Isn't is possible that someone inserted an AT 25c into a cardboard (1958) mint set holder, where the other 1963-D coins were beginning to tone naturally?
<< <i>Appears to be 1963 coins inserted into a 1958 mint set (green backing). It natuarly toned in the cardboard, what's the big deal? I like it. >>
then you don't mind a coin that is toned artificially? Since the Mint did not produce sets in cardboard for 1963 this and any coin [past 58] should be considered as AT or as a Genuine - with questionable color- since the Mint did not provide such coin or item to do so, but then thus the market acceptance for such tomfoolery- right?
Let those that wish to doctor an item sell it to those less knowledgeable and make a killing as such may be. A fool and his money..they part only with time and stupidity..
AT and I probably would not want to show this thread to the house to vindicate the toning issue. >>
From a semantics standpoint, since it was "placed" in the cardboard holder, it could no longer be considered uncirculated.
I mean................... if you really want to get technical. >>
Okay ... I'll bite. Sure it can be uncirculated, it was placed in the holder before it was sent into circulation. Heck, it could be worn from handling and technically be uncirculated. It wouldn't be mint state, but uncirculated? Sure. >>
This is quite a simple comparison. If a coin is placed in an old US Mint Set cardboard holder for the intention of toning and it does in fact tone, then calling it AT is exactly the same as saying that the very same coin has been touched or handled by human hands and is therefore circulated and can no longer be considered uncirculated.
Since most of these old mint set coins have toned, I guess its ok to say that an old US Mint Set cardboard holder is actually an approved toning device. The exact same way as the old Waite-Raymond holders are "quasi-approved" since approval comes in the form of: you can't find them any more because they're all being used. Presumably for toning.
The assumption or consensus on whether or not a coin is AT or NT, IMO, only comes into play when specific chemicals have been added to the coins surface to "generate" the toning. Intentionally storing coins improperly is, IMO, not AT although some consider it so.
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
<< <i> Since most of these old mint set coins have toned, I guess its ok to say that an old US Mint Set cardboard holder is actually an approved toning device. The exact same way as the old Waite-Raymond holders are "quasi-approved" since approval comes in the form of: you can't find them any more because they're all being used. Presumably for toning.
The assumption or consensus on whether or not a coin is AT or NT, IMO, only comes into play when specific chemicals have been added to the coins surface to "generate" the toning. Intentionally storing coins improperly is, IMO, not AT although some consider it so. >>
Comments
Coin Rarities Online
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Appears to be 1963 coins inserted into a 1958 mint set (green backing).
It natuarly toned in the cardboard, what's the big deal?
I like it. >>
then you don't mind a coin that is toned artificially? Since the Mint did not produce sets in cardboard for 1963 this and any coin [past 58] should be considered as AT or as a Genuine - with questionable color- since the Mint did not provide such coin or item to do so, but then thus the market acceptance for such tomfoolery- right?
Let those that wish to doctor an item sell it to those less knowledgeable and make a killing as such may be. A fool and his money..they part only with time and stupidity..
AT and I probably would not want to show this thread to the house to vindicate the toning issue. >>
From a semantics standpoint, since it was "placed" in the cardboard holder, it could no longer be considered uncirculated.
I mean................... if you really want to get technical. >>
Okay ... I'll bite. Sure it can be uncirculated, it was placed in the holder before it was sent into circulation. Heck, it could be worn from handling and technically be uncirculated. It wouldn't be mint state, but uncirculated? Sure.
This is quite a simple comparison.
If a coin is placed in an old US Mint Set cardboard holder for the intention of toning and it does in fact tone, then calling it AT is exactly the same as saying that the very same coin has been touched or handled by human hands and is therefore circulated and can no longer be considered uncirculated.
Since most of these old mint set coins have toned, I guess its ok to say that an old US Mint Set cardboard holder is actually an approved toning device. The exact same way as the old Waite-Raymond holders are "quasi-approved" since approval comes in the form of: you can't find them any more because they're all being used. Presumably for toning.
The assumption or consensus on whether or not a coin is AT or NT, IMO, only comes into play when specific chemicals have been added to the coins surface to "generate" the toning. Intentionally storing coins improperly is, IMO, not AT although some consider it so.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
Since most of these old mint set coins have toned, I guess its ok to say that an old US Mint Set cardboard holder is actually an approved toning device. The exact same way as the old Waite-Raymond holders are "quasi-approved" since approval comes in the form of: you can't find them any more because they're all being used. Presumably for toning.
The assumption or consensus on whether or not a coin is AT or NT, IMO, only comes into play when specific chemicals have been added to the coins surface to "generate" the toning. Intentionally storing coins improperly is, IMO, not AT although some consider it so. >>
I agree with this statement completely.