POLL : Another AT or NT Franklin thread! (updated to provide a "see into the future Nostradamus
bushmaster8
Posts: 5,616 ✭
Do you think this is real toning? Is the "story" believeable??
"Wars are really ugly! They're dirty
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
0
Comments
peacockcoins
"Although sulphur is found in many parts of the world, the American sulphur industry was born in Louisiana in the last decade of the 19th century. For some years, it had been an established fact that a rich deposit of sulphur lay beneath the surface in a swampy area of Calcasieu Parish near Lake Charles, Louisiana. The deposit was buried under several hundred feet of muck and treacherous quicksand filled with deadly hydrogen sulphide gas. Men lost their lives in their attempt to sink conventional shafts to this buried treasure."
But where are all the similarly toned coins? The mysterious collector from "stinky town" only had these few 1960-D Frankies??
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
<< <i>Surprisingly, the story is believable in the sense Rick T. believes it to be. >>
Well, PCGS believes the toning to be NT - the "stories" are always suspect and perhaps more of a marketing tool than real - In certain professions, the stories are called "hearsay" and not considered reliable. Many coin stories are double and triple hearsay, which further deminishes their reliability. What we "KNOW" is that PCGS believed the toning to have naturally occurred when they graded it. Whether they would still believe it if sent in again raw is another question.
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
-David
unbeliveable. Bob
<< <i> But where are all the similarly toned coins? >>
The story is believable. There are three of these coins that are very similar in appearance and I have seen all three. I have owned what I believe to be the nicest of the three coins since it first appeared 10 years ago. It is one of the most outrageous yet natural looking toned coins I have ever seen. It is just one of those coins that you would have to hold in your hand and view to believe, as a picture just could not do it justice.
The picture of this coin looks to me like it has been played with a bit, as it is not the best portrayal of what it coin looks like. Looks to me like the brightness/contrast has been adjusted, but not the saturation, as the coin has as much or more color on it than the picture shows. I don't think it was done to enhance the appearance because I think this coin in hand looks much nicer than the picture.
EDITED FOR SPELLING.
U.S. Type Set
<< <i>I have not seen this coin in hand, and am not going to comment on AT/NT at all. However, for those of you that said that PCGS believes it to be naturally toned, stop drinking the Kool-aid! PCGS has slabbed PLENTY of coins that they believe to be market acceptable. Look at all the wild#ss ASE's. I've got a PCGS slabbed Jefferson that I would bet is AT. Wake up and smell the sulphur folks!
EDITED FOR SPELLING. >>
gee thanks...
how in the world have I ever collected coinsithout your wisdom...
hmmm.......
"Senorita HepKitty"
"I want a real cool Kitty from Hepcat City, to stay in step with me" - Bill Carter
TorinoCobra71
Normally, the contact exposure on a metallic surface to ambient airborne substances ( in this case, proportedly sulfur ) should yield a rather even pattern of "toning" unrelated to the thickness or contours of the surface ( much as if one just spray-painted any object ). However, in the case of the coin pictured, there is completely absent to little toning over the central highiest points of the coin having seemingly been spared exposure to the proposed airborne element. Such toning distribution which proceeds from the periphery/rims of the coin centrally is often the result of storage over long periods of time in the circular slot of a coin album whereby the rims of the coin are closest to the impurities in the paper and tone strongest with less effect going centrally. Official mint set holders issued in the 1949 through 1958 era can cause similar but with a contribution of the overlying paper on both sides of the coin. These long term exposures from storage are oft considered "natural" toning.
Unfortunately, when a coin is heated up to accelerate an artificial chemical process the thickest portions of the coin are the ones often spared from this process the most and become the least reactive to this chemical induced change as they are the more resistant to subtle heat changes ( because of their relative thickness they function as their own "heat sink" in a sense ). Hence, in the case of the Franklin half, the central areas of the cheek ( especially thick, and a very high point at the cheek bone ) and central bell are often spared or little or least effected in the heating and subsequent cooling process.
An additional clue to an artificial heating process is when the obverse and reverse of the coin are virtual mirror images of the observed toning, both in the particular coloration variations and and distribution of the toning. This is because during the heating process the temperatures and reactivity through a particular point or region of a coin ( both front and straight through to the corresponding back area ) are essentially the same throughout the process and the resultant chemical surface changes are similar. Unfortunately, in the coin pictured the toning is essentially a mirror image on both sides of the coin. This would not normally be the case with chronic ambient air exposure unless the coin was somehow suspended by a thread in mid-air for a prolonged period of time ( that is, not lying against or on another object or surface ).
Furthermore, the 1960-D is and was a rather available coin in rolls and may have represented a tempting source for artificial "experimentation" on a very choice roll.....the downside to such a procedure being very little with regards to the initial investment......the choicest coins potentially being saved for last, once the chemical and heating process was perfected to create the desired result.
I was also under the impression ( but am not fully knowledgable in this area ) that in the 1960 era and going forward that the exposure to sulfur fumes ( in significant amounts ) was customarily associated in this country from coal burning and ore smelting rather than "sulfur mining". However, I will yield to the experts on this one.
In summary, the appearence of the coin in question coupled with the history yield, at least for me personally, huge gaps in both comprehension and believability. I am certain that these coins are stunning visually. However, for me the coin depicted in this thread ( and I would love to see the other two related pieces ) and the history provided raise concerns.
Richard
<< <i>I, personally, have some serious concerns regarding the proported history of these coins and the appearence of the coin in question.
Normally, the contact exposure on a metallic surface to ambient airborne substances ( in this case, proportedly sulfur ) should yield a rather even pattern of "toning" unrelated to the thickness or contours of the surface ( much as if one just spray-painted any object ). However, in the case of the coin pictured, there is completely absent to little toning over the central highiest points of the coin having seemingly been spared exposure to the proposed airborne element. Such toning distribution which proceeds from the periphery/rims of the coin centrally is often the result of storage over long periods of time in the circular slot of a coin album whereby the rims of the coin are closest to the impurities in the paper and tone strongest with less effect going centrally. Official mint set holders issued in the 1949 through 1958 era can cause similar but with a contribution of the overlying paper on both sides of the coin. These long term exposures from storage are oft considered "natural" toning.
Unfortunately, when a coin is heated up to accelerate an artificial chemical process the thickest portions of the coin are the ones often spared from this process the most and become the least reactive to this chemical induced change as they are the more resistant to subtle heat changes ( because of their relative thickness they function as their own "heat sink" in a sense ). Hence, in the case of the Franklin half, the central areas of the cheek ( especially thick, and a very high point at the cheek bone ) and central bell are often spared or little or least effected in the heating and subsequent cooling process.
An additional clue to an artificial heating process is when the obverse and reverse of the coin are virtual mirror images of the observed toning, both in the particular coloration variations and and distribution of the toning. This is because during the heating process the temperatures and reactivity through a particular point or region of a coin ( both front and straight through to the corresponding back area ) are essentially the same throughout the process and the resultant chemical surface changes are similar. Unfortunately, in the coin pictured the toning is essentially a mirror image on both sides of the coin. This would not normally be the case with chronic ambient air exposure unless the coin was somehow suspended by a thread in mid-air for a prolonged period of time ( that is, not lying against or on another object or surface ).
Furthermore, the 1960-D is and was a rather available coin in rolls and may have represented a tempting source for artificial "experimentation" on a very choice roll.....the downside to such a procedure being very little with regards to the initial investment......the choicest coins potentially being saved for last, once the chemical and heating process was perfected to create the desired result.
I was also under the impression ( but am not fully knowledgable in this area ) that in the 1960 era and going forward that the exposure to sulfur fumes ( in significant amounts ) was customarily associated in this country from coal burning and ore smelting rather than "sulfur mining". However, I will yield to the experts on this one.
In summary, the appearence of the coin in question coupled with the history yield, at least for me personally, huge gaps in both comprehension and believability. I am certain that these coins are stunning visually. However, for me the coin depicted in this thread ( and I would love to see the other two related pieces ) and the history provided raise concerns.
Richard >>
excellent comments ; thank you for the great insight !
This is a rare time when I disagree with Ronyahski -
The coins were first holdered by NGC , and then crossed .
Crack them out today and submitt them raw to PCGS and you got yourself 3 bodybags .
Toning seems to be even more subjective than grading here on the boards.
Is this coin natural? Who knows? Who cares? What matters is, does the coin have the eye appeal you like?
Is the toning worth an extra 5K? Not to me, and I doubt that it will sell at that level!
JMHO
Jon
But I have to disagree about the 'airborne sulphur compound should leave uniform color across the entire surface of the coin point'.
Years ago, I had a badly clogged washroom drain and poured in a high-powered sulphuric acid based chemical drain opener. As a result, the whole house was stinking of rotten eggs, as you can imagine. This rotten egg smell was hydrogen sulfide gas.
The next morning, I noticed the loose pocket change on my dresser had one virtually BU copper clad / zinc cent lying obverse up.
This cent had aquired an exquisitely beautiful concentric target tone. The center was still bright orange. Would it have remained bright? or eventually corroded? I don't know, as I scooped it up and spent it.
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
<< <i>I, personally, have some serious concerns regarding the proported history of these coins and the appearence of the coin in question.
Normally, the contact exposure on a metallic surface to ambient airborne substances ( in this case, proportedly sulfur ) should yield a rather even pattern of "toning" unrelated to the thickness or contours of the surface ( much as if one just spray-painted any object ). However, in the case of the coin pictured, there is completely absent to little toning over the central highiest points of the coin having seemingly been spared exposure to the proposed airborne element. Such toning distribution which proceeds from the periphery/rims of the coin centrally is often the result of storage over long periods of time in the circular slot of a coin album whereby the rims of the coin are closest to the impurities in the paper and tone strongest with less effect going centrally. Official mint set holders issued in the 1949 through 1958 era can cause similar but with a contribution of the overlying paper on both sides of the coin. These long term exposures from storage are oft considered "natural" toning. >>
I warned that the picture is not the best to judge from. The central part of the coin is not absent toning. It is actually light blue and silver toning, colors that are actually in the medium range of toning progression and naturally occur next to each other.
How many coins have you seen that look spray painted? Monotoned coins are fairly rare. Sounds like you may have gotten carried away a bit with the story that goes with the coin. I suppose if you cleaned a coin of its impurities, suspended it in mid air in the middle of a compartment, then evenly injected sulfur, you might get a coin that yields a rather even pattern of toning. Just because the story states that the coin was exposed to excess sulfur in the air does not mean that it was the only thing that affected the toning of the coin. This coin could have easily sat in a stapled 2x2 for years, or sat in an envelope, or in many other positions, and could easily explain the toning progressions seen.
<< <i>Unfortunately, when a coin is heated up to accelerate an artificial chemical process the thickest portions of the coin are the ones often spared from this process the most and become the least reactive to this chemical induced change as they are the more resistant to subtle heat changes ( because of their relative thickness they function as their own "heat sink" in a sense ). Hence, in the case of the Franklin half, the central areas of the cheek ( especially thick, and a very high point at the cheek bone ) and central bell are often spared or little or least effected in the heating and subsequent cooling process. >>
The high points are often spared in numerous other ways a coin tones. This is just conjecture.
<< <i>An additional clue to an artificial heating process is when the obverse and reverse of the coin are virtual mirror images of the observed toning, both in the particular coloration variations and and distribution of the toning. This is because during the heating process the temperatures and reactivity through a particular point or region of a coin ( both front and straight through to the corresponding back area ) are essentially the same throughout the process and the resultant chemical surface changes are similar. Unfortunately, in the coin pictured the toning is essentially a mirror image on both sides of the coin. This would not normally be the case with chronic ambient air exposure unless the coin was somehow suspended by a thread in mid-air for a prolonged period of time ( that is, not lying against or on another object or surface ). >>
Mirror image? Look at 2 o'clock on the obverse, then look at the corresponding area of the reverse at 4 o'clock, which according to you are the darkest and lighest parts of the coin, and yet are the same area of the coin. Heat induced? Mirror image? There are other areas that could be pointed out that don't comport to heat induced toning. This coin has natural toning progressions throughout, hard to explain with heat inducement.
A coin does not need to be suspended in mid-air to to tone similarly on both sides.
<< <i>Furthermore, the 1960-D is and was a rather available coin in rolls and may have represented a tempting source for artificial "experimentation" on a very choice roll.....the downside to such a procedure being very little with regards to the initial investment......the choicest coins potentially being saved for last, once the chemical and heating process was perfected to create the desired result.
I was also under the impression ( but am not fully knowledgable in this area ) that in the 1960 era and going forward that the exposure to sulfur fumes ( in significant amounts ) was customarily associated in this country from coal burning and ore smelting rather than "sulfur mining". However, I will yield to the experts on this one. >>
My recollection from 10 years ago is that these 3 coins came from an egg farm. Likely it's me, can't remember anything anymore. I'm going back through my notes to see if I can find more history about the coins.
<< <i>In summary, the appearence of the coin in question coupled with the history yield, at least for me personally, huge gaps in both comprehension and believability. I am certain that these coins are stunning visually. However, for me the coin depicted in this thread ( and I would love to see the other two related pieces ) and the history provided raise concerns.
Richard >>
At the least, these coins are highly unusual and thus fodder for a good debate.
The coin with a tailwind MIGHT be worth $300. Then you add for color and get $6.500 for "buy it now?"
During the 1970's I sought out to purchase every spectacularly toned gem Franklin half on the market. My quest brought me to numerous coin shows around the country, many private meetings with collectors as well as placing several 1/8 page ads to purchase such specimens in Coin World. I suceeded in procuring over one thousand gem toned Franklins after reviewing and evaluating many more thousands of such specimens offered to me. This was during a time when hardly anyone would even conceive of artificially toning a Franklin given the generally low value and virtually non-existent premium for coins of this nature. People, frankly, would literally sell the coins to me gleefully as I was paying what, at the time, were almost unheard of premiums. The vast majority of these coins came from government mint sets but a substantial number were end coins in bank wrapper rolls or had resided in old paper coin albums or in small paper envelopes.
It was only after the very beginning of the 1980's, when the Franklin series began to be fully appreciated and the prices escalated significantly, that I began to see emerge into the market coins whose toning was much different from what I had experienced previously. Of note, was the almost miraculous appearence of many dates in the 1960's in rather spectacularly toned states and toning patterns of which I had hitherto never experienced.
Striking among these newly apparent market entry coins was their similarity of almost matched toning coloration on both the obverse and reverse and the often relative sparing of the central portion of the coin both over Franklin's check and the Liberty bell.
I agree, a case could be made for environmental exposure coupled with a unique prolonged storage millieu resulting in both obverse and reverses having extraordinarily similar or identical coloration and essentially mirroring of the toning patterns on both sides of the coin with highpoint / thickness area relative sparing. However, such a result would likely be a rare "perfect storm" occurence which, frankly, specimens resembling such I had hitherto never run across in my pre-1980 journeys to seek out thousands of toned Franklins from among every conceivable knook and cranny in the world of coins.
While I realize that my observations may not be definitely aplicable to the coin at hand here ( and, admittedly, it could represent a toning "perfect storm" of sorts along with its two companion pieces ) I provide them here to lend an historic perspective on the issue which has, admittedly, contributed to a personal bias and has created a naturally stricter and jaundiced eye in my approach.
Richard
Did you get many coins from Val Webb ? Leber was just a baby dealer back then ..........did he "bury" you in anything ??
what became of all those coins you bought ?? You still got them don`t you !
Ronyahski - here is our Yoda !!
One thought crossed my mind reading your story. Back in the 70s, the 60s Franklins were only about ten years old. The biggest source for them would be from rolls, and ten years in the life of a coin is not a very long period of time in the development of toning. Adding twenty or thirty years passage of time in different environments and storage means creates the opportunity for these coins to indeed live through a perfect storm. Relatively speaking, Franklins are still younsters, so I'd bet there are a few more unusual coins out there waiting to be found.
Over the years I have sold many, many coins from the collection in various auctions, to dealers and privately to collectors.
I have kept the best two hundred or so as part of my perminent collection. Some of the coins are just too beautiful to part with right now.
As for dealers, I did considerable buying from John Rue of Lowell, Mass. who was one of the earlier serious proponents of the Franklin series. Many purchases were from dealers and collectors having original mint sets from 1949 through 1958. These untouched ( no coins removed ) sets were fairly readily available well into the late 1970's with not too many people drooling over the Franklins for wild toning or getting too excited about FBL ( actually many of us concentrated more or equally, at that time, on fully strong and legible "Pass and Stow" on the bell ).
Richard
two hundred of the most beautiful colored Franklins on the planet ............
.........oh Lordy Jesus take me now .................
What a bargain, eh?
I'm surprised no one else remembers this coin...especially you, FOXXZE-LADY!
LINK
But I goottah figure since all it could muster @ a national auction was a paltry 1600$ or so - then that is what it is worth .
And congratulations !!! You are the very first board member to figure out I'm a WOMAN !!
The e-bay description is not accurate as this coin was not the third one sold, but the same one sold twice. I would also disagree that it should be in a 66 holder. Without the color I grade it a 64+/65. But take a look at the Heritage picture, it is a much more accurate depiction of what the coin actually looks like.
R. Tomaska sent me the piece on approval long befor it sold @ auction in Feb . of this year .......
And I believe in his description he noted that he wasn`t going to let this one slip thru his fingers as a previous one had years befor . ( same verbage as his present description)
So either I have my time line`s messed up or the THIRD one is in this story some how......
If you own one D.H ; and the Southern Gent had his prior to Feb uary - what was the piece he offered me ..........
hey -WAIT A MIN...... I bet the Southern Gent`s one was on consignment to R.T. for some time prior to it being Auctioned in Feb.
But VERY HARD for me to believe the " Southern Gent " would take a big loss like that ; the guy never chopped a nickle off the price of ANY coin he hooked me on .......... in fact , he was the type of guy that would cut off his nose to spite his face . I once saw him turn down a 2000$ flip profit in a rage on a bulk load of mint sets simply because the buyer asked " are these YOUR sets ? "
Or you hit the other explanation...consignment. Sometimes people's behaviors change when money is involved.
My bet is the photo is tweaked out with photoshop color saturation. Probably not that dramatic in real life.
I just found it to be too dark and too unbelieveable and TOO exspensive !!
D.H. ; yes , i'm leaning towards the consignment scenario too
K S
so you don't like it ??
They call me "Pack the Ripper"
this is not true .......they slab it if they think the market will accept it as being real . Big diffrence
we just concluded in another post that as many as 1 out of 5 toned coins in TPG's are A.T ............
THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS "ARTIFICIAL TONING". there's NO "NT VS AT" ARGUMENT EITHER!!!
a coin is either naturally toned, or it is not. there's no "middle ground" here, & wild-n-crazy colors ARE NOT NATURAL on a business strike coin like this 1.
the natural color for toned silver is GREY. plain & simple : GREY.
GREY GREY GREY GREY GREY .... GREY
if natural toning is GREY (which it IS), & the coin has some other colors, then those other colors are NOT NATURAL. what the he11 is so danged difficult to understand about that???
get that through your pointy little head, & there will be alot more room in your brain for common sense.
the expected, natural environment for a franklin half IS NOT IN A COAL MINE.
COMMERCE IS it's natural environment, where it's supposed to be.
so since the coin was NOT in a natural environment, the toning IS NOT NATURAL.
did'nt i say this is simple???
pcgs DID NOT SAY THE TONING IS NATURAL BY SLABING IT, all they said is that they think someone in the mkt will pay $$$ for that kind of ridiculous color.
the whole argument is such a waste of time, & i'm always stunned by how astoundingly stupid the merry-go-round ride is.
the seller knows that many people are morons, & someone dumb enough will buy that ugly piece of junk sooner or later.
K S
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
To a buyer with a FB of 8. most of his other purchases were for
"Get rich on the internet" books - no other coins.
Wonder if R & I will see their money from this buyer?
Best Regards,
John
1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S.
Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
I enjoy your posts emensly .....but must differ :
many untouched , origoinal , virgin mintsets from the 1952 thru 1958 era produce coins with increadable rainbow toning .
What would really be funny is if the person cracked it out, dipped it, resubmitted it hoping for MS66 or better and it got body bagged.
<< <i>.............Dork Karl ;
I enjoy your posts emensly .....but must differ :
many untouched , origoinal , virgin mintsets from the 1952 thru 1958 era produce coins with increadable rainbow toning . >>
that's why i specifically said:
BUSINESS STRIKE
coins struck for commerce belong in commerce, where they will become naturally toned
proof coins in the 1950s were INTENDED to be in cardboard holders, therefore colorful toning on them IS NATURAL.
<< <i>Dorkkarl, that is just GROSS oversimplification >>
oversimplification? are you serious??? to the contrary, what's happened to the hoby, thanks mostly due to PLASTIC STUPIDITY, is an OVERCOMPLICATION of how things are. there is simply nothing whatsoever about the simply laws of physics, & what happens to silver when it is exposed to a commercial environment. silver turns grey, & copper turns brown.
that's it.
then plastic comes along & says, "well we'll slab this, & slab that, but not the other, & then only when we feel like it, & if stupid coin collectors don't ask alot of questions, they'll never realize that we're just as clueless as they are"
jeez
it takes alot of effort to remain ignorant, & alot of people blinded by plastic worship choose to do just that.
think about for half a second. if we all really admitted that toning really is as simply as i've just explained, what do you s'pose would happen to plastic revenues?
K S
<< <i>
<< <i>.............Dork Karl ;
I enjoy your posts emensly .....but must differ :
many untouched , origoinal , virgin mintsets from the 1952 thru 1958 era produce coins with increadable rainbow toning . >>
that's why i specifically said:
BUSINESS STRIKE
coins struck for commerce belong in commerce, where they will become naturally toned
proof coins in the 1950s were INTENDED to be in cardboard holders, therefore colorful toning on them IS NATURAL.
>>
He said mintsets! MINTSETS! BUSINESS STRIKES! Not proof coins! Now what?
Uhhhh, Foxxze, you mispelled "original" again!
<< <i>Well the Frankie sold!
To a buyer with a FB of 8. most of his other purchases were for
"Get rich on the internet" books - no other coins.
Wonder if R & I will see their money from this buyer?
Best Regards,
John >>
Dayum! RT will be laughing all the way to the bank.
Pity the poor guy when he goes to sell it and can not find a buyer at anywhere near what he paid.
He ain't gonna "get rich off the internet" that way!
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
I would wager that this was a staged conclusion to this auction. Come on! An ebayer's first coin purchase is a $6500 BIN?!
I'll bet that the buyer is one of Tomaska's employee/in-laws, and that the BIN was staged just to save face as he is undoubtedly aware of this thread. And that quite soon, R&I will be telling Ebay that the coin was returned for refund.
RT will only be out the listing fee.
Keep an eye out and the coin will eventually resurface in a different auction venue, or will magically reappear in RT's inventory when he deems enuff time has passed for folks to have forgotten.
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
he won't even be out the grading fee's as the "buyer" will return the coin .
"that's why i specifically said:
BUSINESS STRIKE
coins struck for commerce belong in commerce, where they will become naturally toned
proof coins in the 1950s were INTENDED to be in cardboard holders, therefore colorful toning on them IS NATURAL. "
Sir Dorkness :
Our own beloved government took buisness struck coins and placed them special cardboard holders with the intent
to sell them to collectors ......... some collectors never opened the envelopes - If you were to open one of these
never opened sets ; you can bet the bank they would be toned .
The government INTENDED to sell the coins to collectors in the cardboard holders ; government employee's put them into the cardboard holders
and government employee's mailed them to the collectors ...and government employee's delivered them to the collectors hands .
If the set was never opened ; that means that only your beloved , blessed , Government employee's ever touched the coins -
and the toning apon them would be as natural as the hair on your azse .