Clearly recognizable as AT in my opinion. Wrong color, weird shape, colors don't blend into each other like they should. Reminiscent of one of the thousands of holdered AT silver eagles out there.
I never get the tone guys who say if you can't tell me exactly how it was made it must be real while coming up with a completely fabricated assumption on it's origin and presenting it as fact. It was in a bag down in Florida under the blue moon. Regardless that they just saw it on GC too, why let that put a damper on one's imagination
@joebb21 said:
Ive seen this exact color pattern on dozens of AT morgans that are being sold now on the market. I didnt even want to bid since I was 99% sure it is AT. Look on GC at closed morgans from 1883-o, 1884-o 1885-o and you will see tons of these morgans
I haven't looked to compare the coins, but if this is the case, I wonder if the all of the coins were consigned by the same individual or a small group of individuals.
@joebb21 said:
Ive seen this exact color pattern on dozens of AT morgans that are being sold now on the market. I didnt even want to bid since I was 99% sure it is AT. Look on GC at closed morgans from 1883-o, 1884-o 1885-o and you will see tons of these morgans
I haven't looked to compare the coins, but if this is the case, I wonder if the all of the coins were consigned by the same individual or a small group of individuals.
Yes they have. They are all coming from the same consignor. His work is actually quite good and has now fooled some of the best "experts". It was originally believed that he could not replicate certain red shades but now it is known anything can be done
@bolivarshagnasty said:
I've seen those colors on many AT'd silver eagles.
@keets said:
some quick observations with these two coins viewable together tells me that I should at least be cautious when considering if the Peace Dollar is AT/NT. according to 'shag this is a mimic-able pattern and I would remind cascadechris that Peace Dollars were not stored in canvas bags in the fashion of Morgan Dollars.
Can't believe that you think that these two coins are in any way comparable. The silver eagle color progression is way off. The Peace Dollar color progression is correct.
Some refer to overgraded slabs as Coffins. I like to think of them as Happy Coins.
@Crypto said:
I never get the tone guys who say if you can't tell me exactly how it was made it must be real while coming up with a completely fabricated assumption on it's origin and presenting it as fact. It was in a bag down in Florida under the blue moon. Regardless that they just saw it on GC too, why let that put a damper on one's imagination
Personally I respect the opinions of those that say something is AT and have some kind of reasoning. What I don't appreciate is when I see people say something like "100% AT, period" with no further explanation or say "I can make that same pattern" with no proof.
I'm not saying this example is real, but I don't get the people who guarantee this is fake or guarantee that it can be easily reproduced. If this type of toning was easy to recreate, don't you think the market would be flooded with it? Don't you think prices would be way lower than what such toners end up at?
@AUandAG said:
Do some here think that someone would take a really high grade peace dollar and take a chance that the AT would turn out??? NT all the way.
@U1chicago said:
If this type of toning was easy to recreate, don't you think the market would be flooded with it?
Yes, and the market is flooded with it. I wouldn't hesitate to say that 95% of toned holdered silver eagles are AT.
Don't you think prices would be way lower than what such toners end up at?
No.
ASEs aren't Peace Dollars. Where is the flood of Peace Dollars?
And if the market is flooded with AT, why does the market not come down?
Are both new and experienced collectors shifting their perspectives and accepting nicer AT as ok in the current market?
Finally, what role are TPGs playing in this? If 95% of ASEs are AT, why are they being slabbed by the professional services? Wouldn't the ASE issue be greatly reduced if the majority of the 95% came back as Quest Color instead of straight graded?
@U1chicago said:
If this type of toning was easy to recreate, don't you think the market would be flooded with it?
Yes, and the market is flooded with it. I wouldn't hesitate to say that 95% of toned holdered silver eagles are AT.
Don't you think prices would be way lower than what such toners end up at?
No.
ASEs aren't Peace Dollars. Where is the flood of Peace Dollars?
And if the market is flooded with AT, why does the market not come down?
Are both new and experienced collectors shifting their perspectives and accepting nicer AT as ok in the current market?
AT peace dollars are harder to get past TPGs than AT silver eagles. You see them less often, but they are still there (and there is still a "flood" of them, depending on how you define a "flood"). Collectors are both acceptant of AT as ok and unable to tell the difference between AT and NT. Mostly newer collectors probably.
Your line of argument is also faulty. You're making an assumption that in order for examples like this coin to be AT, there should be a flood of AT coins. Bit of a non sequitor.
All his coins at the time had the same color progression- with a crescent (to imitate a coin sitting on it for a long period) and yellow,baby blue,yellow toning literally painted on.
Color procession on this peace dollar follows the same style. yellow->baby blue->yellow->dark pink/purple->dark blue-> green.
I have now seen dozens of coins that all have this look-and this coin jumped out at me as being another one.
@U1chicago said:
If this type of toning was easy to recreate, don't you think the market would be flooded with it?
Yes, and the market is flooded with it. I wouldn't hesitate to say that 95% of toned holdered silver eagles are AT.
Don't you think prices would be way lower than what such toners end up at?
No.
ASEs aren't Peace Dollars. Where is the flood of Peace Dollars?
And if the market is flooded with AT, why does the market not come down?
Are both new and experienced collectors shifting their perspectives and accepting nicer AT as ok in the current market?
Finally, what role are TPGs playing in this? If 95% of ASEs are AT, why are they being slabbed by the professional services? Wouldn't the ASE issue be greatly reduced if the majority of the 95% came back as Quest Color instead of straight graded?
TPGs care more about what is market acceptable. If AT silver eagles are market acceptable, which they are right now, then they will get past TPGs. Older coins with AT are more often not market acceptable, but sometimes they will still get past TPGs (see example from this thread, which is presumably market acceptable since it realized such a high price). More and more older coins are allowed by TPGs as AT techniques improve and people stop caring whether coins are AT or NT, but rather if they look pretty. There are already tons of sellers on eBay and Instagram who make AT silver eagles, get them graded, and sell them or massive premiums.
As to the "Questionable Color" label, there is a reason why it is called "Questionable Color" and not "Artificial Color." Even if you can clearly tell that a coin is AT, it is difficult to scientifically prove that it is without actually seeing the coin in the process of being artificially toned. The "Questionable" label lends an ambiguity that prevents TPGs from having to uphold their guarantees if an NT coin is graded as such or if an AT coin is straight-graded, and allows them to give any AT coins straight grades if they would prefer.
@U1chicago said:
If this type of toning was easy to recreate, don't you think the market would be flooded with it?
Yes, and the market is flooded with it. I wouldn't hesitate to say that 95% of toned holdered silver eagles are AT.
Don't you think prices would be way lower than what such toners end up at?
No.
ASEs aren't Peace Dollars. Where is the flood of Peace Dollars?
And if the market is flooded with AT, why does the market not come down?
Are both new and experienced collectors shifting their perspectives and accepting nicer AT as ok in the current market?
AT peace dollars are harder to get past TPGs than AT silver eagles. You see them less often, but they are still there (and there is still a "flood" of them, depending on how you define a "flood"). Collectors are both acceptant of AT as ok and unable to tell the difference between AT and NT. Mostly newer collectors probably.
Your line of argument is also faulty. You're making an assumption that in order for examples like this coin to be AT, there should be a flood of AT coins. Bit of a non sequitor.
A flood to me means a large enough number of examples that it overwhelms the real market. Yes there are many AT Peace Dollars currently listed, but many of these are easily identifiable and don't draw monster premiums. We aren't seeing a bunch in straight graded holders. And some of the ones that are in holders are borderline examples.
Your argument is also faulty. Your basis for the Peace Dollar being AT is that the market is flooded with AT ASEs.
And my argument is not that there needs to be a flood of AT for this Peace Dollar to be AT. In fact, I said that I respect anyone that says this is AT and gives a reason. My argument is targeted at those that don't back up their claims and those that say these are easy to make. Yes it might be AT, but is it easy to make? If it is easy to make, then I wonder why more of these aren't being made?
@U1chicago said:
If this type of toning was easy to recreate, don't you think the market would be flooded with it?
Yes, and the market is flooded with it. I wouldn't hesitate to say that 95% of toned holdered silver eagles are AT.
Don't you think prices would be way lower than what such toners end up at?
No.
ASEs aren't Peace Dollars. Where is the flood of Peace Dollars?
And if the market is flooded with AT, why does the market not come down?
Are both new and experienced collectors shifting their perspectives and accepting nicer AT as ok in the current market?
AT peace dollars are harder to get past TPGs than AT silver eagles. You see them less often, but they are still there (and there is still a "flood" of them, depending on how you define a "flood"). Collectors are both acceptant of AT as ok and unable to tell the difference between AT and NT. Mostly newer collectors probably.
Your line of argument is also faulty. You're making an assumption that in order for examples like this coin to be AT, there should be a flood of AT coins. Bit of a non sequitor.
A flood to me means a large enough number of examples that it overwhelms the real market. Yes there are many AT Peace Dollars currently listed, but many of these are easily identifiable and don't draw monster premiums. We aren't seeing a bunch in stright graded holders. And some of the ones that are in holders are borderline examples.
Your argument is also faulty. Your basis for the Peace Dollar being AT is that the market is flooded with AT ASEs.
And my argument is not that there needs to be a flood of AT for this Peace Dollar to be AT. In fact, I said that I respect anyone that says this is AT and gives a reason. My argument is targeted at those that don't back up their claims and those that say these are easy to make. Yes it might be AT, but is it easy to make? If it is easy to make, then I wonder why more of these aren't being made?
No, my argument for this being AT is that it looks AT. I said that in my first response.
There is no need for there to be a big enough flood of AT coins at this precise moment in time that it overwhelms the market, for any of this to be taking place. At some point this might happen, but it's not like either there's a flood of AT coins or there aren't any AT coins.
There are plenty of AT coins, modern or not, commanding large premiums. Yes, some are easily identifiable and command less of a premium. Some are not easily identifiable and command more of a premium. Even more are easily identifiable but look pretty and command more of a premium. I don't see the issue here.
You can't argue for people to back up their claims. This is not something that can easily be proven, as it is almost completely subjective. It is only a little easier to prove that a coin is AT than to prove a coin is NT. Much of it relies simply on seeing hundreds or thousands of other AT and NT examples through the course of your life and being able to visually tell the difference.
What makes you think more aren't being made? What does it being easy to make have to do with anything? It could be easy to make or difficult to make, it doesn't matter.
Can't believe that you think that these two coins are in any way comparable. The silver eagle color progression is way off. The Peace Dollar color progression is correct
Brilliant White.
Yellow/Gold.
Red/Purple.
Blue.
back to Yellow/Gold.
back to Red/Purple.
back to Blue.
that is what I see on BOTH coins working from the center outward to the rim. true, the width of the bands may be different but the color progression is the same. one coin is .900 fine and the other is .999 fine which could possibly be the reason. the tone pattern is the same so my conclusion is that both coins are AT --- or --- both coins are NT.
bolivarshagnasty seems to be indicating that the ASE is AT.
You can't argue for people to back up their claims. This is not something that can easily be proven, as it is almost completely subjective. It is only a little easier to prove that a coin is AT than to prove a coin is NT. Much of it relies simply on seeing hundreds or thousands of other AT and NT examples through the course of your life and being able to visually tell the difference.
What makes you think more aren't being made? What does it being easy to make have to do with anything? It could be easy to make or difficult to make, it doesn't matter.
"You can't argue for people to back up their claims."
That is quite the statement! Just because something can't be easily proven, does not mean people should not try. We need to advance the conversation and not just make blanket statements. While it is hard to prove what is AT/NT, one can provide arguments to back their side (and some posters thankfully do back their respective side). One can point out a progression of colors, similarities to other pieces (with pictures), unusual marks/spots, etc..
And if these Peace Dollars were easy to make, that would be a way to prove AT. If some of the posters that say they can make one actually produce an example (it doesn't have to be graded), that would go a long way to prove AT. At the moment, I have not seen someone back up their claim of making one.
You can't argue for people to back up their claims. This is not something that can easily be proven, as it is almost completely subjective. It is only a little easier to prove that a coin is AT than to prove a coin is NT. Much of it relies simply on seeing hundreds or thousands of other AT and NT examples through the course of your life and being able to visually tell the difference.
What makes you think more aren't being made? What does it being easy to make have to do with anything? It could be easy to make or difficult to make, it doesn't matter.
"You can't argue for people to back up their claims."
That is quite the statement! Just because something can't be easily proven, does not mean people should not try. We need to advance the conversation and not just make blanket statements. While it is hard to prove what is AT/NT, one can provide arguments to back their side (and some posters thankfully do back their respective side). One can point out a progression of colors, similarities to other pieces (with pictures), unusual marks/spots, etc..
And if these Peace Dollars were easy to make, that would be a way to prove AT. If some of the posters that say they can make one actually produce an example (it doesn't have to be graded), that would go a long way to prove AT. At the moment, I have not seen someone back up their claim of making one.
I'm not arguing against people backing up their claims. It is unreasonable, however, to rest one's verdict on whether a coin is AT or not on someone's ability to prove that it is AT or not. Because it is not something easily proven, if someone cannot prove that it is AT, does not make it any less likely to be AT. If someone cannot prove that it is NT, the same argument applies. If someone can prove it either way (though not really possible, as I said earlier - please explain to me how you could prove that a coin is naturally toned, without watching the toning actually take place), then that would certainly be helpful, but if they cannot, do not discard their statements for that reason.
"And if these Peace Dollars were easy to make, that would be a way to prove AT." I don't see the logic in that statement at all. If it is easy for someone to make a convincing AT coin, that doesn't mean it is it any easier to detect if a convincing AT coin is AT. If it is difficult to make an AT coin, that doesn't make it any less likely that a coin is AT either. Someone's ability to recreate the AT has no effect on anything. If they can recreate it, it doesn't mean this coin is AT, and if they can't it doesn't mean it's NT, and vice versa. The difficulty of making an AT coin and the ability of people deeming it AT to recreate it are completely irrelevant.
@specialist said:
sadly, GC is kind of an enabler for the people making the bad color coins. if they were smart, they would request to send every one to CAC before any sale. failing to do so, shows you what is more important to them.
Can't tell with out having the coin in hand if it is AT. i accept what ever jobb21 says.
GC is not at any fault here. They offer a service where they sell pcgs and ngc (and other "reputable" grading services) certified coins and since pcgs has deemed these coins acceptable for market, they sell them as such.
I have seen thousands of coins with problems that should never have been graded on ebay, at GC, at legendauctions, heritage, stacks, goldberg and a slew of others. It is our job as bidders/buyers to decide what the coins are ultimately worth and pcgs and ngc's job to be consistent and only grade coins that appear natural and are without problems. Sadly they have not been and are helping destroy many values in the coin market because of this.
@specialist said:
sadly, GC is kind of an enabler for the people making the bad color coins. if they were smart, they would request to send every one to CAC before any sale. failing to do so, shows you what is more important to them.
Can't tell with out having the coin in hand if it is AT. i accept what ever jobb21 says.
GC is not at any fault here. They offer a service where they sell pcgs and ngc (and other "reputable" grading services) certified coins and since pcgs has deemed these coins acceptable for market, they sell them as such.
I have seen thousands of coins with problems that should never have been graded on ebay, at GC, at legendauctions, heritage, stacks, goldberg and a slew of others. It is our job as bidders/buyers to decide what the coins are ultimately worth and pcgs and ngc's job to be consistent and only grade coins that appear natural and are without problems. Sadly they have not been and are helping destroy many values in the coin market because of this.
I was just typing out this response when you commented, and I couldn't have said it any better. GC is no more an enabler of these types of coins than any other venue for buying coins.
Great Collections sending every coin consigned to CAC doesn't solve the problem of AT coins either. If a toned coin failed to sticker because JA seen it as a "C level" coin? Would you assume that the toning is artificial?
You can't argue for people to back up their claims. This is not something that can easily be proven, as it is almost completely subjective. It is only a little easier to prove that a coin is AT than to prove a coin is NT. Much of it relies simply on seeing hundreds or thousands of other AT and NT examples through the course of your life and being able to visually tell the difference.
What makes you think more aren't being made? What does it being easy to make have to do with anything? It could be easy to make or difficult to make, it doesn't matter.
"You can't argue for people to back up their claims."
That is quite the statement! Just because something can't be easily proven, does not mean people should not try. We need to advance the conversation and not just make blanket statements. While it is hard to prove what is AT/NT, one can provide arguments to back their side (and some posters thankfully do back their respective side). One can point out a progression of colors, similarities to other pieces (with pictures), unusual marks/spots, etc..
And if these Peace Dollars were easy to make, that would be a way to prove AT. If some of the posters that say they can make one actually produce an example (it doesn't have to be graded), that would go a long way to prove AT. At the moment, I have not seen someone back up their claim of making one.
I'm not arguing against people backing up their claims. It is unreasonable, however, to rest one's verdict on whether a coin is AT or not on someone's ability to prove that it is AT or not. Because it is not something easily proven, if someone cannot prove that it is AT, does not make it any less likely to be AT. If someone cannot prove that it is NT, the same argument applies. If someone can prove it either way (though not really possible, as I said earlier - please explain to me how you could prove that a coin is naturally toned, without watching the toning actually take place), then that would certainly be helpful, but if they cannot, do not discard their statements for that reason.
"And if these Peace Dollars were easy to make, that would be a way to prove AT." I don't see the logic in that statement at all. If it is easy for someone to make a convincing AT coin, that doesn't mean it is it any easier to detect if a convincing AT coin is AT. If it is difficult to make an AT coin, that doesn't make it any less likely that a coin is AT either. Someone's ability to recreate the AT has no effect on anything. If they can recreate it, it doesn't mean this coin is AT, and if they can't it doesn't mean it's NT, and vice versa. The difficulty of making an AT coin and the ability of people deeming it AT to recreate it are completely irrelevant.
Arguments are made stronger when someone can back their statement. I'm not defending the coin as NT because people can't back their opinion. What I'm doing is getting people to think and clarify their positions. It is easy to parrot others and just blurt out "AT" every time. That does not make for a good discussion and does not teach anything.
In terms of making a coin, it does have merit. If someone can take an untoned Peace Dollar and recreate these colors, that shows that AT is a possibility and puts more doubt in the straight graded examples. Someone can factually say that taking x materials and doing y will produce this pattern. If it can't be recreated easily, that does not mean the pattern is NT, but it makes one think and consider other possibilities. Maybe there are only a few "skilled doctors" and the secret is guarded carefully or maybe it is NT.
All I'm saying is that posters shouldn't just jump to conclusions with no reasoning and no desire to even think. I'm very open to learning and hearing different viewpoints being argued. What I don't like is people repeating one word answers ("AT") and ignoring the other side and even failing to back their own side.
U1, you're looking for proof and it's just not going to appear on an Internet forum.
There are two sorts of people who might be able to make coins like this. Neither type is likely to reveal their methods or show their work here. The first is the nefarious type. Coin doctoring of all sorts has been going on for as long as there have been coins. Some are terrible and some are very skilled at getting their stuff into TPG plastic. If I wanted to make Peace dollars that would make it into TPG holders I'd do it like this:
Buy huge quantities of low-grade regular BU Peace dollars.
Practice my technique until it was VERY good.
Buy MS65 white dollars in slabs.
Pretty them up a bit.
Resubmit and turn a huge profit on the ones that make it.
These guys aren't going to share their methods. They're going to keep it a small operation to create more demand than supply and to avoid tipping their hand. Going all-out would raise too many flags. There just isn't a large population of naturally colorfully toned Peace dollars. The problem with Morgans is that there are a reasonably large number of well-documented legitimate beauties that came out of those mint bags.
The second type, those who experiment with coins to understand what the doctors are up to aren't likely to refine their technique to the nth degree - there's no reason to. They're ethically restrained to keep anything they make like this under wraps. They're certainly not going to inform the world about how to replicate them. Most of them will be happy to gain knowledge of the "look" and process enough to avoid similar coins in the market.
The OP's coin just looks "off" to me. To someone who only knows Morgans it probably looks good. To those who have seen a ton of Peace dollars, they just didn't pop out of bags like this. Most of these sorts of colorful toners have appeared in the last few years. A few will tone nicely from secondary processes (album toning, etc), but with few exceptions, the rainbow thing isn't natural for this series.
Here's a quote from David Hall:
" Note that I am of the very strong opinion that any 1921 Peace dollar...indeed any Peace dollar...that has any rainbow colors (blue, red, green, etc.) is absolutely artificially toned. While not very scientific, my approach to toning on coins is to remember the colors I saw in the 1960s and 1970s and if a new look appears, it's artificial to me. This is kind of an "old school" approach and I may be wrong, but unless you believe global warming has created new colors for coins, it just seems illogical to me that new colors would suddenly appear naturally on coins."
This looks to me like its following the well-researched and widely-accepted Sunnywood Progression for Natural Toning. The oldest toning (oldest cycle) is at the rim where you would expect it, the youngest or newest toning at the center. This looks pretty well-behaved. I am guessing this is album toning that worked in from the rim. Perhaps this toning tends to appear more on the obverses (as someone pointed out earlier) due to better air flow where the coin is facing out. The backside where it's pushed into the album had little air flow (and therefore little oxidation effects). Just my 2 cents! Overpriced at $2k IMHO. I would have thought more in the 2x range of around $800 is a better price point. (We all know how auctions get tho). Two people clearly really wanted it -- and if you have the means, why not. Certainly these toned Peace Dollars are much more rare than the Morgans. I am guessing the nice solid Sunnywood progression is probably why PCGS graded the beast.
" Note that I am of the very strong opinion that any 1921 Peace dollar...indeed any Peace dollar...that has any rainbow colors (blue, red, green, etc.) is absolutely artificially toned. While not very scientific, my approach to toning on coins is to remember the colors I saw in the 1960s and 1970s and if a new look appears, it's artificial to me. This is kind of an "old school" approach and I may be wrong, but unless you believe global warming has created new colors for coins, it just seems illogical to me that new colors would suddenly appear naturally on coins."
If that is a true quote from DH ... Doesn't he run PCGS? It would be interesting to hear from him. I can only think of two possible responses: 1. "Sorry I made a mistake with that statement. Absolutes are never a good idea and I think differently now." or 2. "Sorry, I think PCGS got this wrong. Please return this so it can be properly slabbed Gen QC."
You can't argue for people to back up their claims. This is not something that can easily be proven, as it is almost completely subjective. It is only a little easier to prove that a coin is AT than to prove a coin is NT. Much of it relies simply on seeing hundreds or thousands of other AT and NT examples through the course of your life and being able to visually tell the difference.
What makes you think more aren't being made? What does it being easy to make have to do with anything? It could be easy to make or difficult to make, it doesn't matter.
"You can't argue for people to back up their claims."
That is quite the statement! Just because something can't be easily proven, does not mean people should not try. We need to advance the conversation and not just make blanket statements. While it is hard to prove what is AT/NT, one can provide arguments to back their side (and some posters thankfully do back their respective side). One can point out a progression of colors, similarities to other pieces (with pictures), unusual marks/spots, etc..
And if these Peace Dollars were easy to make, that would be a way to prove AT. If some of the posters that say they can make one actually produce an example (it doesn't have to be graded), that would go a long way to prove AT. At the moment, I have not seen someone back up their claim of making one.
I'm not arguing against people backing up their claims. It is unreasonable, however, to rest one's verdict on whether a coin is AT or not on someone's ability to prove that it is AT or not. Because it is not something easily proven, if someone cannot prove that it is AT, does not make it any less likely to be AT. If someone cannot prove that it is NT, the same argument applies. If someone can prove it either way (though not really possible, as I said earlier - please explain to me how you could prove that a coin is naturally toned, without watching the toning actually take place), then that would certainly be helpful, but if they cannot, do not discard their statements for that reason.
"And if these Peace Dollars were easy to make, that would be a way to prove AT." I don't see the logic in that statement at all. If it is easy for someone to make a convincing AT coin, that doesn't mean it is it any easier to detect if a convincing AT coin is AT. If it is difficult to make an AT coin, that doesn't make it any less likely that a coin is AT either. Someone's ability to recreate the AT has no effect on anything. If they can recreate it, it doesn't mean this coin is AT, and if they can't it doesn't mean it's NT, and vice versa. The difficulty of making an AT coin and the ability of people deeming it AT to recreate it are completely irrelevant.
I understand your point but a couple of the statements above are incorrect. If it is impossible to AT coins then by definition, any toned coin is NT. While not dispositive, the ease of recreating such toning absolutely affects the probabilities that any given coin is natural.
Thank you to those who have expanded the conversation (on either side of AT/NT). When details are added, we all learn more and that is more important than definitively knowing if this particular piece is AT or NT.
@U1chicago said:
If this type of toning was easy to recreate, don't you think the market would be flooded with it?
Yes, and the market is flooded with it. I wouldn't hesitate to say that 95% of toned holdered silver eagles are AT.
Don't you think prices would be way lower than what such toners end up at?
No.
ASEs aren't Peace Dollars. Where is the flood of Peace Dollars?
And if the market is flooded with AT, why does the market not come down?
Are both new and experienced collectors shifting their perspectives and accepting nicer AT as ok in the current market?
Finally, what role are TPGs playing in this? If 95% of ASEs are AT, why are they being slabbed by the professional services? Wouldn't the ASE issue be greatly reduced if the majority of the 95% came back as Quest Color instead of straight graded?
I wouldn't say that the market is flooded with them, but I have seen a number of Peace Dollars that look ATed to me in straight graded slabs. Most of them look like the PCGS QC blue piece posted earlier in this thread, perhaps with different colors. Second, the coins still fetch strong premiums, but the premiums are nowhere near what the coins were selling for 4-5 years ago. I don't think that is related to the rise of AT coins though. Finally, as someone that once participated in the toned coin market, I do think that there are a number of collectors that will buy anything as long as it is pretty and has been blessed by PCGS or NGC.
You can't argue for people to back up their claims. This is not something that can easily be proven, as it is almost completely subjective. It is only a little easier to prove that a coin is AT than to prove a coin is NT. Much of it relies simply on seeing hundreds or thousands of other AT and NT examples through the course of your life and being able to visually tell the difference.
What makes you think more aren't being made? What does it being easy to make have to do with anything? It could be easy to make or difficult to make, it doesn't matter.
"You can't argue for people to back up their claims."
That is quite the statement! Just because something can't be easily proven, does not mean people should not try. We need to advance the conversation and not just make blanket statements. While it is hard to prove what is AT/NT, one can provide arguments to back their side (and some posters thankfully do back their respective side). One can point out a progression of colors, similarities to other pieces (with pictures), unusual marks/spots, etc..
And if these Peace Dollars were easy to make, that would be a way to prove AT. If some of the posters that say they can make one actually produce an example (it doesn't have to be graded), that would go a long way to prove AT. At the moment, I have not seen someone back up their claim of making one.
I'm not arguing against people backing up their claims. It is unreasonable, however, to rest one's verdict on whether a coin is AT or not on someone's ability to prove that it is AT or not. Because it is not something easily proven, if someone cannot prove that it is AT, does not make it any less likely to be AT. If someone cannot prove that it is NT, the same argument applies. If someone can prove it either way (though not really possible, as I said earlier - please explain to me how you could prove that a coin is naturally toned, without watching the toning actually take place), then that would certainly be helpful, but if they cannot, do not discard their statements for that reason.
"And if these Peace Dollars were easy to make, that would be a way to prove AT." I don't see the logic in that statement at all. If it is easy for someone to make a convincing AT coin, that doesn't mean it is it any easier to detect if a convincing AT coin is AT. If it is difficult to make an AT coin, that doesn't make it any less likely that a coin is AT either. Someone's ability to recreate the AT has no effect on anything. If they can recreate it, it doesn't mean this coin is AT, and if they can't it doesn't mean it's NT, and vice versa. The difficulty of making an AT coin and the ability of people deeming it AT to recreate it are completely irrelevant.
I understand your point but a couple of the statements above are incorrect. If it is impossible to AT coins than by definition, any toned coin is NT. While not dispositive, the ease of recreating such toning absolutely affects the probabilities that any given coin is natural.
That's why when evaluating and pricing toned coins, I think that the AT versus NT distinction breaks down. Instead, I think it is more useful to look at the pieces along a continuum of market acceptability. The more suspect the piece is and the easier it would be to produce in a lab, the lower on the scale and the lower the price. The more convincing the piece and closer to well-known bag patterns, the higher along the scale and the higher the price.
@specialist said:
sadly, GC is kind of an enabler for the people making the bad color coins. if they were smart, they would request to send every one to CAC before any sale. failing to do so, shows you what is more important to them.
I don't think it is fair to blame Great Collections. It receives thousands of certified pieces a month and merely lists them, relying on the grading service opinion. I think the disturbing part is that the coins are getting past professional coin graders at the grading services.
You can't argue for people to back up their claims. This is not something that can easily be proven, as it is almost completely subjective. It is only a little easier to prove that a coin is AT than to prove a coin is NT. Much of it relies simply on seeing hundreds or thousands of other AT and NT examples through the course of your life and being able to visually tell the difference.
What makes you think more aren't being made? What does it being easy to make have to do with anything? It could be easy to make or difficult to make, it doesn't matter.
"You can't argue for people to back up their claims."
That is quite the statement! Just because something can't be easily proven, does not mean people should not try. We need to advance the conversation and not just make blanket statements. While it is hard to prove what is AT/NT, one can provide arguments to back their side (and some posters thankfully do back their respective side). One can point out a progression of colors, similarities to other pieces (with pictures), unusual marks/spots, etc..
And if these Peace Dollars were easy to make, that would be a way to prove AT. If some of the posters that say they can make one actually produce an example (it doesn't have to be graded), that would go a long way to prove AT. At the moment, I have not seen someone back up their claim of making one.
I'm not arguing against people backing up their claims. It is unreasonable, however, to rest one's verdict on whether a coin is AT or not on someone's ability to prove that it is AT or not. Because it is not something easily proven, if someone cannot prove that it is AT, does not make it any less likely to be AT. If someone cannot prove that it is NT, the same argument applies. If someone can prove it either way (though not really possible, as I said earlier - please explain to me how you could prove that a coin is naturally toned, without watching the toning actually take place), then that would certainly be helpful, but if they cannot, do not discard their statements for that reason.
"And if these Peace Dollars were easy to make, that would be a way to prove AT." I don't see the logic in that statement at all. If it is easy for someone to make a convincing AT coin, that doesn't mean it is it any easier to detect if a convincing AT coin is AT. If it is difficult to make an AT coin, that doesn't make it any less likely that a coin is AT either. Someone's ability to recreate the AT has no effect on anything. If they can recreate it, it doesn't mean this coin is AT, and if they can't it doesn't mean it's NT, and vice versa. The difficulty of making an AT coin and the ability of people deeming it AT to recreate it are completely irrelevant.
I understand your point but a couple of the statements above are incorrect. If it is impossible to AT coins than by definition, any toned coin is NT. While not dispositive, the ease of recreating such toning absolutely affects the probabilities that any given coin is natural.
All of you are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that people shouldn't provide evidence. I'm saying that expecting people to provide evidence is unreasonable.
You can't argue for people to back up their claims. This is not something that can easily be proven, as it is almost completely subjective. It is only a little easier to prove that a coin is AT than to prove a coin is NT. Much of it relies simply on seeing hundreds or thousands of other AT and NT examples through the course of your life and being able to visually tell the difference.
What makes you think more aren't being made? What does it being easy to make have to do with anything? It could be easy to make or difficult to make, it doesn't matter.
"You can't argue for people to back up their claims."
That is quite the statement! Just because something can't be easily proven, does not mean people should not try. We need to advance the conversation and not just make blanket statements. While it is hard to prove what is AT/NT, one can provide arguments to back their side (and some posters thankfully do back their respective side). One can point out a progression of colors, similarities to other pieces (with pictures), unusual marks/spots, etc..
And if these Peace Dollars were easy to make, that would be a way to prove AT. If some of the posters that say they can make one actually produce an example (it doesn't have to be graded), that would go a long way to prove AT. At the moment, I have not seen someone back up their claim of making one.
I'm not arguing against people backing up their claims. It is unreasonable, however, to rest one's verdict on whether a coin is AT or not on someone's ability to prove that it is AT or not. Because it is not something easily proven, if someone cannot prove that it is AT, does not make it any less likely to be AT. If someone cannot prove that it is NT, the same argument applies. If someone can prove it either way (though not really possible, as I said earlier - please explain to me how you could prove that a coin is naturally toned, without watching the toning actually take place), then that would certainly be helpful, but if they cannot, do not discard their statements for that reason.
"And if these Peace Dollars were easy to make, that would be a way to prove AT." I don't see the logic in that statement at all. If it is easy for someone to make a convincing AT coin, that doesn't mean it is it any easier to detect if a convincing AT coin is AT. If it is difficult to make an AT coin, that doesn't make it any less likely that a coin is AT either. Someone's ability to recreate the AT has no effect on anything. If they can recreate it, it doesn't mean this coin is AT, and if they can't it doesn't mean it's NT, and vice versa. The difficulty of making an AT coin and the ability of people deeming it AT to recreate it are completely irrelevant.
I understand your point but a couple of the statements above are incorrect. If it is impossible to AT coins than by definition, any toned coin is NT. While not dispositive, the ease of recreating such toning absolutely affects the probabilities that any given coin is natural.
All of you are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that people shouldn't provide evidence. I'm saying that expecting people to provide evidence is unreasonable.
I expect the best of people and I guess I really shouldn't. If someone wants to make unfounded claims, they can do so (in either direction). However, those same posters should not expect their opinions to stand up or go unquestioned. Yes they can say something is easy to recreate, or post "AT" with nothing added, or even write "NT" with no more to say. Without some sort of additional information, it will be unreasonable to take that opinion seriously.
As WingedLiberty1957 pointed out, the toning pattern is consistent with the "Sunnywood" color classification, and also consistent with album toning. I've literally taken thousands of silver coins out of albums which have been stored for decades and the toning pattern is consistent with many of those coins. Unlike the toned AE pictured in this thread, which has 2 separate bands of maroon/magenta and IMO is AT, the pattern of color looks NT to me. Would I bet my life on it? I can't be ABSOLUTELY positive, but I certainly was willing to put my money where my mouth was. Simply put, after 35 years of buying and selling coins, and viewing millions of coins, I thought it was "real', as did the graders at PCGS. This thread seems unfair to whoever actually bought the coin...after this thread (which started innocently enough) there will be cloud following the coin.
You can't argue for people to back up their claims. This is not something that can easily be proven, as it is almost completely subjective. It is only a little easier to prove that a coin is AT than to prove a coin is NT. Much of it relies simply on seeing hundreds or thousands of other AT and NT examples through the course of your life and being able to visually tell the difference.
What makes you think more aren't being made? What does it being easy to make have to do with anything? It could be easy to make or difficult to make, it doesn't matter.
"You can't argue for people to back up their claims."
That is quite the statement! Just because something can't be easily proven, does not mean people should not try. We need to advance the conversation and not just make blanket statements. While it is hard to prove what is AT/NT, one can provide arguments to back their side (and some posters thankfully do back their respective side). One can point out a progression of colors, similarities to other pieces (with pictures), unusual marks/spots, etc..
And if these Peace Dollars were easy to make, that would be a way to prove AT. If some of the posters that say they can make one actually produce an example (it doesn't have to be graded), that would go a long way to prove AT. At the moment, I have not seen someone back up their claim of making one.
I'm not arguing against people backing up their claims. It is unreasonable, however, to rest one's verdict on whether a coin is AT or not on someone's ability to prove that it is AT or not. Because it is not something easily proven, if someone cannot prove that it is AT, does not make it any less likely to be AT. If someone cannot prove that it is NT, the same argument applies. If someone can prove it either way (though not really possible, as I said earlier - please explain to me how you could prove that a coin is naturally toned, without watching the toning actually take place), then that would certainly be helpful, but if they cannot, do not discard their statements for that reason.
"And if these Peace Dollars were easy to make, that would be a way to prove AT." I don't see the logic in that statement at all. If it is easy for someone to make a convincing AT coin, that doesn't mean it is it any easier to detect if a convincing AT coin is AT. If it is difficult to make an AT coin, that doesn't make it any less likely that a coin is AT either. Someone's ability to recreate the AT has no effect on anything. If they can recreate it, it doesn't mean this coin is AT, and if they can't it doesn't mean it's NT, and vice versa. The difficulty of making an AT coin and the ability of people deeming it AT to recreate it are completely irrelevant.
I understand your point but a couple of the statements above are incorrect. If it is impossible to AT coins than by definition, any toned coin is NT. While not dispositive, the ease of recreating such toning absolutely affects the probabilities that any given coin is natural.
All of you are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that people shouldn't provide evidence. I'm saying that expecting people to provide evidence is unreasonable.
You can't argue for people to back up their claims. This is not something that can easily be proven, as it is almost completely subjective. It is only a little easier to prove that a coin is AT than to prove a coin is NT. Much of it relies simply on seeing hundreds or thousands of other AT and NT examples through the course of your life and being able to visually tell the difference.
What makes you think more aren't being made? What does it being easy to make have to do with anything? It could be easy to make or difficult to make, it doesn't matter.
"You can't argue for people to back up their claims."
That is quite the statement! Just because something can't be easily proven, does not mean people should not try. We need to advance the conversation and not just make blanket statements. While it is hard to prove what is AT/NT, one can provide arguments to back their side (and some posters thankfully do back their respective side). One can point out a progression of colors, similarities to other pieces (with pictures), unusual marks/spots, etc..
And if these Peace Dollars were easy to make, that would be a way to prove AT. If some of the posters that say they can make one actually produce an example (it doesn't have to be graded), that would go a long way to prove AT. At the moment, I have not seen someone back up their claim of making one.
I'm not arguing against people backing up their claims. It is unreasonable, however, to rest one's verdict on whether a coin is AT or not on someone's ability to prove that it is AT or not. Because it is not something easily proven, if someone cannot prove that it is AT, does not make it any less likely to be AT. If someone cannot prove that it is NT, the same argument applies. If someone can prove it either way (though not really possible, as I said earlier - please explain to me how you could prove that a coin is naturally toned, without watching the toning actually take place), then that would certainly be helpful, but if they cannot, do not discard their statements for that reason.
"And if these Peace Dollars were easy to make, that would be a way to prove AT." I don't see the logic in that statement at all. If it is easy for someone to make a convincing AT coin, that doesn't mean it is it any easier to detect if a convincing AT coin is AT. If it is difficult to make an AT coin, that doesn't make it any less likely that a coin is AT either. Someone's ability to recreate the AT has no effect on anything. If they can recreate it, it doesn't mean this coin is AT, and if they can't it doesn't mean it's NT, and vice versa. The difficulty of making an AT coin and the ability of people deeming it AT to recreate it are completely irrelevant.
I understand your point but a couple of the statements above are incorrect. If it is impossible to AT coins than by definition, any toned coin is NT. While not dispositive, the ease of recreating such toning absolutely affects the probabilities that any given coin is natural.
All of you are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that people shouldn't provide evidence. I'm saying that expecting people to provide evidence is unreasonable.
I have seen a funky coin or three
I like this one tremendously. It's the reverse which convinces me it's kosher
If I see another like it next year I'll take that back.
I've had a few discussions with JA lately about AT, and he's recently in possession of information increasing his skepticism about some toning patterns.
I don't agree on some of his specific evaluations.
Which means that sometimes I do.
My exquisitely refined tastes are irrelevant.
It's not my money
Hopefully not misarticulating CAC's core statement; "We buy and sell coins we like"
A lot of dealers are not happy buying their coins back.
CAC would surely buy this (if offered) for full CDN (barely $400). JA is a businessman. LOL, next stop likely GC
The sentence above is my speculation, not expressed CAC policy
But you can be sure he would protect his brand if he didn't want it back, Which is to say, even if he knows that he won't ever get it at $400 or $800 etc., he feels he has a moral obligation to dis-enable premiums, albeit passively, and let people deduce what they will.
"I paid a premium because you said the toning was OK; Now people tell two more have shown up. Impossible to simulate just went out the window. You helped me lose half my money because you did not know".
Not a conversation anyone wants.
Bear in mind I am doing some informed speculation above.
Maybe we'll see it in the Heritage FUN auction bringing $3500 no bean, $8250 with
Another of a different date in the same general pattern might bring more next month.
Helluva biz, huh?
I'll be looking for more of @joebb21's observations. He could easily be on to something
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
I'd guess that one could search for many years and not find a nice high grade Peace Dollar with great colors like this one. Someone bought it (and paid bigly) because it's a conditional rarity.
If you do what you always did, you get what you always got.
@keets said: Can't believe that you think that these two coins are in any way comparable. The silver eagle color progression is way off. The Peace Dollar color progression is correct
Brilliant White.
Yellow/Gold.
Red/Purple.
Blue.
back to Yellow/Gold.
back to Red/Purple.
back to Blue.
that is what I see on BOTH coins working from the center outward to the rim. true, the width of the bands may be different but the color progression is the same. one coin is .900 fine and the other is .999 fine which could possibly be the reason. the tone pattern is the same so my conclusion is that both coins are AT --- or --- both coins are NT.
bolivarshagnasty seems to be indicating that the ASE is AT.
I noticed this color configuration happening way too often on Ebay and GC about 18 months ago. While I don't have a clue about the process, I can and do recognize patterns and colors being the same and keep a file with a lot of that stuff for future reference.
Six months ago I reported and individual to PCGS that was producing the same colors over and over again, regardless of the date or denomination. All cheap Proof coins. They apparently pulled the plug on this individual, as he has had no Ebay toners for sale since then. I continue to monitor his sales and he has had nothing. I have seen these examples in a number of Toned Showcase sets here on this site.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion but we are the only company that actually backs ours up with a lifetime guarantee. If the owner of any PCGS graded coin questions it's authenticity or grade they can simply send it in for a second look. If we agree that we made a mistake we will cut a check. To imply that GC did anything but a stellar job of auctioning this coin is total BS. Posters who violate forum rules will be banned.
They say that people can look at the same thing and interpret different colors. Maybe that is what is going on with this Peace Dollar and the EA. But the patterns are different.
I've also seen the recent emergence of concentric toned coins with tight and crisp progression of toning on them. These coins also have an errant progression of colors, like the EA coin here. The Peace Dollar does not exhibit this pattern.
I am with cnncoins and a few others who say that the progression of colors on the Peace Dollar is correct. I've studied and collected toned coins for over 30 years. Nothing about the picture of this coin gives me alarm. On the other hand, I can count on one hand how many Peace Dollars I have seen with this type of toning, and I have not seen this coin in hand, so I can't draw any conclusions. But I can conclude that it is not comparable to the EA coin.
Some refer to overgraded slabs as Coffins. I like to think of them as Happy Coins.
All his coins at the time had the same color progression- with a crescent (to imitate a coin sitting on it for a long period) and yellow,baby blue,yellow toning literally painted on.
Color procession on this peace dollar follows the same style. yellow->baby blue->yellow->dark pink/purple->dark blue-> green.
I have now seen dozens of coins that all have this look-and this coin jumped out at me as being another one.
If this "artist" is so well known and blatantly mass producing AT coins why are the major services putting their reputations and profitability on the line by straight grading them?
All his coins at the time had the same color progression- with a crescent (to imitate a coin sitting on it for a long period) and yellow,baby blue,yellow toning literally painted on.
Color procession on this peace dollar follows the same style. yellow->baby blue->yellow->dark pink/purple->dark blue-> green.
I have now seen dozens of coins that all have this look-and this coin jumped out at me as being another one.
If this "artist" is so well known and blatantly mass producing AT coins why are the major services putting their reputations and profitability on the line by straight grading them?
Have you considered the possibility that maybe the services didn't know until they began to see a pattern of the pieces coming in?
Comments
Clearly recognizable as AT in my opinion. Wrong color, weird shape, colors don't blend into each other like they should. Reminiscent of one of the thousands of holdered AT silver eagles out there.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
I never get the tone guys who say if you can't tell me exactly how it was made it must be real while coming up with a completely fabricated assumption on it's origin and presenting it as fact. It was in a bag down in Florida under the blue moon. Regardless that they just saw it on GC too, why let that put a damper on one's imagination
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
It's AT to me.
The predominant gold toning is an exact match on the reverse to the obverse. This coin it a natural and I would be happy to own it.
I haven't looked to compare the coins, but if this is the case, I wonder if the all of the coins were consigned by the same individual or a small group of individuals.
Yes they have. They are all coming from the same consignor. His work is actually quite good and has now fooled some of the best "experts". It was originally believed that he could not replicate certain red shades but now it is known anything can be done
Can't believe that you think that these two coins are in any way comparable. The silver eagle color progression is way off. The Peace Dollar color progression is correct.
I will never understand the insane premiums on these.
Personally I respect the opinions of those that say something is AT and have some kind of reasoning. What I don't appreciate is when I see people say something like "100% AT, period" with no further explanation or say "I can make that same pattern" with no proof.
I'm not saying this example is real, but I don't get the people who guarantee this is fake or guarantee that it can be easily reproduced. If this type of toning was easy to recreate, don't you think the market would be flooded with it? Don't you think prices would be way lower than what such toners end up at?
Education is the key. Coin doctors/AT= dollars
Not a fan of Peace dollars but this one could change that.
Successful Trades: Swampboy,
Yes, and the market is flooded with it. I wouldn't hesitate to say that 95% of toned holdered silver eagles are AT.
No.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
ASEs aren't Peace Dollars. Where is the flood of Peace Dollars?
And if the market is flooded with AT, why does the market not come down?
Are both new and experienced collectors shifting their perspectives and accepting nicer AT as ok in the current market?
Finally, what role are TPGs playing in this? If 95% of ASEs are AT, why are they being slabbed by the professional services? Wouldn't the ASE issue be greatly reduced if the majority of the 95% came back as Quest Color instead of straight graded?
AT peace dollars are harder to get past TPGs than AT silver eagles. You see them less often, but they are still there (and there is still a "flood" of them, depending on how you define a "flood"). Collectors are both acceptant of AT as ok and unable to tell the difference between AT and NT. Mostly newer collectors probably.
Your line of argument is also faulty. You're making an assumption that in order for examples like this coin to be AT, there should be a flood of AT coins. Bit of a non sequitor.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Here is a coin I purchased from GC when this "artist" first began to do his work. (just about 1
year ago) http://www.greatcollections.com/Coin/389082/1887-Morgan-Silver-Dollar-PCGS-MS-64-Toned
All his coins at the time had the same color progression- with a crescent (to imitate a coin sitting on it for a long period) and yellow,baby blue,yellow toning literally painted on.
Color procession on this peace dollar follows the same style. yellow->baby blue->yellow->dark pink/purple->dark blue-> green.
I have now seen dozens of coins that all have this look-and this coin jumped out at me as being another one.
TPGs care more about what is market acceptable. If AT silver eagles are market acceptable, which they are right now, then they will get past TPGs. Older coins with AT are more often not market acceptable, but sometimes they will still get past TPGs (see example from this thread, which is presumably market acceptable since it realized such a high price). More and more older coins are allowed by TPGs as AT techniques improve and people stop caring whether coins are AT or NT, but rather if they look pretty. There are already tons of sellers on eBay and Instagram who make AT silver eagles, get them graded, and sell them or massive premiums.
As to the "Questionable Color" label, there is a reason why it is called "Questionable Color" and not "Artificial Color." Even if you can clearly tell that a coin is AT, it is difficult to scientifically prove that it is without actually seeing the coin in the process of being artificially toned. The "Questionable" label lends an ambiguity that prevents TPGs from having to uphold their guarantees if an NT coin is graded as such or if an AT coin is straight-graded, and allows them to give any AT coins straight grades if they would prefer.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
A flood to me means a large enough number of examples that it overwhelms the real market. Yes there are many AT Peace Dollars currently listed, but many of these are easily identifiable and don't draw monster premiums. We aren't seeing a bunch in straight graded holders. And some of the ones that are in holders are borderline examples.
Your argument is also faulty. Your basis for the Peace Dollar being AT is that the market is flooded with AT ASEs.
And my argument is not that there needs to be a flood of AT for this Peace Dollar to be AT. In fact, I said that I respect anyone that says this is AT and gives a reason. My argument is targeted at those that don't back up their claims and those that say these are easy to make. Yes it might be AT, but is it easy to make? If it is easy to make, then I wonder why more of these aren't being made?
No, my argument for this being AT is that it looks AT. I said that in my first response.
There is no need for there to be a big enough flood of AT coins at this precise moment in time that it overwhelms the market, for any of this to be taking place. At some point this might happen, but it's not like either there's a flood of AT coins or there aren't any AT coins.
There are plenty of AT coins, modern or not, commanding large premiums. Yes, some are easily identifiable and command less of a premium. Some are not easily identifiable and command more of a premium. Even more are easily identifiable but look pretty and command more of a premium. I don't see the issue here.
You can't argue for people to back up their claims. This is not something that can easily be proven, as it is almost completely subjective. It is only a little easier to prove that a coin is AT than to prove a coin is NT. Much of it relies simply on seeing hundreds or thousands of other AT and NT examples through the course of your life and being able to visually tell the difference.
What makes you think more aren't being made? What does it being easy to make have to do with anything? It could be easy to make or difficult to make, it doesn't matter.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Can't believe that you think that these two coins are in any way comparable. The silver eagle color progression is way off. The Peace Dollar color progression is correct
Brilliant White.
Yellow/Gold.
Red/Purple.
Blue.
back to Yellow/Gold.
back to Red/Purple.
back to Blue.
that is what I see on BOTH coins working from the center outward to the rim. true, the width of the bands may be different but the color progression is the same. one coin is .900 fine and the other is .999 fine which could possibly be the reason. the tone pattern is the same so my conclusion is that both coins are AT --- or --- both coins are NT.
bolivarshagnasty seems to be indicating that the ASE is AT.
"You can't argue for people to back up their claims."
That is quite the statement! Just because something can't be easily proven, does not mean people should not try. We need to advance the conversation and not just make blanket statements. While it is hard to prove what is AT/NT, one can provide arguments to back their side (and some posters thankfully do back their respective side). One can point out a progression of colors, similarities to other pieces (with pictures), unusual marks/spots, etc..
And if these Peace Dollars were easy to make, that would be a way to prove AT. If some of the posters that say they can make one actually produce an example (it doesn't have to be graded), that would go a long way to prove AT. At the moment, I have not seen someone back up their claim of making one.
I don't believe that NGC is currently slabbing toned ASE's.
I'm not arguing against people backing up their claims. It is unreasonable, however, to rest one's verdict on whether a coin is AT or not on someone's ability to prove that it is AT or not. Because it is not something easily proven, if someone cannot prove that it is AT, does not make it any less likely to be AT. If someone cannot prove that it is NT, the same argument applies. If someone can prove it either way (though not really possible, as I said earlier - please explain to me how you could prove that a coin is naturally toned, without watching the toning actually take place), then that would certainly be helpful, but if they cannot, do not discard their statements for that reason.
"And if these Peace Dollars were easy to make, that would be a way to prove AT." I don't see the logic in that statement at all. If it is easy for someone to make a convincing AT coin, that doesn't mean it is it any easier to detect if a convincing AT coin is AT. If it is difficult to make an AT coin, that doesn't make it any less likely that a coin is AT either. Someone's ability to recreate the AT has no effect on anything. If they can recreate it, it doesn't mean this coin is AT, and if they can't it doesn't mean it's NT, and vice versa. The difficulty of making an AT coin and the ability of people deeming it AT to recreate it are completely irrelevant.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
GC is not at any fault here. They offer a service where they sell pcgs and ngc (and other "reputable" grading services) certified coins and since pcgs has deemed these coins acceptable for market, they sell them as such.
I have seen thousands of coins with problems that should never have been graded on ebay, at GC, at legendauctions, heritage, stacks, goldberg and a slew of others. It is our job as bidders/buyers to decide what the coins are ultimately worth and pcgs and ngc's job to be consistent and only grade coins that appear natural and are without problems. Sadly they have not been and are helping destroy many values in the coin market because of this.
I was just typing out this response when you commented, and I couldn't have said it any better. GC is no more an enabler of these types of coins than any other venue for buying coins.
Great Collections sending every coin consigned to CAC doesn't solve the problem of AT coins either. If a toned coin failed to sticker because JA seen it as a "C level" coin? Would you assume that the toning is artificial?
Arguments are made stronger when someone can back their statement. I'm not defending the coin as NT because people can't back their opinion. What I'm doing is getting people to think and clarify their positions. It is easy to parrot others and just blurt out "AT" every time. That does not make for a good discussion and does not teach anything.
In terms of making a coin, it does have merit. If someone can take an untoned Peace Dollar and recreate these colors, that shows that AT is a possibility and puts more doubt in the straight graded examples. Someone can factually say that taking x materials and doing y will produce this pattern. If it can't be recreated easily, that does not mean the pattern is NT, but it makes one think and consider other possibilities. Maybe there are only a few "skilled doctors" and the secret is guarded carefully or maybe it is NT.
All I'm saying is that posters shouldn't just jump to conclusions with no reasoning and no desire to even think. I'm very open to learning and hearing different viewpoints being argued. What I don't like is people repeating one word answers ("AT") and ignoring the other side and even failing to back their own side.
U1, you're looking for proof and it's just not going to appear on an Internet forum.
There are two sorts of people who might be able to make coins like this. Neither type is likely to reveal their methods or show their work here. The first is the nefarious type. Coin doctoring of all sorts has been going on for as long as there have been coins. Some are terrible and some are very skilled at getting their stuff into TPG plastic. If I wanted to make Peace dollars that would make it into TPG holders I'd do it like this:
These guys aren't going to share their methods. They're going to keep it a small operation to create more demand than supply and to avoid tipping their hand. Going all-out would raise too many flags. There just isn't a large population of naturally colorfully toned Peace dollars. The problem with Morgans is that there are a reasonably large number of well-documented legitimate beauties that came out of those mint bags.
The second type, those who experiment with coins to understand what the doctors are up to aren't likely to refine their technique to the nth degree - there's no reason to. They're ethically restrained to keep anything they make like this under wraps. They're certainly not going to inform the world about how to replicate them. Most of them will be happy to gain knowledge of the "look" and process enough to avoid similar coins in the market.
The OP's coin just looks "off" to me. To someone who only knows Morgans it probably looks good. To those who have seen a ton of Peace dollars, they just didn't pop out of bags like this. Most of these sorts of colorful toners have appeared in the last few years. A few will tone nicely from secondary processes (album toning, etc), but with few exceptions, the rainbow thing isn't natural for this series.
Here's a quote from David Hall:
" Note that I am of the very strong opinion that any 1921 Peace dollar...indeed any Peace dollar...that has any rainbow colors (blue, red, green, etc.) is absolutely artificially toned. While not very scientific, my approach to toning on coins is to remember the colors I saw in the 1960s and 1970s and if a new look appears, it's artificial to me. This is kind of an "old school" approach and I may be wrong, but unless you believe global warming has created new colors for coins, it just seems illogical to me that new colors would suddenly appear naturally on coins."
This looks to me like its following the well-researched and widely-accepted Sunnywood Progression for Natural Toning. The oldest toning (oldest cycle) is at the rim where you would expect it, the youngest or newest toning at the center. This looks pretty well-behaved. I am guessing this is album toning that worked in from the rim. Perhaps this toning tends to appear more on the obverses (as someone pointed out earlier) due to better air flow where the coin is facing out. The backside where it's pushed into the album had little air flow (and therefore little oxidation effects). Just my 2 cents! Overpriced at $2k IMHO. I would have thought more in the 2x range of around $800 is a better price point. (We all know how auctions get tho). Two people clearly really wanted it -- and if you have the means, why not. Certainly these toned Peace Dollars are much more rare than the Morgans. I am guessing the nice solid Sunnywood progression is probably why PCGS graded the beast.
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
Natural toned and cac
If that is a true quote from DH ... Doesn't he run PCGS? It would be interesting to hear from him. I can only think of two possible responses: 1. "Sorry I made a mistake with that statement. Absolutes are never a good idea and I think differently now." or 2. "Sorry, I think PCGS got this wrong. Please return this so it can be properly slabbed Gen QC."
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
I understand your point but a couple of the statements above are incorrect. If it is impossible to AT coins then by definition, any toned coin is NT. While not dispositive, the ease of recreating such toning absolutely affects the probabilities that any given coin is natural.
Thank you to those who have expanded the conversation (on either side of AT/NT). When details are added, we all learn more and that is more important than definitively knowing if this particular piece is AT or NT.
I wouldn't say that the market is flooded with them, but I have seen a number of Peace Dollars that look ATed to me in straight graded slabs. Most of them look like the PCGS QC blue piece posted earlier in this thread, perhaps with different colors. Second, the coins still fetch strong premiums, but the premiums are nowhere near what the coins were selling for 4-5 years ago. I don't think that is related to the rise of AT coins though. Finally, as someone that once participated in the toned coin market, I do think that there are a number of collectors that will buy anything as long as it is pretty and has been blessed by PCGS or NGC.
That's why when evaluating and pricing toned coins, I think that the AT versus NT distinction breaks down. Instead, I think it is more useful to look at the pieces along a continuum of market acceptability. The more suspect the piece is and the easier it would be to produce in a lab, the lower on the scale and the lower the price. The more convincing the piece and closer to well-known bag patterns, the higher along the scale and the higher the price.
I don't think it is fair to blame Great Collections. It receives thousands of certified pieces a month and merely lists them, relying on the grading service opinion. I think the disturbing part is that the coins are getting past professional coin graders at the grading services.
All of you are misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that people shouldn't provide evidence. I'm saying that expecting people to provide evidence is unreasonable.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
I expect the best of people and I guess I really shouldn't. If someone wants to make unfounded claims, they can do so (in either direction). However, those same posters should not expect their opinions to stand up or go unquestioned. Yes they can say something is easy to recreate, or post "AT" with nothing added, or even write "NT" with no more to say. Without some sort of additional information, it will be unreasonable to take that opinion seriously.
As WingedLiberty1957 pointed out, the toning pattern is consistent with the "Sunnywood" color classification, and also consistent with album toning. I've literally taken thousands of silver coins out of albums which have been stored for decades and the toning pattern is consistent with many of those coins. Unlike the toned AE pictured in this thread, which has 2 separate bands of maroon/magenta and IMO is AT, the pattern of color looks NT to me. Would I bet my life on it? I can't be ABSOLUTELY positive, but I certainly was willing to put my money where my mouth was. Simply put, after 35 years of buying and selling coins, and viewing millions of coins, I thought it was "real', as did the graders at PCGS. This thread seems unfair to whoever actually bought the coin...after this thread (which started innocently enough) there will be cloud following the coin.
I certainly agree with the last part.
I have seen a funky coin or three
It's the reverse which convinces me it's kosher
I like this one tremendously.
If I see another like it next year I'll take that back.
I've had a few discussions with JA lately about AT, and he's recently in possession of information increasing his skepticism about some toning patterns.
I don't agree on some of his specific evaluations.
Which means that sometimes I do.
My exquisitely refined tastes are irrelevant.
It's not my money
Hopefully not misarticulating CAC's core statement; "We buy and sell coins we like"
A lot of dealers are not happy buying their coins back.
CAC would surely buy this (if offered) for full CDN (barely $400). JA is a businessman. LOL, next stop likely GC
The sentence above is my speculation, not expressed CAC policy
But you can be sure he would protect his brand if he didn't want it back, Which is to say, even if he knows that he won't ever get it at $400 or $800 etc., he feels he has a moral obligation to dis-enable premiums, albeit passively, and let people deduce what they will.
"I paid a premium because you said the toning was OK; Now people tell two more have shown up. Impossible to simulate just went out the window. You helped me lose half my money because you did not know".
Not a conversation anyone wants.
Bear in mind I am doing some informed speculation above.
Maybe we'll see it in the Heritage FUN auction bringing $3500 no bean, $8250 with
Another of a different date in the same general pattern might bring more next month.
Helluva biz, huh?
I'll be looking for more of @joebb21's observations. He could easily be on to something
I'd guess that one could search for many years and not find a nice high grade Peace Dollar with great colors like this one. Someone bought it (and paid bigly) because it's a conditional rarity.
Not a fan at all!
I wonder if it'll show up in the DLH holdings next week
It would be exceptionally cool if it then had a sticker.
Considering the time-stamp on this post, I believe we have gotten our first Las Vegas show report
I noticed this color configuration happening way too often on Ebay and GC about 18 months ago. While I don't have a clue about the process, I can and do recognize patterns and colors being the same and keep a file with a lot of that stuff for future reference.
Six months ago I reported and individual to PCGS that was producing the same colors over and over again, regardless of the date or denomination. All cheap Proof coins. They apparently pulled the plug on this individual, as he has had no Ebay toners for sale since then. I continue to monitor his sales and he has had nothing. I have seen these examples in a number of Toned Showcase sets here on this site.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion but we are the only company that actually backs ours up with a lifetime guarantee. If the owner of any PCGS graded coin questions it's authenticity or grade they can simply send it in for a second look. If we agree that we made a mistake we will cut a check. To imply that GC did anything but a stellar job of auctioning this coin is total BS. Posters who violate forum rules will be banned.
They say that people can look at the same thing and interpret different colors. Maybe that is what is going on with this Peace Dollar and the EA. But the patterns are different.
I've also seen the recent emergence of concentric toned coins with tight and crisp progression of toning on them. These coins also have an errant progression of colors, like the EA coin here. The Peace Dollar does not exhibit this pattern.
I am with cnncoins and a few others who say that the progression of colors on the Peace Dollar is correct. I've studied and collected toned coins for over 30 years. Nothing about the picture of this coin gives me alarm. On the other hand, I can count on one hand how many Peace Dollars I have seen with this type of toning, and I have not seen this coin in hand, so I can't draw any conclusions. But I can conclude that it is not comparable to the EA coin.
If this "artist" is so well known and blatantly mass producing AT coins why are the major services putting their reputations and profitability on the line by straight grading them?
Have you considered the possibility that maybe the services didn't know until they began to see a pattern of the pieces coming in?
Not at all simply because of the comments of several posters saying this artist was a well known doctor.
After Don Willis has posted his thoughts I am content to have this thread deleted.