Yeah, I saw that too.....we are back to the "post a coin in the USCoin Forum, drum up interest, then place it on the BST for sale" That's still a no-no I do believe.....
Yeah, I saw that too.....we are back to the "post a coin in the USCoin Forum, drum up interest, then place it on the BST for sale" That's still a no-no I do believe..... >>
Coin will get taken down then if I'm breaking any rules.
<< <i>Shane, I completely understand your comments (re: boy cried WOLF!).
I also realize that some doubt my credibility as a result... that does not bother me. And, admittedly, a few of the coins I have called AT are likely NT.
That is because this AT process so closely duplicates natural toning that it is often impossible to know for sure.
I have gone into the details of why I think these coins are AT in other threads so I don't want to do a point by point analysis again.
Instead, I would ask you to look at the first two Morgans in this thread and give me your opinion.
Do you think those 2 (78-S and 79-S) are AT or NT? >>
Bushmaster,
This is a far better post then your first one in this thread.
I have not been on these forums for well over 6 months, alot of the reason I stopped posting was all the NT/AT debate and the arguing that came along with it. It would appear the debate is still alive and well as always. I can only voice my opinion and I hope others continue to do so as well. The only thing I think all of us should ask of each other is that if you are going to hop into someone's thread and pretty much call someone's coin trash the very least we can do is give the reasoning behind it.
<< <i>unfortunately we will not be able to tell a very good AT from NT, so the debate will continue. Currently if I like the coin and it is market acceptable I buy the coin. Someone is going to question the toning on almost every coin, who do we believe? >>
I totally agree. Its always all about the coin and if you like it that should be all that matters. I just came from a local shop about an hour ago and picked up some sweet mint sets along with many nice toner singles. He basically dumped the coins on me at a price i could simply not pass up. The reason is he said no one wants it when its raw. In a holder he can sell it in a blink of an eye and at a solid premium but me im buying mostly franklins and washingtons and these guys deal with mostly classic coinage so it isnt worth it for them to slab it. I hope it stays that way cause ill buy them all day long lol.
I can see that coin as original end roll toning. I don't think I could say it is 100% NT though. I won't catagorize it as nuclear or monster type toning either. I am guessing it as a $160 coin.
<< <i>Where are you guys when I eBay franklins? >>
You send me a PM with pics of franklins you have forsale that look as nice if not better than that 60D and i will buy every single one of them from you .
<< <i>Personally I want to continue to track down these coins with question marks and see them in hand and try to find what's right and whats wrong with them...patterns if you will. Additionally, Ron Sirna is going to be relaunching the TCCS again very soon and we are planning on being more than just a show and tell website. We want to be in the fore front of toning education, AT detection, and we want to have a loud and proud voice that will help provide hobby protection to those that want to tread into toned waters. I know we can make a difference and I am hoping for a wave over the years and not just a ripple but everything has to start somewhere so hopefully we can even partner with the TPGs down the road and share info, findings, tips, examples of questionable coins etc....why not? >>
Don't you think that the Docs will be reading the forum as they do this one and ATS. Learning from what they read and laughing all the way as they see their coins posted in TPG holders. No one is perfect, AT coins will be call NT and NT coins will be called AT.
I believe that the Docs are using NT methods to achieve their product, enhancing the methods sure, but using the right albums, or bags or whatever method they can. None of can or ever will be truly able to say.... I've never once been fooled by an AT coin. Yea, they're that good (Docs) and they are getting better.... just like China!
<< <i>Shane, I completely understand your comments (re: boy cried WOLF!).
I also realize that some doubt my credibility as a result... that does not bother me. And, admittedly, a few of the coins I have called AT are likely NT.
That is because this AT process so closely duplicates natural toning that it is often impossible to know for sure.
I have gone into the details of why I think these coins are AT in other threads so I don't want to do a point by point analysis again.
Instead, I would ask you to look at the first two Morgans in this thread and give me your opinion.
Do you think those 2 (78-S and 79-S) are AT or NT? >>
Bushmaster,
This is a far better post then your first one in this thread.
I have not been on these forums for well over 6 months, alot of the reason I stopped posting was all the NT/AT debate and the arguing that came along with it. It would appear the debate is still alive and well as always. I can only voice my opinion and I hope others continue to do so as well. The only thing I think all of us should ask of each other is that if you are going to hop into someone's thread and pretty much call someone's coin trash the very least we can do is give the reasoning behind it.
Nice coin chris and so is the other one. >>
Thanks for finding them. I agree with you wholehartedly. I didn't know it was fair practice to go into someones thread, call their coin AT garbage with no proof what so ever is insulting, especially when they call every toned coin they see AT.
Interesting string. The original 60D coin is suspect for at least two reasons. First, reverse rim is not toned. Second, the two small green spots on the collar seem random and out of place. Is the rim toned on the sides? If not, this is AT. No way the coins tones like this on one side without the rim toning....
The 61D is harder to tell from the photos. My first impression is that it is a toned coin that has been worked, that is embellished with additional color. The color flow above "In" and near "We" and "Trust" looks out of place. Again, I'd need to see the outside rim before making a judgement...that said, on some days this coin would pass through the graders as "market acceptable.
Overall, when you look at a one sided tone coin, check the outside rim for toning as well as the edge of the reverse rim. If these are brilliant, the coin is AT.
"You keep your 1804 dollar and 1822 half eagle -- give me rainbow roosies in MS68." rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
<< <i>Interesting string. The original 60D coin is suspect for at least two reasons. First, reverse rim is not toned. Second, the two small green spots on the collar seem random and out of place. Is the rim toned on the sides? If not, this is AT. No way the coins tones like this on one side without the rim toning....
The 61D is harder to tell from the photos. My first impression is that it is a toned coin that has been worked, that is embellished with additional color. The color flow above "In" and near "We" and "Trust" looks out of place. Again, I'd need to see the outside rim before making a judgement...that said, on some days this coin would pass through the graders as "market acceptable.
Overall, when you look at a one sided tone coin, check the outside rim for toning as well as the edge of the reverse rim. If these are brilliant, the coin is AT. >>
End roll coins pretty much never come toned on the side that's facing the next coin in the roll...
End roll coins pretty much have a mind of their own when it comes to toning. Trying to predict EOR toning is a crap chute.
I'm talking about the outside of the rim which touche the paper and a gold glint which often forms at the very outside of the reverse rim --- not toned, just a glint of gold...
"You keep your 1804 dollar and 1822 half eagle -- give me rainbow roosies in MS68." rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
<< <i>I'm talking about the outside of the rim which touche the paper and a gold glint which often forms at the very outside of the reverse rim --- not toned, just a glint of gold... >>
Well I trust chris' and shames judgement on the toning on both 60-Ds I picked up.
<< <i>I'm talking about the outside of the rim which touche the paper and a gold glint which often forms at the very outside of the reverse rim --- not toned, just a glint of gold... >>
Well I trust chris' and shames judgement on the toning on both 60-Ds I picked up. >>
Does it matter to you if they are NT or AT? Is liking them good enough?
From the scene just outside the bar, just moments after Jack Wilson had drawn on Shane, right in the presence of young Joey, accompanied, of course, by his faithful dog...
Joey: Was that him? Was that Wilson?
Shane: That was him. That was Wilson, alright. He was fast. Fast on the draw.
PS: Don't ask me why I thought of this, I just did.
Well, after having taken a second look at this coin--and, I'm not "Paul," BTW--nonetheless, FWIW, I'll tell you why that's every bit a legitimate Market MS-65, IMHO. That reverse could go Technical MS-65, principally for that lustrous surface. That obverse, however, were it standing alone, is a Technical AU-58. However, those soft spots on that obverse aren't from circulation wear, but, rather, they're from what I believe they refer to, these days, as "cabinet friction." That's clear to me from the technical condition of that reverse, which, of course, is just one of the ways that "call" made. Factor in that lovely tarnish, and that Market Grade comes back, overall, a MS-65. That's how I'd figure it.
Comments
<< <i>$900 is a lot for a Franklin IMO. >>
Yeah, I saw that too.....we are back to the "post a coin in the USCoin Forum, drum up interest, then place it on the BST for sale"
That's still a no-no I do believe.....
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>$900 is a lot for a Franklin IMO. >>
Yeah, I saw that too.....we are back to the "post a coin in the USCoin Forum, drum up interest, then place it on the BST for sale"
That's still a no-no I do believe..... >>
Coin will get taken down then if I'm breaking any rules.
<< <i>Shane, I completely understand your comments (re: boy cried WOLF!).
I also realize that some doubt my credibility as a result... that does not bother me. And, admittedly, a few of the coins I have called AT are likely NT.
That is because this AT process so closely duplicates natural toning that it is often impossible to know for sure.
I have gone into the details of why I think these coins are AT in other threads so I don't want to do a point by point analysis again.
Instead, I would ask you to look at the first two Morgans in this thread and give me your opinion.
Do you think those 2 (78-S and 79-S) are AT or NT? >>
Bushmaster,
This is a far better post then your first one in this thread.
I have not been on these forums for well over 6 months, alot of the reason I stopped posting was all the NT/AT debate and the arguing that came along with it. It would appear the debate is still alive and well as always. I can only voice my opinion and I hope others continue to do so as well. The only thing I think all of us should ask of each other is that if you are going to hop into someone's thread and pretty much call someone's coin trash the very least we can do is give the reasoning behind it.
Nice coin chris and so is the other one.
<< <i>unfortunately we will not be able to tell a very good AT from NT, so the debate will continue. Currently if I like the coin and it is market acceptable
I buy the coin. Someone is going to question the toning on almost every coin, who do we believe? >>
I totally agree. Its always all about the coin and if you like it that should be all that matters. I just came from a local shop about an hour ago and picked up some sweet mint sets along with many nice toner singles. He basically dumped the coins on me at a price i could simply not pass up. The reason is he said no one wants it when its raw. In a holder he can sell it in a blink of an eye and at a solid premium but me im buying mostly franklins and washingtons and these guys deal with mostly classic coinage so it isnt worth it for them to slab it. I hope it stays that way cause ill buy them all day long lol.
heck .....I would buy it @ 160 !! or even 200 ! ! !
<< <i>...160 $ is mighty low for a PCGS MS65 FBL 1960-D Franklin with color ........mighty low indeed ,
heck .....I would buy it @ 160 !! or even 200 ! ! ! >>
I would buy it at $160 as well but that's tops for my taste.
<< <i>...160 $ is mighty low for a PCGS MS65 FBL 1960-D Franklin with color ........mighty low indeed ,
heck .....I would buy it @ 160 !! or even 200 ! ! ! >>
I wish they only cost that much lol. Imagine getting awesome toners in 65FBL from 59-63 for $200 or less? That would be a perfect world
Edited to add: That 60D in the original post imo is at least a $600+ coin!
<< <i>Where are you guys when I eBay franklins? >>
You send me a PM with pics of franklins you have forsale that look as nice if not better than that 60D and i will buy every single one of them from you
<< <i>Personally I want to continue to track down these coins with question marks and see them in hand and try to find what's right and whats wrong with them...patterns if you will. Additionally, Ron Sirna is going to be relaunching the TCCS again very soon and we are planning on being more than just a show and tell website. We want to be in the fore front of toning education, AT detection, and we want to have a loud and proud voice that will help provide hobby protection to those that want to tread into toned waters. I know we can make a difference and I am hoping for a wave over the years and not just a ripple but everything has to start somewhere so hopefully we can even partner with the TPGs down the road and share info, findings, tips, examples of questionable coins etc....why not? >>
Don't you think that the Docs will be reading the forum as they do this one and ATS. Learning from what they read and laughing all the way as they see their coins posted in TPG holders. No one is perfect, AT coins will be call NT and NT coins will be called AT.
I believe that the Docs are using NT methods to achieve their product, enhancing the methods sure, but using the right albums, or bags or whatever method they can. None of can or ever will be truly able to say.... I've never once been fooled by an AT coin. Yea, they're that good (Docs) and they are getting better.... just like China!
<< <i>
<< <i>Shane, I completely understand your comments (re: boy cried WOLF!).
I also realize that some doubt my credibility as a result... that does not bother me. And, admittedly, a few of the coins I have called AT are likely NT.
That is because this AT process so closely duplicates natural toning that it is often impossible to know for sure.
I have gone into the details of why I think these coins are AT in other threads so I don't want to do a point by point analysis again.
Instead, I would ask you to look at the first two Morgans in this thread and give me your opinion.
Do you think those 2 (78-S and 79-S) are AT or NT? >>
Bushmaster,
This is a far better post then your first one in this thread.
I have not been on these forums for well over 6 months, alot of the reason I stopped posting was all the NT/AT debate and the arguing that came along with it. It would appear the debate is still alive and well as always. I can only voice my opinion and I hope others continue to do so as well. The only thing I think all of us should ask of each other is that if you are going to hop into someone's thread and pretty much call someone's coin trash the very least we can do is give the reasoning behind it.
Nice coin chris and so is the other one. >>
Thanks for finding them. I agree with you wholehartedly. I didn't know it was fair practice to go into someones thread, call their coin AT garbage with no proof what so ever is insulting, especially when they call every toned coin they see AT.
<< <i>especially when they call every toned coin they see AT. >>
True, these boards can be a bit rough. That being said, I don't think this is particular statement is true. Check the post on shadow toning.
<< <i>toning experts, is this 61d at or nt ? will submit to pcgs soon.
NT to the fullest Dimeman~!
The 61D is harder to tell from the photos. My first impression is that it is a toned coin that has been worked, that is embellished with additional color. The color flow above "In" and near "We" and "Trust" looks out of place. Again, I'd need to see the outside rim before making a judgement...that said, on some days this coin would pass through the graders as "market acceptable.
Overall, when you look at a one sided tone coin, check the outside rim for toning as well as the edge of the reverse rim. If these are brilliant, the coin is AT.
rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
<< <i>Interesting string. The original 60D coin is suspect for at least two reasons. First, reverse rim is not toned. Second, the two small green spots on the collar seem random and out of place. Is the rim toned on the sides? If not, this is AT. No way the coins tones like this on one side without the rim toning....
The 61D is harder to tell from the photos. My first impression is that it is a toned coin that has been worked, that is embellished with additional color. The color flow above "In" and near "We" and "Trust" looks out of place. Again, I'd need to see the outside rim before making a judgement...that said, on some days this coin would pass through the graders as "market acceptable.
Overall, when you look at a one sided tone coin, check the outside rim for toning as well as the edge of the reverse rim. If these are brilliant, the coin is AT. >>
End roll coins pretty much never come toned on the side that's facing the next coin in the roll...
End roll coins pretty much have a mind of their own when it comes to toning. Trying to predict EOR toning is a crap chute.
rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
<< <i>I'm talking about the outside of the rim which touche the paper and a gold glint which often forms at the very outside of the reverse rim --- not toned, just a glint of gold... >>
Well I trust chris' and shames judgement on the toning on both 60-Ds I picked up.
<< <i>.........you have shown pix of three ......... yes ? .......no ? >>
Two
<< <i>
<< <i>I'm talking about the outside of the rim which touche the paper and a gold glint which often forms at the very outside of the reverse rim --- not toned, just a glint of gold... >>
Well I trust chris' and shames judgement on the toning on both 60-Ds I picked up. >>
Does it matter to you if they are NT or AT? Is liking them good enough?
but you have posted pix of three in your various posts, one non FBL and two FBL's
<< <i>I don't like them - I LOVE THEM !
but you have posted pix of three in your various posts, one non FBL and two FBL's >>
ahh yes in the other thread. he is getting that one back
<< <i>AKA Shane >>
From the scene just outside the bar, just moments after Jack Wilson had drawn on Shane, right in the presence of young Joey, accompanied, of course, by his faithful dog...
Joey: Was that him? Was that Wilson?
Shane: That was him. That was Wilson, alright. He was fast. Fast on the draw.
PS: Don't ask me why I thought of this, I just did.
<< <i>What say you paul?
PCGS MS65FBL >>
Well, after having taken a second look at this coin--and, I'm not "Paul," BTW--nonetheless, FWIW, I'll tell you why that's every bit a legitimate Market MS-65, IMHO. That reverse could go Technical MS-65, principally for that lustrous surface. That obverse, however, were it standing alone, is a Technical AU-58. However, those soft spots on that obverse aren't from circulation wear, but, rather, they're from what I believe they refer to, these days, as "cabinet friction." That's clear to me from the technical condition of that reverse, which, of course, is just one of the ways that "call" made. Factor in that lovely tarnish, and that Market Grade comes back, overall, a MS-65. That's how I'd figure it.