Novice Seeking Help on Toning and Early U.S. Silver: What Do You Think of These, and GTG
TypeCollector87
Posts: 26 ✭✭✭
I've re-entered the hobby after a nearly decade-long hiatus, and I've found that the toners catch my eye. I really don't know what I'm doing, though, so I'm relying on TPGs to cull out the improperly cleaned, altered surface, and questionable color coins. But aside from avoiding details-graded coins, I don't know what I should be watching out for.
I'd be curious to get your thoughts on these three NEWPs. Do they look original or otherwise attractive, or do they instead look problematic in some way? Also feel free to GTG. They're all straight-graded by PCGS.
1
2
3
4
Comments
Awesome, thanks. So what's the bad news?
It's not polished it's not retooled it's not maliciously chemically treated. So it'll straight grade as "market acceptable" not straight grade as "pcgs believes these are 100% original surfaces". It's my understanding that if such was the case then every coin would be bagged.
It's my limited understanding that, generally, treatments from a substantial amount of time ago are not enough to bodybag a coin. I believe if a coin was treated in an effort to preserve it and the coin was not destroyed and the treatment did serve to do some good, you should be relatively okay depending on the period and treatment. So, it depends.
Look up how cabinet friction affects grades if you want your head to spin.
I absolutely love the last piece.
The 1806 and 1835 are absolutely not original. The 1833 may or may not be original. The 1806 has been really harshly dipped, washed, whatever and has one heck of a scratch going across the obverse, but it slid into a PCGS holder so it has market acceptance more than if it didn't. The 1835 was perhaps only dipped and later acquired secondary toning.
I don't like the 1806 or 1835 at all since they both scream "I've been boinked!".
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I found a documentary on netflix regarding toning on a knights armor.
The customer of the custom made armor wanted blue toning during Henry VIII time.
Just might open your eyes to this effect.
I don’t care for the 1806 at all. It’s been severely cleaned and has acquired some secondary toning. The 1835 was dipped and now has secondary toning that is acceptable but obviously not original. The color has an odd bluish hue that is not quite right for natural toning.
The others might be original and are acceptable if a potential buyer finds them attractive.
Back in the 1980s I bought an 1887 Queen Victoria Jubilee florin. When I purchased it, the coin was bright white. Today it has toning that is similar to your 1833 coins. Most people would say the coin is “original” because of the look, but since I know what it has looked like over the last 30+ years, I know differently. The dealer, who has since passed on, who sold it to me, was known for “better coins through chemistry.”
Here are photos of the florin.
Nice coin.
There you see the pitfalls of tarnish.....I agree with @TomB and @BillJones....Cheers, RickO
But I have remind you, @ricko, that there are pitfalls to bright white too. The worst of them can be disasters when the coin has hardly been rinsed and the mild acid that removed the tarish is still chewing on the coin. Most of the time, unless it is modern coin from the at least the 1940s and later, the lack of tarnish has been "helped" as it was on my florin.
I find the florin to be attractive, and since it has not changed color from what I can see for the last 20 years, I'd say that it is stable.
I don't like the 1806, but it has more to do with the scratch across the obverse. It's all I see. The color is clearly from secondary toning following a dip. The dime is similar. The CBH also looks like secondary toning to my eye.
That said, I own a number of coins with secondary toning that have almost certainly been dipped at some point in their past. It's part of their history and sometimes they "come back" with a really nice look. The second and third coins here would be attractive to a significant part of the market.
@TomB and @BillJones are collectors in the traditional, classic sense who are on one end of the scale who prefer a really original look, even at the expense of "pretty". They are not wrong, but a growing number of people are finding the right kind of secondary toning to be attractive (and expensive).
While some of the OP's coins might have been artificially toned, I would guess that they were just allowed to re-tone following a dip.
Here's an 1806 half that I own for comparison that has toning that I like. It is most likely secondary toning too, but nice to my eye. The toning is more complex and the underlying coin seems less adulterated. Still, it would probably not be so attractive to some folks:
Here's a dime with a look that I like. Again, others might disagree:
I don't have a problem with nice secondary toning at all. I have purchased many coins that I knew had secondary toning. I have very much of an "eye appeal" collector. If the look of a coin does not appeal to me, I pass regardless of the assigned grade.
@BillJones
Thanks for clarifying. Have any photos of coins you love like that? It might help the OP. I know what I like, but find it difficult to explain.
I don't know about "love," but these are okay to nice to my eye.
When I first posted this one, after I bought I bought it a few years ago, it got a lot of Bronx cheers from the "original coin gallery." Oh well, I like it.
As for a coin that I think has a really great classic orginal look, it does not get much better than this.
Thanks Bill!
Reeded edge halves are a special case, at least to me. Sooooo many have been messed with and so many just aren't very nice. Cool 1797 Sm. Eagle.
Putting the toning issue aside, you do know your 1806 is the major variety(pointed 6) right? Along with a nice die crack.
"Jesus died for you and for me, Thank you,Jesus"!!!
--- If it should happen I die and leave this world and you want to remember me. Please only remember my opening Sig Line.The OP is asking the right questions and is looking for coins with nice eye appeal that will be attractive to many other collectors. With that said, since you're a returning collector back from a hiatatus, and since you are obviously collecting early type coins that are more expensive, I would try to focus on purchasing coins with a CAC "green bean" sticker similar to the ones posted above. They might carry a premium but they'll protect your investment and you know you're getting a coin that went through an extra layer of scrutiny. Once you focus on these you'll train your eye to know what to look for. Some folks don't like the added premium of CAC but for a newer collector, you'll be better off in the long run.
I collect these by die marriage, and if I did not have tolerance for secondary toning, small scratches, hits, and other issues, I would not have some DM's. Secondary toning can look attractive to me, the choice is up to the collector. Not all coins have natural grey dirt toning. Many of these coins with vibrant colors were in albums or envelopes for many years which is acceptable to TPG's, intentional or not - envelopes have been used for years to give color to early halves.
The 1806 is an interesting late die state O.109a but not terminal with the heavy reverse crack tail feathers to N. A terminal state (R-7 rarity) showed up raw on eBay a few weeks ago, I was one of the bidders. It was around F12 with probably an old clean and went for over $400 as I remember.
I would have passed on those 3 coins.
I have also re-entered the hobby after years of not purchasing a coin and am scared to buy a toned coin that it's not a real toned coin. Collecting is harder and you have to be smarter. Can not wait for this be to open up such as clubs and local shows.
Chief Engraver Robert Scot had his share of problems in 1806, he forgot to add the stem on the 1806 O.109, and the rare O.108 (seven known). Many of the die marriages of the year failed with heavy die breaks, there are lots of cuds in this year when demand for halves was great which drove the 839,576 mintage. Scot's wife Eunice also died at age 55 on April 27, 1806, and on May 14 a fire raged through Scot's neighborhood on Walnut Street, causing him to move to 12th Street.
Here is the very rare late die state of 1806/inv6 O.111b with the double cud, I am not sure if the toning is original, and don't really care:
The 1806 has am old cleaning and retoned likely through artificial means. I'd give the coin a "D" on my grading scale. Exactly the type of Coin, I'd stay away from completely. Interesting that trace color attracts less experienced collectors once it's encapsulated, so the color makes it easier to sell unfortunately.
The 1835 is also highly probable to be AT, but it's surfaces are nowhere near as damaged as the 1806. The coin appears to have a prior cleaning that was light in nature at least based on the photograph, but it can be difficult to ascertain how harsh the cleaning is without inspection in hand. The coloring appears added later its abrupt edge and lack of luster nails it. Probably heat plus chemical methods. In my grading scale, I'd give a C-. Unless something was an impossible due marriage or super rare redbook variety, I'd stear clear. Some dealers will feature such a coin as premium with color and charge more, but it won't go well when time comes to sell.
The 1833 half dollar is more difficult to discern in my view without having the coin in hand to review. A huge percentage of capped bust lettered edge halves have been dipped at one point. Including for example a large percentage of Newman coins, yet gem and superb gem halves sold for many record prices. Some of those coins were also cleaned with faint up to moderate hairlines. When the cleaning was obvious, it impaired their value significantly. The 1833 is certainly market acceptable. I would grade it "C+" on my scale. It's difficult to known if it's a second skin without close up inspection, my gut tells me its likely not original but it could be. If there reverse wasn't as mottled I'd go up to "B-". The coin would be typical market acceptible. Some might like it more than others.
Trying to give you the early American silver perspective. Good luck with your new collecting and welcome back!
Awesome post @GoBust.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
Takeaway for the OP; in todays market acceptable grading where TPG's set prices thru grades it may not be smart to rely solely on TPGs to cull out the improperly cleaned, altered surface, and questionable color coins. Especially true for early type material.
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
Hi, yes, I did know this was the pointed 6, no stem variety. And I saw the die crack around the date.
Hi all, I just wanted to thank you for the insightful responses. Certainly a lot to learn here!
Isn't there a place you can send coins to get them examined for originality and to get threads closed?
FWIW I have a few old "album toned" and very attractive early type coins that straight-graded VF-XF. None of them stickered. I will hang onto them tho, or have so far.
Hey guys, quick follow up question to see if I'm getting the hang of this, what do y'all think about this one (not a NEWP, just saw it for sale):
Here's my example of an 1806 quarter. I find the toning to be quite desirable and natural.
MS62+ CAC
Really interesting thread. For those who are fairly adept at recognizing secondary toning, what are the telltale signs that you look for? To me any circulated silver coin that is 200+ years old but has bright surfaces is pretty suspect for at least having a dip at some point. When you get into the higher AU and MS grades I find it tricky. What do you look for?