Is mint bag toning considered AT toning?
JOZ
Posts: 37
I sent two coins coins part of a 1964 mint set and both coins got a 91 for questionable color. Is mint bag toning consider artificial toning or whats the deal. 
0
JOZ
Posts: 37
JOZ
Posts: 37
Comments
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
what matters, you ask? what matters is How The COINS LOOK
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>Mint bags from this era...1960's are not capable of toning the same as canvas bags from the late 1800's early 1900's. Any coin stored in a US Mint bag is in my opinion, considered NT.[/q
I got questionable color on two coins from the same mint set that came out of an original mint set. I would think a product housed in its original packaging would not be an issue.
<< <i>
<< <i>Mint bags from this era...1960's are not capable of toning the same as canvas bags from the late 1800's early 1900's. Any coin stored in a US Mint bag is in my opinion, considered NT.[/q
I got questionable color on two coins from the same mint set that came out of an original mint set. I would think a product housed in its original packaging would not be an issue. >>
It could be an issue, if, for some reason, the coins have toned in a way that appears unnatural.
Graders typically make their assessments in a vacuum, without knowing the past history or storage conditions the coins have been subjected to. As a result, some coins which are naturally toned, appear to be artificially toned and are no-graded. Others, are artificially toned, but appear to be naturally toned, and are graded.
IIRC (and please correct me if I am wrong about this) a few years ago there was a huge number of wild blue, purple, red proof Jeffersons from the early 1960s that were being submitted and initially graded by PCGS. These coins were going for some big money (several hundred dollars). It was discovered, as the story goes, that the submitter had toned the coins while in the original mint packaging and then claimed that the coins were original (I think the coins were toned on top of or underneath a water heater?). After a while, PCGS was no longer grading these pieces even if they were submitted in the original holders. Is this correct or just some urban legend that has stuck in my head.
BTW ... that is one nice 39-D, Mark!
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
<< <i>.... Also I have heard of original mint sewn Morgan bags being exposed to chemicals to cause "bag" toning. >>
Now THAT sounds like an urban legend. Have you thought this thru?
some graded and some didn't its not a issue confined to bags.
Some times it takes more than one try?
<< <i>Not too sure, but they where part of the flat pack P and D mint sets from 1964 ten coins total. I will post pics of the coins when i get them tomorrow. >>
Mint bags were not involved with US mint sets, where as heat sealed cellophane and paper type postal envelopes were. Coins of the era you speak of, can and do sometimes tone inside the packaging, much has to do with their storage. Heat, humidity and the length of time exposed to these environments come into play and most times cannot be duplicated.
If the coins in question appear in anyway to be accelerated toning, in this day and age, the graders will immediately reject them.
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
I'm a blast white collector from yarns ago, I have no idea why I offer my opinion on these things
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Mint bags from this era...1960's are not capable of toning the same as canvas bags from the late 1800's early 1900's. Any coin stored in a US Mint bag is in my opinion, considered NT. >>
I got questionable color on two coins from the same mint set that came out of an original mint set. I would think a product housed in its original packaging would not be an issue. >>
It could be an issue, if, for some reason, the coins have toned in a way that appears unnatural.
Graders typically make their assessments in a vacuum, without knowing the past history or storage conditions the coins have been subjected to. As a result, some coins which are naturally toned, appear to be artificially toned and are no-graded. Others, are artificially toned, but appear to be naturally toned, and are graded. >>
So what your saying is that graders don't have a clue as to what is natural or artificial? It's all based upon what they think.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Graders typically make their assessments in a vacuum, without knowing the past history or storage conditions the coins have been subjected to. As a result, some coins which are naturally toned, appear to be artificially toned and are no-graded. Others, are artificially toned, but appear to be naturally toned, and are graded >>
Oh, come on, cut through it. The only vacuum I see here is the one in between these graders' ears. That's a very pretentious determination for a professional grading service to be making on what otherwise is completely natural tarnish. JMHO...
<< <i>I sent two coins coins part of a 1964 mint set and both coins got a 91 for questionable color. Is mint bag toning consider artificial toning or whats the deal.
JOZ, I'd request a refund on my submissions costs. I'm serious...
<<Oh, come on, cut through it. The only vacuum I see here is the one in between these graders' ears. That's a very pretentious determination for a professional grading service to be making on what otherwise is completely natural tarnish. JMHO... >>
How can you have such an opinion on the matter, not even having seen what the coins look like?
<< I sent two coins coins part of a 1964 mint set and both coins got a 91 for questionable color. Is mint bag toning consider artificial toning or whats the deal. >>
<<JOZ, I'd request a refund on my submissions costs. I'm serious... >>
Regardless of what the coins look like?
That's not what's being said at all, and it is either foolish or intentionally misleading to put it that way.
what happens is, the graders LOOK AT THE COIN...
we're still waiting for pictures of these pieces... all we have so far are typed words
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i><<Oh, come on, cut through it. The only vacuum I see here is the one in between these graders' ears. That's a very pretentious determination for a professional grading service to be making on what otherwise is completely natural tarnish. JMHO... >>
How can you have such an opinion on the matter, not even having seen what the coins look like?
<< I sent two coins coins part of a 1964 mint set and both coins got a 91 for questionable color. Is mint bag toning consider artificial toning or whats the deal. >>
<<JOZ, I'd request a refund on my submissions costs. I'm serious... >>
Regardless of what the coins look like? >>
Let me put it this way. I don't happen to need to see a person before I can conclude he or she isn't a witch in spite of what a bunch of delusional crackpots in a captive forum who erroneously believe in witches may otherwise suggest. There's nothing, here, that indicates this is anything other than tarnish. And, tarnish is natural. And, that's the end of that.
To me, anyway. There, how's that for a disclaimer?
<< <i>So what your saying is that graders don't have a clue as to what is natural or artificial? It's all based upon what they think.
That's not what's being said at all, and it is either foolish or intentionally misleading to put it that way.
what happens is, the graders LOOK AT THE COIN...
we're still waiting for pictures of these pieces... all we have so far are typed words >>
I hate it when you call me foolish.
The name is LEE!