1952 Proof Set Toning
dipset512
Posts: 227 ✭✭✭
When viewing coinfacts for these coins, I see most are blast white. The ones below I have are all toned. The dime shows it best on what the other coins look like. Is this type of toning desirable on proofs or is blast white more preferred? Apologies for the picture quality as my setup doesn't take good images of proof coins.
I know most will say it depends on what you like, but I also have to take into account future resale value. For context asking because wondering if they should stay as is or a candidate for the dip.
1
Comments
I'd leave them as-is.
Most folks might prefer them blast white and some folks might require them to be wildly toned, but a light dusting of original skin on proof coins nearing 75-years old shouldn't harm their liquidity or value very much. As such, if someone wants them blast white then they can dip them easily enough after purchase, but if you were to dip them now then you lose the segment of the hobby-industry that might want some skin on them.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
@TomB, ah, that's something that makes sense. Thanks for the feedback!
I'd be a buyer just as is. I'd leave it alone to
I don`t mind originality. They look fine. Same with mint sets.
I'm with Tom. For example, I like toning on my proof Washies and this one has the "light dusting" of skin that Tom references:
"She comes out of the sun in a silk dress,
running like a water color in the rain...."
Once you go white you can't go back. Keep them as is for now.
Agree with Tom, there's no point in messing with those. They don't have problems that need fixing.
Here is a 1951 PR67 Dime I have.
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
Nice quarter! I'm anxious to see what mine will look like with a good camera.
Beautiful dime!
I think pursuit of CAM/DCAM designations is a significant contributor to them being blast white.
Here are a few of my toned ones from 1952.
