If I cared about beautiful colors in unique patterns I'd collect paintings.

Coindexter · September 25, 2006 12:43PM

But I don't. I collect coins. I used to be a lot more open minded about all of this toning nonsense, but it has become clear to me that the only way to safely own toners is to never pay a premium for them.

Don't get me wrong. I don't have anything against a little bit of color. I just won't pay for it. That way if (when) I find out the coin was a spin art project I can just dip it and forget about it.

I collect coins because:

1) I'm into history and coins reflect the values and politics of their times. They are a tangible portal to the past that an average guy can actually own.

2) Many numismatic projects offer a significant challenge that provides an enriching passtime and a deep sense of accomplishment upon completion.

3) The designs of many coins are quite beautiful. This was accomplished by their mint of origin without the benefit of crayons or water colors.

DickyBetz · September 25, 2006 12:49PM

RKKay · September 25, 2006 12:49PM

Well put, and probably a voice of reason. I, on the other hand, love color and have been burned before, and probably will be again.

ziggy29 · September 25, 2006 12:50PM

<< Well put, and probably a voice of reason. I, on the other hand, love color and have been burned before, and probably will be again. >>

I love color, too. It's just become too dangerous to pay a premium for it, even when already slabbed.

haveaVAM · September 25, 2006 12:51PM

thank you for the post.
i have a bad feeling that a few of mine are A.T. and in PCGS holders the top grading company .
I know buy the coin not the holder well it was already in the holder.

Leiana · September 25, 2006 12:53PM

<< I collect coins because:

1) I'm into history and coins reflect the values and politics of their times. They are a tangible portal to the past that an average guy can actually own. >>

The coins that were actually used back in those times of yore look more like this:

-Amanda

ziggy29 · September 25, 2006 12:54PM

<<

The coins that were actually used back in those times of yore look more like this:

>>

AT.

Leiana · September 25, 2006 12:56PM

<< AT.

>>

-Amanda

DieClash · September 25, 2006 12:57PM

<< 

<< I collect coins because:

1) I'm into history and coins reflect the values and politics of their times. They are a tangible portal to the past that an average guy can actually own. >>

The coins that were actually used back in those times of yore look more like this:

-Amanda >>

Color mean chemical decomposition. I equate it with wear. I will never pay a premium for a toner. Nor am I one to dip 'em. But I definitely don't like black. Nice evenly worn chocolate specimen Amanda. I like it.

ss350camaro · September 25, 2006 1:02PM

<< But I don't. I collect coins. I used to be a lot more open minded about all of this toning nonsense, but it has become clear to me that the only way to safely own toners is to never pay a premium for them.

Don't get me wrong. I don't have anything against a little bit of color. I just won't pay for it. That way if (when) I find out the coin was a spin art project I can just dip it and forget about it.

I collect coins because:

1) I'm into history and coins reflect the values and politics of their times. They are a tangible portal to the past that an average guy can actually own.

2) Many numismatic projects offer a significant challenge that provides an enriching passtime and a deep sense of accomplishment upon completion.

3) The designs of many coins are quite beautiful. This was accomplished by their mint of origin without the benefit of crayons or water colors. >>

EXCELLENT Posting !

Sunnywood · September 25, 2006 1:02PM

Coindexter, that's fine, and I understand your points. But you will end up owning the more generic looking specimens, while the truly beautiful naturally toned specimens will go to collectors like me who are willing to pay that premium. I am fine with that ... less competition for the good stuff !!!

Coindexter · September 25, 2006 1:03PM

Amanda, that coin is much closer to something you'd find in my collection than a lot of the hurricane toners you see around here. I like type coins and I like them worn. I buy mint state when I can, but I usually don't have the money.

Coindexter · September 25, 2006 1:06PM

Sunnywood, that's cool. I'm completely comfortable and happy with my generic coins. The thing is, I'm pretty sure the Mint intended for them to all be the same.

Edited to add: Upon looking at all that color, maybe you'd be happier collecting Faberge Eggs?

lkenefic · September 25, 2006 1:09PM

I like natural toning as well, but like some others, I won't pay a premium for it either. If I miss out on an auction because someone just HAS to have the "rainbow"toner then so be it. I prefer mainly coppers anyway so...er...uhhh...well I guess those can be AT'd as well...nevermind...

Leo

BobaFett72 · September 25, 2006 1:12PM

that 1892 Barber is stunning.

Sunnywood · September 25, 2006 1:12PM

Yes, and they were all the same at the time of issue, more or less ... but the classic coins we collect today are a long ways removed from their date of birth. Attractive natural toning adds not only eye appeal, but also a visible proof of the coin's careful preservation since the time of issue. It spotlights the age and history of the coin in a positive way, and distinguishes it from widgets that were just mass produced this morning. Most of all, it makes the coin more pretty to look at !!!

Sunnywood

Leiana · September 25, 2006 1:15PM

<< Amanda, that coin is much closer to something you'd find in my collection than a lot of the hurricane toners you see around here. I like type coins and I like them worn. I buy mint state when I can, but I usually don't have the money. >>

All of my 19th century coins (except for Morgans) are circulated, some to a greater degree than others. A part of it certainly is a lack of ability to afford better examples. A bigger part, however, is the fact that these coins make the history seem more real to me. They look old, and they are. Some blast white coins I have seen from that era (most likely dipped) look like they were made yesterday, and that destroys quite a bit of the magic for me. I love nice patinated MS coins, like coins that are a deep pleasing lilac grey, with perhaps a hint or so of color on the periphery.

I can certainly appreciate rainbow toners from a distance, but I have no real desire to own any

-Amanda

dragon · September 25, 2006 3:07PM

I'm really glad that all this talk here lately about doctored up colored coins has frightened off many of the newbs from this niche of the market.

It's been my experience that those literally obscessed with beautifully toned coins and are willing to pay the often extreme prices are some of the most knowledgeable and experienced collectors in this hobby and also have the best eye for coins in general, and that area of the market will be far better off if the newbs, plastic mavens, trophy hunters, the clueless new generation of dealers, registry game sheep, and other undesirables will just stay the hell away and stick to their widgets

notwilight · September 25, 2006 3:14PM

<< Sunnywood, that's cool. I'm completely comfortable and happy with my generic coins. The thing is, I'm pretty sure the Mint intended for them to all be the same. Edited to add: Upon looking at all that color, maybe you'd be happier collecting Faberge Eggs?

>>

...and I think thy're likely less expensive...

Coindexter · September 25, 2006 3:16PM

<< It's been my experience that those literally obscessed with beautifully toned coins and are willing to pay the often extreme prices are some of the most knowledgeable and experienced collectors in this hobby and also have the best eye for coins in general, and that area of the market will be far better off if the newbs, plastic mavens, trophy hunters, registry game sheep, and other undesirables will just stay the hell away and stick to their widgets >>

You can say what you like about my collecting preferences if you don't like them, but keep your back handed, passive-aggressive insults to yourself. There happens to be a lot I do know about coins. I've only been in this hobby for about five years, but I have no trouble digesting the information bestowed upon me by numismatic heavy weights. So go ahead and imply that I have no eye for coins. It won't change my mind. My coins don't need to look like easter eggs to be special.

sumnom · September 25, 2006 3:40PM

This whole toning thing is rather new in the hobby, isn't it? When did people become so frantic about what color their coins were?

Coindexter · September 25, 2006 3:43PM

They were already talking about it here when I showed up a bit shy of two years ago.

sumnom · September 25, 2006 3:45PM

I started collecting in the mid-1970s and then fell out of the hobby in the eary 1980s. I don't remember this fascination with color back then. I came back to the hobby around 2000 and for the last several years it has grabbed some people's imagination.

Newmismatist · September 25, 2006 3:50PM

Well, think of this: You can buy a vacation home in FL, CA or MI with a view of the west where every evening you can see the blue sky, but if you want to see the gorgeous sunsets over the Ocean or the Great Lakes (Michigan), you will pay 100s of 1000s of dollars for those views - it's only color, but you really pay a significant premium for that color!

- So why are those properties always the 1st to sell for the most money?

Newmismatist · September 25, 2006 3:55PM

<< There happens to be a lot I do know about coins. I've only been in this hobby for about five years, but I have no trouble digesting the information bestowed upon me by numismatic heavy weights. So go ahead and imply that I have no eye for coins. It won't change my mind. My coins don't need to look like easter eggs to be special. >>

That may be. So post a few of your coins so you can share what makes them special with the rest of us.

Coindexter · September 25, 2006 4:10PM

They're special because I picked them. My criteria are pretty simple. It's all about original looking surfaces whenever possible. As I mentioned, I don't exclude color from my collection, I simply refuse to pay a premium for it.

By the way, this thread is not an attack on other peoples' collecting interests. I'm just expressing my complete exasperation about all of this toning controversy. At the same time I think there are people on this board that think in the same vein I do and collect in a similar manner. Their ideas don't get addressed because they are not popular. I want them to know that collecting is something you do for yourself. It doesn't matter what other people think of your coins.

I only have one coin imaged due to the fact that I never got my camera situation figured out. These were taken for me by LucyBop.

lordmarcovan · September 25, 2006 4:15PM

(Applause for Scott's original post, though there are some nice coins in here, too.)

Newmismatist · September 25, 2006 4:17PM

Nice Coin - If it had a little color, it might be even nicer

(I don't collect Comms, never have, probably never will)

ricko · September 25, 2006 11:51PM

I like my coins as clean as new.
I do not like them looking like stew.
I do not like them variegated.
I do not like them pollution painted.
I do not like a rainbow hue,
That's not for me, perhaps for you.
I do not like them Sunnywood,
For me it's bad, it is not good.

Cheers, RickO

Pentimento · September 26, 2006 12:04AM

There are only 49 extant Faberge eggs. Lets not forget that.

Sunnywood · September 26, 2006 12:21AM

RickO nice poem ...

I'm sorry to say, but it is very true,
That beauty to me, is ugly to you;
I think I'm right,
Yet you like them white;
Ne rien; chacun a son goût !!

["It's nothing; to each his own !!"]

Best,
Sunnywood

P.S. The whoe toning thing is NOT new at all ... high-end collectors have ALWAYS appreciated and paid for beautiful color. It's just that the prmiums have increased, just the same way that over the last 30 years, premiums have increased dramatically for the highest grades, DMPL's, etc. Do you think that 30 years ago, a coin called MS67 could sell for three times a coin called MS66? The competition for the best coins has increased the value at the high end, and that is also reflected in premiums paid for the best color, not just the best grades.

thecointrader · September 26, 2006 12:40AM

<< Well, think of this: You can buy a vacation home in FL, CA or MI with a view of the west where every evening you can see the blue sky, but if you want to see the gorgeous sunsets over the Ocean or the Great Lakes (Michigan), you will pay 100s of 1000s of dollars for those views - it's only color, but you really pay a significant premium for that color!

- So why are those properties always the 1st to sell for the most money? >>

Because few Ocean in View Homes have artificially toned sunsets.

Leiana · September 26, 2006 1:00AM

<< I'm really glad that all this talk here lately about doctored up colored coins has frightened off many of the newbs from this niche of the market.

It's been my experience that those literally obscessed with beautifully toned coins and are willing to pay the often extreme prices are some of the most knowledgeable and experienced collectors in this hobby and also have the best eye for coins in general, and that area of the market will be far better off if the newbs, plastic mavens, trophy hunters, the clueless new generation of dealers, registry game sheep, and other undesirables will just stay the hell away and stick to their widgets

>>

Yay. Now I can buy my bitty pieces of history with little fear of competition from knowledgable and experienced collectors. At least, until I become a knowledgeable and experienced collector. Then I will have to switch to toney coins I guess.

I love my 'widgets,' sir, and if that is something you cannot comprehend, well, that's perfectly alright. I think it is perfectly acceptable for any person, regardelss of knowledge, experience or indeed wealth to collect whatever strikes their fancy. I personally collect for the historical aspect, and also for an aesthetic aspect. In my inexperienced opinion, coins that circulated amongst the denizens of their particular time period hold more topical histroy than Morgan dollars that sat in a bag for a hundred years or more. That is not to say that Morgans sitting in a bag might not be beautiful, indeed interesting and pleasing to collect, I simply do not connect the tangible history with them quite so much. And, as history is a large part of the reasons I am a Numismatist, coins like that simply do not have as strong an attraction to me. I would CERTAINLY not presume to belittle someone for collecting them, however. Just as I would CERTAINLY not presume to belittle someone who collected dateless buffaloes, or damaged coins or modern bullion coins. All are coins (save perhaps the buffaloes

) that I would rather not collect, but more power to those who would choose to do so.

Coin collecting used to be the hobby of kings. In many ways it still is, but in many ways it is no longer so. Sure, an MS67 HR Saint Gaudens Double Eagle would command insane prices and be a centerpiece to a fine collection today. But on the other side of things, a humble large cent that grades Fine-12 could also be the centerpiece of a collection. The two collectors in this example are both alike, they both share a passion for coins and the science of numismatics. Their collecting foci are different, but one is no less noble than the other.

We are all numismatists, and I think some would do well to not forget that. Passion connects us. I enjoy looking at coins, all coins from prized Trade Dollars to a wheatie someone found roll searching. A great difference between the two, perhaps, but also perhaps not.

We are different, and that's what makes this hobby so very dynamic and special.

-Amanda

pbfloyd · September 26, 2006 1:03AM

Well, think of this: You can buy a vacation home in FL, CA or MI with a view of the west where every evening you can see the blue sky, but if you want to see the gorgeous sunsets over the Ocean or the Great Lakes (Michigan), you will pay 100s of 1000s of dollars for those views - it's only color, but you really pay a significant premium for that color! - So why are those properties always the 1st to sell for the most money?

1. IN REGARDS TO THE POST ABOVE: YOU ARE IN A WORLD OF YOUR OWN. I AM HAPPY FOR YOU
2. THIS IS A GREAT THREAD I LIKE DMPL MORGANS UNTONED FOR THE EXACT REASONS YOU STATED!
AND I SPELLED IT OWN FOR A REASON!

Sunnywood · September 26, 2006 1:09AM

There is nothing elitist about a preference for beautifully toned coins. The fact that they are in demand, and may therefore cost more, is just a result of market forces. Toned coins are not "better" than white coins, and those who collect them are not "better" than other collectors. However, to me those coins are simply more beautiful, more interesting, and more desirable than their white brethren, and I will not be changing that position any time soon. Everyone else is free to feel otherwise. It would make no difference to me, even if I were the ONLY person interested in toned coins !!

And by the way, one thing is being lost in the discussion - I do not buy coins ONLY for the color or toning. It is but one factor ... there is also grade, strike, luster, eye appeal, and so on.

Best,
Sunnywood

ziggy29 · September 26, 2006 1:14AM

<< Because few Ocean in View Homes have artificially toned sunsets.

>>

Sure they do. It's called "smog."

numisma · September 26, 2006 1:26AM

But I don't. I collect coins. I used to be a lot more open minded about all of this toning nonsense, but it has become clear to me that the only way to safely own toners is to never pay a premium for them.

Don't get me wrong. I don't have anything against a little bit of color. I just won't pay for it. That way if (when) I find out the coin was a spin art project I can just dip it and forget about it.

I collect coins because:

1) I'm into history and coins reflect the values and politics of their times. They are a tangible portal to the past that an average guy can actually own.

2) Many numismatic projects offer a significant challenge that provides an enriching passtime and a deep sense of accomplishment upon completion.

3) The designs of many coins are quite beautiful. This was accomplished by their mint of origin without the benefit of crayons or water colors.

Coindexter, excellent post! I agree with you.

TavernTreasures · September 26, 2006 1:46AM

Check some old auction catalogs from the 1970's and read the coin descriptions. Toning was always described and sometimes in poetic terms. Some collectors liked it and some did not. But I do not remember hearing of collectors paying crazy money just because of the toning.

AlixTCat · September 26, 2006 3:37AM

When you're rich, it must be easy to get caught up in buying all sorts of toned coins.
On my budget, there's usually no toning. I am fine with that. But to parade all your toned, rich-guy coins in a thread like this is like parading past a homeless man with a plate full of filet mignon. Rude? Nothing against toned coins, just rich guys who buy them.

Jonathan

BobGreene · September 26, 2006 4:05AM

<< There is nothing elitist about a preference for beautifully toned coins. The fact that they are in demand, and may therefore cost more, is just a result of market forces. Toned coins are not "better" than white coins, and those who collect them are not "better" than other collectors. >>

I agree, there is nothing elitist about it, but when I began collecting quite awhile back somebody commented on my preference for untoned coins by saying ,"well, he's new. He'll learn eventually." I found that EXTREMELY elistist and, quite frankly, it pissed me off.

I have often said exactly what Coindexter said in his first post to this thread. If I wanted lots of color I'd collect art, but I don't. I collect coins.

fishcooker · September 26, 2006 4:21AM

And yet it's profoundly important for the lower collectors to believe the upper's coins are NT when they are told so. Kinda ironic.

TavernTreasures · September 26, 2006 4:26AM

Coins are art.

Dog97 · September 26, 2006 4:31AM

<<<If I cared about beautiful colors in unique patterns I'd collect paintings.>>>
I care about hideous colors in unique patterns so I collected this 1883-0 in an NGC slab. I think it's envelope toned but it looks like an AT expermint gone horribly wrong. I fondly call this monster "Seeing Things" cause you can see different patterns & pictures in it:

This is the naked lady in bathtub. I circled the part where you can see her curls cascading over her shoulder toward her cleavages, which are half submerged in the water.

This looks like 2 butt cheeks and a crack. Or maybe a weasel's face with his 2 beady little eyes & nose.

I'm not sure about this one, maybe a mushroom turned sideways.

ricko · September 26, 2006 5:16AM

Great one's Dog... I see you have retained your excellent sense of humor.... (mushroom indeed).... Cheers, RickO

Dog97 · September 26, 2006 5:22AM

Yeah ricko, I really have lots of fun with collecting.

Winston · September 26, 2006 5:42AM

The toning is the coins’ history you dumb-bunny. The white coins are the ones whose history has been wiped or dipped away.

morgannut2 · September 26, 2006 6:03AM

<< Sunnywood, that's cool. I'm completely comfortable and happy with my generic coins. The thing is, I'm pretty sure the Mint intended for them to all be the same.

Edited to add: Upon looking at all that color, maybe you'd be happier collecting Faberge Eggs?

>>

-----------------
-----------------
Coindexter: After reading dozens of your posts I'm wondering if you are just too critical of "color" nuts.

For your example, you quizzically say Faberge Eggs would be a better collection focus. The contradiction of
your reasoning is 2- Fold (besides, rich Russian have bought all the non-museum Faberge recently!)

1) Art Museums deliberately separate vividly expressionist highly colored modern art--Klee, Pollack, Klandensky,
Picasso from highly muted-realism pictures such as Wyeth, Rembrant (at least until the lacuer was removed), Titan.
---The contradiction I see in your posts is you don't separate artistic taste, even though every sophisticated
museum on earth has long recognized that many different people have different tastes--w/ segregated rooms.
2) Your lovely Oregon with bast white luster PARTLY represents the original coin (while others like toned coins)
The point is NETHER WHITE OR TONED come close the the ORIGINAL ARTWORK--the designer's first casting
Your coin IS NOT the orginal intent of the artist. The coiner greatly changed it to allow mass production.

---Last: Your arguement about premiums is absurd! There's a giant "premium" for monster white lusterous
clean coins (silver), especially if cameoed. Same for monster toned rainbow colored coins out of the BC group.
But that was 12-25 coins out of 9,000!!!!!! The white MS67 BC coins carried a big premium too!
You logic seems that all MS66/7 PCGS/NGC coins are the same, and should cost the same---I don't agree.

Coindexter · September 26, 2006 7:05AM

<< The toning is the coins’ history you dumb-bunny. The white coins are the ones whose history has been wiped or dipped away. >>

I disagree whole heartedly and advise you to think twice before questioning peoples' intelligence based upon their collecting preferences. Two Morgan dollars of the same date, we'll say they're 1885 Os and that they are both MS65, put away in different environments in the year of issue tone differently. The first coin exhibits very little toning whatsoever as it happened to have been stored in a very dry and stable environment. The second coin displays a wide crecent of rainbow colors from 12 o'clock to five o'clock on the obverse after the fashion of popular bag toners. Neither coin was ever in circulation. Neither coin was in a famous collection. The coins share the exact same history (mintage, storage, present) but the toner will likely sell for more money than the non-toned coin.

I suggest if you are interested in collecting and studying the history contained in the toning, rather than the coin, you might consider ingots as they can be obtained significantly cheaper and you can watch history progress right before your very eyes.

mrpaseo · September 26, 2006 7:13AM

Here is one of my favorite paintings (See below). I like a nice natural toner and an ATer every now and then.

Coindexter · September 26, 2006 7:22AM

<< 1) Art Museums deliberately separate vividly expressionist highly colored modern art--Klee, Pollack, Klandensky,
Picasso from highly muted-realism pictures such as Wyeth, Rembrant (at least until the lacuer was removed), Titan.
---The contradiction I see in your posts is you don't separate artistic taste, even though every sophisticated
museum on earth has long recognized that many different people have different tastes--w/ segregated rooms. >>

I'm not entirely sure what your point is here, Morgannut2. Segregated rooms for different tastes in the coin hobby? OK, then. You and everybody else trying to shove toners down my throat can feel free to leave and congregate somewhere else.

<< 2) Your lovely Oregon with bast white luster PARTLY represents the original coin (while others like toned coins)
The point is NETHER WHITE OR TONED come close the the ORIGINAL ARTWORK--the designer's first casting
Your coin IS NOT the orginal intent of the artist. The coiner greatly changed it to allow mass production. >>

When I put a coin in my collection it is not because I am attempting to represent the artist's vision of what that coin should be. It is because I wanted a representative example of what the United States Mint actually produced (although I will freely admit that certain design alterations and rejections sanctioned by the Mint in the past were certainly disappointing). I do not collect art. I am a numismatist. That means I study the functionality and history of money. As a result I collect coins.

<< Last: Your arguement about premiums is absurd! There's a giant "premium" for monster white lusterous
clean coins (silver), especially if cameoed. Same for monster toned rainbow colored coins out of the BC group.
But that was 12-25 coins out of 9,000!!!!!! The white MS67 BC coins carried a big premium too!
You logic seems that all MS66/7 PCGS/NGC coins are the same, and should cost the same---I don't agree. >>

The premium you refer to is the premium paid for quality and is the only justifiable premium in the hobby, IMHO. The quality premium is not exclusive to silver mint state coins. It applies to every denomination in every grade. If we view two VG8 Chain Cents that are practically identical save for the fact that one exhibits the slightest whisper of porosity, guess which coin will likely sell for more money? I never once said that all coins that share the same technical grade are equal. I have no idea where you got that idea and I suspect you injected it to this convoluted line of reasoning in an attempt to make me look foolish. I suggest that if you decide to try again you devote all of your effort to the endeavor as it is not easy to do.

MikeKing · September 26, 2006 7:37AM

<< Here is one of my favorite paintings (See below). I like a nice natural toner and an ATer every now and then.

>>

Flaming June; Now THAT"S art! Very sexy art.

Coins are coins.
Eggs are eggs (George/Seinfeld)

...

This is an excellent post by the way and FINALLY a post about something other than kaleidescopic colors.
Hey, I like toned coins, I like dipped coins, I like them all.
I wouldn't grade a collectors acumen based on the color of his/her coins however.

If I cared about beautiful colors in unique patterns I'd collect paintings.

Comments

Leave a Comment