2 IHC's... AT or NT??

AskRaq · September 4, 2007 4:06AM

Yes, still trying to learn the intricacies of determining original surfaces on these suckers... help & pointers appreciated:

Coin #1:

Coin #2:

IrishMike · September 4, 2007 4:13AM

They certainly look AT. There is no short cut to assessing IHC's. You really need to view a lot of slabbed coins to get a feel for what the natural progression of color and luster looks like. Those colors are wildly unnatural. Spend some time going through the Heritage archives looking at coins if you can't make a show. There is no simple answer to your question.

UtahCoin · September 4, 2007 4:15AM

AT. Can't explain why, it just doesn't look right...

BWRC · September 4, 2007 4:17AM

If the images look like the coins they are AT

Connecticoin · September 4, 2007 4:26AM

Both blatantly AT. Probably harshly cleaned before the AT as well.

SamByrd · September 4, 2007 4:49AM

at

AskRaq · September 4, 2007 4:51AM

The splotchiness in the first one is why I thought AT... the second one had the right colors (purple with the blue) & might have been a bad pic, but the untoned areas on the obverse rim made me think AT also. Thanks for everyone's input, it helps to have more than one set of eyes & opinion. I have tried searching through Heritage archives, but haven't had that many non-Proof toned coins to compare.

airplanenut · September 4, 2007 5:07AM

On the first, the blue/green is a shade you don't see on IHCs, and the yellow is far too light for an original piece.

The second coin looks like it was heavily polished before being toned; it appears reflective like a proof but is a mint state piece (it doesn't appear sharp enough to be a proof). Also, the two brown spots on the obverse rim are hard to explain for a coin that is otherwise uniform in color. Finally, the blue color is too light--the proofs that do tone blue tone a richer, royal blue, for instance, the following piece (sorry for the photo quality)

airplanenut · September 4, 2007 5:09AM

One more note... rarely will the bust on a reflective coin tone the same was as fields, since the bust shouldn't be reflective, and with different surface qualities, the toning will be different. On the second piece, the entire surface is uniform in appearance.

shylock · September 4, 2007 5:15AM

Coin #1

Totally stripped of it's original surface/luster, remnents of crud remain in the reverse recesses of ONE and EN of CENT.

This 1888 is a DOG.

Coin #2

Nicer coin, I'd like to see a better image before making judgements. That's a lousy image.