Toning in and of itself has been deemed not a sin. Artificial toning with intent to profit has been deemed a sin. In this case, we know that this coin didn't tone artificially, so yes, the history absolutely is taken into account.
@OriginalDan said:
Toning in and of itself has been deemed not a sin. Artificial toning with intent to profit has been deemed a sin. In this case, we know that this coin didn't tone artificially, so yes, the history absolutely is taken into account.
I think you overstate the clarity of "artificial". Is "album toning" natural or artificial? If I drop a lit match, by accident, on my coin and it puts a sulfur mark on it, is that "artificial" or "natural"? If I bury, or just drop, a coin in the ocean and it tones like that one, is it "artificial" or "natural"? If that is a foreign substance on the surface, it's a foreign substance.
So, if I submit a coin with no provenance that did EXACTLY what that coin did, you (PCGS) have a lot of nerve calling mine "questionable color" or "artificial toning" or "environmental damage". Why am I guilty until proven innocent?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
@OriginalDan said:
Toning in and of itself has been deemed not a sin. Artificial toning with intent to profit has been deemed a sin. In this case, we know that this coin didn't tone artificially, so yes, the history absolutely is taken into account.
I think you overstate the clarity of "artificial". Is "album toning" natural or artificial? If I drop a lit match, by accident, on my coin and it puts a sulfur mark on it, is that "artificial" or "natural"? If I bury, or just drop, a coin in the ocean and it tones like that one, is it "artificial" or "natural"? If that is a foreign substance on the surface, it's a foreign substance.
So, if I submit a coin with no provenance that did EXACTLY what that coin did, you (PCGS) have a lot of nerve calling mine "questionable color" or "artificial toning" or "environmental damage". Why am I guilty until proven innocent?
TPGs will play it safe. In the case of the OP coin they didn’t have to.
@originalisbest said:
Imagine if a bag of 1856-O $20s were to be discovered in similar shape to the many 1857-S's.
In the late 1970s (?), there was a famous incident in downtown New Orleans when a construction excavator on a major building project hit one to three boxes of buried seated liberty coins. Bystanders and workmen were quickly scrambling in the mud for hands full of coins. Imagine gold!
@RogerB said:
Identical grading standards must apply regardless of provenance, emotional connection, or assumed "value." Otherwise, coin grading, and all of its implications, are false and an outright fraud.
Agree. And it feeds into the (possibly true) sense that some pigs are more equal than others.
And there IS a precedent. Spanish coins from shipwrecks are noted either as "shipwreck coins" or even "environmental damage"
I think the bottom line is: The buyer, and the market, will know what they are getting. It's been photographed, publicized, put in a special holder, so from now until memories are erased, people will know that coin. So, does the grade really matter?
Kind of like the 1804 dollars that are ALL over-graded. Does it matter?
Guess it's good fodder for message boards, though.
@RogerB said:
Identical grading standards must apply regardless of provenance, emotional connection, or assumed "value." Otherwise, coin grading, and all of its implications, are false and an outright fraud.
Agree. And it feeds into the (possibly true) sense that some pigs are more equal than others.
And there IS a precedent. Spanish coins from shipwrecks are noted either as "shipwreck coins" or even "environmental damage"
The examples you cited are silver coins. Saltwater has a much different effect on silver than it does gold.
Yes, the reduction potential of gold is higher than the reduction potential of silver. But that completely ducks my point. So your gold is not quite as oxidized as the silver. The point is that they could simply give it a shipwreck grade instead of straight grading it and pretending that those coins are not cleaned and not "artificially" toned.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
@RogerB said:
Identical grading standards must apply regardless of provenance, emotional connection, or assumed "value." Otherwise, coin grading, and all of its implications, are false and an outright fraud.
Agree. And it feeds into the (possibly true) sense that some pigs are more equal than others.
And there IS a precedent. Spanish coins from shipwrecks are noted either as "shipwreck coins" or even "environmental damage"
The examples you cited are silver coins. Saltwater has a much different effect on silver than it does gold.
Yes, the reduction potential of gold is higher than the reduction potential of silver. But that completely ducks my point. So your gold is not quite as oxidized as the silver. The point is that they could simply give it a shipwreck grade instead of straight grading it and pretending that those coins are not cleaned and not "artificially" toned.
So which coins get the "shipwreck grade" you mention? All of them? For me, the shipwreck holder is adequate enough for me to know where it came from, and the grade is understood within that context.
So which coins get the "shipwreck grade" you mention? All of them? For me, the shipwreck holder is adequate enough for me to know where it came from, and the grade is understood within that context.
Any coin that has what would otherwise be called "environmental damage" or "questionable color" should be given the shipwreck grade. Either that or stop labeling anything with "questionable color". All that means is that you charged me $30 and couldn't make up your mind what you were looking at. As you say, here they KNOW what they are looking at so there is no question.
If you are going to accept any "artificial" toning, you might as well accept all artificial toning. There is no chemical or physical difference between a coin that has undergone sulfurization or oxidation in an album, under the sea, or in a potato.
There's a similar dichotomy between "cleaned" and "curated" coins. It shouldn't matter who "cleaned" the coin.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
@CaptHenway said:
Whoever buys this coin may find himself under water in a few years.......
I see what you did there.....
This may be a Hull Mary grade!
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
So, why is that one wonderfully toned, and this one rusted??
"My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose, Cardinal.
"Toning" is produced by chemical reaction between the metals of which a coin is composed and external molecules/atoms. It is a physical part of the coin. Toning can be changed but cannot be removed without removing part of the metal.
"Rust" and similar materials sit on the surface of a coin and are not chemically bonded to the coin, although there might be some degree of physical attachment. These are superficial materials and can be removed without altering the coin's metal. In some instances superficial materials protect the coin's surfaces from damage such as that caused by sea water.
The rust colors shown in several examples, above, can be easily duplicated by placing gold or silver coins in a container with a small amount of moisture and iron. A more 'historical' method is to place the coins, preferably gold, in a steel can and bury the can in garden soil for a few years. (See comments on the Saddle Ridge hoard and their original containers.)
There are many seemingly complimentary words that can be used to describe this toning -- amazing, colorful, rainbow, incredible, off-the-charts, spectacular, psychedelic.... Beautiful is not one of them.
Numismatist. 50 year member ANA. Winner of four ANA Heath Literary Awards; three Wayte and Olga Raymond Literary Awards; Numismatist of the Year Award 2009, and Lifetime Achievement Award 2020. Winner numerous NLG Literary Awards.
........................and Roosters crow during the day, in the middle of the night or if provoked the right way, but that is another thread altogether.
@keets said:
I don't believe this discussion should have anything to do with tone and whether this coin or others from the hoard should be viewed as toned, AT, NT or any other way too discuss them.
shouldn't we just acknowledge that they have been environmentally damaged??
Any coin with toning is environmentally damaged. This coin is no different.
Need the following OBW rolls to complete my 46-64 Roosevelt roll set: 1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S. Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
from a technical standpoint, every coin suffers environmental "damage" from the moment it is fresh off the press and begins to react with the environment and form a skin which ultimately protects the coin, even if it has no color. to argue tone as ED is not a realistic position to hold.
Comments
LOL. Well, I hope it would be worth a little more than melt given the issue.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
Our World chugs along on fibs and white lies...
They might offer that even without the issues!
Boy, I might have a shot at this one if everyone else hates it as much as yall do!! Whoo hoo!
Toning in and of itself has been deemed not a sin. Artificial toning with intent to profit has been deemed a sin. In this case, we know that this coin didn't tone artificially, so yes, the history absolutely is taken into account.
@Wabbit2313 "Yeah, that date used to bring a premium until they brought bags of 'em up from the bottom of the Ocean."
Imagine if a bag of 1856-O $20s were to be discovered in similar shape to the many 1857-S's.
I think you overstate the clarity of "artificial". Is "album toning" natural or artificial? If I drop a lit match, by accident, on my coin and it puts a sulfur mark on it, is that "artificial" or "natural"? If I bury, or just drop, a coin in the ocean and it tones like that one, is it "artificial" or "natural"? If that is a foreign substance on the surface, it's a foreign substance.
So, if I submit a coin with no provenance that did EXACTLY what that coin did, you (PCGS) have a lot of nerve calling mine "questionable color" or "artificial toning" or "environmental damage". Why am I guilty until proven innocent?
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
TPGs will play it safe. In the case of the OP coin they didn’t have to.
And the hundreds of thousands in grading fees had nothing to do with it...
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
In the late 1970s (?), there was a famous incident in downtown New Orleans when a construction excavator on a major building project hit one to three boxes of buried seated liberty coins. Bystanders and workmen were quickly scrambling in the mud for hands full of coins. Imagine gold!
IIRC, this was not an apocryphal incident.
The examples you cited are silver coins. Saltwater has a much different effect on silver than it does gold.
I think the bottom line is: The buyer, and the market, will know what they are getting. It's been photographed, publicized, put in a special holder, so from now until memories are erased, people will know that coin. So, does the grade really matter?
Kind of like the 1804 dollars that are ALL over-graded. Does it matter?
Guess it's good fodder for message boards, though.
Yes, the reduction potential of gold is higher than the reduction potential of silver. But that completely ducks my point. So your gold is not quite as oxidized as the silver. The point is that they could simply give it a shipwreck grade instead of straight grading it and pretending that those coins are not cleaned and not "artificially" toned.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
So which coins get the "shipwreck grade" you mention? All of them? For me, the shipwreck holder is adequate enough for me to know where it came from, and the grade is understood within that context.
Any coin that has what would otherwise be called "environmental damage" or "questionable color" should be given the shipwreck grade. Either that or stop labeling anything with "questionable color". All that means is that you charged me $30 and couldn't make up your mind what you were looking at. As you say, here they KNOW what they are looking at so there is no question.
If you are going to accept any "artificial" toning, you might as well accept all artificial toning. There is no chemical or physical difference between a coin that has undergone sulfurization or oxidation in an album, under the sea, or in a potato.
There's a similar dichotomy between "cleaned" and "curated" coins. It shouldn't matter who "cleaned" the coin.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
This may be a Hull Mary grade!
So, why is that one wonderfully toned, and this one rusted??
"Toning" is produced by chemical reaction between the metals of which a coin is composed and external molecules/atoms. It is a physical part of the coin. Toning can be changed but cannot be removed without removing part of the metal.
"Rust" and similar materials sit on the surface of a coin and are not chemically bonded to the coin, although there might be some degree of physical attachment. These are superficial materials and can be removed without altering the coin's metal. In some instances superficial materials protect the coin's surfaces from damage such as that caused by sea water.
The rust colors shown in several examples, above, can be easily duplicated by placing gold or silver coins in a container with a small amount of moisture and iron. A more 'historical' method is to place the coins, preferably gold, in a steel can and bury the can in garden soil for a few years. (See comments on the Saddle Ridge hoard and their original containers.)
There are many seemingly complimentary words that can be used to describe this toning -- amazing, colorful, rainbow, incredible, off-the-charts, spectacular, psychedelic.... Beautiful is not one of them.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
"Seemingly"
So, why is that one wonderfully toned, and this one rusted
that is a question that should be answered by PCGS, probably by HRH himself if they are both in PCGS holders.
"Rust never sleeps!"
........................and Roosters crow during the day, in the middle of the night or if provoked the right way, but that is another thread altogether.
The old Sherlock Holmes tale "The Rooster Crowed at Midnight."
Did this 1857-S sell yet? If so does anyone know how much it went for? Very curious. That toning is one of the best ive seen on a gold coin.
Any coin with toning is environmentally damaged. This coin is no different.
1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S.
Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
Any coin with toning is environmentally damaged
from a technical standpoint, every coin suffers environmental "damage" from the moment it is fresh off the press and begins to react with the environment and form a skin which ultimately protects the coin, even if it has no color. to argue tone as ED is not a realistic position to hold.