The History of Toning

sumnom · May 5, 2009 7:49AM

I have some questions on the notion of "toning" in numismatics. How long have people been interested in the color of coins? Has colorful toning always commanded a premium or is this a relatively recent phenomenon? When did the AT/NT debates begin? I have not been around long enough to answer these questions but I get the feeling that interest in color is relatively recent. Am I right?

thisnamztaken · May 5, 2009 8:02AM

I remember seeing dealers specializing in rainbow toned Morgans at the big Long Beach shows back in the the late 1970's. At the time I thought to myself "How weird looking those are", and still don't care much for "psychedelic" and "neon" toners, but do now appreciate many naturally toned coins.
I imagine most collectors have always appreciated coins with beautiful, original patinas though.

RaginsteveK · May 5, 2009 8:07AM

I've wondered if someone purposefully stored coins hoping for attractive toning to develop, without being bizarre about their techniques- but fully open and honest about it- would someone get hammered by the graders and the buying public??

should they??

assuming that (dis)coloration occuring over a few months or years would not show different surface characteristics than coins toned over an 80-year period (that could be a lousy assumption)

PCcoins · May 5, 2009 8:18AM

All silver and copper coins will tone and do tone over time. The process is hard to stop.

So I think coins 100-200 years old that are white, are weird looking.

Sunnywood · May 5, 2009 8:33AM

In many areas of classic collectibles, rarity, quality, condition, originality and eye appeal have always been the prized attributes. For as long as there have been coins, there have been people who wanted them bright and shiny, and people who prized them in their original condition. Many of the great old time collections were filled with coins that had acquired natural patination, which was never considered a detriment. Many considered it a plus. Even for collections of new coins acquired from the Mint, years of storage in classic coin cabinets was likely to result in a natural patina. Again, this was not considered a detriment. On the other hand, there were collectors who lacquered their coins to preserve the surfaces and prevent tarnish (King Farouk comes to mind, or the J.K. Lilly-Smithsonian gold).

One thing that triggered a heightened interest in color was the release of the U.S. Government hoards of Morgan dollars. Many of the bags produced stunning, naturally colorful rainbow-toned coins. The colors on these coins are incomparable, due to the unique conditions of decades-long storage. Another trigger for interest in color was the unexpectedly beautiful toning that resulted from coins being kept for years in the once very popular Wayte Raymond coin boards, and similar products. The existence of beautifully colorful coins is what created the heightened demand for them, in the tradition of seeking originality and eye appeal.

Of course collectors will pay a premium for attributes that are most desirable, whether rarity, condition, or eye appeal. Those of us who appreciate attractive naturally toned color coins will pay premiums for those coins. And those premiums in turn encourage "the bad guys" to try to manufacture color. The amount of coins being "messed with" has always been high, because the potential profits are there. Most of the doctors' work is aimed at getting upgrades, but high premiums for color also encourage attempts at artificial toning. And so we have debates over AT vs. NT. The debates can get quite tiresome, with inexperienced onlookers immediately declaring that any attractively colorful coin must be AT. (The Battle Creek coins were a perfect example; many folks declared them AT despite having absolutely no knowledge of toned Morgans generally or those coins specifically. They were not.) I would encourage people to look at a lot of coins; it's the best way to learn what's out there.

Similarly, premiums for "blast white" "brilliant" Morgans resulted in thousands of them being dipped in bathtubs. That is the reciprocal trend: the desire to brighten, dip, conserve, clean and otherwise render coins "shiny and new." (Ironically enough, original blast-white Morgans came out of the same bags as the color coins - they were just more buried in the middle.) Whether through buffing, whizzing, polishing, cleaning, or dipping in bathtubs of Jeweluster or silver polish, there has always been a cottage industry for "conservation" of coins. More recently, it has been commercialized as acceptable. I view such practices as roughly equivalent to artificial toning. I consider it "aritificial whitening," and I have no idea why anyone would consider such coins desirable. I do understand why someone might want to dip a dark ugly coin to improve it; unfortunately, some original coins do become very unattractive. To some, the white-dipped coin may be preferable to a crusty dark ugly original coin; but to me, it can never be more desirable than an attractive original, colorfully toned example.

In the end, of course, each of us will collect what we like, and the marketplace will determine the prices accordingly.

Best,
Sunnywood

thisnamztaken · May 5, 2009 8:44AM

<< <i>In many areas of classic collectibles, rarity, quality, condition, originality and eye appeal have always been the prized attributes. For as long as there have been coins, there have been people who wanted them bright and shiny, and people who prized them in their original condition.

Of course collectors will pay a premium for attributes that are most desirable, whether rarity, condition, or eye appeal. Those of us who appreciate attractive naturally toned color coins will pay premiums for those coins. And those premiums in turn encourage "the bad guys" to try to manufacture color.

In the end, of course, each of us will collect what we like, and the marketplace will determine the prices accordingly.

Best,
Sunnywood >>

Excellent points, Sunnywood!

garsmith · May 5, 2009 9:21AM

It's been there at least as long as there have been taco bell napkins

golfer72 · May 5, 2009 9:30AM

Sunnywood, That was a great "primer" on the whole history of toning and coins. Thank you for taking the time to post that. I learned a few things myself.

yellowkid · May 5, 2009 10:18AM

Sunnywood has already said it, but as a long time antique dealer, I know that people will pay a premium for natural age and "patina" on a piece, and those are the items that command the big prices, be it furniture, porcelain or pottery, a toy, or what have you, why should the coin field be any different?

csanotes · May 5, 2009 10:21AM

I totally agree with Golfer-Sunnywood, that was awesome, well written, easy to read and enjoyable. I'm anxiously awaiting the coffee table size book expanding on what you wrote about the history with plenty of glossy pictures illustrating AT, NT, taco bell napkin specials etc. Based on your previous posts and the sets you have put together if anyone has the knowledge and expertise for such a project you are the go-to guy.

RaginsteveK · May 5, 2009 11:04AM

the antique reference brought me back to an "Antiques Roadshow":

that's a really nice Federal era bureau, Mr Bill, worth about %17.5K.

Of course, if it had the original (banged-up) finish, it would be worth $400-450 K (how the poor guy din't simply break down - right there- is beyond me.)

The History of Toning

Comments

Leave a Comment