Toned SS Central America $20
Proofmorgan
Posts: 818 ✭✭✭✭✭
What do you think that rainbow toned double eagle will sell for? I’m not familiar with the sale of the previous batch. How does PCGS go about selling them?
Collector of Original Early Gold with beginnings in Proof Morgan collecting.
0
Comments
It looks really interesting to me. I would love to see it in hand.
As to value, no clue - but there has to be a significant premium for the color on the coin.
Sunshine Rare Coins
sunshinecoins.com/store/c1/Featured_Products.html
Link/pic for the uninformed?
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
I have no idea as to a ball park estimate. I just know it will be moon money.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
I’m not good with links but it’s the first banner that comes up on PCGS.com
Just go to the home page of the PCGS website.
Andrew Blinkiewicz-Heritage
Am I the only one who thinks that piece is totally fugly??? At least from the pics. Maybe it's better in hand. If it suddenly popped up on the eBay with no history or provenance, I'm thinking it would be savaged.
But, to each their own.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
I don't know about ugly, but if even a silver coin showed up on eBay like that people would be screaming "Artificial Toning". There is kind of a double standard.
Personally, I find it to be interesting, but not really my thing.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
Thanks for the responses.
Interesting piece. I wouldn't call it very attractive, as others have mentioned. Some special circumstances with this coin, likely having a good mix of copper at the surface of the coin for that to happen.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
Does not look like toning. Looks like assorted superficial rust stains.
Legitimate toning/tarnish is part of the chemical surface. Rust stains are just that - superficial stains not part of the surface chemistry of the coin's alloy.
Not my cup of tea
Ugly, uneven toning. If I had the money to buy it I would pass.
Coins from SS Central America may be unattrictively "toned" , but their value will be their provenance on the slab.
For sure they will not be graded .91 Questionable Toning........
OINK
Collectors often say they like coins that can tell a story and boy can this coin tell one. I think it's nice looking from an art perspective because it has an under the sea pattern to it. I can imagine Lady Liberty sinking on the ship and spending a lot of time under the sea.
I also like the Saddle Ridge Hoard 1892-CC half eagle because I can imagine the amount of time it was in the rusted can. I've posted this photo below for comparison.
Many coins from gold hoards have a very similar look. These two coins stand out for their toning. Of course, there's nothing wrong with the more common looking coins and I enjoy those too, but differently.
Wouldn't salt water be considered AT?
Not a fan of the OP coins and I love toning more then most. That toning is distracting IMHO. To each is own
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
LOVE toned gold. And if I was very wealthy, it would be mine. Here are some of the ones in my collection I could actually afford:
I've been fortunate to see lots of salvaged gold and silver. I have never seen anything remotely similar to the $20 posted here. IMO, it is chemically induced artificial toning.
Gold does not react to most things in the environment. Case in point, look at the reddish brown encrustations commonly found on salvaged pieces. It comes right off and unless some ham-fisted, unprofessional idiot scrubs the heck out of it as was done to so many of these coins, the only way you can prove with 100% accuracy that it is salvage is the microscopic pattern in the edge reeding or the "sea water effect" (not to be confused with the corrupted usage of this terminology by the young johnny-come-lately folks who became experts in the 1980's and wanted a cutesy word for CORRODED!) from the movement of sand on its surface. Those colors a atypical on virtually anything.
Now for the disclaimer. I've seen lots of metal objects that have not been fooled with in any way yet if anyone did not know that they would swear their colors were artificial. So, If I were a diver and pulled this coin out of a clump - then and only then would I believe it.
BTW, folks have been coloring precious and non-precious metals for centuries. The formulas are all in books! Many of the less dangerous products are at your local food or drug store!
Love this coin!
As others have said, don't find the OP's coin remotely attractive. Distractive yes, attractive no.
I agree and disagree, but there's no button for that.
The toning is "chemically induced". "Artificial" however is problemmatic. Natural toning is also "chemically induced".
There is an internal logical contradiction in your post. You suggest that gold won't do that "in the environment" and then you point out that there are all kinds of household chemicals that can be used to do just that. The sea is a giant chemical bath with some very noxious chemicals. The specific environment that coin was in due to contact with other metals, sea life excretions, ocean floor vents, etc. could have just happened to be the right mix to create what looks like sulfide formation on the surface.
In general, the community really isn't consistent on "artificial" vs "natural" toning. What's the difference between being in my pocket or in the ocean? Is one natural and one an artificial environment? What about albums? The market tolerates, sometimes loves, album toning. But album toning occurs due to high sulfur levels in the cardboard. Is that natural?
I can speed up the creation of "album toning" by putting the album in the oven. 85 degrees C will do in a couple months what it takes 30 years to do in the wild - Telcordia standard is 2000 hours at 85C is equivalent to 30 years. If I put a coin in an album or coin envelope and bake it, is the toning natural or unnatural? I can do it even faster with hydrogen sulfide gas - which is also a gas in nature, by the way.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
I wouldn't be attracted to it at all.
Coinlearner, Ahrensdad, Nolawyer, RG, coinlieutenant, Yorkshireman, lordmarcovan, Soldi, masscrew, JimTyler, Relaxn, jclovescoins, justindan, doubleeagle07
Now listen boy, I'm tryin' to teach you sumthin' . . . . that ain't no optical illusion, it only looks like an optical illusion.
My mind reader refuses to charge me. . . . . . .
If you buy the story and not the coin, I think it's pretty cool.
That's nothing. Here is real, crusty, slightly thick, shipwreck toning.
From the Auction '82 catalog (sold for $2,700) found here:
https://archive.org/stream/auction82featuri1982stac#page/302/mode/2up
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
I do not find the surface condition of that gold coin attractive. That being said, I am certain that many others will positively swoon over it. It is certainly true that coins coming from the bottom of the sea, after a 100+ year entombment, may have encountered all sorts of chemicals. With gold, there are very few chemicals that will attack the element (i.e. cyanide or aqua regia)...so most of what is apparent on that coin is surface deposition. Of course, I have not held it for in person examination... so I take some liberty in that conclusion. @jmlanzaf .... certainly your correct about aging etc., and in my business we did accelerated life testing on products... so I am very familiar with those processes. As a matter of fact, much of my two year experimentation with tarnish was supplemented with such knowledge. The difference between NT and AT... arrived at years ago here on the forum... after extensive debate.. was reduced to 'intent'. If the tarnish produced was done intentionally, it was AT. Right or wrong, that was the conclusion. I will also stand by the fact that, done right, no one, no matter how much they rant and rave, can tell the difference between AT and NT.... remember, I said, DONE RIGHT!!
Cheers, RickO
I will also stand by the fact that, done right, no one, no matter how much they rant and rave, can tell the difference between AT and NT.... remember, I said, DONE RIGHT!!
Yes, this!
And the corollary - sometimes nature does bizarre unexpected things that lead us to believe they are unnatural!
[I have seen end coins taken directly from an old, old, old BU roll and submitted to a TPG just to come back as "questionable color"!]
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
The coin above (Treasure Hunter's Relic) states it is in its "natural state". It looks more like an unnatural state to me. Gold coins in 1854 were meant to be in peoples pockets, saddle bags, whatever else beside wrapped in coral!
LOL! Great post - I agree. BTW, THIS is why @totellthetruth gave you a well deserved "nitname." Here is one for us: I believe It's "P R O B L E M A T I C."
When I was dealer I handled several of the SS Central America 1857-S double eagles. At the time I was buying and selling them, they all more or less had the same toning, really a lack of toning. They were all bright yellow gold.
HOWEVER, I could also see, with a strong glass, that toning was forming on some of those coins, and it was the sort of thing that had nothing to do with the way the owner stored the coin. It was some sort of chemical reaction, perhaps with “curative chemicals” and the copper alloy that were used on some or all of those pieces. I decided to wait for the dust settle on those coins before I would consider adding one to my collection.
A few years later I saw a few pieces at a Florida show that had changed color significantly. According to the dealer they were consignments, and the owner had held the coins for several years. If you don’t like copper stains on gold, you would not have liked those coins, because the stains were significant, although not as striking as the coin that was shown here.
I think that these coins do pose a problem for their owners with respect to resale value. Since there is a new generation of SS Central America coins coming on the market, I would advise waiting for the dust to settle on them.
The way I look at it, if coin that is in an old holder has not changed color in 10 to 15 years, chances are it’s stable. If it’s something less than five years, I’d say that there is still a risk.
I wonder if the treatment of the latest SS Central America has any differences to that used on the first batch recovered. If so, perhaps it can avoid the "turning" that has occurred on some of the 1857-S Twenties. What I recall seeing were some that began to get a spreading orange toning and /or a haze forming.
Has any one seen "turned" SS Central America gold other than the BU 1857-S Twenties or have some other years, conditions, or denominations done the same?
Has it ever been determined why some changed and others didn't?
And is it possible to successfully conserve those again or do they have any underlying permanent damage?
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
PCGS doesn't see them, the owner does
BHNC #203
I got this one here and still like it.
nd pulled this coin out of a clump - then and only then would I believe it.
See, this is one of the reasons I really want to like you. You can be abrasive and a pain in the patootie, but I get you. In some ways, we aren't that different. I'm only a little less arrogant. LOL. I don't spend all my time trying to call people idiots.
Keep up the good work. Maybe I'll call off the feud.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.