I Bought An AT Coin & I Did So On Purpose-A Crackle (Or California) Toning Example
TomB
Posts: 21,743 ✭✭✭✭✭
Okay, so that is an odd title, but this is a bit of an odd thread, as well. From time-to-time we have folks post on the boards a toned coin and someone will mention they remember seeing something similar years ago and that the coins were AT. It seems that @braddick and I are the two most active posters who recall such coins, I don’t know if that is a good or a bad thing, but departed (deceased) members @truthteller and @Broadstruck also had quite a bit of experience with these, as well. In addition to these folks, @Insider(choose your number!) also is very familiar with this toning scheme and I am sure there are others whom I do not recall at the moment who can add insight.
I have always called it crackle toning and recall Robert Campbell (former President of the ANA) also calling it by this name. However, Larry Shepherd (also, former President of the ANA) typically refers to these coins as California toning because he first became aware of the coins early in their dispersal at coin shows in California.
My first exposure to Robert Campbell calling these crackle toning was from a 1994 seminar he gave where he shared images of a WLH with this toning and he warned attendees that this was the cutting edge of AT and what he termed second generation AT. Below is a screen-grab of that WLH, but keep in mind that this is a screen-grab from a talk given as a slide-show without the lights fully dimmed and the original image was captured on film. Those of us who shot coins with film, especially toned coins with film, know just how difficult capturing lifelike color was three decades ago. The image of the WLH is below-
Larry Shepherd has told me that he first encountered these coins at shows in California around 1992 and the coins were already certified by PCGS and NGC with very high grades. They were priced high and they excited everyone who saw them, including Larry. The coins he encountered were at first a variety of commemorative half dollars, but then WLHs and WQs started to pop up with the same toning scheme. This set off alarms for him, Robert Campbell and PCGS and NGC because the variety of commems that were toned (Texas, Oregon, BTW, California, Albany, etc…) were not typically found with identical wild colors and patterns and then those wild colors and patterns were showing up on WLHs and WQs, which did not make sense, either. It is my understanding that both PCGS and NGC worked with several dealers to do a buyback program where the trusted dealers would get the coins off the bourse and then get them back to PCGS and NGC where they would be used to teach graders not to certify such coins. Perhaps more than 100-coins were removed in this manner.
Here are images of a Cleveland that @Broadstruck shared on the forum years ago and of a WLH shared by another member, also years ago. Both coins are in straight-graded PCGS holders. I have not shown the full slab shot of the Cleveland because the cert number is still active while the WLH appears to have a TrueView, but I don’t have the cert number for that coin. This particular type of toning was apparently prone to taking on a darker color over time and often seemed to cycle through heavy blue shades before getting less colorful. The Cleveland exhibits this, but it may be due to the image as this might be a scan through the slab while the WLH has more color, but is definitely more muted than what I recall seeing three decades ago on the bourse. In my opinion, the TrueView of the WLH shows the crackle pattern exceptionally well.
I became acquainted with these coins was in the mid-1990s when I had a table at the Parsippany, NJ show and a vest pocket dealer offered me a raw, incredibly toned Long Island commem for all of $75. I purchased the coin and was quite excited about it as I had seen nothing like it prior. The coin was sent to PCGS where it came back in a bag as AT. At this time PCGS did not encapsulate AT coins and instead sent them back in the dread “bodybag”. I then called PCGS customer service (remember when they actually had folks answering that?) and asked them if I could resubmit the coin with a letter explaining why I thought the toning was real and would they be able to include the letter with the coin. The customer service rep told me to address the coin directly to them and that they would be certain to give the letter to the graders. Who knows if that actually happened, but a month or so later the coin came back to me in a PCGS MS65 holder, which at the time was the current green insert, but now we call the OGH.
I received the coin just before a Baltimore show and promptly sold it for an enormous profit to a collector of toned commems. Likely a month later I told the vest pocket dealer whom I had purchased the coin from that it graded PCGS MS65 and that I sold it already. He was stunned and confided in me that he had tried it at both PCGS and NGC and that both times it came back as AT. He then told me whom he had purchased the coin from and this was another dealer I knew. I asked that second dealer about the coin and he told me he had sent it to NGC twice and PCGS once and all three times it came back as AT. He also told me the dealer whom he had bought the coin from and this third dealer said it was rejected by PCGS twice and once by NGC as AT. The trail went cold after that third dealer. So, the coin was rejected by both PCGS and NGC at least four times each prior to PCGS rejecting it on its fifth known attempt when I sent it in.
The letter I included with the coin was meticulous and might have done the trick to get the coin certified by PCGS. Of course, each of the dealers who found out the coin was certified begged me to share the letter, but I never gave it out to anyone else since I knew it would just be used in an attempt to get questionable coins into holders.
Around this time I started to see examples of such coins in TPG holders. The pieces I saw were usually Texas, Oregon and BTW commems along with a Cleveland and my Long Island commem. I could also now see why they were considered AT. Unfortunately, I never really saw the collector whom I sold the coin to again and the coin just disappeared into the ether. Recall that this was in the 1990s and the internet and ability to keep up with folks electronically did not exist on any scale like today and did not exist at all for many, many people. Additionally, digital photography was not yet a thing that the public could do on any scale and, as such, sharing images of coins was really rare.
Oddly enough, I was recently going through the inventory of a well-known dealer and a Long Island commem popped up on the screen and my first thought was "PCGS MS65 OGH without a CAC sticker" and sure enough it was exactly that. I "think" (stress on "think" as I can't prove it) this is the exact coin that I had certified by PCGS in the mid-1990s. It looks precisely the same as I recall it and does not appear to have darkened over the years. I reached out to the dealer and we agreed upon a price and I bought the coin. I have known this dealer for years and told him I thought the coin was likely AT and that I had been the one to get it into the PCGS holder over a quarter-century ago. Even with my longstanding relationship with the dealer, I still had to pay a lot to get this coin off the market. My plan is to keep the coin off the market and leave it as-is. I have altered the slab shot so as to remove the cert number.
It is important to note that not all coins that might have some type of speckled, crackled or broken up toning pattern are AT. Many original US Mint Set coins from 1947-1958 (exclusive of 1950) have some type of speckled or crackled pattern on them, but these coins don’t have the same color progression and don’t match the toning scheme of these pieces.
Again, I can’t absolutely prove this is the coin I submitted in the 1990s and I can’t absolutely prove this is AT, but I am pretty darn certain of each.
Comments
Wow. You've been around and much more involved in the buy/sell/trade than I can claim. I will take all this into consideration but that coun is beautiful and not at all what I consider an artificial look these days.
Click on this link to see my ebay listings.
Tom,
That is so cool to remember, many years later, a coin you owned and the subsequent story that went with it. I am glad this commemorative found a home with you (again).
On a somewhat related note, you brought up TRUTH (truthteller) and I swear- it reminded me of the peacock Ikes that were alive and well in the 1990s. So many examples, so many various threads debating their origins.
Fast forward to 2025. . . where are they now? I haven't seen a peacock Ike in ages either offered for sale or shared here with photos. Ocassionally a thread will be resurrected yet no real additional information is provided other than a comical quip.
You were able to resurrect the crackled toned coins so well I am hoping, perhaps down the road, you would investigate and report also on these colorful Ikes.
peacockcoins
interesting story - I have always heard to be leery of blues and purples
I checked the PCGS3000 chart for commemoratives - and wonder if it is relevant as many 65s in the 80's are now higher
“Better coins through chemistry,” that is the phrase for the AT coin market. I’m glad that I have never been bitten by the toner bug. I can appreciate the look of a beautifully toned natural piece, but I can’t relate to the price.
Thank you for posting this highly informative piece.
Excellent write up, thanks Tom. I remember calling Adrian about a Gettysburg he had for sale with this type of toning pattern and asking him if he agreed with me that the coin was AT.... he refused to commit, which was all I needed to confirm my suspicion.
Commems and Early Type
Really interesting stuff. Thanks for writing it up.
What a post!
If that is AT, it’s really really good.
Coin Photographer.
Which one of the AT coins do you like? The first three are ugly IMO, and the Long Island is way too bright.
I tend to judge the AT/NT issue by color and not by pattern.
Every conceivable pattern can occur naturally and artificially. We see that all the time in images shared here by many different members. Color is an entirely different animal. As laid out so eloquently by @Sunnywood, such the one brought to the top yesterday, color from thin film interference follows certain patterns --- when it occurs NATURALLY. When it occurs ARTIFICIALLY it doesn't follow those same rules.
I don't claim complete understanding, but the top coin appears to me to be AT. The purple color tends to be a giveaway and "lays" on the coin wrong. The Cleveland is in the grey area, I like the way it looks but lean towards AT, I'd have to see it in-hand. I like the look of the 2nd Walker and have bought coins which had similar tone. The Long Island has tone that I don't usually see on that issue so I'd have to see it in-hand, also.
I’m a fan of the Walker. The Long Island is nice, but I’m also not convinced it’s NT.
Coin Photographer.
Crackled toning of yesteryear compared, sadly, to today:
peacockcoins
I have seen worse. A well-known dealer bought two Proof Indian Cents with red surfaces. Some time later, he had two slabs with brown dust in them. I’ve been burned on red copper that turned, but never that badly.
Another awesome post @TomB! I remember late 90's LB shows where dealers had cases full of commems.
Crackle TX pics I saved.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
Thank you all for your kind words. I will go through some of the posts and add information to clear things up, if possible.
@braddick you mention the Peacock Ikes and I remember them quite well. I agree that it is interesting that those coins have apparently disappeared from the marketplace. It is a darn shame that @truthteller is not with us anymore, for obvious multiple reasons beyond toning, but his knowledge of the field was far beyond that of most. The disappearance of these crackled toned commems and the Peacock Ikes reminds me of the mostly disappeared Appalachian Toned Jeffersons and puke-vomit-neon brilliant blue and purple toned Jefferson proofs that were also all the rage years ago and that are now rarely seen. I will occasionally see one of those in a collection or for sale, but not nearly as many as were certified a quarter-century ago. Did many of them turn to dogs in the holders or were they taken off the market quietly like these crackled toned coins? I don't know.
@davewesen the crackle toned coins, if I recall correctly, were generally lower priced MS64/65 coins that were otherwise problem-free before being toned up, no doubt in the hope that the coins would get into MS66/67 holders. That was where the money was on these coins at that time (mid-1990s).
@Maywood it is good to see you here. We are at the mercy of the photography for the first WLH and the Cleveland because of the source images, but I agree with you on both. In the case of the Cleveland I tend to think this was a flatbed scanner produced image (I produced many like this myself around 2000) and the way the light rolls across the surface of anything on a flatbed it tends to mute the color and kill the luster. My impression (and I could absolutely be wrong) of the Cleveland is that it was likely a bit more colorful and had better luster than we are seeing. The fact that the Cleveland is in a modern, prong-style PCGS holder might indicate that it was a coin that was certified well after the initial wave of these pieces or that perhaps it was sent in for regrade or reholder in the intervening years. The second WLH was actually rejected by CAC as AT and I could agree with that assessment based upon the images provided. The LI just doesn't have the right color combinations and doesn't have the right absolute colors to pass the smell test for me. That, in combination with so relatively many various commems popping up in a short period of time with colors and patterns that were near identical to one another, but not similar to previously known colors and patterns for the issues, really lends credence to the idea that these were produced to order.
@FlyingAl they are very likely both AT. Larry Shepherd made the comment that he was afraid that the TPG graders were getting too young to have seen this before and that they might start to certify these coins again if freshly made with bright colors. I think there is something to that line of reasoning if the TPG graders haven't been around long enough to have that type of institutional memory about what they had seen before. The WLH you like was rejected by CAC as AT, as well, and I am certain my LI would be rejected as AT should I ever send it in.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Interesting thread @TomB , and thank you for posting. Ironically enough, I was just about to post a thread myself about a Washington-Carver Commem that I bought raw on eBay a couple years ago from a non-dealer that came back AT. A former grader mentioned to me at this past FUN show that it was crackle toning so I was about to post a thread about where this type of toning came from, as I had never heard of that phrase before. Here is my coin:
When I subbed this I was hoping for a gem grade as the the coin is incredibly lustrous. What causes this color?
Collector of Capped Bust Halves, SLQ's, Commems, and random cool stuff! @davidv_numismatics on Instagram
I feel like this one looks a bit different than some of the other examples. Are there variances in crackle toning? I feel like I could see that one in a straight graded holder.
Collector of Capped Bust Halves, SLQ's, Commems, and random cool stuff! @davidv_numismatics on Instagram
In my opinion, both coins shared here by @Nic and @Davidk7 are likely examples of crackle toning. The colors on the TX look really similar to so many of the colors I had seen on these mid-1990s pieces while the crackle pattern on the WC looks quite similar a lot of other pieces, as well. It has been my understanding that the coins can tend to darken or mute over time and can take on more browns as they age. I don't know how often that is the case, but I can see both of these examples falling under the wider umbrella of crackle toning.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Great post Tom. Thanks for taking the time to share your knowledge.
I remember when these were a hot topic.
Are there any threads or articles written about crackle toning? Would love to read them. The former grader had mentioned it was pretty much mostly seen just on Commems, so it is interesting to see them on Walkers and Washingtons.
Collector of Capped Bust Halves, SLQ's, Commems, and random cool stuff! @davidv_numismatics on Instagram
Hi TomB,
Interesting history!
The Long Island you took off the market has a color scheme quite similar to my photo thumbnail -- a coin you may remember!
Thank You @TomB for the very interesting write-up!
I've been in the Kennedy toner market lately, and came across(bought) the 1964 PCGS MS67 pictured below.
I'm not fully convinced that this coin is NT. The reverse looks more 'normal' for album toning?
Please give me an opinion(anyone) on how this coin became toned like that ⇊
Thanks
.
@TomB
I do think it would be a concern the younger graders would have no idea about this - and it's so well done in cases (the obverse of the Walker), that they probably wouldn't catch it without knowing. I know I learned something today.
It is of note that the coins seem to follow the standard tone progression for NT.
Thank you for the incredible post!
Coin Photographer.
Thanks for that, Tom. Truthteller explained to me in detail that the light purple toning on silver coins was one of the easier way to artificially tone one of them. He had a chemistry degree and once walked in a number of inexpensive coins which he AT'd to ANACs and they all straight graded.
I don't know anything about the crackle toning, but if anything looked weird, I have long since learned to avoid it. You've explained in a G-rated way how frustrating sending in a submission can be. Your post is yet another example why I don't care how good a photo is, if you or someone you trust doesn't actually physically see the coin, you don't really know how it looks.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Great post
Latin American Collection
Excellent thread Tom! Very informative. I have a Cleveland in a very old white ANACS (PNG logo holder) that has a crackle appearance, but not really the same colors as yours. I'll try to get a reasonable image and post it soon.
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
Thanks Tom for an interesting excellent informative write-up.
I bought this PCGS MS66 Cleveland about seven years ago on eBay using “Buy It Now” just moments after it was listed. I liked the coin and paid around $700, but I ended up selling it to a coin dealer at the Santa Clara show for over $900.
To this day, I still regret selling it. I still have more than twenty Clevelands and just purchased another PCGS MS66 Cleveland.
Really fantastic, interesting, educational, and nicely written post. Thanks Tom!
This makes me feel so much better about my growing t$ hoard.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
Fascinating history. Thank you very much for posting.
Whit.
Wow
Thanks for this detailed, informative post Tom
I like toned silver but these 'crackle' pieces are unattractive to me and I scratch my head when I hear the dollars they've commanded
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
My extreme, unattractive, purple reference eater.
Reference only, if it helps.
Found in a bank coin roll.
.
.
.