AT or NT -- ASE?

FrattLaw · June 16, 2004 9:16AM

Picked these up in the Goldberg Auction -- any opinions as to the state of the toning?

Coin #1

Obverse is white

Coin #2 Obverse

Reverse

Coin #3
Obverse

Reverse is white

Thanks
Michael

Craton · June 16, 2004 9:20AM

Numbers one and two are decent and number three is fugly

I don't think that any of them are AT.

Craton · June 16, 2004 9:21AM

I take that back, number 2 is pretty fugly too

FrattLaw · June 16, 2004 9:23AM

Hey now -- I didn't ask you whether you liked the coins -- just stick to the question --- PLEASE!!!

Michael

fivecents · June 16, 2004 9:23AM

Coin #1 & 2 are AT

Coin #3 is NT

Vet · June 16, 2004 9:30AM

I think #1 is at 2and 3 are nt

Myqqy · June 16, 2004 9:31AM

I'll say they're all NT- I especially like the first one......

LanLord · June 16, 2004 9:33AM

AT, nothing I do to any of mine get that look on them.

Err, uhhm, I mean none of mine ever tone like that.

airplanenut · June 16, 2004 9:34AM

They're all NT... although I like #1 much more than the others. I believe it came from an album, the others from those foam holders.

Jeremy

stman · June 16, 2004 9:35AM

"ALL of the fingerprints (oops I mean toning breaks) attest to the originality."

Seems like I've heard this before.

FrattLaw · June 16, 2004 9:50AM

Pretty interesting results so far, it seems kinda close between the All NT vs. All AT selection.

By the way these 3 are from a 5 coin lot -- one of the coins isn't worth posting a pic of and the other looks very similar to coin #2 in regards to both the obverse and reverse.

In hand, the colors are more vibrant, I didn't want to spend a bunch of time trying to capture the colors perfectly though.

Hey -- Stman -- they are FINGERPRINTS!!!

Michael

Bochiman · June 16, 2004 10:00AM

Michael,

I tend to agree with Jason....all 3 are likely NT.
Coin 1 is ok, but 2 & 3 are fugly. Sorry...good thing you like them since you bought them

Hope you got a good price.

Craton · June 16, 2004 10:03AM

They may be fugly but I certainly would have purchased them. I have a hard time passing up toned ASE's when I see them in person.

Dog97 · June 16, 2004 11:20AM

I don't think any of them are AT.

Russ · June 16, 2004 11:24AM

I think the toning is fine on all, but I have a question. Goldberg sells stuff at this price point?

Russ, NCNE

nwcs · June 16, 2004 11:25AM

Got some nice prints on those coins.

ms70 · June 16, 2004 11:27AM

I think #2 is AT.

ElectricEye · June 16, 2004 11:27AM

All nt, all worth bullion

Craton · June 16, 2004 12:45PM

<< <i>All nt, all worth bullion >>

Worth Bullion to some, worth a premium to others I'm sure.

matto · June 16, 2004 1:06PM

Please, does anyone really know AT from NT. I would say that #2 looks as AT as anything I have ever seen. Seems like everyone is afraid to say a coin is AT. I think it more likely that they are all AT over all NT. NT takes one major thing; time. In my opinion, these haven't had enough.

stujoe · June 16, 2004 1:07PM

I would call them all NT.

Does #3 look better in person? I have a toned SAE that is rather pretty but every time I try to image it, it comes out like #3...looking ugly and circulated even though it is pretty and Unc.

FrattLaw · June 16, 2004 1:12PM

Well, I'm not really sure if they are NT. Seems as though most people think they are. In my opinion, if you're going to AT a coin, it should look much prettier than these -- neon and rainbow colors and all. Of course these could be practice coins. But I'm betting NT. Actually they are not bad looking coins in person. I just didn't bother to really capture the color in the pics.

I got 5 free submissions to NGC so off they'll go and we'll see what the experts have to say.

I only paid $20 a coin, so its not as though I got a bunch of $$$ invested into them. I'm sure if they slab, I'll be able to get my money out of them.

<< <i>Seems like everyone is afraid to say a coin is AT. >>

That's why I did it as a poll.

Thanks
Michael

clw54 · June 16, 2004 1:22PM

If you have to ask, they might as well be AT.

Dog97 · June 16, 2004 5:05PM

<<< Seems like everyone is afraid to say a coin is AT. >>>
I'm not afraid to say it. I said NT but I can't say 100% that they are NT because they might be accelerated or whatever but they don't LOOK like the classical AT job. #1 looks like it came from an album or those cardboard holders & 2 & 3 look used & abused with #2 being maybe dipped and retoned in an album but not really AT.

Steve27 · June 16, 2004 8:32PM

They all look like they need a dip to me.

JeffinMich · June 16, 2004 9:17PM

They look NT to me....these SAE's tone up quickly and with all sorts of colors.

GOLDSAINT · June 16, 2004 10:23PM

Michael,
I think we need to add a new designation for some of these coins. How about ACT for accelerated toning.
Some one posted the other day on Russ’s thread that they new how this was being done but refused to tell.
Maybe someone can shine some light on this. In a recent conversation with a forum member, that widow toned in envelops, they said that the enveloped toned coins were no longer being slabbed. So who knows the process for this ACT?

bulloncoins · June 17, 2004 12:01AM

They look NT to me. I have several.......

AT or NT -- ASE?

Comments

Leave a Comment