@MFeld
You're still not getting it. Referring to Iwog in the present tense is correct, The amount of time that's passed between when he first commented and when I commented is still in the present tense because it's an ongoing conversation. It's completely your prerogative of course if you want to refer to it in the past tense, and equally it's my prerogative about whether I want to refer to him in the present tense. You don't get to decide that, you ignoramus. It's a conversation! God, what a disaster 1876 was.
@Diamond70 said: @MFeld
You're still not getting it. Referring to Iwog in the present tense is correct, The amount of time that's passed between when he first commented and when I commented is still in the present tense because it's an ongoing conversation. It's completely your prerogative of course if you want to refer to it in the past tense, and equally it's my prerogative about whether I want to refer to him in the present tense. You don't get to decide that, you ignoramus. It's a conversation! God, what a disaster 1876 was.
So much for this part of your prior post: “Talk to yourself if you like, but I won't be wasting my time indulging you any further”.
I’m getting it just fine, thank you, but clearly, you’re not. His post was written many years ago. So if you agree with it, it’s grammatically correct to opine that it “was on the money” or “it was and still is, on the money”, but not “it’s on the money”.
Not that I expect your to care, but mostly for fun, I checked with a grammar professor, who stated that correct grammar would dictate use of “was on the money”, not “is on the money”, but that your use of that idiom is acceptable in this setting.
By the way, resorting to name calling didn’t make your case any stronger, nor did it bolster the case Iwog was trying to make.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Diamond70 said: @MFeld
You're still not getting it. Referring to Iwog in the present tense is correct, The amount of time that's passed between when he first commented and when I commented is still in the present tense because it's an ongoing conversation. It's completely your prerogative of course if you want to refer to it in the past tense, and equally it's my prerogative about whether I want to refer to him in the present tense. You don't get to decide that, you ignoramus. It's a conversation! God, what a disaster 1876 was.
Name calling is childish, unnecessary, and not cool.
Where’s the red flag?
Edit:
Never mind, I thought that Freddie was posting.
@Diamond70 — Welcome to my part of the forum. Tradition holds that you sponsor a giveaway to announce your parole in two or three weeks. Thirty dollar range is good for a prize.
Jail taught me to stay away from vintage threads because verb tense makes me angry too.
I realize that this is an old thread, but if twas me I'd put the coins into a vacuum dessicator and suck the air out and refill it with nitrogen containing a small amount of hydrogen sulfide, something like 10 ppm. As an aside, former member RickO [may he RIP] always claimed to be able to make monster toners using sodium sulfide, but never would offer up any proof.
Also HRH said that the number of monster toner in a 1,000 coin bag was usually very small, like less than 10 so where are all of them coming from?
Hence my earlier statement about why I teach math instead of language arts. Verb tense, verbals, conjugation......diagraming sentences in elementary school scarred me for life.
FYI: I have also heard that crushing up a cigarette in the box can add some brownish tone to a coin.
@BAJJERFAN said:
I realize that this is an old thread, but if twas me I'd put the coins into a vacuum dessicator and suck the air out and refill it with nitrogen containing a small amount of hydrogen sulfide, something like 10 ppm. As an aside, former member RickO [may he RIP] always claimed to be able to make monster toners using sodium sulfide, but never would offer up any proof.
Also HRH said that the number of monster toner in a 1,000 coin bag was usually very small, like less than 10 so where are all of them coming from?
On average, the number of “monster toners” in a given bag is small. However, some bags contain more than their fair share. Additionally, there were (and are) a lot of bags, which means large quantities of coins. Keep in mind that those coins have had more time to tone, since David Hall made his comments. And (last for now, but not least) - with all of the information readily available on the internet these days, it’s much easier to become aware of large quantities of coins and other objects, we wouldn’t have known about a couple of decades ago.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@GaCoinGuy said:
FYI: I have also heard that crushing up a cigarette in the box can add some brownish tone to a coin.
An old relative used urine and tobacco to age “replica” stone tools. Moist tobacco would stain a coin quickly, whether you could call it tone, I don’t know.
@Diamond70 said:
Iwog is on the money, no pun intended. Mark Twain Quote: “No amount of evidence will ever persuade an idiot.” Or idiots in this case, plural.
Considering that his post was from 2002, the best you could have said of him was that he "was", not "is" on the money. But that would have been incorrect, too. Based on his two statements (copied below), it's clear that he didn't understand that tab toning doesn't automatically add significant value to silver commemoratives. And he was incorrect in thinking that dark tab-toned examples sell almost as well as attractive ones and/or higher quality ones do.
In the first example below, the extra $5000 in price wouldn't have resulted just from the presence of typical tab toning. And in the second example, a near-$18,000 price achieved (for a coin that usually brought "a few bills") wouldn't have resulted just from the presence of typical tab toning, either. In failing miserably in his attempt to make his case, he totally ignored differences in value that are due to differences in quality/condition and eye-appeal.
1) The guy I watched do this put a very light patina on a Roanoke and slapped about $5000 onto the sales price. For some reason, dark tab toned commems sell almost as well as the pretty ones do."
and
2) "Here's a genuine naturally tab toned commem that recently sold for an absurd amount of money so you can see what it should look like when finished. Example It realized almost $18,000 for a coin that could be bought brilliant for a few bills".
@jom said:
Nice post IWOG. Although, I certainly don't hold the distain you have of toned coins I do agree the "bubble" is rather idiotic. But, then again, people do what they want to do. In fact, this "bubble" is no different that the high prices being paid for super-grade coins. It's the same idea you bring up: Not many people can tell the difference between 66 and 67 (like your analogy of AT vs NT) but yet pay huge sums of dough. Go figure but that is what makes life itself so interesting, no?
As for AT vs NT: I've said this many times: the subject is over-blown. I, for one, don't really give a damn because the "doctors" are getting so good at it the definition of AT is being more and more blurred as time goes on. If I like a coin for the price I buy it, if not I don't. What slab it's in or who graded it or what color the slab label is or what grade it is is irrelevant once I decide on a price to pay. Simple really...
@JOHNGALT said:
One thing about taking a break from the hobby and then coming back is you notice things that are significantly different from a few years ago. There are a ton of Morgans out there with "color" in new holders. I don't remember that many from the past. Seems like this is a recent trend. Also - the explanation back in the day is that most morgan's got their color from lying in a mint bag for years and reacted with the sulfur in the bag. Most of these had crescents with a distinguishable color band as another coin was usually laying on top of it. Made sense. Some were envelope toned from sitting an envelope for years. Made sense. Most of the color I see on today's Morgan's seems too bright, devoid of depth and without a pattern - I can't make sense of it. I just consider them Fugazi's and move on. In response to IWOG's original post from back in the day, I do think you can tell real old color vs the commercial rush jobs.
I remember a video from John Campbell (I think that was his name) on how to detect artificial toning on coins. He explained things pretty simply. I still remember most of those points. Its a good watch if you care about this subject.
Honestly agreed. The colors are amazing, but it is hard to tell what is natural and what isn't
@bsshog40 said:
This may be a record for a post being brought back to life. Started in 2002, came back in 2005, then in 2009, again in 2010 and now in 2023. Lol
The one thing I've learned on this topic is that there are many definitions of at and NT... As a general rule of thumb, the harder the toning colors change, the more likely it was done intentionally. Like the now infamous bullseye toning of PCI slabs. If I'm looking at toners I usually look for softer color changes and less (or no) hard edges in the color changes.
I've had coins that I thought for sure we're gonna get qc from our host pass muster and others that I thought wouldnt be questioned be questioned...
At the end of the day coloration/toning seems to be as subjective as grading itself if not moreso, except that at least with grading we have some kind of standard, thanks for companies like pcgs putting together 'standard' coin examples in each grade that we can use as reference points.
Personally I think cleaning coins improperly is a much bigger issue than toning.
@MFeld
The entertainment value of what you wrote IS not lost on me. Thank you for that paradigm of thought. It's very impressive that you felt compelled to consult a, grammar professor too. Not silly at all. The USA undoubtedly has some of the finest academic minds in the world, and I congratulate you for seeking their advice. That being said however, a linguistics professor may have been more appropriate I feel. A linguistics professor would almost certainly been able to mass debate with you how idiomatic constructions vary in different English speaking regions of the world. He may even have elaborated more about the usage of infinitives and modifiers in sentence construction in those different English speaking regions, you never know. Getting to the nub of it though. I think he definitely would have said that fixating on the meaning of a term to support a semantic argument, isn't going to be your best move. Especially if you're from a different region of the world to the person that you're arguing with that uses different colloquialisms. Once again, I congratulate you for taking the initiative to seek clarification from the Grammar Professor, it showed real spunk.
@Diamond70 said: @MFeld
The entertainment value of what you wrote IS not lost on me. Thank you for that paradigm of thought. It's very impressive that you felt compelled to consult a, grammar professor too. Not silly at all. The USA undoubtedly has some of the finest academic minds in the world, and I congratulate you for seeking their advice. That being said however, a linguistics professor may have been more appropriate I feel. A linguistics professor would almost certainly been able to mass debate with you how idiomatic constructions vary in different English speaking regions of the world. He may even have elaborated more about the usage of infinitives and modifiers in sentence construction in those different English speaking regions, you never know. Getting to the nub of it though. I think he definitely would have said that fixating on the meaning of a term to support a semantic argument, isn't going to be your best move. Especially if you're from a different region of the world to the person that you're arguing with that uses different colloquialisms. Once again, I congratulate you for taking the initiative to seek clarification from the Grammar Professor, it showed real spunk.
Fixing the meaning of terms is crucial to semantics. A rant is a rant, erudite as it seems.
I’m a linguistics professor. A linguistics expert is not necessary, the “grammar” professor whom he consulted sufficed.
As for the correct verb in this case, I thought that the past tense more appropriate for the context. I based my opinion on the origin of the idea in the past, not the person, even though the person is the subject of the clause.
In Andalusia it is common to use the present perfect as a substitute for the finished perfect (simple past, or preterite). But verb time is time and colloquial variation has little influence over verb time. In Eastern Carolina it is common to use were in instead of was, but that is subject-verb agreement.
If @MFeld had asked me about it I would have stopped with verb tense. I would have avoided a “mass debate” about idiomatic constructions, and usage of infinitives and modifiers in sentence construction—as those have little to do with the choice of the simple past and the simple present tense. We professors have papers to read.
You’re welcome to hang out with us, just chill. Sign up for the Lincoln road show project, you’ll feel whole again. Notice, you and I are scrubs talking a grammar point in a coin forum. The experts laugh at us.
This post doesn’t mean that you’re not going to sponsor a parole giveaway, does it?
@Diamond70 said: @MFeld
The entertainment value of what you wrote IS not lost on me. Thank you for that paradigm of thought. It's very impressive that you felt compelled to consult a, grammar professor too. Not silly at all. The USA undoubtedly has some of the finest academic minds in the world, and I congratulate you for seeking their advice. That being said however, a linguistics professor may have been more appropriate I feel. A linguistics professor would almost certainly been able to mass debate with you how idiomatic constructions vary in different English speaking regions of the world. He may even have elaborated more about the usage of infinitives and modifiers in sentence construction in those different English speaking regions, you never know. Getting to the nub of it though. I think he definitely would have said that fixating on the meaning of a term to support a semantic argument, isn't going to be your best move. Especially if you're from a different region of the world to the person that you're arguing with that uses different colloquialisms. Once again, I congratulate you for taking the initiative to seek clarification from the Grammar Professor, it showed real spunk.
The grammar professor I consulted is a woman, who happens to be my sister. Each of your references was to a “he”.
I noticed, that though you engaged in a debate of “was” vs. “is”, you neglected to address my point that, contrary to what you posted, Iwog wasn’t “on the money” in his comments - at least with respect to tab-toning. I have copied my post on that subject below, for your convenience, enjoyment and entertainment. I’d also be interested in hearing your defense of his faulty reasoning.
My earlier post:
Based on his two statements (copied below), it's clear that he didn't understand that tab toning doesn't automatically add significant value to silver commemoratives. And he was incorrect in thinking that dark tab-toned examples sell almost as well as attractive ones and/or higher quality ones do.
In the first example below, the extra $5000 in price wouldn't have resulted just from the presence of typical tab toning. And in the second example, a near-$18,000 price achieved (for a coin that usually brought "a few bills") wouldn't have resulted just from the presence of typical tab toning, either. In failing miserably in his attempt to make his case, he totally ignored differences in value that are due to differences in quality/condition and eye-appeal.
1) The guy I watched do this put a very light patina on a Roanoke and slapped about $5000 onto the sales price. For some reason, dark tab toned commems sell almost as well as the pretty ones do."
and
2) "Here's a genuine naturally tab toned commem that recently sold for an absurd amount of money so you can see what it should look like when finished. Example It realized almost $18,000 for a coin that could be bought brilliant for a few bills".
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
What? I misgendered the hypothetical linguistics professor? I didn't actually assign a gender to the grammar professor I think you'll note if you take the time to read it again. Argument is an intellectual process and I think we should follow the rules. In the spirit of goodwill however, I will move on and address your question about Iwog's comments.
Firstly. My defence is - I have no defence.
Secondly. With that out of the way I shall give my interpretation of Iwog's comments
I think we can both agree that Iwog's knowledge of chemistry was/is impeccable. So far as being an expert witness about toning is concerned though, that is up for debate. Even by his (let's assume he's a bloke..) own admission he hasn't dabbled that much in the dark art of toning coins, and most of his evidence about the subject is anecdotal at best. He was/is adamant however that if done correctly a layer of hydrogen sulphide could be deposited on the surface a coin and that there would be no discernable way of knowing if it had accumulated over time or over night. That it wasn't infallible, and that there wasn't a 'Zippy the Pinhead' parallel universe where 'artificially' toned coins are always identified by a select group of sophisticated enlightened individuals with super-hero powers, and none slip through the net,
Putting everything else aside though you make some very interesting points about toning, about what passes as acceptable, about what increases the value of a coin, the quality/condition eye-appeal etc, Understandably that is why you took umbrage to Iwog's comments. Good job.
I would say that it's debate if comments don't use vulgar language, and isn't intended to cause anxiety or distress. Moderators should otherwise be impartial.
Hence my earlier statement about why I teach math instead of language arts. Verb tense, verbals, conjugation......diagraming sentences in elementary school scarred me for life.
FYI: I have also heard that crushing up a cigarette in the box can add some brownish tone to a coin.
I wish I had those scars. They stuck me at teaching gym class. j/k
I've seen a lot of reddish-brown to brown color come off with an acetone soak. One coin totally transformed from gray brown to light, steely gray in one dip.
Comments
has a controversial thread ever been deleted?
nb4tl
Is it controversy or open debate?
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
One can just imagine the "mad AT scientist" in his lab creating his "monster" toned creations.
Wow! This thread has had more resurrections than Sam and Dean Winchester from Supernatural.
FYI: Old cigar boxes work well too....a bit slower, but the colors are nice.
@MFeld
You're still not getting it. Referring to Iwog in the present tense is correct, The amount of time that's passed between when he first commented and when I commented is still in the present tense because it's an ongoing conversation. It's completely your prerogative of course if you want to refer to it in the past tense, and equally it's my prerogative about whether I want to refer to him in the present tense. You don't get to decide that, you ignoramus. It's a conversation! God, what a disaster 1876 was.
@MFeld
Correction 1776
So much for this part of your prior post: “Talk to yourself if you like, but I won't be wasting my time indulging you any further”.
I’m getting it just fine, thank you, but clearly, you’re not. His post was written many years ago. So if you agree with it, it’s grammatically correct to opine that it “was on the money” or “it was and still is, on the money”, but not “it’s on the money”.
Not that I expect your to care, but mostly for fun, I checked with a grammar professor, who stated that correct grammar would dictate use of “was on the money”, not “is on the money”, but that your use of that idiom is acceptable in this setting.
By the way, resorting to name calling didn’t make your case any stronger, nor did it bolster the case Iwog was trying to make.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
All I can say is I still miss Bear.
Name calling is childish, unnecessary, and not cool.
I am a newer collector (started April 2020), and I primarily focus on U.S. Half Cents and Type Coins. Early copper is my favorite.
And people wonder why I teach math and not Language Arts.
FYI: Taco Bell napkins work well for AT purposes, or so I hear.
Where’s the red flag?
Edit:
Never mind, I thought that Freddie was posting.
@Diamond70 — Welcome to my part of the forum. Tradition holds that you sponsor a giveaway to announce your parole in two or three weeks. Thirty dollar range is good for a prize.
Jail taught me to stay away from vintage threads because verb tense makes me angry too.
I realize that this is an old thread, but if twas me I'd put the coins into a vacuum dessicator and suck the air out and refill it with nitrogen containing a small amount of hydrogen sulfide, something like 10 ppm. As an aside, former member RickO [may he RIP] always claimed to be able to make monster toners using sodium sulfide, but never would offer up any proof.
Also HRH said that the number of monster toner in a 1,000 coin bag was usually very small, like less than 10 so where are all of them coming from?
MY COINS FOR SALE AT https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/collectors-showcase/other/bajjerfans-coins-sale/3876
Hence my earlier statement about why I teach math instead of language arts. Verb tense, verbals, conjugation......diagraming sentences in elementary school scarred me for life.
FYI: I have also heard that crushing up a cigarette in the box can add some brownish tone to a coin.
On average, the number of “monster toners” in a given bag is small. However, some bags contain more than their fair share. Additionally, there were (and are) a lot of bags, which means large quantities of coins. Keep in mind that those coins have had more time to tone, since David Hall made his comments. And (last for now, but not least) - with all of the information readily available on the internet these days, it’s much easier to become aware of large quantities of coins and other objects, we wouldn’t have known about a couple of decades ago.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Keeping it natural, speed up the process in a solar over over a few cycles.
An old relative used urine and tobacco to age “replica” stone tools. Moist tobacco would stain a coin quickly, whether you could call it tone, I don’t know.
True, but he had the chemistry right.
They did start calling each other stupid. Lol
Bubble has yet to pop lol
Honestly agreed. The colors are amazing, but it is hard to tell what is natural and what isn't
Give it another decade and this will be revived
Hope this isn't.
The one thing I've learned on this topic is that there are many definitions of at and NT... As a general rule of thumb, the harder the toning colors change, the more likely it was done intentionally. Like the now infamous bullseye toning of PCI slabs. If I'm looking at toners I usually look for softer color changes and less (or no) hard edges in the color changes.
I've had coins that I thought for sure we're gonna get qc from our host pass muster and others that I thought wouldnt be questioned be questioned...
At the end of the day coloration/toning seems to be as subjective as grading itself if not moreso, except that at least with grading we have some kind of standard, thanks for companies like pcgs putting together 'standard' coin examples in each grade that we can use as reference points.
Personally I think cleaning coins improperly is a much bigger issue than toning.
https://www.the4thcoin.com
https://www.ebay.com/str/thefourthcoin
Artificially white......
Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value. Zero. Voltaire. Ebay coinbowlllc
@MFeld
The entertainment value of what you wrote IS not lost on me. Thank you for that paradigm of thought. It's very impressive that you felt compelled to consult a, grammar professor too. Not silly at all. The USA undoubtedly has some of the finest academic minds in the world, and I congratulate you for seeking their advice. That being said however, a linguistics professor may have been more appropriate I feel. A linguistics professor would almost certainly been able to mass debate with you how idiomatic constructions vary in different English speaking regions of the world. He may even have elaborated more about the usage of infinitives and modifiers in sentence construction in those different English speaking regions, you never know. Getting to the nub of it though. I think he definitely would have said that fixating on the meaning of a term to support a semantic argument, isn't going to be your best move. Especially if you're from a different region of the world to the person that you're arguing with that uses different colloquialisms. Once again, I congratulate you for taking the initiative to seek clarification from the Grammar Professor, it showed real spunk.
Fixing the meaning of terms is crucial to semantics. A rant is a rant, erudite as it seems.
I’m a linguistics professor. A linguistics expert is not necessary, the “grammar” professor whom he consulted sufficed.
As for the correct verb in this case, I thought that the past tense more appropriate for the context. I based my opinion on the origin of the idea in the past, not the person, even though the person is the subject of the clause.
In Andalusia it is common to use the present perfect as a substitute for the finished perfect (simple past, or preterite). But verb time is time and colloquial variation has little influence over verb time. In Eastern Carolina it is common to use were in instead of was, but that is subject-verb agreement.
If @MFeld had asked me about it I would have stopped with verb tense. I would have avoided a “mass debate” about idiomatic constructions, and usage of infinitives and modifiers in sentence construction—as those have little to do with the choice of the simple past and the simple present tense. We professors have papers to read.
You’re welcome to hang out with us, just chill. Sign up for the Lincoln road show project, you’ll feel whole again. Notice, you and I are scrubs talking a grammar point in a coin forum. The experts laugh at us.
This post doesn’t mean that you’re not going to sponsor a parole giveaway, does it?
The grammar professor I consulted is a woman, who happens to be my sister. Each of your references was to a “he”.
I noticed, that though you engaged in a debate of “was” vs. “is”, you neglected to address my point that, contrary to what you posted, Iwog wasn’t “on the money” in his comments - at least with respect to tab-toning. I have copied my post on that subject below, for your convenience, enjoyment and entertainment. I’d also be interested in hearing your defense of his faulty reasoning.
My earlier post:
Based on his two statements (copied below), it's clear that he didn't understand that tab toning doesn't automatically add significant value to silver commemoratives. And he was incorrect in thinking that dark tab-toned examples sell almost as well as attractive ones and/or higher quality ones do.
In the first example below, the extra $5000 in price wouldn't have resulted just from the presence of typical tab toning. And in the second example, a near-$18,000 price achieved (for a coin that usually brought "a few bills") wouldn't have resulted just from the presence of typical tab toning, either. In failing miserably in his attempt to make his case, he totally ignored differences in value that are due to differences in quality/condition and eye-appeal.
1) The guy I watched do this put a very light patina on a Roanoke and slapped about $5000 onto the sales price. For some reason, dark tab toned commems sell almost as well as the pretty ones do."
and
2) "Here's a genuine naturally tab toned commem that recently sold for an absurd amount of money so you can see what it should look like when finished. Example It realized almost $18,000 for a coin that could be bought brilliant for a few bills".
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
What? I misgendered the hypothetical linguistics professor? I didn't actually assign a gender to the grammar professor I think you'll note if you take the time to read it again. Argument is an intellectual process and I think we should follow the rules. In the spirit of goodwill however, I will move on and address your question about Iwog's comments.
Firstly. My defence is - I have no defence.
Secondly. With that out of the way I shall give my interpretation of Iwog's comments
I think we can both agree that Iwog's knowledge of chemistry was/is impeccable. So far as being an expert witness about toning is concerned though, that is up for debate. Even by his (let's assume he's a bloke..) own admission he hasn't dabbled that much in the dark art of toning coins, and most of his evidence about the subject is anecdotal at best. He was/is adamant however that if done correctly a layer of hydrogen sulphide could be deposited on the surface a coin and that there would be no discernable way of knowing if it had accumulated over time or over night. That it wasn't infallible, and that there wasn't a 'Zippy the Pinhead' parallel universe where 'artificially' toned coins are always identified by a select group of sophisticated enlightened individuals with super-hero powers, and none slip through the net,
Putting everything else aside though you make some very interesting points about toning, about what passes as acceptable, about what increases the value of a coin, the quality/condition eye-appeal etc, Understandably that is why you took umbrage to Iwog's comments. Good job.
Jail is no fun. It left a tarnish on my cred. Thanks for toning down the rhetoric.
Oy vey
@Fraz
A cunning linguist...and a mass debater. Couldn't resist that, sorry.
I doff my cap to you sir, and thank you for your syntactic analysis.
@jt88
Good call. AT?
@Fraz
'This post doesn’t mean that you’re not going to sponsor a parole giveaway, does it?'
Possibly, if I get parole
@opencoin
'Is it controversy or open debate? '
I would say that it's debate if comments don't use vulgar language, and isn't intended to cause anxiety or distress. Moderators should otherwise be impartial.
I found it somewhere. I guess is AT.
peacockcoins
I wish I had those scars. They stuck me at teaching gym class. j/k
I've seen a lot of reddish-brown to brown color come off with an acetone soak. One coin totally transformed from gray brown to light, steely gray in one dip.