shingles would not be "damaged", but they are certainly no longer "mint state", as the thin surface layer of the wood has been comprimised....
Comments
The process of toning does cause irreversible damage to the surface of the coin. One cannot reverse that chemical process and put the metallic silver right back where it was. If you attempt to do so, you will find that the silver "flowers", redeposits in a crystalline form and causes a fine, powdery texture. Or, if you chemically strip the tarnish rather than reduce it to metal, you are left with a post-corrosion surface.
The toning on a coin is often hiding something. This is why I think many coins are artificially toned; many of them are hiding something underneath that tarnish. How many folks have dipped a coin and been disappointed with what is hiding underneath; disappointed with the unremovable white deposits that remain?
Don't take 'irreversible damage' to mean something worse than it is. Circulation wear is also 'irreversible damage'. So is cabinet friction. In fact, just about every process is irreversible in some way.
I guess I am using the chemical definition of damage and i'll stick to that. Numismatically, it is not considered damage. Remember that at one point in history, it was! Cleaning your silver used to be more acceptable than it is now.
This is 'irreversible damage'. It's one of the things I still sort of like. An Ike from one of those sets known to color coins. Too bad someone sneezed on it.
I need a woman on a coin for me
SLQ, Walker, Peace, and YES Morgans Luv em' for
the heft, history and workmanship.
although collection contains bits of almost everything
man and woman obverse
100% Positive BST transactions
"irreversible change" == "damage"
?
Again, words have standard meanings. You don't get to assign your own.
Also, "very few" is not the same as "a small percentage". And lastly, EVERY coin is irreversibly
changed by its environment, so by your definition, EVERY coin is "damaged". And you could
extrapolate that to every thing is damaged.
Have some of each but would probably never build a set of either.
Most of these toned coins have a reduced value to me. Therefore, I can say that it fits the simplistic dictionary definition of damage. The price someone else pays for a colorful coin does not alter the fact that to me, it's damaged goods. I do not let the whim of the market define my collection tastes; rather I strive to remain sensitive to what I like. It is not a good attitude for the purpose of resale; but it is a satisfying way to collect.
Words have standard meanings? Oh, please. The more technical you get in a field, the worse the English language is at a definitive technical description. I am not 'assigning my own meanings' to a word here.
I believe I have already mentioned the difference between the numismatic concept of damage and the surface chemistry concept of damage. For that matter, there is the numismatic concept of 'questionable color' and 'altered surface'. I guess I should use 'questionable color' when describing most of the toned coins I see. Personally, I don't like that term either, as all it means to me is that I have a question about the color. ALL colored coins cause me to have some questions...such as "how did that happen?"
I wish folks would listen to what I meant rather than what I said. It would make this language stuff much easier.
Where is RickO?
I don't get it and i'm proud of my ignorance. Pride in ones ignorance. It's what makes America great!
Seriously.
I have coins from many differently series and I especially like to collect Jeffersons & Lincolns too, but I don't get those series.
Full steps? Who cares? The building looks hideous on that coin anyway.
VDB? Who cares where the initials are or if they are not there at all?
I realize people equate those things with rarity and value.
I don't really care.
I think the fanboys of each series are the ones who actually "get it."
And that's fine. That's for them to get. I don't have to.
I collect what I 'get' and what "gets me."
Its all that matters.
"Bongo hurtles along the rain soaked highway of life on underinflated bald retread tires."
~Wayne
<< <i>
<< <i>Gotta admit, he is right... Toning is a reductive process caused by the environment. It would be a more correct comparison if you had said, "Right, and erosion on fine sculpture is a form of damage". Not saying that Toners aren't the best thing since sliced bread, but they are certainly not created that way, it is a, to some degree, a damaging effect caused by chemical reaction. >>
Definition of damage form dictionary.com:
1. injury or harm that reduces value or usefulness
Since colorful toners usually sell for more, you can't argue that their value is reduced.
Furthermore, ALL silver and copper (and even gold, more slowly) coins react to the environment and
tone over time. Sometimes it just happens in a way that is more aesthetically pleasing. Again,
if you don't like it, fine. But, it isn't "damage"! PCGS has a category of non-gradable coin called
"damaged". Please don't use language improperly.
Thank you, end of rant. >>
So, if a coin doctor AT's a coin, and the TPG doesn't catch it, and it sells for a slight premium, IT WAS NEVER DAMAGED!
I understand what you are saying, but when surface metal is affected, damage has occured. The TPG's also slab "dipped" coins, and they may sell for more than the "original" would have sold for, but the surface has still been changed. Maybe I shouldn't use the term "damaged", but rather "improved value by chemical reduction of surface".
I wonder what the dictionary definition for "tarnish" is?
<< <i>So, if a coin doctor AT's a coin, and the TPG doesn't catch it, and it sells for a slight premium, IT WAS NEVER DAMAGED!
I understand what you are saying, but when surface metal is affected, damage has occured. The TPG's also slab "dipped" coins, and they may sell for more than the "original" would have sold for, but the surface has still been changed. Maybe I shouldn't use the term "damaged", but rather "improved value by chemical reduction of surface".
I wonder what the dictionary definition for "tarnish" is? >>
tarnish
1. to dull the luster of (a metallic surface), esp. by oxidation; discolor.
OK, let me try a different analogy. You build a brand new wood-shingled house. A year later, due
to exposure to the sun, the shingles are slightly darker than they were when new. Are the shingles
"damaged"? I would say not, since no one would argue that a repair is necessary.
<< <i>Resorting to dictionary definitions and hiding from the context of an argument is like a mental straitjacket. >>
The original statement I responded to was an attempt to disparage colorfully toned coins by calling
them "damaged", so yes, I think establishing the standard meaning of the word "damage" has some
bearing here. As I've said over and over, if you don't like colorfully toned coins, nobody really
has a problem with that.
I'm sure there's somebody somewhere who collects planchets that wonders why all these idiots
pay huge bucks for "damaged planchets" (i.e., coins) ...
to exposure to the sun, the shingles are slightly darker than they were when new. Are the shingles
"damaged"? I would say not, since no one would argue that a repair is necessary."
I guess the shingles would not be "damaged", but they are certainly no longer "mint state", as the thin surface layer of the wood has been comprimised....
Gotta admit, I'm just bustin' 'em now :-)