NT or AT with Circumstantial Evidence
bombtech25
Posts: 209 ✭✭✭
Bought this on eBay cause I liked the toning which appeared much less colorful in the seller photos. Seller advertised as toned but without using Mega, Monster, Monstrous, etc. No +++++’s either. They also used obverse photo for main picture and priced similarly to their other raw lower grade Morgan’s. That feels slightly supportive of NT or at least not the normal AT sales tactics but the color seems a little exotic. From the golden area to the right of reverse is nearly all iridescent blue. NT or AT?
1
Comments
Looks highly AT to me from those photos. I wouldn't put any stock in how it was marketed, personally.
To me, it's definitely NT. Nice. I just bought a 1880s Morgan recently. Funny, the toning looks pretty close to your's but I like your's better. The mint mark looks like the slanted "s" variety? Cool!
"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.AT.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
AT
Have to go with AT.
@ironmanl63
I don’t necessarily disagree but can you point out the reasoning behind your opinion lest I be in here asking next week.
Splotchy, abrupt unnatural color transitions, no "pull away" toning at letters.
I have seen that pattern of toning many times. It has the appearance of being placed on the coin. Natural toning has a different look. It is one of those things that you know it when you see it. Looking at lots and lots of coins was how I learned. I never had a mentor or a dealer who taught me. So my description is probably not the best. I might even be wrong but I would not pay any premium for that coin.
Thank you and fair enough.
The UNITED throws me off. There’s elevation chromatics and that flaking off of the toning I’ve only seen in NT. To be fair, I wouldn’t have bought it had it looked that colorful in the pics but for no better reason than the colors look too exotic.
All of the color looks off to me, but particularly the colorful hues at UNITED STATES. Those colors and their transition look unnatural to me. Sorry that I can’t articulate it better, but that’s the way it hit me - quickly and strongly.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I looked at a lot of toned Morgan’s assembling a box of twenty. Would not have bought that one. AT
I honestly was thinking because of the greens it might be NT yet after reading other comments (in particular, M. Feld) I changed my mind.
I am curious as to what greens would have to do with being nt or at?
Helped along.
I have heard a number of people say that green hues are harder to replicate.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Looks like AT.
AT aka TB (Yo Quiero Taco Bell),
Rgds
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
BOOMIN!™
Wooooha! Did someone just say it's officially "TACO™" Tuesday????
AT...For the reasons above and also.... Look at the dark spots on the rim of obverse...opposing...as if the process required stabilizing at those points or that is where the tarnishing agent was introduced.....Just my observations...Cheers, RickO
Also, everywhere outside of the rainbow band is a very weird blue color.
Found this helpful link:
https://www.monstertonedmorgans.com/all-about-toned-morgans
This.
Thanks.
Right, wrong, sometimes right, sometimes wrong, I can’t say. The entire subject of AT or NT seems to rest on something akin to “cause I said so.” The grading services being the opinion of authority at least defines things somewhat. As a collector and a peasant one at that, it’s frustrating when there seems to be disconfirming information or varying standards. Below is an MS68+ graded by our hosts that seemingly contradicts all the previous comments. I may have to see how much of that $100 joeykoins has left and get rid of this thing.
"Pull away" toning can be on both AT and NT coins. Not a definitive factor either way. I've seen some toning "guides" by supposed experts than lean either way. Most every time I see it on 19th century silver coins....looks good to me.
I did a Taco bell napkin coin just once for the heck of it back in 1988/89....an 1890 PCGS 64++ seated quarter with a 66 look. Pure white. Just needed to cover some planchet spots just under the rock. 6 months later it was yellow-silver. And by 12 months purples and deep golds all over it. Came back AT. Oh well. 10 yrs later I ran across it at a major auction....in a TPG MS65 holder.
" Below is an MS68+ graded by our hosts that seemingly contradicts all the previous comments."
What led you to say that? To clarify, when you wrote "all the previous comments", did you mean comments in the post you quoted or the comments of other posters, as well? Either way, I think the above coin looks markedly different from the one in your opening post.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Everyone has an opinion but yours is the one that matters. I would not of offered mine if not asked. I would say that those who gave their opinion would say because I think so. Not because I said so. The latter sounds rude. I had no intention of being rude sharing my opinion. Another opinion I have is if the original coin and the one recently posted were viewed in hand they would look vastly different. Again just my opinion.
To the OP: Send the coin to PCGS along with your next submission. If it gets straight-graded, I'll reimburse you the grading fee (minus shipping).
This latter coin is not as splotchy as yours.
The AT/NT debate is right up there with CAC for contentiousness. The fact is that no one can definitively answer the AT/NT question because no one consistently defines what it even means.
Why is a coin that sat in a roll for 50 years "NT" when the color came from chemicals in the roll? It is akin to judging intent. If I take that same roll and put new coins in it for 50 years, is the result NT or AT?
A local B&M had a bunch of ASE's that were put in snap together plastic cases with a cardboard holder to sell as gifts. 2 years later, the coins had all toned due to the low quality of the cardboard insert. NT or AT? If you say AT, then all album toning is also AT.
In the end, it is either market-acceptable or market-unacceptable. Even a coin in a PCGS holder could have been intentionally toned. It was just done by a very skilled coin chemist and PCGS deemed it market acceptable.
If you like the coin, enjoy it. If you want to see if you can get it straight-graded, send it in.
It wasn't so long ago that bright white was the rage. If 25 years from now bright white is again the rage, people are going to be dipping the rainbows just to unbury themselves.
Have fun. Enjoy it. If you don't want opinions, don't ask for them. If you do ask for opinions, take them for what they are worth.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
Agreed.
There have been many threads on the topic here over the years, and some common agreement has been reached. Certain types of toning cannot occur through storing a Morgan dollar in a burlap sack or an album over a period of time. The OP's coin falls into that category, and thus cannot be called NT.
Bright white is not going to become "the rage". Why would people place higher value on something that is far more common?
Sound advice!
Although this does not have any pull away toning it does exhibit the correct color progression: yellow, red, blue, green.
bob
The fact that virtually everyone thinks the first coin is AT, is telling. While such a large majority isn't always "right", chances are excellent that such is the case.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
M> @ironmanl63 said:
Didnt intend for the rude part so my apologies for that.
Speaking to the splotchiness, color, and pull away. The picture of the coin i have (and dislike) and the picture of the MS68+ are not "markedly different." I knew posting it there'd be some boot shiner (guessed you) calling an area of my coin yellow but same color on graded coin "more of an effervescent honey with accents of marigold". The entire subject is debatable and poorly defined. Wish it were otherwise.
We're expressing opinions and mine is that the two coins look markedly different.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I don't know. Now that I think about it, the first coin does look NT.
(Sorry Mark. I usually defer to you.)
Fair enough. To your point on concurrence on AT, im in that camp. A set of stable, objective standards on the subject should (if our concurrence is meaningful) be forthcoming then. It's not though and that is annoying. Im sure no one was excited at pcgs when they had to use "questionable" as part of there determination either.
Youre killing me. Im throwing it down the sewer.
Ironically, doing so will probably add even more of a rainbow tone!
Why did they put a premium on bright white 25 years ago? People dipped everything because no one wanted toning. The experiment has already been done. There was a time when bright white was king. It could happen again.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
People may have been dipping coins with fugly toning, but only fools were dipping rainbows off of coins, which is what you're suggesting above. The market was less sophisticated with much less pricing data readily available 25 years ago. It's readily apparent today that premium color coins often bring multiples of bright white coins, which reduces the likelihood still further that people will be dipping them going forward.
They were dipping EVERYTHING because people wouldn't buy coins with toning on them. The premium for color on coins is relatively recent. It did not exist back in "the good old days".
And only a fool or a medium pretends to know what the style will be in the future.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
Quite common to "clean the silver" in the 19th century, even abrasively.
John Jay Pittman himself used to shellac proof coins to prevent their toning.
Styles change. That's all I'm saying.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
I guess you failed logic class. If EVERYTHING had to be dipped to be salable, toned coins wouldn't exist today, except those made recently by the doctors.
EVERYTHING was in response to your "fugly". It wasn't about ugly or pretty toning. People did not want toning.
Obviously, not EVERYTHING changed hands during that period. And not EVERYONE was always on board with the current fashion. Not to mention that toning was popular in the pre-white period.
Ask the old-timers. For a time, bright white got the premium not toned. It's a historical fact.
Feel free to argue with yourself now. There is really no denying historical fact as much as you would like to debate it away. White was the rage (19th century into the 20th), then toning was popular, then white was the rage, now toning is popular. The future...I'm neither a fool nor a medium so I won't claim to know.
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
Here, from Ron Guth:
https://books.google.com/books?id=myImDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA258&lpg=PA258&dq=when+did+toning+on+coins+become+popular&source=bl&ots=eOABBTBNFz&sig=ACfU3U1PNxzQAPm-HbULbWNluvlfCp2aqA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiiosD5zYfqAhVkSTABHV36C_w4ChDoATAJegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=when%20did%20toning%20on%20coins%20become%20popular&f=false
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
@CoinJunkie
@jmlanzaf
You two think fight threads will ever take off on the forum? We have the “Post a ........ for whatever” threads, “Is this a .....” threads, but nothing in the way of pure conflict threads. A mediator could write your intros, weight class, city you hale from, maybe even a little music video to get the blood flowing and then the central argument gets posted and it’s on!!!!!! Don’t stop til heather shows up.
Here, from Jeff Garrett:
https://coinbooks.org/v22/esylum_v22n42a17.html
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
Sorry. I didn't start it. But I am walking away. If Ron Guth and Jeff Garrett don't convince him, I'm certainly never going to.
Have fun with your coin,
All comments reflect the opinion of the author, evn when irrefutably accurate.
I'm of the opinion that it's AT as well. I'd expect some evidence of "pull away" plus the area above the bow looks mottled and splotchy. That's chemistry in action IMO.
Looks like Ron Guth failed logic class too: "So look what happened to all the toned coins..."
DUDE, I'm aware that toned coins have had periods or greater and lesser popularity. You're not telling me anything I don't know. Guth's primary thrust was that white coins gained popularity because coin doctors started fooling a lot of people and they got burned buying AT crap. I would point out (germanely to this thread) that the collector base (and TPGs) have gotten much better at sussing out AT coins. Thus, another reason why history will likely not repeat itself with collectors rejecting toners en masse. I'm not saying definitively that it won't happen, but I see many reasons to bet against it.