These are the only ones I have that might be considered "monster toning" The pics are a little dark, they were just taken to track my inventory of stuff.
81-S 1 sided target
@U1chicago that is a nice and cool 81-S of yours that you posted with the double crescent... Below are Trueviews that I had taken this past year of the 3 (Christmas Tree, Lightning Bolt, and The Moose) that you posted earlier... I have also added one more at the bottom for my addition of another Monster that I call "Crimson and Clover".... AB
I showed the following coin to a friend. He doesn't collect coins, but he has a collector mentality in his own areas of interest. He took a look at it, looked at me, and said, "Bling." In retrospect, I thought that was pretty accurate.
There are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who do not.
@cameonut2011 said:
While there are a lot of nice coins in this thread, I would only consider the coins posted by TonedDollars and AB's last two coins as true monsters.
Edited: Depending on how the 1981 proof SBA presents in hand, I might also consider it a monster.
Unfortunately, the “dislike” button was taken away from us.
Henry Clay medal in silver by Merriam NGC MS65
Probably not a "monster," but great toning just the same. Dunn & Co Oyster House PCGS MS66BN
A very rare Merriam Civil War token from Charlestown, MA with electric blues.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
@CommemKing said:
I want to know what each of you think is a "Monster" in your collection. Then critique everybody's "Monster" to se if they are correct. A monster to you might not be a monster to me. Lets just see what happens.
Glad you asked the question. I haven't learned much besides we clearly all have different ideas as to what a "monster" really is. IMO over half of the coins posted would not be considered monster toned coins. They are very nice, well toned coins with great eye appeal, but not monsters. If I'm wrong, I have a few more monsters in my set that I was not aware that fit the bill.
A few months back I posted this Morgan Dollar asking if anyone felt it was a monster. It was almost unanimous here that the members felt it wasn't a monster. I still don't know. Anyway, I sold the coin nowhere near monster price. That being said, I feel it has more monster appeal than many of the coins posted in this thread. Not sure what I really learned, if anything.
@CommemKing Now we know why the phrases "monster" and "rainbow" are used so often. Everyone has their own threshold for what those terms mean. As they say, ownership always adds a bump in grade or designation.
I think one thing to understand too, when defining a "Monster", is how does it relate to it's series. In other words, some of the Liberty Seated material above is much less toned up than some of the other series, let's say Morgans, where it's more common to find nice toning. IMO, the lesser toned LS material is just as much a Monster as the more toned Morgan, it's just different. Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to have some of the Monster toned Morgans above, it's just that I can appreciate the Monster toned LS material too.
This can also work within a series. Given that my favorite series is Franklins I'll use them as an example. Unquestionably the most commonly nicely toned Franklin date/mm is the 1958-D. Something on the order of 40% of all NGC starred Franklins are 1958-D's (out of a series of 35 date/mm). Even though this 1948-D Franklin has been in it's Mint Set a little too long, IMO it's more of a monster, for the date/mm, than this 1958-D is (although obviously the 1958-D color wise is more spectacular).
I don't care for the fairly subjective "Monster" coin term either, but I have seen a few Battle Creek Morgans that I might designate as "Monster- toned" .
Here are a couple of mine that I designate as "attractively toned", but eye appeal is really in the beholder's eyes.
I never thought that growing old would happen so fast. - Jim
If I recall correctly, the first use of the term Monsters was used to describe the Sunnywood Collection of Morgan Dollars. In this definition only Morgans can be Monsters. Some of us have adopted this description of exceptionally toned coins as Monsters. High grade plus great toning is quite rare. The term Monster is much more special than DCAM and should be a grade adopted for toned coins by PCGS. Not sure if PCGS is capable of grading toning though.
@cameonut2011 said:
While there are a lot of nice coins in this thread, I would only consider the coins posted by TonedDollars and AB's last two coins as true monsters.
Edited: Depending on how the 1981 proof SBA presents in hand, I might also consider it a monster.
Unfortunately, the “dislike” button was taken away from us.
I'm sure I would have received a lot of disagrees for my post. It wasn't to be mean or snarky, but very few are true monster. Some may be high end color wise, but not what I consider monster.
This is my first "high-end" coin (over $1,000) that I won at a Legend Regency auction years ago. I've collected plenty of higher-end Morgans since then and now my collection is exclusively filled with them, mostly proofs and Carsons, plenty of DMPLs too. The second coin is an example of some of the proofs I own and the last coin is one of my favorite DMPLs. I cherish everyone of these coins and hope my kids will someday too and not just dump them with some dealer.
ColonelJessop once called this is monster. Hawaiians just don’t come like this
m
Walker Proof Digital Album 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......
@grip said:
Picture was a copey from the boards years ago..NOT MINE.
I made that collage from my set of proof Indians @grip some years back... Glad you liked it enough to save the pic! The only one that I kept out of there is the neon green 1864 just right of the center... That is one of my favorite proof Indians that I have ever seen and a nice memento of an amazing set... AB
Comments
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
Here’s one I like:
This one is average.
Seated Dollar Collection
edit
End Systemic Elitism - It Takes All of Us
ANA LM, LSCC, EAC, FUN
My type set of Monster Toners......
OINK
These are the only ones I have that might be considered "monster toning" The pics are a little dark, they were just taken to track my inventory of stuff.
81-S 1 sided target
Toned '21 P$1
Collector, occasional seller
Successful transactions with: JimTyler, Morgan13, ChangeInHistory, LukeMarshall, Old_Collector, basets , MICHAELDIXON, Waverlycoins, dsessom, privatecoin, SurfinxHI, ZoidMeister, giorgioll, Lakesammman, Twobitcollector, Cazkaboom, Dscoin, Shrub68, CoinHunter4, Cladiator, coinbuf, Elkevvo, ChrisH82, WindyCity, Kccoin, NumisOxide, Meltdown, blaircountycoin, blue62vette, greencopper, Kliao, Downtown1974, BankerBob56, coinlieutenant, cucamongacoin, FranklinFactory, scooter25, erwindoc, bigjpst, and others.
Some beautiful coins here. Here is one of my Dimes I like.
@U1chicago that is a nice and cool 81-S of yours that you posted with the double crescent... Below are Trueviews that I had taken this past year of the 3 (Christmas Tree, Lightning Bolt, and The Moose) that you posted earlier...
I have also added one more at the bottom for my addition of another Monster that I call "Crimson and Clover".... AB
I showed the following coin to a friend. He doesn't collect coins, but he has a collector mentality in his own areas of interest. He took a look at it, looked at me, and said, "Bling." In retrospect, I thought that was pretty accurate.
There are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who do not.
While there are a lot of nice coins in this thread, I would only consider the coins posted by TonedDollars and AB's last two coins as true monsters.
Edited: Depending on how the 1981 proof SBA presents in hand, I might also consider it a monster.
Unfortunately, the “dislike” button was taken away from us.
Monster for me.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
I have some pretty toned US coins, but when it comes to monster, I only have this one.
Henry Clay medal in silver by Merriam NGC MS65
Probably not a "monster," but great toning just the same.
Dunn & Co Oyster House PCGS MS66BN
A very rare Merriam Civil War token from Charlestown, MA with electric blues.
Dead Cat Waltz Exonumia
"Coin collecting for outcasts..."
What did you learn from this exercise?
@bolivarshagnasty
Glad you asked the question. I haven't learned much besides we clearly all have different ideas as to what a "monster" really is. IMO over half of the coins posted would not be considered monster toned coins. They are very nice, well toned coins with great eye appeal, but not monsters. If I'm wrong, I have a few more monsters in my set that I was not aware that fit the bill.
A few months back I posted this Morgan Dollar asking if anyone felt it was a monster. It was almost unanimous here that the members felt it wasn't a monster. I still don't know. Anyway, I sold the coin nowhere near monster price. That being said, I feel it has more monster appeal than many of the coins posted in this thread. Not sure what I really learned, if anything.
@CommemKing Now we know why the phrases "monster" and "rainbow" are used so often. Everyone has their own threshold for what those terms mean. As they say, ownership always adds a bump in grade or designation.
Objectivity is subjective. Or something sage like that.
Insert witicism here. [ xxx ]
jesbroken has a coin very similar to my avatar coin.
My precious.
Don't quote me on that.
Not too much of a Monster...
Don't quote me on that.
Picture was a copey from the boards years ago..NOT MINE.
Here are a few of my favorite toners, monster or otherwise!
My Coin Blog
My Toned Lincoln Registry Set
I guess this is then:
Monster toning is as subjective as monster Thai food.
Any original toning is better than mall Thai food.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
I think one thing to understand too, when defining a "Monster", is how does it relate to it's series. In other words, some of the Liberty Seated material above is much less toned up than some of the other series, let's say Morgans, where it's more common to find nice toning. IMO, the lesser toned LS material is just as much a Monster as the more toned Morgan, it's just different. Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE to have some of the Monster toned Morgans above, it's just that I can appreciate the Monster toned LS material too.
This can also work within a series. Given that my favorite series is Franklins I'll use them as an example. Unquestionably the most commonly nicely toned Franklin date/mm is the 1958-D. Something on the order of 40% of all NGC starred Franklins are 1958-D's (out of a series of 35 date/mm). Even though this 1948-D Franklin has been in it's Mint Set a little too long, IMO it's more of a monster, for the date/mm, than this 1958-D is (although obviously the 1958-D color wise is more spectacular).
U.S. Type Set
I don't care for the fairly subjective "Monster" coin term either, but I have seen a few Battle Creek Morgans that I might designate as "Monster- toned" .
Here are a couple of mine that I designate as "attractively toned", but eye appeal is really in the beholder's eyes.
- Jim
Most of you know that I typically prefer to purchase Morgan Dual-Sided Toners, but I broke with that tradition for this coin back in 2010.
1884-O Morgan Dollar - Vibrant Turquoise, Green & Magenta Toning - PCGS MS-63
Photos courtesy of KryptoniteComics - AKA Shane
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
100% natural toning on this monster !
Roger........no selfies........please.
OINK
That was the wife at our wedding reception ! "Selfies" hadn't been invented back then.
Edited, this thread is about monsters not toned gems, no cheatin allowed
If I recall correctly, the first use of the term Monsters was used to describe the Sunnywood Collection of Morgan Dollars. In this definition only Morgans can be Monsters. Some of us have adopted this description of exceptionally toned coins as Monsters. High grade plus great toning is quite rare. The term Monster is much more special than DCAM and should be a grade adopted for toned coins by PCGS. Not sure if PCGS is capable of grading toning though.
OINK
Best I can do.
I'm sure I would have received a lot of disagrees for my post. It wasn't to be mean or snarky, but very few are true monster. Some may be high end color wise, but not what I consider monster.
This is my first "high-end" coin (over $1,000) that I won at a Legend Regency auction years ago. I've collected plenty of higher-end Morgans since then and now my collection is exclusively filled with them, mostly proofs and Carsons, plenty of DMPLs too. The second coin is an example of some of the proofs I own and the last coin is one of my favorite DMPLs. I cherish everyone of these coins and hope my kids will someday too and not just dump them with some dealer.
ColonelJessop once called this is monster. Hawaiians just don’t come like this
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......
I made that collage from my set of proof Indians @grip some years back... Glad you liked it enough to save the pic! The only one that I kept out of there is the neon green 1864 just right of the center... That is one of my favorite proof Indians that I have ever seen and a nice memento of an amazing set...
AB
He's missing his feathers.