Question about toning dealing with fingerprints.

Insider2

https://us.v-cdn.net/6027503/uploads/editor/to/ya09vfk52ez9.jpg

This image was posted in a discussion on CU. I'm interested in comments. This is what I have read:

1. When a coin tones, its surface is affected.
2. Attractive toning is desirable to many collectors.
3. Natural toning occurs in a progression.
4. Some colors and patterns are not considered to be natural.
5. Many different substances, even finger oils, can prevent the surface from toning.

Now, please look at the image. Is it possible that if someone is toning a coin artificially with chemicals and gets the chemical on their finger, it could leave a toned fingerprint on the coin?

What do you think?

Walkerfan

I certainly do think it's possible.

WildIdea

I'll take a stab.

A finger print that alters the surface may dictate how the toning reacts and behaves after the fact.

But that coin looks like someone was touched the coin with wet paint on their fingers.

ctf_error_coins

That is the nicest fingerprint that I have ever seen. All others were ugly.

KollectorKing

topstuf

A CSI coin. Pretty evidence.

LindeDad

4

BuffaloIronTail

I think the oil in the fingerprint inhibited the toning. Makes sense that the fingerprint was there first.

As far as natural toning goes..........I prefer Blondes.

Pete

Jimnight

I would tend to agree with @BuffalolronTail ... it makes prefect sense to me that's the print was there first.

asheland

Is that picture juiced? It's certainly a vivid color. It looks a little on the AT side to me.

Insider2

@BuffaloIronTail said:
I think the oil in the fingerprint inhibited the toning. Makes sense that the fingerprint was there first.

As far as natural toning goes..........I prefer Blondes.

Pete

I'm wondering if it was just the opposite with this coin?

coinkat

Finger prints are the most overused excuse for slamming a coin. Coins were made to be handled and fingerprints happen. It is about expectations and those expectations are over the edge.

Insider2

Oh, I get it. So "eye-appeal" is the most overused excuse for slamming a coin? What's in that cocktail glass?

PS I hope this thread stays focused on the way the colorful print occurred and affected the toning, rather than going off into the weeds about the desirability/unattractiveness of the things!

keets

It is about expectations and those expectations are over the edge

fingerprints are evidence of mishandling that often take years to manifest themselves, that is why coins should be handled by the edge.

KollectorKing

@Insider2 said:
Oh, I get it. So "eye-appeal" is the most overused excuse for slamming a coin? What's in that cocktail glass?

PS I hope this thread stays focused on the way the colorful print occurred and affected the toning, rather than going off into the weeds about the desirability/unattractiveness of the things!

ie quit mumbling & jumbling around

Insider2

@keets said:
It is about expectations and those expectations are over the edge

fingerprints are evidence of mishandling that often take years to manifest themselves, that is why coins should be handled by the edge.

Do you think the print on the OP image prevented the toning (gray ridges) or were caused by a transfer of a chemical (dark ridges)?

keets

neither me nor anyone else can probably say with certainty which represents the contact point, the toned area or the brilliant area, but I think the brilliant area is where oil from the skin prevented toning.

ms70

@Insider2 said:

Now, please look at the image. Is it possible that if someone is toning a coin artificially with chemicals and gets the chemical on their finger, it could leave a toned fingerprint on the coin?

What do you think?

Yes, it's possible but.... it's also possible in some cases the UNTONED areas may be the actual fingerprint where fingerprint oils kept those areas from toning.

Insider2

@ms70 said:

@Insider2 said:

Now, please look at the image. Is it possible that if someone is toning a coin artificially with chemicals and gets the chemical on their finger, it could leave a toned fingerprint on the coin?

What do you think?

Yes, it's possible but.... it's also possible in some cases the UNTONED areas may be the actual fingerprint where fingerprint oils kept those areas from toning.

That was mentioned in my OP.

One reason I'm curious is that the toning on this coin has been questioned. Some think it is AT. NT or AT it is very interesting that it occurs in a typical "ring" pattern around the edge EXCEPT for the area w/print.

coinkat

Keets... Of course for a number of decades collectors knew or should have known handling a coin by the rims was the appropriate and preferred handling method. But not all coins were handled by astute collectors... Some were actually spent and handled by god forbid the general public as intended by the government for commerce. Collectors seem to loose sight of why coins exist in the first place.

I have some uncirculated coins with fingerprints. I am happy to own them. They have character in that even though they are mint state, there is a human element which documents the need for their existence. It's sort of like the record collector that expect an LP to still be factory sealed or a toy collector that demands the unopened wrappings for the toy in a completely unused state. And that is all well good but where does that really fit in in terms of reasonable expectations?

Rexford

I've seen a few of these before, and I think they can and do occur without artificial toning. Here's one of mine:

Insider2

@coinkat said:
Keets... Of course for a number of decades collectors knew or should have known handling a coin by the rims was the appropriate and preferred handling method. But not all coins were handled by astute collectors... Some were actually spent and handled by god forbid the general public as intended by the government for commerce. Collectors seem to loose sight of why coins exist in the first place.

I have some uncirculated coins with fingerprints. I am happy to own them. They have character in that even though they are mint state, there is a human element which documents the need for their existence. It's sort of like the record collector that expect an LP to still be factory sealed or a toy collector that demands the unopened wrappings for the toy in a completely unused state. And that is all well good but where does that really fit in in terms of reasonable expectations?

"Reasonable expectations" is something different for different folks. My reasonable expectation is to never be able to own an 1804 dollar; yet a popular poster here owns one. There is a joke that goes something like this: "I am a man of simple tastes, I only want perfection."

Therefore, most do not feel the same way about handling marks on the coins they collect. However, this may change sometime in the future. Imagine if traces of DNA can be found on coins and matched to the DNA of famous people. Think of the chain that 1804 would provide! Perhaps a dozen famous folks and a few hundred unknowns.

coinkat

Obviously my point is lost among those that either seek or demand perfection. Let's use today's yardstick and measure how things should have been done two hundred years ago. Have fun.

Insider2

@Rexford said:
I've seen a few of these before, and I think they can and do occur without artificial toning. Here's one of mine:

Thanks, on this coin there can be no doubt that the print inhibited the toning from coloring a part of the coin.

ricko

In experiments that I have performed, I have seen tarnish develop on both the contact print and in the non contact area.... they do take on different colors. Much will depend on the person who left the mark, since it is the content of their skin oil that will affect the visual manifestation. For example, a vegetarian may well leave a totally different oil content than a meat eater....and of course, the environment causing the tarnish will also be a direct influence on both surfaces. Cheers, RickO

gtstang

@Insider2 said:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6027503/uploads/editor/to/ya09vfk52ez9.jpg

This image was posted in a discussion on CU. I'm interested in comments. This is what I have read:

1. When a coin tones, its surface is affected.
2. Attractive toning is desirable to many collectors.
3. Natural toning occurs in a progression.
4. Some colors and patterns are not considered to be natural.
5. Many different substances, even finger oils, can prevent the surface from toning.

Now, please look at the image. Is it possible that if someone is toning a coin artificially with chemicals and gets the chemical on their finger, it could leave a toned fingerprint on the coin?

What do you think?

You could experiment with a silver eagle by putting your fingers all over it, then put it on a window sill or let it sit somewhere and see how it reacts in a few months to a year.

p.s. Make sure you are eating a bag of cheetos before fingerprinting the eagle...

robec