When posting close-ups with problems, like in the OP, it would be really nice to also see a full view of the coin.
It really helps to put things in perspective.
BEAUTIFUL! But IMO, it is neither market acceptable or NT so I'd send it to the next graded as AT. I don't like untoned holes or sharply defined "flow" on toners. Right or wrong, that side is beautiful and should bring lots of money.
@Insider2 said:
BEAUTIFUL! But IMO, it is neither market acceptable or NT so I'd send it to the next graded as AT. I don't like untoned holes or sharply defined "flow" on toners. Right or wrong, that side is beautiful and should bring lots of money.
To which coin are your speaking of?
Found a photo of a 21-D Morgan with this toning. Your thoughts?
"Found a photo of a 21-D Morgan with this toning. Your thoughts?"
My thoughts don't matter. The coin appears to be slabbed by a major TPGS!
I understand you are walking a fine line speaking of this here. Let me ask you this. What led the TPG's at the time to determine this type of toning was suspect? Was it the shear number of examples showing up? A toning pattern that had not been seen before? Other?
Based on what you believe, and my limited knowledge on "crackled" toning, I will have to change my mind on how this toning came to be unless I see evidence otherwise. Don't remember ever seeing this toning in an original government cello pack.
@joebb21 said:
I have purchased many original mint sets and have seen such toning on halves, quarters and dimes.
I have also seen many 1921 morgans with such a look.
I still believe them to be "NT" until some stronger proof comes forward that such coins cannot be NT
I would very much like to see a mint set with such toning. Picture(s) anyone?
BTW, The folks harvesting toners from original government packaging really need to take pictures before removing them. It would be great for future collectors to understand where these coins originated.
IIRC, the explanation someone provided here on the forum for the 21 Morgans was that the rinse process was changed in 21. Haven't seen the crackled toning on any pre 21 Morgan. Anyone else?
I read this this thread and found it interesting. However, it comes across more as trying to prove that unicorns have more blue fur than purple fur, and that the horn is 70% diamond or more.
I still disagree regarding the Morgan. Not all discontinuous toning is AT. The toning @insider2 is referencing can be better appreciated when viewed in hand with magnification. Mint set toning and other natural toning will merge/blend into the fields. Crackle toning looks funky and like it is sitting on the surface. To me it almost looks like ripples from surface tension from some sort of liquid being applied, but I don't know for sure how they are produced. The colors also often look weird and mix in weird ways and produce colors that are dirty/muddied.
@bolivarshagnasty these are the ones I used to own. One I found raw, don’t remember which one, but I think it was the first one. And the other was already graded.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This one I still own, it came my way via old time member here years back. Sorry don’t remember his name.
This one is a Ex: Simpson, Sunnywood.
.
.
@bolivarshagnasty said:
IIRC, the explanation someone provided here on the forum for the 21 Morgans was that the rinse process was changed in 21. Haven't seen the crackled toning on any pre 21 Morgan. Anyone else?
.
.
That’s what I remember hearing. Or maybe it was the planchet that was prepared/rinsed before striking
"Found a photo of a 21-D Morgan with this toning. Your thoughts?"
My thoughts don't matter. The coin appears to be slabbed by a major TPGS!
I understand you are walking a fine line speaking of this here. Let me ask you this. What led the TPG's at the time to determine this type of toning was suspect? Was it the shear number of examples showing up? A toning pattern that had not been seen before? Other?
Based on what you believe, and my limited knowledge on "crackled" toning, I will have to change my mind on how this toning came to be unless I see evidence otherwise. Don't remember ever seeing this toning in an original government cello pack.
This is the answer to your question:
@cameonut2011 said:
I still disagree regarding the Morgan. Not all discontinuous toning is AT. The toning @insider2 is referencing can be better appreciated when viewed in hand with magnification. Mint set toning and other natural toning will merge/blend into the fields. Crackle toning looks funky and like it is sitting on the surface. To me it almost looks like ripples from surface tension from some sort of liquid being applied, but I don't know for sure how they are produced. The colors also often look weird and mix in weird ways and produce colors that are dirty/muddied.
As to who/which TPGS detected the AT I don't know. I should think that when a blocky toning pattern virtually NEVER SEEN BEFORE with pastel, blues, pinks, tans, and greens virtually NEVER SEEN BEFORE starts appearing on hundreds of coins all of a sudden it may give grading service reason to be suspicious.
@MattTheRiley said:
Here's a shot of both sides of the coin and the label.
Is that the rare "dirty mouth" variety?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
As to who/which TPGS detected the AT I don't know. I should think that when a blocky toning pattern virtually NEVER SEEN BEFORE with pastel, blues, pinks, tans, and greens virtually NEVER SEEN BEFORE starts appearing on hundreds of coins all of a sudden it may give grading service reason to be suspicious.
I must say I disagreed with you up until I saw this explanation. I really think it is a better way to
describe your opinion. This I can agree with
@coinsarefun said: "I must say I disagreed with you up until I saw this explanation. I really think it is a better way to
describe your opinion. This I can agree with."
That's nice. I really miss the "Disagree Button" but only when the poster followed up with a reason. Otherwise, I considered them to be just an uninformed little troll.
@Insider2 said:
I really miss the "Disagree Button" but only when the poster followed up with a reason.
After all of the complaining and wall posts you left others...
The ONLY things I tried to change and complain about with the disagree button were:
A warning (ONLY ONE) by the Mods to any member leaving a bunch of disagrees w/o comment to one or more members. If it continued, time out for ?? days. After their return, if it happened again EVEN ONCE w/o leaving a reason - they are done here.
I hoped/wanted any member leaving a Disagree" to say why so it could be discussed by the members. That's how we learn.
Trolls and advanced numismatists who choose (for whatever the reason) to just push a button don't add anything to the forums.
@Insider2 said: @coinsarefun said: "I must say I disagreed with you up until I saw this explanation. I really think it is a better way to
describe your opinion. This I can agree with."
That's nice. I really miss the "Disagree Button" but only when the poster followed up with a reason. Otherwise, I considered them to be just an uninformed little troll.
I can agree the the "never seen before" analogy. I have seen this for myself when tracking stuff on ebay. As for the 21 Morgans, is it your opinion that these were created post mint or were a natural process?
FWIW to you, the Morgans posted by you, @joebb21, and @coinsarefun do not look like the crackle AT that this thread is about.
I guess I'm having trouble discerning the difference. Don't currently own a 21 Morgan with that finish, but to me it looks a lot like the 62 Roosie and Franklins others have posted.
@bolivarshagnasty said:
I guess I'm having trouble discerning the difference.
I'll keep looking to try to find another example. So far I haven't found any in my image archive. I do recall seeing a really good example of a beautiful Stone Mountain commemorative in a SEGS holder that had it a few years ago that was a textbook example, but I can't find images of it. Right now even eBay - the haven of all things AT - isn't showing a good example. The coin I have stuck in my head was unforgettable. The blues and violets mixed in a weird way, and it also had a distinctive green that are often seen on the classic commemoratives along with the pattern described in this thread.
@Insider2 said: @coinsarefun said: "I must say I disagreed with you up until I saw this explanation. I really think it is a better way to
describe your opinion. This I can agree with."
That's nice. I really miss the "Disagree Button" but only when the poster followed up with a reason. Otherwise, I considered them to be just an uninformed little troll.
I liked to forum better when there were no like, lol, and all that stuff as it did make you respond rather than click.
I don’t think I ever clicked on a disagree ever.
@cameonut2011 said:
I still disagree regarding the Morgan. Not all discontinuous toning is AT. The toning @insider2 is referencing can be better appreciated when viewed in hand with magnification. Mint set toning and other natural toning will merge/blend into the fields. Crackle toning looks funky and like it is sitting on the surface. To me it almost looks like ripples from surface tension from some sort of liquid being applied, but I don't know for sure how they are produced. The colors also often look weird and mix in weird ways and produce colors that are dirty/muddied.
As to who/which TPGS detected the AT I don't know. I should think that when a blocky toning pattern virtually NEVER SEEN BEFORE with pastel, blues, pinks, tans, and greens virtually NEVER SEEN BEFORE starts appearing on hundreds of coins all of a sudden it may give grading service reason to be suspicious.
I just read this whole thread with interest in everyone's comments and perspective. If I had only read the first few comments of the OP, I would have been banging on the DISAGREE button if it were still available. Those comments declared that "blocky" toning was AT, and chastised those that wanted to see a full picture of a coin, one without crappy lighting and crappy white balance so that the true colors of the coin could not be seen. That got this thread off on the wrong foot because all blocky or crackly toning is NOT AT, and to even attempt to fathom a guess in determining an AT coin from a picture (which is what we are all doing here), you need to see the true colors. That is why so many knowledgeable toning guys responded and rightfully objected.
I think cameonut2011 steered this discussion in the right direction. Some coins did hit the market (in early 1990's IIRC) that looked different, floating and weird toning. But to me they looked different moreso because of the "off" toning colors and progression.
So now that the OP posts acknowledge that blocky toning WITH COLORS virtually never seen before are what is supsicious, I can now hit the AGREE button. It is not the pattern, it is the colors.
Some refer to overgraded slabs as Coffins. I like to think of them as Happy Coins.
@Ronyahski said: "I think cameonut2011 steered this discussion in the right direction. Some coins did hit the market (in early 1990's IIRC) that looked different, floating and weird toning. But to me they looked different moreso because of the "off" toning colors and progression."
So now that the OP posts acknowledge that blocky toning WITH COLORS virtually never seen before are what is supsicious, I can now hit the AGREE button. It is not the pattern, it is the colors."
Bam, I get to hit the disagree button now, LOL. Actually it was the "blocks" and the "color." Unfortunately, there is not one coin posted in this thread (including my image in the OP) that shows this "blocky effect" as I called it. The coin in the OP is the first AT coin from that time period I've seen. That's why I posted it. I figured they had all been dipped by now since the AT was detected long ago.
"Crackle Toning" is a new adjective to me and I love it but I've never been a fan of any toning with round untoned holes. Additionally, I don't recall anyone teaching about the "progression of color" on toned coins decades ago. If this stuff was published in the 1980's, I was out of the loop!
@Insider2 said:
Additionally, I don't recall anyone teaching about the "progression of color" on toned coins decades ago. If this stuff was published in the 1980's, I was out of the loop!
@Insider2 said:
Additionally, I don't recall anyone teaching about the "progression of color" on toned coins decades ago. If this stuff was published in the 1980's, I was out of the loop!
It's basically applied CHEM 101 and PHYS 101.
Of course it is. What I said was: AFAIK, none of this was PUBLISHED when I started out. AAMOF, toning of any kind was frowned upon and Bright White was "in."
What new collectors and younger numismatists need to understand is, beginners are "spoonfed" today. They have access to so much published information and original research that it boggles the mind. When I started out, I could count the known double die coins on ONE HAND (while I had to walk uphill back and forth to school in the rain)! Stupid alterations like whizzing were fooling professional coin dealers! Most of us old guys were virtually self-taught with some guidance from mentors. There were no such things as coin seminars.
@georgiacop50 said:
Meltdown yours looks totally legit to me.
And the 52 while suspect is not a sure fire "crackle" in my book. That one may or may not be. It doesn't have the reds, greens and violet that I associate. What does @coppercolor think? @skyman ?
There were plenty of us chasing Franklin toners in the early 90's haha. Steve Leber, John Wooten, Pawpaul, @ronyahaski etc.
These franklins, to my knowledge, are totally legit mint set toners. Admitting there's not way to be 100% sure but I've bought several full runs of unopened double mint sets 1947-1958, and opened them, AND found this type of toning in there to believe with conviction that the pattern is original.
@Insider2 said: @Ronyahski said: "I think cameonut2011 steered this discussion in the right direction. Some coins did hit the market (in early 1990's IIRC) that looked different, floating and weird toning. But to me they looked different moreso because of the "off" toning colors and progression."
So now that the OP posts acknowledge that blocky toning WITH COLORS virtually never seen before are what is suspicious, I can now hit the AGREE button. It is not the pattern, it is the colors."
Bam, I get to hit the disagree button now, LOL. Actually it was the "blocks" and the "color." Unfortunately, there is not one coin posted in this thread (including my image in the OP) that shows this "blocky effect" as I called it. The coin in the OP is the first AT coin from that time period I've seen. That's why I posted it. I figured they had all been dipped by now since the AT was detected long ago.
"Crackle Toning" is a new adjective to me and I love it but I've never been a fan of any toning with round untoned holes. Additionally, I don't recall anyone teaching about the "progression of color" on toned coins decades ago. If this stuff was published in the 1980's, I was out of the loop!
Huh? You disagree that I agree. Whatever.
Now the AT coin in the OP is not AT after all.
This is a superficial discussion.
Some refer to overgraded slabs as Coffins. I like to think of them as Happy Coins.
@Ronyahski said:
Now the AT coin in the OP is not AT after all.
What does the coin actually look like? The micrograph does make the coin look suspect to me. I am inclined to agree with insider2 on this one but would reserve judgment until I had a more realistic basis to form an opinion (i.e. a larger image to look at colors, progression, etc., to evaluate the coin using a holistic approach).
@Ronyahski said:
Now the AT coin in the OP is not AT after all.
What does the coin actually look like? The micrograph does make the coin look suspect to me. I am inclined to agree with insider2 on this one but would reserve judgment until I had a more realistic basis to form an opinion (i.e. a larger image to look at colors, progression, etc., to evaluate the coin using a holistic approach).
I should've said that now the AT coin in the OP is not blocky after all. Just reiterating what Insider2 is now saying.
Some refer to overgraded slabs as Coffins. I like to think of them as Happy Coins.
@Insider2 said: @Ronyahski said: "I think cameonut2011 steered this discussion in the right direction. Some coins did hit the market (in early 1990's IIRC) that looked different, floating and weird toning. But to me they looked different moreso because of the "off" toning colors and progression."
So now that the OP posts acknowledge that blocky toning WITH COLORS virtually never seen before are what is suspicious, I can now hit the AGREE button. It is not the pattern, it is the colors."
Bam, I get to hit the disagree button now, LOL. Actually it was the "blocks" and the "color." Unfortunately, there is not one coin posted in this thread (including my image in the OP) that shows this "blocky effect" as I called it. The coin in the OP is the first AT coin from that time period I've seen. That's why I posted it. I figured they had all been dipped by now since the AT was detected long ago.
"Crackle Toning" is a new adjective to me and I love it but I've never been a fan of any toning with round untoned holes. Additionally, I don't recall anyone teaching about the "progression of color" on toned coins decades ago. If this stuff was published in the 1980's, I was out of the loop!
Huh? You disagree that I agree. Whatever.
Now the AT coin in the OP is not AT after all.
This is a superficial discussion.
Read what I wrote again S L O W L Y this time. You and I have a different idea of what the word "BLOCKY" means. Think of a driveway paved with bricks in a slightly random fashion and no space between them. Possibly rectangular snake scales might convey the look better. Unfortunately, images of this pattern from decades ago are buried somewhere in my files. They may not even be in color as I used a film camera back then. We do agree on the colors.
Comments
When posting close-ups with problems, like in the OP, it would be really nice to also see a full view of the coin.
It really helps to put things in perspective.
I've been told I tolerate fools poorly...that may explain things if I have a problem with you. Current ebay items - Nothing at the moment
BEAUTIFUL! But IMO, it is neither market acceptable or NT so I'd send it to the next graded as AT. I don't like untoned holes or sharply defined "flow" on toners. Right or wrong, that side is beautiful and should bring lots of money.
To which coin are your speaking of?
Found a photo of a 21-D Morgan with this toning. Your thoughts?
@bolivarshagnasty asked: "To which coin are your speaking of?"
The colorful one.
"Found a photo of a 21-D Morgan with this toning. Your thoughts?"
My thoughts don't matter. The coin appears to be slabbed by a major TPGS!
I've seen this sort of toning before. I'm not a huge fan...
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
I understand you are walking a fine line speaking of this here. Let me ask you this. What led the TPG's at the time to determine this type of toning was suspect? Was it the shear number of examples showing up? A toning pattern that had not been seen before? Other?
Based on what you believe, and my limited knowledge on "crackled" toning, I will have to change my mind on how this toning came to be unless I see evidence otherwise. Don't remember ever seeing this toning in an original government cello pack.
I have purchased many original mint sets and have seen such toning on halves, quarters and dimes.
I have also seen many 1921 morgans with such a look.
I still believe them to be "NT" until some stronger proof comes forward that such coins cannot be NT
I would very much like to see a mint set with such toning. Picture(s) anyone?
BTW, The folks harvesting toners from original government packaging really need to take pictures before removing them. It would be great for future collectors to understand where these coins originated.
Just noticed this on heritage
https://coins.ha.com/itm/morgan-dollars/silver-and-related-dollars/1921-d-1-ms66-pcgs-secure-cac-pcgs-population-459-10-and-76-1-ngc-census-276-12-and-16-0-cdn-650-whsle-bid/a/1282-7851.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515#
IIRC, the explanation someone provided here on the forum for the 21 Morgans was that the rinse process was changed in 21. Haven't seen the crackled toning on any pre 21 Morgan. Anyone else?
Is there solid proof that the crackling is AT
or is this all just a guess?
I know there are Coins of other countries like that.
Not the same look IMHO.
Cam, Enlarge the photo on Heritages site. It is the same type of crackled toning that we are speaking of.
I read this this thread and found it interesting. However, it comes across more as trying to prove that unicorns have more blue fur than purple fur, and that the horn is 70% diamond or more.
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
Here is another in 67 I have on file with the same look. @coinsarefun Don't you have an example?
Apparently JA thought the toning was legit.
I still disagree regarding the Morgan. Not all discontinuous toning is AT. The toning @insider2 is referencing can be better appreciated when viewed in hand with magnification. Mint set toning and other natural toning will merge/blend into the fields. Crackle toning looks funky and like it is sitting on the surface. To me it almost looks like ripples from surface tension from some sort of liquid being applied, but I don't know for sure how they are produced. The colors also often look weird and mix in weird ways and produce colors that are dirty/muddied.
@bolivarshagnasty these are the ones I used to own. One I found raw, don’t remember which one, but I think it was the first one. And the other was already graded.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This one I still own, it came my way via old time member here years back. Sorry don’t remember his name.
This one is a Ex: Simpson, Sunnywood.
.
.
.
CoinsAreFun Toned Silver Eagle Proof Album
.
Gallery Mint Museum, Ron Landis& Joe Rust, The beginnings of the Golden Dollar
.
More CoinsAreFun Pictorials NGC
.
.
That’s what I remember hearing. Or maybe it was the planchet that was prepared/rinsed before striking
.
CoinsAreFun Toned Silver Eagle Proof Album
.
Gallery Mint Museum, Ron Landis& Joe Rust, The beginnings of the Golden Dollar
.
More CoinsAreFun Pictorials NGC
Here's a shot of both sides of the coin and the label.
This is the answer to your question:
As to who/which TPGS detected the AT I don't know. I should think that when a blocky toning pattern virtually NEVER SEEN BEFORE with pastel, blues, pinks, tans, and greens virtually NEVER SEEN BEFORE starts appearing on hundreds of coins all of a sudden it may give grading service reason to be suspicious.
Is that the rare "dirty mouth" variety?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I must say I disagreed with you up until I saw this explanation. I really think it is a better way to
describe your opinion. This I can agree with
.
CoinsAreFun Toned Silver Eagle Proof Album
.
Gallery Mint Museum, Ron Landis& Joe Rust, The beginnings of the Golden Dollar
.
More CoinsAreFun Pictorials NGC
@coinsarefun said: "I must say I disagreed with you up until I saw this explanation. I really think it is a better way to
describe your opinion. This I can agree with."
That's nice. I really miss the "Disagree Button" but only when the poster followed up with a reason. Otherwise, I considered them to be just an uninformed little troll.
If I hear crackling toning in the distance I will think of AT and not NT.
After all of the complaining and wall posts you left others...
The ONLY things I tried to change and complain about with the disagree button were:
A warning (ONLY ONE) by the Mods to any member leaving a bunch of disagrees w/o comment to one or more members. If it continued, time out for ?? days. After their return, if it happened again EVEN ONCE w/o leaving a reason - they are done here.
I hoped/wanted any member leaving a Disagree" to say why so it could be discussed by the members. That's how we learn.
Trolls and advanced numismatists who choose (for whatever the reason) to just push a button don't add anything to the forums.
I can agree the the "never seen before" analogy. I have seen this for myself when tracking stuff on ebay. As for the 21 Morgans, is it your opinion that these were created post mint or were a natural process?
@abcde12345 said: "If I hear crackling toning in the distance I will think of AT and not NT."
That's your decision, I have made no reference to what many call "crackling toning" here.
@bolivarshagnasty
FWIW to you, the Morgans posted by you, @joebb21, and @coinsarefun do not look like the crackle AT that this thread is about.
Some see the glass half filled with AT and others see the glass half filled with NT.
I guess I'm having trouble discerning the difference. Don't currently own a 21 Morgan with that finish, but to me it looks a lot like the 62 Roosie and Franklins others have posted.
I'll keep looking to try to find another example. So far I haven't found any in my image archive. I do recall seeing a really good example of a beautiful Stone Mountain commemorative in a SEGS holder that had it a few years ago that was a textbook example, but I can't find images of it. Right now even eBay - the haven of all things AT - isn't showing a good example. The coin I have stuck in my head was unforgettable. The blues and violets mixed in a weird way, and it also had a distinctive green that are often seen on the classic commemoratives along with the pattern described in this thread.
I liked to forum better when there were no like, lol, and all that stuff as it did make you respond rather than click.
I don’t think I ever clicked on a disagree ever.
.
CoinsAreFun Toned Silver Eagle Proof Album
.
Gallery Mint Museum, Ron Landis& Joe Rust, The beginnings of the Golden Dollar
.
More CoinsAreFun Pictorials NGC
I just read this whole thread with interest in everyone's comments and perspective. If I had only read the first few comments of the OP, I would have been banging on the DISAGREE button if it were still available. Those comments declared that "blocky" toning was AT, and chastised those that wanted to see a full picture of a coin, one without crappy lighting and crappy white balance so that the true colors of the coin could not be seen. That got this thread off on the wrong foot because all blocky or crackly toning is NOT AT, and to even attempt to fathom a guess in determining an AT coin from a picture (which is what we are all doing here), you need to see the true colors. That is why so many knowledgeable toning guys responded and rightfully objected.
I think cameonut2011 steered this discussion in the right direction. Some coins did hit the market (in early 1990's IIRC) that looked different, floating and weird toning. But to me they looked different moreso because of the "off" toning colors and progression.
So now that the OP posts acknowledge that blocky toning WITH COLORS virtually never seen before are what is supsicious, I can now hit the AGREE button. It is not the pattern, it is the colors.
@Ronyahski said: "I think cameonut2011 steered this discussion in the right direction. Some coins did hit the market (in early 1990's IIRC) that looked different, floating and weird toning. But to me they looked different moreso because of the "off" toning colors and progression."
So now that the OP posts acknowledge that blocky toning WITH COLORS virtually never seen before are what is supsicious, I can now hit the AGREE button. It is not the pattern, it is the colors."
Bam, I get to hit the disagree button now, LOL. Actually it was the "blocks" and the "color." Unfortunately, there is not one coin posted in this thread (including my image in the OP) that shows this "blocky effect" as I called it. The coin in the OP is the first AT coin from that time period I've seen. That's why I posted it. I figured they had all been dipped by now since the AT was detected long ago.
"Crackle Toning" is a new adjective to me and I love it but I've never been a fan of any toning with round untoned holes. Additionally, I don't recall anyone teaching about the "progression of color" on toned coins decades ago. If this stuff was published in the 1980's, I was out of the loop!
LOL, it's egg toning alright.
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
Wooooha! Did someone just say it's officially "TACO™" Tuesday????
It's basically applied CHEM 101 and PHYS 101.
Of course it is. What I said was: AFAIK, none of this was PUBLISHED when I started out. AAMOF, toning of any kind was frowned upon and Bright White was "in."
What new collectors and younger numismatists need to understand is, beginners are "spoonfed" today. They have access to so much published information and original research that it boggles the mind. When I started out, I could count the known double die coins on ONE HAND (while I had to walk uphill back and forth to school in the rain)! Stupid alterations like whizzing were fooling professional coin dealers! Most of us old guys were virtually self-taught with some guidance from mentors. There were no such things as coin seminars.
We've come a long way baby!"
These franklins, to my knowledge, are totally legit mint set toners. Admitting there's not way to be 100% sure but I've bought several full runs of unopened double mint sets 1947-1958, and opened them, AND found this type of toning in there to believe with conviction that the pattern is original.
Great question @georgiacop50
Huh? You disagree that I agree. Whatever.
Now the AT coin in the OP is not AT after all.
This is a superficial discussion.
What does the coin actually look like? The micrograph does make the coin look suspect to me. I am inclined to agree with insider2 on this one but would reserve judgment until I had a more realistic basis to form an opinion (i.e. a larger image to look at colors, progression, etc., to evaluate the coin using a holistic approach).
I should've said that now the AT coin in the OP is not blocky after all. Just reiterating what Insider2 is now saying.
Read what I wrote again S L O W L Y this time. You and I have a different idea of what the word "BLOCKY" means. Think of a driveway paved with bricks in a slightly random fashion and no space between them. Possibly rectangular snake scales might convey the look better. Unfortunately, images of this pattern from decades ago are buried somewhere in my files. They may not even be in color as I used a film camera back then.
We do agree on the colors. 
The coin in the OP is 100% AT!
You keep contradicting yourself. Come back when you actually have a picture of a BLOCKY coin.
Please write my contradiction. I'm terribly stupid, uneducated, and English is a foreign language to me. Thanks in advance.
Is this sarcasm or is English not your first language? With you, I cannot always tell when you are being serious or being funny.
@Ronyahski said: "You keep contradicting yourself. Come back when you actually have a picture of a BLOCKY coin."
What contradiction? Still waiting....ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Read my answer very S L O W L Y. Come back when you actually have a picture of a BLOCKY coin.
Figures... Nice try to deflect though, BIG FAIL as there was no contradiction in my post.