And I thought some of my PF Liberty Nickels had toned ugly....

Comments

• coinguy1 Posts: 13,484 ✭✭✭

  March 2, 2010 2:47AM

  
  Actually, I would bet that the coin is quite attractive in person. I say that because the obverse toning pattern distinctly matches that which I saw on a set of gorgeous Proof Liberty Nickels that Heritage sold last year. And the prices reflected it. I bought one or two of them, as did a client of mine. I will take a look and see if I can find the sale I am speaking of.

  0
• bestmr Posts: 1,795 ✭✭✭

  March 2, 2010 2:48AM

  WOW!! Umm, it's different that's for sure. I find it like a car wreck. No matter how horrible it is, I can't stop looking.

  Positive dealing with oilstates2003, rkfish, Scrapman1077, Weather11am, Guitarwes, Twosides2acoin, Hendrixkat, Sevensteps, CarlWohlforth, DLBack, zug, wildjag, tetradrachm, tydye, NotSure, AgBlox, Seemyauction, Stopmotion, Zubie, Fivecents, Musky1011, Bstat1020, Gsa1fan several times, and Mkman123 LOTS of times

  0
• coinguy1 Posts: 13,484 ✭✭✭

  March 2, 2010 3:02AM

  The set I was speaking of was sold in last year's Central States sale see the coins here, lots #1422-1452
  If you check the prices, you will see that overall, they were very strong, even considering that the grading was on the conservative side.
  
  The images failed to show the often-subtle, but splendid looking toning, mostly at the obverse peripheries of the coins. The reverse color was generally less subtle and very pretty in its own right. My best guess is that the odd toning pattern seen on the coins is the result of storage in tissue paper. Either I or my client bought the 1888 and the 1912.

  0
• beartracks42 Posts: 2,834 ✭

  March 2, 2010 3:05AM

  Item #1422 in the CSNS auction appears to be the same coin as shown by the OP.

  Gary
  

  0
• coinguy1 Posts: 13,484 ✭✭✭

  March 2, 2010 3:11AM

  
  
  << <i>Item #1422 in the CSNS auction appears to be the same coin as shown by the OP. >>
  
  No, the coin posted by the OP appears to be lot #1434 from last year's Central States sale and also lot #7634 in this year's upcoming Fort worth sale.

  0
• UtahCoin Posts: 5,366 ✭✭✭✭✭

  March 2, 2010 3:14AM

  I have a complete PCGS PF-64 set of Liberty Nickels, most of them have toned. This is the one I think is the nicest.
  
  

  I used to be somebody, now I'm just a coin collector.
  Recipient of the coveted "You Suck" award, April 2009 for cherrypicking a 1833 CBHD LM-5, and April 2022 for a 1835 LM-12, and again in Aug 2012 for picking off a 1952 FS-902.

  0
• beartracks42 Posts: 2,834 ✭

  March 2, 2010 7:24AM

  
  
  << <i>The set I was speaking of was sold in last year's Central States sale see the coins here, lots #1422-1452
  If you check the prices, you will see that overall, they were very strong, even considering that the grading was on the conservative side.
  
  The images failed to show the often-subtle, but splendid looking toning, mostly at the obverse peripheries of the coins. The reverse color was generally less subtle and very pretty in its own right. My best guess is that the odd toning pattern seen on the coins is the result of storage in tissue paper. Either I or my client bought the 1888 and the 1912. >>
  
  
  
  
  My mistake. The toning on #1422 is very much like the OP's coin, but I totally ignored the date.

  Gary
  

  0
• coinguy1 Posts: 13,484 ✭✭✭

  March 2, 2010 7:29AM

  
  
  << <i>
  
  << <i>The set I was speaking of was sold in last year's Central States sale see the coins here, lots #1422-1452
  If you check the prices, you will see that overall, they were very strong, even considering that the grading was on the conservative side.
  
  The images failed to show the often-subtle, but splendid looking toning, mostly at the obverse peripheries of the coins. The reverse color was generally less subtle and very pretty in its own right. My best guess is that the odd toning pattern seen on the coins is the result of storage in tissue paper. Either I or my client bought the 1888 and the 1912. >>
  
  
  
  
  My mistake. The toning on #1422 is very much like the OP's coin, but I totally ignored the date. >>
  
  That's easy to understand, as the toning was very similar on each coin in the set I referenced.

  0
• Walkerguy21D Posts: 11,805 ✭✭✭✭✭

  March 2, 2010 7:39AM

  I like Utah's '89 mucho!

  Successful BST transactions with 171 members. Ebeneezer, Tonedeaf, Shane6596, Piano1, Ikenefic, RG, PCGSPhoto, stman, Don'tTelltheWife, Boosibri, Ron1968, snowequities, VTchaser, jrt103, SurfinxHI, 78saen, bp777, FHC, RYK, JTHawaii, Opportunity, Kliao, bigtime36, skanderbeg, split37, thebigeng, acloco, Toninginthblood, OKCC, braddick, Coinflip, robcool, fastfreddie, tightbudget, DBSTrader2, nickelsciolist, relaxn, Eagle eye, soldi, silverman68, ElKevvo, sawyerjosh, Schmitz7, talkingwalnut2, konsole, sharkman987, sniocsu, comma, jesbroken, David1234, biosolar, Sullykerry, Moldnut, erwindoc, MichaelDixon, GotTheBug

  0
• soty27 Posts: 1,956

  March 2, 2010 8:34AM

  Proof coins are among the very hardest to image correctly. The op image looks like a proof coin that was imaged like an MS coin, a very big no no if you want to show what the coin actually looks like. Toned proof coins often have very reflective surfaces with vibrant toning that cannot be captured when imaging the coin like an MS coin. The OP coin is probly very attractive and wouldnt suprise me at all if it was full of vibrant toning.

  0