What caused this toning ?

Louis · November 23, 2004 9:50AM

And what would it grade ?

ddbird · November 23, 2004 9:52AM

Textile I believe...the black spots are from the holes in the sack! LIke burlap...that is if its NT

Edited to add...very creamy coin...

RKKay · November 23, 2004 9:52AM

I am, by no means, an expert, but it looks like it spent time on a cloth.

BAJJERFAN · November 23, 2004 9:52AM

I would imagine that toning is from contact of the coin with smoe kind of fabric.

Louis · November 23, 2004 10:04AM

Any guesses on the grade ?

BAJJERFAN · November 23, 2004 10:05AM

ms63 maybe pretty flat over the ear

ldhair · November 23, 2004 10:13AM

I think it's a great looking coin and a 93.
Textile toning with a bit of moisture causing the dark spots.
MS-64 or 65 if the weak spot above the ear is not wear.
I say this and I don't know squat.

Louis · November 23, 2004 10:35AM

Any more guesses ?

uofa1285 · November 23, 2004 10:37AM

Hi Louis,

Nice Textile! Looks like 64 PL to me!
Doug

magikbilly · November 23, 2004 10:46AM

Hi,
I am not sure why, but something about the textile does not look right to me with this coin - just my .02 and I am judging from just an image. It looks like a "tilted" flatbed scan which can make things look a little funny - what does the reverse look like?

Best,
Billy

ddbird · November 23, 2004 10:50AM

I would 64PL 65....the weak strike is common for 93...

Louis · November 23, 2004 10:50AM

Maybe the reverse would help.

Hadleydog · November 23, 2004 10:50AM

Cool coin, Louis! Looks like it spent some time against a fabric.
From the picture, I'll guess 65-pl.

Louis · November 23, 2004 10:57AM

The reverse pic should make it easier.

Deadhorse · November 23, 2004 10:59AM

The reverse told me what else I needed to know. That's bag/textile toning and a very nice example as well.

I say a solid 65 with a shot at PL. Just depends on the mood at PCGS that day.

Real nice coin there. I like it alot!!

magikbilly · November 23, 2004 11:03AM

Hi,
thanks for posting the reverse scan. One of the reasons for my comment is that the textile seems "selective" in placement. Most of the fields - but such a clean cheek. Also, and again perhaps from the scan, the obverse could look thumbed. In hand is likely a very different story. Just my .02

Best,
Billy

saintguru · November 23, 2004 11:05AM

Looks like it was cause by fleas. Or chicken pox. They were very popular back then.

Louis · November 23, 2004 11:06AM

Is there any chance this is a proof ?

magikbilly · November 23, 2004 11:09AM

<< <i>Is there any chance this is a proof ? >>

Do you think it has the rims and strike? From the scan I don't know. I don't know the specifics for this date, but how are the mirrors?

Best,
Billy

Louis · November 23, 2004 11:21AM

PCGS PF64

In the upcoming ANR auction, it's not mine, I just thought the toning was interesting for a proof.

magikbilly · November 23, 2004 11:28AM

Hi again

I can accept that toning on a PR coin much easier than a MS. Still looks a bit odd to me - the scan I am sure.

Best,
Billy

mbcoin · November 23, 2004 11:43AM

Looks like it was over dipped and not taken care of hence the haze and the dots.
Not very attractive to me.

mr1931S · November 23, 2004 12:21PM

Looks like was dipped, not rinsed/dried properly and has since been retoned. Also, I would expect darker, deeper colors on a dollar that spent enough time in a bag to acquire textile pattern if that is what the dots are supposed to represent.

"something about the textile does not look right to me with this coin."

I agree with this.

magikbilly · November 23, 2004 12:41PM

Hi again,
I was also going to suggest a retone after a dip long ago - the nature of the toning at the bottom of the reverse suggested that to me but I figured that was too much of an extrapolation based on these scans. I see others had the same view. That clean cheek still looks odd. What do you think Louis?

Best,
Billy

What caused this toning ?

Comments

Leave a Comment