Options
How should we define "artificial toning"?
ANACONDA
Posts: 4,692 ✭
How should we define "artificial toning"?
0
Comments
<< <i>How should we define "artificial toning"? >>
BINGO!
K S
Clark
Dragon
First the summary in a way that those with short attention spans can understand. "Uh....huh huh. Coins that are cool are cool because they don't suck. Coins that suck are uhhhh...huh huh....made that way." "YEAH. YEAH. COINS ARE COOL. ESPECIALLY COOL ONES THAT LOOK LIKE THEY'RE ON FIRE! FIRE! FIRE! FIRE! I DON'T LIKE COINS THAT SUCK. COINS THAT SUCK AREN'T COOL."
Now the version for those that drink coffee, can kick back, and have a few minutes.
I am a purist. I want my coins to be gorgeous and naturally toned. It's like a woman. I would prefer that she be gorgeous and have a natural tan obtained genetically, from cutting our lawn or from vacationing in Greece (with me) rather then her laying on a tanning bed or having some tanning goop smoothed on her dewy skin (by some other guy). It's the difference between tanned and stained. And a woman may retort, "yes, yes, like a man's wallet. We prefer it to be thick with cash that he earned, not borrowed from his mother."
So, back to coins......with tans. The ideal coin to me is one that again, is beautiful and that has acquired it's toning naturally. But what does that mean? I'll cover the beauty idea on another day. (But for now, suffice it to say that if you find it beautiful, than it probably is, unless, well, unless some Kennedy collector here on the boards says it isn't....You're welcome, Russ.) There are several components to the acquisition issue.
Firstly, it's the intent of the owner. This is the most complicated issue so, we'll cover it first while the folks with short attention spans who have wandered into the adult section are still with us. The ideal situation is that the coin is placed somewhere at some time early in the coin's life by the owner with the intent of simply safely storing the coin, i.e., without the intent to place it there so that the coin will acquire a particular patina, and the coin, kind of accidentally, acquires incredible monster toning. An example of the best intent is if your great-grandfather had Wayte Raymond holders that he put his complete proof seated half collection in that he and his forefathers acquired directly from the mint and that you inherited some 75 years later. You fly into Oshkosk to the bank where the banker lets you into the large safety deposit box where 5 Wayte Raymond folders peer up at you from the dust covered box. You open the first folder and you are blinded by rainbow flashes. (Uh....please wipe your chin.) Your great-grandfather and his forebearers didn't put the coins into the Wayte Raymond holders to tone them.
The other extreme, the extreme of bad intent, is the unshaven fat mobile home dweller who, after brushing a huge roach aside, takes a pair of hotdog tongs and holds a fresh proof Kennedy (that he stole from a neighborhood kid) over small propane burner that doubles as his crack liberator. That coin was toned by a guy who wasn't storing the coin in the tongs.
A middle area is the guy who intentionally tries to tone coins using methods similar to the ways coins are toned inadvertently. Like the guy who gets some Wayte Raymond holders, puts coins in them and sticks them in the oven on low heat for a few days.
Secondly it's the time it takes the coin to tone. (But that isn't so critical in my eyes as is is essentially covered in "intent".)
Thirdly, it's historical precendence - what the marketplace interprets as natural toning which essentially equates to historically, where have coins been put by minters and collectors without the anticipation by the putter that the coin will acquire a patina from the reaction of silver and whatever is in the environment.
So, in my opinion, natural toning is toning acquired as a result of a coin being put somewhere by the minter or collector that historically has been a place where they have put coins with the intent of simply storing them there. Putting coins in one of those places with the intent to tone it is still artificial toning, albeit of a more acceptable kind. But still artificial.
adrian
anaconda.rare.coins (on eBay)
The question is originality. Everything one reads about coins centers on coins being left alone. To be able to find a coin in it's pristine condition is the goal of all collectors. Now, along comes some grading company or "expert" who says - well, if it "looks" original then it's ok - so we start dipping - but that's not good enough, if dip is good, then the opposite has to be good too - so people start dinking around and trying to make something that's old look older, or eye catching, or worthy of collector interest. The problem lies in fhe fact that you can't tell if it's real or it's Memorex. Anyone can tell the difference between a Rembrandt and a poster of a Rembrandt, or a poster of dogs playing poker, but few can tell the difference between a genuinely toned coin, and a genuinely conserved coin, or a well doctored coin. Add to that the fact that sometimes in this hobby, there are those who are not beyond fooling people for profit and the detriment of the collector and you have a mess in your hands.
How do we define AT? You can't - at least not now, and not definitively. It either looks right or it doesn't. The argument will continue ad-infinitum. As long as there's a buck to be made by someone dinking with a coin, they'll do it, and unfortunately they may do it very well, or they may screw up a fantastic coin. And doubtlessly some poor collector will buy that screwed up coin for lots of money and find that the only think they have to show for it is a hunk of colored metal.
So my message here is - LEARN what looks right - Be aware that toned coins is that veritable den of ill repute that can be delved into with great trepidation. If you're out to hit a home run, know that you're going to strike out a bunch of times, and don't whine about it.
Frank
<< <i>So, in my opinion, natural toning is toning acquired as a result of a coin being put somewhere by the minter or collector that historically has been a place where they have put coins with the intent of simply storing them there. Putting coins in one of those places with the intent to tone it is still artificial toning, albeit of a more acceptable kind. But still artificial >>
To that, I would add the following suggestions/thoughts/questions : 1) include a reference to banks, commerce or whatever, along with "minter" and "collector"; 2) when you speak of "intent to tone", I wonder if it can still be natural, as opposed to artificial toning, if the intent does not include an effort to speed-up/accelerate the process. In other words, why not allow for someone to place a coin in an album for storage, even if the intent is to end up with beautiful toning? But, if the "toning enthusiast" places the album in an oven (and is not mistaking the album for a pizza) or outside on top of his car on a warm summer's day to speed up the otherwise natural process, then the result is deemed artificial.
Granted, as has already been mentioned on numerous occasions, experts probably can't tell the difference in many cases. And, whether a coin is placed in an album with intent to tone the coin or not, the result can be the same. Is it fair to have the definition rest on intent then? And, another question - what type of definition are we searching for? A pure one, that isn't necessarily practical to apply? A realistic one that ideally, would be the basis upon which the grading services made their decisions if they knew all about the coins and the coins' histories? I'm not arguing with you, just asking questions of myself and others.
Lastly, for the chemists and/or doctors in the audience - is there a way to determine if the toning on a coin has been accelerated through storage in an otherwise "natural" environment? In other words, if the coin is in an old album but that album is purposely exposed to an environment which will speed up that beautiful oxidation process, is there a way to know that ?
Adrian,
You must of uh....uh....read my PM......LOL. But after more posts in that last thread, I have begun to wonder if your 125K question was directed at me. Nontheless, that's twice you failed to reply but that's OK unless your not getting my PM's.
Once I bought a 1799 heraldic eagle dollar for $525 but I was dismayed this dealer didn't find me one with original toning. I was also concerned about obtaining one with some detail and no distracting marks. And $5-600 is a chunk of money to me so I couldn't buy a better one with much more money. The dealer had told me that sometime in this coin's life a lot of them get cleaned because they get so black and are considered more ugly then nice so I bought it. I also had it in the back of my mind that it would eventually retone.......under the right conditions of course. So I
stuck it in an coin album some 5-6 years back and here are the results so far. Now I had intentions in retoning this coin but I really can't really take the credit can I?
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
For the time being I'll say anything that I can't prove as being original is AT. Being in a slab that the grading companies "proved" was original makes the coin politically correct or "authentic" or "original" at selling time on eBay but that doesn't mean I have to agree with the originality of the tone.
I'll agree that time is the key element but how do we prove how much time it took to develop tone?
To define a standard you would have to define a standard for each series of coins because none were minted by the same methods or stored in the same manner.
For example rainbow crescents are normal for Morgans but I think a rainbow crescent from a mintbag would not be applicable for a Bust Half or a Seated series since these were released into circulation and not stored in the Treasury for almost 100 years. Also Morgans were dipped in acid, smothered in bear grease and washed in lye and rolled in acidic sawdust and breathed and handled by Mint workers who weighed each coin on a balance scale to make sure it was in specs. Well maybe Barbers were too, I don't know that for a fact. But Barbers & Morgans tone completely different.
A Modern Clad with crescent would be considered AT.
A Modern Silver Proof or Silver Eagle with heavy Wayte Raymond type tone would also be suspicious.
A 1 sided Classic Proof Monster tone would also be suspicious since they were stored in envelopes or albums and should be toned on both sides or have periph tone. OK, so maybe it laid on the same side for 100 years in a coin cabinet or jewelry box. That's original right? But what if it laid in my stinking sock drawer for 5 years? I mean my socks have jungle rot, traces of detergent and fabric softener, that should add some kind of tone. If I put an original coin cabinet in my hot humid basement for a year would the coins then be AT? They might look the same but there's the time element. Hey, I accelerated the toning didn't I?
Of course the obvious blowtorch beauties speak for them selves but I've noticed I can torch a silver dime and it gets the same blues as coins from mint sets that are in slabs though I've never tried to slab one but lots of coins I see just look like blowtorched, even ones in reputable holders.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
<< <i>Any time a coin is subjected to an environment which the owner knows will enhance or produce toning at an accelerated rate and purposefully subjects that coin to said environment would be considered artificial. >>
While I would change "the owner knows" to "the owner thinks or knows," I think that is probably as good as or better than any definition I have seen - nicely done, Bill! Of course, that doesn't mean that a large % of the board members will agree with it, however. I bet dorkkarl, for one, doesn't!
The bottom line is that we can try to define "natural" and "artificial" all we want (and I enjoy these threads), but the reality is, that, practically speaking, "market acceptability" is probably more important/relevant than whether a coin is "artificially or "naturally" toned. We can all strike a sensible balance in considering what the expert graders think, and adding to that, our own endorsements (or rejections) and comfort levels in purchasing the coins we do.
I think your definition is non-operational. You said:
"So, in my opinion, natural toning is toning acquired as a result of a coin being put somewhere by the minter or collector that historically has been a place where they have put coins with the intent of simply storing them there. Putting coins in one of those places with the intent to tone it is still artificial toning, albeit of a more acceptable kind.
Now, lets take several cases:
1) My neighbor puts his coins in a Wayte Raymond holder to store them; I put them in a holder to tone them. Because we are cheap, we share a safety deposit box. After two decades, both sets of coins have toned identically. There is no way to tell them apart, either by their appearance or by asking me, because I'll lie. Your definition doesn't enable any collector to tell which set of coins is AT.
2) I put my coins is a Wayte Raymond holder. 99% of the reason I put them in the holder is to store them; 1% is to tone them. After two decades, are these coins AT or not? Suppose 50% of the reason was to store them and 50% to tone them; now are the coins AT? If 1% of the reason was to store them and 99% to tone them, are they AT? And, once again, by focusing on intent, there is NO way for any collector to determine if the coins are AT because no one else knows the breakdown of the reasons why I stored my coins in the Wayte Raymond holder.
3) Finally, I put my coins in a Wayte Raymond holder to store them. I am ignorant of the fact that these coins will tone. After 1 decade I learn from reading on these boards that my coins will tone in a Wayte Raymond holder and I think that would be cool. I leave them in the holder for another decade. Are these coins AT or not? After all, for one decade, the coin were in the holder to store them and for another decade they were there to tone them. And notice once again that it's impossible for any collector to determine intent and so it's impossible to use your definition to decide if the coins are AT.
That said, intent matters sometimes in the law, right? (I'm definitely not an attorney, but I think intent sometimes matters, as in "hate crime" laws??...) I presume that proving intent is very difficult. How is it done in law?
Thanks for the provacative posts.
Mark
Can you put on your best "Sybil" impression and do it as a cross-examination?
Obviously there's the issue of "intent"...
So is there a "sine-quo non" to AT?
artificial. then would it be harder to remove than one that has less time on the coin and can this be measured?
just thinking out loud. thanks
Fred
(the grumpy pharmacist today)
Fred
<< <i>If we assumed natural to have been there for a longer period than artificial. then would it be harder to remove than one that has less time on the coin and can this be measured >>
First of all, those were not "dumb" questions!
Older toning is not necessarily harder to remove just because it has been there longer. And, there is a big difference between simply removing the toning and how the coin looks afterwards. It depends on such things as how deeply/much the oxidation has affected the surface of the coin and how even (or uneven) the toning is, among other factors.
I have seen a lot of proof coins from the 19th and 20th centuries that have obvious evidence of having been dipped. And, I don't just mean that they are "white". If a proof coin has uneven, deeper/darker areas of toning, sometimes when it is dipped (even by the most knowledgeable of professionals), it might end up displaying remnants of that deeper toning. This is manifested by slightly splotchy, white, stained areas on the coin, where not all of the toning could be removed. One you have seen this, it is easy to spot in the future. You can dip the coin all you want, but those remnants will not disappear.
jom
Why do coins with beautiful toning sell for a large premium? Because they are few and far between. We place a value not on just the beauty of the coin but on the random unintentional set of circumstances that by happenstance have created these beautiful, eye catching pieces. When someone attempts to develop a process to churn out for example Peace Dollars with beautiful rainbow toning it not only increases the supply (depressing the price) but when the coin is suspected of being ATed it loses the mystic of having been produced as a result of unintentional happenstance.
Since according to some the coin doctors have gotten so good at their "art" when it comes to expensive coins like the Roanoke that was discussed the other day the ability to track the history may become just as important as the diagnositics when making a determination. How many of these beauties are laying around as yet undiscovered. Anytime a coin like that surfaces without some type of documented history serious question and examination are in order.
I think both Anaconda and WWBill's definitions are good.
If the coin is toned as a result of the owners need to store it using acceptable storage practices, that's natural. Everything else is AT.
But, unless it's a hack job, I don't think anyone can tell the difference.
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
I believe toning from folders not to be AT since the folder is essentially an accepted collector's tool, but the application of some sort of gas to tone a coin is not an accepted collector's tool.
Maybe that is the difference, toning from accepted items in the hobby (like folders) is OK, but the application of non-accepted substances is considered AT.
The term original toning can refer to toning from mint bags and other mint packaging.
However, there are coins that have been intentionally toned in a manner, which yields the type of monster toning that any tone lover aspires for. The guy that puts his coins into a paper flip and stores them in the attic for many years. If he's lucky the coins obtain beautiful colors which are imbedded deep into the coins' surfaces and have all the look of coins that were accidentally toned in the same manner. In this case I feel that a coin has been enhanced both in appearance and in value. This type of intentional toning takes a great deal of time and luck and more often than not results in coins with decreased eye appeal and value. Whether or not I believe that this practice is acceptable or not I would tend to say, probably not.
So I will take the unpopular view that if done correct and over the course of many years that a coin actually can be intentionally toned in such a way as to have increased eye appeal and value. Will I undertake such a practice myself...? No!
How's that..uh...for a short answer.
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
BTW, some of you may not realize that there are coins that tone at an unusually accelerated rate. Coins with a very high percentage of pure silver such as SAEs which are .999% pure silver tone if you look at them crosseyed. These also tone with colors that you wouldn't normally expect to see. I'm sure most of you have seen a 2001 or even a 2002 SAE with a lot of color(sometimes pretty wild and unusual) that have been holdered by ALL of the grading services. They realize this fact, otherwise they would ALL be returned in body bags.
Thanks Adrian, for starting one of the better threads I've read on these boards in some time.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
It's always seemed preposterous to me for the AT-NT debate to center on intent or profit motive. If those are your standards, then a coin can be set on a stove or dipped in some sulfurous household chemical (or subjected to some other process) by a greedy coin Dr. is AT, but the same coin, put through the EXACT same process by a mere bumbling idiot is not AT. Such a standard is utterly useless to the hobby. Whereas, my standard is only mostly useless.
BC
is it possible that a better approach would be to define "natural toning" rather than "artificial toning"?
PS: ironically, the coins that take on those wild'n'crazy colors while in wayte-raymond boards or dansco albums are then ones that have been dipped or cleaned first. i'm not making this up - have tested this theory myself, & am convinced that it is true.
K S
K S
WHat we really need are a list of objective rules to describe a coin that will define "market acceptability"(what we feel to be NT) that I could apply to most any coin. the rules would have to be different for different coin types given their different storage/conditions.
Kinda like the old rule that NT creeps around the devices and doesn't look painted on.
not an easy task.
Intent surely should not be part, many have agreed... though there are some grey areas there. If you put coins in a Wayte Raymond album, you know they are gonna tone, and that is okay. WR toned coins do well with TPG's and are generally considered NT. So, who cares if grandpa put them there for storage, or you put them there to tone up over a few years? But, what about when intent to tone mixes with 'unnatural methods' such as a flame? Well, then we have to define what is unnatural and what is natural.
Natural:
Storing coins in an environment that is condusive to toning but not utilizing chemicals (such as a nice wooden drawer, or felt lined coin cabinet
Storing coins in something like an album that was made for storing coins
Unnatural:
Applying any foreign substance TO the coin
Applying an heat source to the coin with the intent of producing color
Storing the coin with chemicals
Not an all inclusive list, but you get the idea.
But, there are still issues with even these simple guidelines. There is a story from a large buyer who bought a bag of morgans that were stored in a wooden box that had been used to store dynamite. They were brilliant toners, and were all encapsulated and sold off with a lot of fanfair. Can't remember the seller, but there was an article in a major book or pub about this a few years back. These would be AT, based on the above, but they get excused because the intent and knowledge was not there... that we know of.
So, perhaps all rules break down and the only ones that I can hold to are:
Nothing applied to the coin.
No heat applied directly to the coin.
Toning should take place over a period of months and years, not hours and days.
So, if you put your morgan in a paper envelope or in a wooden cabinet and it tones over 8 months... I'm good.
If you put it in a WR album and it tones in 4 months or 4 years, I'm okay.
If it is stored near your ammunition and they tone up over several years... I'm okay.
Mostly, if it looks good, and it makes me happy to see it, and I know it was not 'applied' by the direct use of flame or chemicals... I'm okay.
I don't even know if I consider nearness to sulfur to be a source of AT anymore... heck, half the great toners out there (or more) came about due to sulfur (in paper, in the storage area, etc).
instead, you should define "natural toning". why try & render a def'n regarding the negative side of something? it makes no sense to compare a population of things against that which you DON'T find desirable. instead, determine what IS DESIRABLE, & proceed from there
i remember this thread, & the context all by itself doesn't quite make sense. it was originally posted by anaconda in response to some other thread where i stated that before declaring something as at, nt, or whatever, you'd have to have def'n's 1st of what your talking about
K S
<< <i>trying to define "artificial toning" is hopelessly hopeless.
instead, you should define "natural toning". why try & render a def'n regarding the negative side of something? it makes no sense to compare a population of things against that which you DON'T find desirable. instead, determine what IS DESIRABLE, & proceed from there
i remember this thread, & the context all by itself doesn't quite make sense. it was originally posted by anaconda in response to some other thread where i stated that before declaring something as at, nt, or whatever, you'd have to have def'n's 1st of what your talking about
K S >>
Perhaps this is a better approach. Don't even try to define AT... just focus on the definition of market acceptible toning, and ignore where it came from.
Cheers,
Bob
<< <i>Perhaps this is a better approach. Don't even try to define AT... just focus on the definition of market acceptible toning, and ignore where it came from. >>
THAT . . . . . . . is the BEST APPROACH OF ALL
K S
Imh limited Scientific knowledge I believe oxidation/toning are not static and the services have been around long enough that I think we are starting to see some of the results of this ever-changing (albeit slow sometimes) natural oxidation process happening to coins. All silver eventualy tones over time to its final color, dark grey/black. Let me repeat, all silver darkens over time.
Because the premium is so high and the colors can now be created undetected this is the real sticking point of today’s so called coin doctors taking advantage of the game and perhaps we have over estimated the importance of toning on price and underestimated the length of time a coins toning will stay nice which I believe will be the next big topic on these boards in time. Heck, look at the problems with copper already, usually copper coins are the fastest to turn, the silver coins are next. You want color longevity and originalty thats hard to duplicate, buy toned gold, unfortunately even gold will darken over time too so its not forever. Will lawsuits appear to those who promote toning as a better investment and charging accordingly ever come to roost? Doesnt take much to sue and win a case today.
Paying huge money for a coin that will eventually change colors could be a big dissapointment one day unless a way can be found to halt the process midway when a coin is at its nicest toned state, Vacuumed sealed holder? Possible? And would this even stop the process of toning once started? But then again, would that be natural?
Interesting topic-
Regards to all
Brian Kuszmar
Second Generation Coin, Currency and Precious Metals Dealer
Coin, Currency or Bullion Questions?
Call anytime 954-493-8811
but if you need more information
on dictionary.com artifical is defined as
1. made by human skill; produced by humans (opposed to natural): artificial flowers.
2. imitation; simulated; sham: artificial vanilla flavoring.
3. lacking naturalness or spontaneity; forced; contrived; feigned: an artificial smile.
4. full of affectation; affected; stilted: artificial manners; artificial speech.
5. made without regard to the particular needs of a situation, person, etc.; imposed arbitrarily; unnatural: artificial rules for dormitory residents.
6. Biology. based on arbitrary, superficial characteristics rather than natural, organic relationships: an artificial system of classification.
7. Jewelry. manufactured to resemble a natural gem, in chemical composition or appearance.
Natural is defined as
1. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.
2. based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: Growth is a natural process.
3. of or pertaining to nature or the universe: natural beauty.
4. of, pertaining to, or occupied with the study of natural science: conducting natural experiments.
5. in a state of nature; uncultivated, as land.
6. growing spontaneously, without being planted or tended by human hand, as vegetation.
7. having undergone little or no processing and containing no chemical additives: natural food; natural ingredients. Compare organic (def. 11).
8. having a real or physical existence, as opposed to one that is spiritual, intellectual, fictitious, etc.
9. of, pertaining to, or proper to the nature or essential constitution: natural ability.
10. proper to the circumstances of the case: a natural result of his greed.
11. free from affectation or constraint: a natural manner.
12. arising easily or spontaneously: a natural courtesy to strangers.
13. consonant with the nature or character of.
14. in accordance with the nature of things: It was natural that he should hit back.
15. based upon the innate moral feeling of humankind: natural justice.
16. in conformity with the ordinary course of nature; not unusual or exceptional.
17. happening in the ordinary or usual course of things, without the intervention of accident, violence, etc.
18. related only by birth; of no legal relationship; illegitimate: a natural son.
19. related by blood rather than by adoption.
20. based on what is learned from nature rather than on revelation.
21. true to or closely imitating nature: a natural representation.
22. unenlightened or unregenerate: the natural man.
23. being such by nature; born such: a natural fool.
24. Music. a. neither sharp nor flat.
b. changed in pitch by the sign ♮.
25. not treated, tanned, refined, etc.; in its original or raw state: natural wood; natural cowhide.
26. (of a horn or trumpet) having neither side holes nor valves.
27. not tinted or colored; undyed.
28. having a pale tannish or grayish-yellow color, as many woods and untreated animal skins.
29. Cards. a. being a card other than a wild card or joker.
b. (of a set or sequence of cards) containing no wild cards.
30. having or showing feelings, as affection, gratitude, or kindness, considered part of basic human nature.
31. Afro (def. 1).
–noun 32. any person or thing that is or is likely or certain to be very suitable to and successful in an endeavor without much training or difficulty.
33. Music. a. a white key on a piano, organ, or the like.
b. the sign ♮, placed before a note, canceling the effect of a previous sharp or flat.
c. a note affected by a ♮, or a tone thus represented.
34. an idiot.
35. Cards. blackjack (def. 2b).
36. Afro (def. 2).
37. (in craps) a winning combination of seven or eleven made on the first cast.
38. a natural substance or a product made with such a substance: an ointment containing mink oil and other naturals.
And tone is defined as
1. any sound considered with reference to its quality, pitch, strength, source, etc.: shrill tones.
2. quality or character of sound.
3. vocal sound; the sound made by vibrating muscular bands in the larynx.
4. a particular quality, way of sounding, modulation, or intonation of the voice as expressive of some meaning, feeling, spirit, etc.: a tone of command.
5. an accent peculiar to a person, people, locality, etc., or a characteristic mode of sounding words in speech.
6. stress of voice on a syllable of a word.
7. Linguistics. a musical pitch or movement in pitch serving to distinguish two words otherwise composed of the same sounds, as in Chinese.
8. Music. a. a musical sound of definite pitch, consisting of several relatively simple constituents called partial tones, the lowest of which is called the fundamental tone and the others harmonics or overtones.
b. an interval equivalent to two semitones; a whole tone; a whole step.
c. any of the nine melodies or tunes to which Gregorian plainsong psalms are sung.
9. a quality of color with reference to the degree of absorption or reflection of light; a tint or shade; value.
10. that distinctive quality by which colors differ from one another in addition to their differences indicated by chroma, tint, shade; a slight modification of a given color; hue: green with a yellowish tone.
11. Art. the prevailing effect of harmony of color and values.
12. Physiology. a. the normal state of tension or responsiveness of the organs or tissues of the body.
b. that state of the body or of an organ in which all its functions are performed with healthy vigor.
c. normal sensitivity to stimulation.
13. a normal healthy mental condition.
14. a particular mental state or disposition; spirit, character, or tenor.
15. a particular style or manner, as of writing or speech; mood: the macabre tone of Poe's stories.
16. prevailing character or style, as of manners, morals, or philosophical outlook: the liberal tone of the 1960's.
17. style, distinction, or elegance.
–verb (used with object) 18. to sound with a particular tone.
19. to give the proper tone to (a musical instrument).
20. to modify the tone or general coloring of.
21. to give the desired tone to (a painting, drawing, etc.).
22. Photography. to change the color of (a print), esp. by chemical means.
23. to render as specified in tone or coloring.
24. to modify the tone or character of.
25. to give or restore physical or mental tone to.
–verb (used without object) 26. to take on a particular tone; assume color or tint.
—Verb phrases27. tone down, a. to become or cause to become softened or moderated: The newspaper toned down its attack.
b. Painting. to make (a color) less intense in hue; subdue.
28. tone up, a. to give a higher or stronger tone to.
b. to gain or cause to gain in tone or strength: toning up little-used muscles.
29. tone with or in with, to harmonize in tone or coloring; blend: The painting tones with the room.
So, back to what is market acceptible!
<< <i>Well then, almost all toning is AT, since most is caused by sulfer in papers, and chemicals leaching out of wood, etc.
So, back to what is market acceptible! >>
well it's about danged time that someone finally agrees w/ me! i agree 100%. natural toning is what occurs when a coin is in it's intended natural environment, which is circulation for most coins. all other environments are ARTIFICIAL. that includes stovetops, coal bins, chimney smokestacks, baked potatos, hard-boiled eggs, coin albums & ez-bake ovens. those are NOT places where the u..s. mint intended coins to be stored. since they're not natural, they're artificial.
K S
<< <i>
<< <i>Well then, almost all toning is AT, since most is caused by sulfer in papers, and chemicals leaching out of wood, etc.
So, back to what is market acceptible! >>
well it's about danged time that someone finally agrees w/ me! i agree 100%. natural toning is what occurs when a coin is in it's intended natural environment, which is circulation for most coins. all other environments are ARTIFICIAL. that includes stovetops, coal bins, chimney smokestacks, baked potatos, hard-boiled eggs, coin albums & ez-bake ovens. those are NOT places where the u..s. mint intended coins to be stored. since they're not natural, they're artificial.
K S >>
Uh... but I hear your crazy... so I'm not sure if I'm allowed to play with, nor agree with you
Just joking... really though, I suppose the deep patina on worn coins would be NT based on that definition (dirt and greese rubbed in). I have no problem with saying it is all AT. There are types of AT we find acceptible, and types we don't. I think if it happens in less than a few months... it's not gonna look right, so not acceptible. Beyond that, if it looks good, I'm good.
then the coin should be body bagged. If this happens the Coin doctors
services will be seriously nipped.No market acceptable should be allowed.
Remember the color toned nickels a while back. Acceptable for a while and then
ruled not acceptable.
Camelot