Options
While no definition will ever be perfect, this is the best one I have seen for that of AT vs. NT
coinguy1
Posts: 13,485 ✭
The following was posted by forum member IGWT back in 2006. While imperfect, I think it is the best definition of NT (and hence, AT) that I have seen.
<<Natural toning is the formation of oxides, sulfides, or other compounds on the surfaces of a coin as the result of gaseous compounds that are present in the ambient atmosphere where coins are placed (1) for purposes consistent with their intended use in commerce, or (2) for storage in a manner traditionally accepted by numismatists.
Artificial toning is the formation of oxides, sulfides, or other compounds on the surfaces of a coin by any process other than that which causes natural toning.>>
<<Natural toning is the formation of oxides, sulfides, or other compounds on the surfaces of a coin as the result of gaseous compounds that are present in the ambient atmosphere where coins are placed (1) for purposes consistent with their intended use in commerce, or (2) for storage in a manner traditionally accepted by numismatists.
Artificial toning is the formation of oxides, sulfides, or other compounds on the surfaces of a coin by any process other than that which causes natural toning.>>
0
Comments
Around 3 years ago I purchased from PCGS one of their nice mahogany display/storage boxes.
In went my 1995-W ASE which was slabbed for 10+ years.
2 years later it and a number of blast white morgans have a very obvious and distinctive golden/brown toning.
Are they AT or NT??
If I now put more coins in same box with deliberate attempt to tone is it AT or NT?
<< <i>Thats a good one but here is an interesting example to consider.
Around 3 years ago I purchased from PCGS one of their nice mahogany display/storage boxes.
In went my 1995-W ASE which was slabbed for 10+ years.
2 years later it and a number of blast white morgans have a very obvious and distinctive golden/brown toning.
Are they AT or NT??
If I now put more coins in same box with deliberate attempt to tone is it AT or NT? >>
Under IGWT's definition, I believe that the coins would be considered NT. And intent would be irrelevant. I would be more confident of my answer if the display/storage boxes have been around and used for a long time. In other words, if they are consistent with "for storage in a manner traditionally accepted by numismatists".
<< Thats a good one but here is an interesting example to consider.
Around 3 years ago I purchased from PCGS one of their nice mahogany display/storage boxes.
In went my 1995-W ASE which was slabbed for 10+ years.
2 years later it and a number of blast white morgans have a very obvious and distinctive golden/brown toning.
Are they AT or NT??
If I now put more coins in same box with deliberate attempt to tone is it AT or NT? >>
It would be NT until such time when the box is no longer considered "for storage in a manner traditionally accepted by numismatists." If that happens your NT immediately becomes AT. Now thats what makes this hobby fun....
<< <i>
<< <i>Thats a good one but here is an interesting example to consider.
Around 3 years ago I purchased from PCGS one of their nice mahogany display/storage boxes.
In went my 1995-W ASE which was slabbed for 10+ years.
2 years later it and a number of blast white morgans have a very obvious and distinctive golden/brown toning.
Are they AT or NT??
If I now put more coins in same box with deliberate attempt to tone is it AT or NT? >>
Under IGWT's definition, I believe that the coins would be considered NT. And intent would be irrelevant. I would be more confident of my answer if the display/storage boxes have been around and used for a long time. In other words, if they are consistent with "for storage in a manner traditionally accepted by numismatists". >>
And, I would agree with that.....they are NT in that situation regardless of "intent".
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
Anyone else had this effect from the PCGS wooden cases??
<< <i>How about if I put the PCGS box in the attic or car trunk this summer for safe keeping??
Anyone else had this effect from the PCGS wooden cases?? >>
Don't put it on your water heater, or any other source of instant temp change, and I am ok with that as there is no guarantee that you would get a reaction to the coins.
If you put it on something like a water heater, or in the oven, etc, then that changes the tune.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Thats a good one but here is an interesting example to consider.
Around 3 years ago I purchased from PCGS one of their nice mahogany display/storage boxes.
In went my 1995-W ASE which was slabbed for 10+ years.
2 years later it and a number of blast white morgans have a very obvious and distinctive golden/brown toning.
Are they AT or NT??
If I now put more coins in same box with deliberate attempt to tone is it AT or NT? >>
Under IGWT's definition, I believe that the coins would be considered NT. And intent would be irrelevant. I would be more confident of my answer if the display/storage boxes have been around and used for a long time. In other words, if they are consistent with "for storage in a manner traditionally accepted by numismatists". >>
And, I would agree with that.....they are NT in that situation regardless of "intent". >>
...depends on the definition of 'intent' is.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Thats a good one but here is an interesting example to consider.
Around 3 years ago I purchased from PCGS one of their nice mahogany display/storage boxes.
In went my 1995-W ASE which was slabbed for 10+ years.
2 years later it and a number of blast white morgans have a very obvious and distinctive golden/brown toning.
Are they AT or NT??
If I now put more coins in same box with deliberate attempt to tone is it AT or NT? >>
Under IGWT's definition, I believe that the coins would be considered NT. And intent would be irrelevant. I would be more confident of my answer if the display/storage boxes have been around and used for a long time. In other words, if they are consistent with "for storage in a manner traditionally accepted by numismatists". >>
And, I would agree with that.....they are NT in that situation regardless of "intent". >>
...depends on the definition of 'intent' is.
No, it doesn't. Intent is irrelevant under this definition.
<< <i>The following was posted by forum member IGWT back in 2006. While imperfect, I think it is the best definition of NT (and hence, AT) that I have seen.
<<Natural toning is the formation of oxides, sulfides, or other compounds on the surfaces of a coin as the result of gaseous compounds that are present in the ambient atmosphere where coins are placed (1) for purposes consistent with their intended use in commerce, or (2) for storage in a manner traditionally accepted by numismatists.
Artificial toning is the formation of oxides, sulfides, or other compounds on the surfaces of a coin by any process other than that which causes natural toning.>> >>
I like and agree with this definition. So much so, in fact, I'm wondering what makes it imperfect...
Collector A buys a PCGS storage box, places Morgans in it, and leaves it in his hot attic (for storage, his wife doesn't want his junk laying around the house). Two years later he discovers some great toning has occured.
Collector B buys a PCGS storage box, places Morgans in it, and places it near his hot water heater, knowing some toning could be expected in two years.
Both place their coins up for auction, can anyone tell whose coins are NT or AT? Same chemical process but with different intent.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
I am in no way defending "coin doctors", hell I don't even like "toners" myself and prefer non-toned specimens. But if two different methods have the same results, and the owner is happy with the coin, then what is the big deal?
Sure, I understand that some people really love wild toned coins and there are other people who take advantage of this to produce wildly toned coins for a profit, but if those same coins can be found in the same state of coloration that "just happened" over the years, what is the difference? Sugar VS Equal? Oil VS Synthetic? Snow VS shaved ice?
Is it that one is intentionally made, and one is not?
I'm really not defending either side, just trying to understand the whole debate better.
<< <i>Hypothetical -
Collector A buys a PCGS storage box, places Morgans in it, and leaves it in his hot attic (for storage, his wife doesn't want his junk laying around the house). Two years later he discovers some great toning has occured.
Collector B buys a PCGS storage box, places Morgans in it, and places it near his hot water heater, knowing some toning could be expected in two years.
Both place their coins up for auction, can anyone tell whose coins are NT or AT? Same chemical process but with different intent. >>
Probably not...and that's the problem.
<< <i>Interesting Mark, I believe I recall you being a proponent of 'intent' during one of the major discussions here about seven or eight years ago. I may be mistaken, and of course, details and times change, causing definitions to morph a bit. Cheers, RickO >>
Rick, I don't recall that. BUT, it is entirely possible, and if so, IGWT/Lou won me over with his definition.
<< <i>
<< <i>Interesting Mark, I believe I recall you being a proponent of 'intent' during one of the major discussions here about seven or eight years ago. I may be mistaken, and of course, details and times change, causing definitions to morph a bit. Cheers, RickO >>
Rick, I don't recall that. BUT, it is entirely possible, and if so, IGWT/Lou won me over with his definition.
<< <i>By this definition, dipping is AT...? >>
I don't see that at all.
<< <i>
<< <i>Interesting Mark, I believe I recall you being a proponent of 'intent' during one of the major discussions here about seven or eight years ago. I may be mistaken, and of course, details and times change, causing definitions to morph a bit. Cheers, RickO >>
Rick, I don't recall that. BUT, it is entirely possible, and if so, IGWT/Lou won me over with his definition.
I may have read it wrong, but I believe intent is an implied factor in IGWT's definition.
And, therefore, intent would be a major factor to consider in the example given by 2manycoins2fewfunds.
Yes, the media chosen is something that a regular collector might stumble on by accident, but there is an assembly line approach to making toners and making money. Where do these "naturally toned but massed produced" coins fit in the world? A sharper question might be, would someone paying a big price premium for these coins be labeled a fool?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Interesting Mark, I believe I recall you being a proponent of 'intent' during one of the major discussions here about seven or eight years ago. I may be mistaken, and of course, details and times change, causing definitions to morph a bit. Cheers, RickO >>
Rick, I don't recall that. BUT, it is entirely possible, and if so, IGWT/Lou won me over with his definition.
<< <i>By this definition, dipping is AT...? >>
I don't see that at all. >>
Artificial toning is the formation of oxides, sulfides, or other compounds on the surfaces of a coin by any process other than that which causes natural toning.>> ......doesn't dipping leave componds on the surface that isn't natural?
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Interesting Mark, I believe I recall you being a proponent of 'intent' during one of the major discussions here about seven or eight years ago. I may be mistaken, and of course, details and times change, causing definitions to morph a bit. Cheers, RickO >>
Rick, I don't recall that. BUT, it is entirely possible, and if so, IGWT/Lou won me over with his definition.
I may have read it wrong, but I believe intent is an implied factor in IGWT's definition.
And, therefore, intent would be a majore factor to consider in the example given by 2manycoins2fewfunds. >>
I don't see intent as part of IGWT's definition. For example, if you know that a particular coin album will impart fantastic color to a coin, so you place the coin inside, the toning would be considered NT. That's because of the "for storage in a manner traditionally accepted by numismatists".
On the other hand, if you accidentally leave a coin on top of a water heater, which happens to result in gorgeous and original looking color on the coin, it would still be considered AT, due to the same "for storage in a manner traditionally accepted by numismatists". In each case, intent is irrelevant.
AT = less $
I see this as $ , more or less.
Whoever has more $, has more cents.
Whoever has less $, has less sense.
But they're both about $
<< <i>On the other hand, if you accidentally leave a coin on top of a water heater, which happens to result in gorgeous and original looking color on the coin, it would still be considered AT, due to the same "for storage in a manner traditionally accepted by numismatists". In each case, intent is irrelevant. >>
Mark, You don't know my family. The top of the waterheater would not be considered "untraditional" for storage of anything. All flat surfaces are fair game in Missouri.
But really, my point is that it might be hard to figure out what "traditional" is defined as. For Longacre, it would be secured inside a classic antique curio cabinet or perhaps a custom made cabinet. for some, the sock drawer would be considered traditional. I'm sure that a safe would be considered traditional. It is also a traditional place to store guns and ammo containing sulfur.
--Jerry
<< <i>
<< <i>On the other hand, if you accidentally leave a coin on top of a water heater, which happens to result in gorgeous and original looking color on the coin, it would still be considered AT, due to the same "for storage in a manner traditionally accepted by numismatists". In each case, intent is irrelevant. >>
Mark, You don't know my family. The top of the waterheater would not be considered "untraditional" for storage of anything. All flat surfaces are fair game in Missouri.
But really, my point is that it might be hard to figure out what "traditional" is defined as. For Longacre, it would be secured inside a classic antique curio cabinet or perhaps a custom made cabinet. for some, the sock drawer would be considered traditional. I'm sure that a safe would be considered traditional. It is also a traditional place to store guns and ammo containing sulfur.
--Jerry >>
Jerry, I agree, hence the "no definition will ever be perfect" part of the thread title. Still, it is the best definition I've seen.
<< <i>The following was posted by forum member IGWT back in 2006. While imperfect, I think it is the best definition of NT (and hence, AT) that I have seen.
<<Natural toning is the formation of oxides, sulfides, or other compounds on the surfaces of a coin as the result of gaseous compounds that are present in the ambient atmosphere where coins are placed (1) for purposes consistent with their intended use in commerce, or (2) for storage in a manner traditionally accepted by numismatists.
Artificial toning is the formation of oxides, sulfides, or other compounds on the surfaces of a coin by any process other than that which causes natural toning.>> >>
What if I AT a coin (over time, using natural methods) with the intention to use it in commerce, but accidentally sell it? what if, what if, what if, there are 1000+ what ifs
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Interesting Mark, I believe I recall you being a proponent of 'intent' during one of the major discussions here about seven or eight years ago. I may be mistaken, and of course, details and times change, causing definitions to morph a bit. Cheers, RickO >>
Rick, I don't recall that. BUT, it is entirely possible, and if so, IGWT/Lou won me over with his definition.
<< <i>By this definition, dipping is AT...? >>
I don't see that at all. >>
Artificial toning is the formation of oxides, sulfides, or other compounds on the surfaces of a coin by any process other than that which causes natural toning.>> ......doesn't dipping leave componds on the surface that isn't natural? >>
You might have a point there
(d) Foreign base company sales income.
(1) In general.
For purposes of subsection (a)(2) , the term “foreign base company sales income” means income (whether in the form of profits, commissions, fees, or otherwise) derived in connection with the purchase of personal property from a related person and its sale to any person, the sale of personal property to any person on behalf of a related person, the purchase of personal property from any person and its sale to a related person, or the purchase of personal property from any person on behalf of a related person where—
(A) the property which is purchased (or in the case of property sold on behalf of a related person, the property which is sold) is manufactured, produced, grown, or extracted outside the country under the laws of which the controlled foreign corporation is created or organized, and
(B) the property is sold for use, consumption, or disposition outside such foreign country, or, in the case of property purchased on behalf of a related person, is purchased for use, consumption, or disposition outside such foreign country.
For purposes of this subsection , personal property does not include agricultural commodities which are not grown in the United States in commercially marketable quantities.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
Cheers, RickO
it's very difficult to deduce the "intent" of previous owners, or the "process" by which a coin obtained it's current appearance.
and one more thing: is it a binary determination people are trying to make? is a given coin either AT or NT, one or the other?
this whole debate exemplifies the problem in our society with limited, binary, this-or-that thinking, driving the labels applied and the policies instituted.
so so much in life just "depends on the specific details of the particular circumstances in question"
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
One problem I have with this part of the definition is that it's a standard that floats with time. Traditional storage methods of 150 years ago (e.g. cabinets) are no longer accepted as a good way to store valuable coins (cabinet friction). Traditional storage methods of last century (Wayte Raymond folders, Whitman folders) are not acceptable or valuable coins (fingerprints, album toning).
What is the difference between a coin that was stored in a perfectly acceptable manner a long time ago that develops characteristic toning of that storage medium and a coin which is today deliberately placed in the same storage medium in hopes of inducing toning?
----
I do agree that any definition that tries to include the intent of person generating the toning is unworkable - intent often cannot be proven, and even if it could, the coin is not changed by intent alone.
http://www.shieldnickels.net
Just one?
<< <i>The definition is fine and all, but it is useless for distinguishing what coins fit into what category... >>
Mark, how is your definition ("coin doctoring for me = a systematic attempt to change coins appearances for profit.") or any other, more useful in that regard? Thanks.
<< <i>can there be no definition in which the coin's appearance or other measurable characteristics speaks for itself?
it's very difficult to deduce the "intent" of previous owners, or the "process" by which a coin obtained it's current appearance.
and one more thing: is it a binary determination people are trying to make? is a given coin either AT or NT, one or the other?
this whole debate exemplifies the problem in our society with limited, binary, this-or-that thinking, driving the labels applied and the policies instituted.
so so much in life just "depends on the specific details of the particular circumstances in question" >>
Oh but once PCGS gets their machine up and running that will solve everything.
Sorry...
There is no objective way to divide a pile of coins as AT/NT (unless PCGS scanning techniques can make this distinction)
Coinguy1 <<I don't see that at all. >>
BidAsk << "Artificial toning is the formation of oxides, sulfides, or other compounds on the surfaces of a coin by any process other than that which causes natural toning." ......doesn't dipping leave compounds on the surface that [are not] natural?>>
Yes, it is not unusual for the side-effects of a dipping to be primary factors in unnatural toning processes. When this occurs, however, it is usually because the dipper made a mistake or lacked sufficient dipping skills. Even though I am not dipper, and am generally opposed to dipping, my understanding is that a proper, thorough rinsing is a standard component of the dipping process. Sometimes, acetone is used to neutralize leftovers from the chemical reactions caused by the dipping. The fact, though, that dipped coins tend to tone differently from coins that have never been dipped, however, makes me wonder if the chemical processes stemming from dipping can often lead to unintended artificial toning. BidAsk does make a good point above.
There is some discussion of the topic of toning after dipping in my three part series on collecting naturally toned coins. As for the definition of natural toning that IGWT and Coinguy1 present above, it is fair, in my opinion, though I do not feel it has much explanatory power. It does seem to be logically separable from the issue of intent. Undoubtedly, as CoinGuy1 suggests in this thread, there exist many accidentally artificially toned coins.
Thread about my Analysis of the PCGS Lawsuit, in which the PCGS definition of Coin Doctoring is discussed in detail
Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring, Part 1
Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring, Part 2
Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring, Part 3
Defining the difference is different from applying it. For example, the definition of a counterfeit is still "useful" even if it would be difficult -- or even impossible -- to distinguish a fake from a genuine coin.
Now, the boss tells me, "Honey, you have got to get rid of all of this junk back in this corner! What the [heck] are you saving those boxes for, anyway?"
Well, I suppose if I haven't used them for shipping in 5 or 6 years, I'm not going to be using them for shipping. Since our borough has recently implemented an improved recycling program, I can now recycle cardboard, as long as it is cut into 14" (or smaller) squares and bundled together. So I begin to break the boxes down to the accepted size for recycling. As I am doing this, a small, brown envelope falls out from between the bottom flaps of a box.
I figure it's an empty envelope, but as I pick it up, I feel that there is a coin inside....now I'm getting curious - how could I have missed a coin from an order? Well, inside the envelope is small note saying "Free gift in appreciation of your order" along with a 1990 one ounce silver eagle - with some of the most unusual toning that I have seen on a coin. It is not particularly attractive, but neither is it ugly....and includes a wide range of colors, although they are not vivid.
I have little doubt that PCGS would BB this coin as AT, but under this scenario, was it AT? It was several fortunate circumstances that led me to find the coin and it's pretty amazing that it didn't get tossed out - I'm surprised that those boxes lasted that long in the first place, since my wife is quick to pitch out anything that doesn't get put away or moved in more than a few weeks (that's why I get off the couch every so often in the winter...
BTW - I have never noticed any toning caused by the PCGS wood storage cases, although I only use them for my BU (clad) statehood quarters, and I throw a penny in each box, just as a precaution.
Always an interesting topic........
Chuck
every treasure on Earth
to be young at heart?
And as rich as you are,
it's much better by far,
to be young at heart!
<< <i>can there be no definition in which the coin's appearance or other measurable characteristics speaks for itself?
it's very difficult to deduce the "intent" of previous owners, or the "process" by which a coin obtained it's current appearance.
and one more thing: is it a binary determination people are trying to make? is a given coin either AT or NT, one or the other?
this whole debate exemplifies the problem in our society with limited, binary, this-or-that thinking, driving the labels applied and the policies instituted.
so so much in life just "depends on the specific details of the particular circumstances in question" >>
I think its more about discerning originality
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
*Sorry, my older daughter is in SAT mode.
Assuming that the “old envelope” was used to store coins by many coin collectors in the 1950s, and the coin placed is mostly original and dates before the manufacture of the envelope, then the resulting toning would be natural.
As Baley has indicated that he has not before seen links to my articles that relate to natural toning and coin doctoring, for his benefit, I am re-listing them below:
Thread about my Analysis of the PCGS Lawsuit, in which the PCGS definition of Coin Doctoring is discussed in detail
My Analysis of the PCGS Lawsuit Against Alleged Coin Doctors
Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring, Part 1
Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring, Part 2
Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring, Part 3
<< <i>Ecichlid <<If someone was to place a coin in an old envelope from the 1950's in the year 2010, would it be NT or AT when it comes out toned? >>
Assuming that the “old envelope” was used to store coins by many coin collectors in the 1950s, and the coin placed is mostly original and dates before the manufacture of the envelope, then the resulting toning would be natural.
As Baley has indicated that he has not before seen links to my articles that relate to natural toning and coin doctoring, for his benefit, I am re-listing them below:
Thread about my Analysis of the PCGS Lawsuit, in which the PCGS definition of Coin Doctoring is discussed in detail
My Analysis of the PCGS Lawsuit Against Alleged Coin Doctors
Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring, Part 1
Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring, Part 2
Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring, Part 3 >>
These are very informative articles....thank you for posting them Analyst!
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>If someone was to place a coin in an old envelope from the 1950's in the year 2010, would it be NT or AT when it comes out toned? >>
I believe it would not be improper to classify that toning, simply, as OT (Old Toning). To determine whether the toning was also N (Natural) or A (Artificial), I believe one would need to go further into the evidence and inquire into the person's state of mind. If that was simply to store the coin, I believe, then, the proper classification would be ONT (Old Natural Toning). If, on the other hand, the intent was to deceive the public by manipulating the coin to impart the toning some half-century later, then, I believe, the proper classification would be OAT (Old Artificial Toning). Now, I of course defer to the experts on all that; but, let's just suppose that evidence on state of mind wasn't as easily forthcoming. Then, I believe, it would not be improper to classify that toning, simply, as OQT (Old Questionable Toning).
Hey, hope this helps...
Let me make sure I understand this. Using your logic, if I place a 1954 mostly original coin in a 1953 envelope and it tones, it's AT?
Ecichlid <Analyst stated: "Assuming that the “old envelope” was used to store coins by many coin collectors in the 1950s, and the coin placed is mostly original and dates before the manufacture of the envelope, then the resulting toning would be natural." >
Ecichlid <<Let me make sure I understand this. Using your logic, if I place a 1954 mostly original coin in a 1953 envelope and it tones, it's AT? >
Funny, Ecichlid, you know that is not what I meant. Nonetheless, I am glad that you addressed this point. I admit that my statement above is problematic. Questions could be raised if people take coins minted recently, perhaps after 2000, and then place them in albums that have not been manufactured in decades. Even then, now that I think more about this subtopic, it is not clear that the resulting toning should be suspect.
If collectors acquire old coin albums or envelopes that were used by collectors to store coins in the past, and then put mostly original coins in these albums, in almost all cases, the resulting toning will be regarded as natural by the coin collecting community, unless there are additional variables that adversely affect the resulting toning.
More importantly, we should not allow borderline cases, or toning in ambiguous settings, to deflect our attention from the core of the AT problem. There are well known dealers who add orange gel, blue film, red paste, iodine, copper sulfate and a variety of other substances to coins with the intention of bringing about colorful toning in a short period of time that would never have occurred otherwise. Torches, ovens or other sources of heat are sometimes employed. Many AT applications damage coins and/or 'turn' over time causing really weird discoloration. There are coin doctors who devote a large amount of time to artificially toning coins.
Weekly Column (June 9th) on Coin Rarities: Southern California Auctions & Market Realities
Analysis of the PCGS Lawsuit Against Alleged Coin Doctors
Everything you wrote makes perfect sense to me. I do like the idea of being able to place a coin in an older album or envelop so that it can be toned (or even re-toned). I have no problem with that. I am a fancier of coins that have not been messed with, although I know there are coins that I have that may have been. I agree with the premise of your article, that many experienced collectors like coins that are original. I admit, it's an acquired taste and unfortunately, because other do not agree, it has gotten harder and harder to find coins that have not been messed with.
Thank you again!
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor