A simple question about the words tone and tarnish.
keets
Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
I have a simple question about the words tone and tarnish as used at this site. When you see them used or when you use them do you have a positive or negative connotation for either one?? Thanks.
Al H.
Al H.
0
Comments
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
how much for the '54 Franklin ?
<< <i>they both start with the letter " T " , now ..........
how much for the '54 Franklin ?
Welcome back to coins PP
It's nice to have you back.
PS Whatever he offers for the 54 I will beat
<< <i>When I see 'tone' or 'toned', it is negative, since it is an attempt to beautify what is actually present - environmental damage. Much like calling used cars 'pre-owned'. It is a politically correct term for tarnish. It IS tarnish, it is NOT anything else. Some may like it, some don't - but it IS tarnish, period. Cheers, RickO >>
Exactly. It is like collectors who call all untoned coins "curated" when really the correct word is "dipped".
Tone = Favorable "Original" surface coloring; perhaps attractive.
Tarnish = Unfavorable surface pollution; impressions of grandma's silver that needs to be polished.
<< <i>The difference is toning implies added value while tarnish implies no added value. >>
The difference is that "toning" (which can be viewed as a positive or a negative), is a neutral term, whereas "tarnish" generally has a negative connotation.
The difference is that "toning" (which can be viewed as a positive or a negative), is a neutral term, whereas "tarnish" generally has a negative connotation. >>
To add to this, I'd say that most often, "toning" refers to neutral or attractive color(s), while "tarnish" refers to unattractive colors- usually darker ones (especially browns/blacks).
<< <i>I have a simple question about the words tone and tarnish as used at this site. When you see them used or when you use them do you have a positive or negative connotation for either one?? Thanks. >>
FWIW, if you must know, I use the term, "tarnish," intending to connote realism. Nothing negative or positive is intended to be drawn from that. In fact, there are a lot of tarnished coins I like.
PS: Such as the ones you just showed, here.
NOW that would be an attention getter!
<< <i>
<< <i>The difference is toning implies added value while tarnish implies no added value. >>
The difference is that "toning" (which can be viewed as a positive or a negative), is a neutral term, whereas "tarnish" generally has a negative connotation. >>
The real difference is that "toning" is a term used by coin collectors while everyone else calls it "tarnish".
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The difference is toning implies added value while tarnish implies no added value. >>
The difference is that "toning" (which can be viewed as a positive or a negative), is a neutral term, whereas "tarnish" generally has a negative connotation. >>
The real difference is that "toning" is a term used by coin collectors while everyone else calls it "tarnish". >>
I do not see it as a positive or a negitive just a subject or a verb.
<< <i>When I see 'tone' or 'toned', it is negative, since it is an attempt to beautify what is actually present - environmental damage. Much like calling used cars 'pre-owned'. It is a politically correct term for tarnish. It IS tarnish, it is NOT anything else. Some may like it, some don't - but it IS tarnish, period. Cheers, RickO >>
I like that comparison Ricko , maybe 2nd hand car dealers can advertise old rustbuckets as wonderfully toned.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The difference is toning implies added value while tarnish implies no added value. >>
The difference is that "toning" (which can be viewed as a positive or a negative), is a neutral term, whereas "tarnish" generally has a negative connotation. >>
The real difference is that "toning" is a term used by coin collectors while everyone else calls it "tarnish". >>
But a suggestion for those who want to sound classy and actually can be understood by the less numismatically-abled who are within the collectibles field: patina
Toned is when the dealer owns the coin.
No coin is in the ORIGINAL condition it was in just after in was minted... UNLESS it was minted in a vacuum sealed environment and has remained there until this time. (period!)
Whether the coin is to called tarnished or toned or is blast white or any variation on the theme... if I like the coin, then I like the coin... simple.
I have seen blast white examples that I have found attractive (though not too many, as they appear sterile to me)
I have seen much lauded "monster" toners that I have found hideous and would not want to own at any price (much like many of the "famous" classic paintings... there are folks who would pay much $ for a Picasso, yet I would never want one on my wall... and please don't even talk to me about Jackson Pollack
As strange as it might sound, coming from a collector and dealer...
This endless discussion over toning vs tarnish vs "original" vs dipped yada yada yada, is totally silly to me... almost as silly as the idea of paying a premium of $ for $ that was intended for convenience of trade...
Damn... there went another 5 minutes of my life I will never get back...(
no, Jerry, but apparently he couldn't resist!!
actually, i find it interesting that the responses cut right to the chase as the words relate to coins. certainly that is the point i had hoped to discuss, but i had wanted to see what everyone thought about the general use of the words in the language of our culture. for the most part when i read the definition of i]tone i tend to infer a positive meaning while the opposite is true for tarnish. it follows(for me, at least) that when i see the words used in conjunction with coins that the connotation would be the same-----when tone is used it tends to imply a positive thought/feeling whereas when tarnish is used it tends to imply a negative thought/feeling. examples might be:
That coin has nice tone.
That coin looks nice except for the tarnish.
the first statement tends to be complimentary, the second statement tends to be derogatory.
<< <i>-----when tone is used it tends to imply a positive thought/feeling whereas when tarnish is used it tends to imply a negative thought/feeling. >>
Bingo! They mean the same thing but one term is complementary while the other is a slam.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>-----when tone is used it tends to imply a positive thought/feeling whereas when tarnish is used it tends to imply a negative thought/feeling. >>
Bingo! They mean the same thing but one term is complementary while the other is a slam. >>
Only if you are a numismatist...For the rest of the world, tarnish is the only word applicable.
ricko, you need to come up for air. i'm not trying to "transform" anything, just wondering what other members might think about the use of the two terms.
from Old French ternir to make dull, from terne lustreless, of Germanic origin; related to Old High German tarnen to conceal
TONING has to do with color
A color or shade of color: light tones of blue.
Quality of color: The green wallpaper had a particularly somber tone.
To assume a particular color quality.
To harmonize in color
so if you are a coin collector and "think otherwise" is there a logical conclusion??
Yes... as in all aspects of life, there are preferences. Some like tarnish, some do not. Some like redheads, some brunettes. As in most cases, the price is a bit more for what is in demand (since we are market driven). Those that follow the popular path (chasing the current fad) are willing to pay the higher price - be it coins, fashion or women.
why do you have such difficulty with the fact that collectors like toned coins?? since you don't like toned coins, what is the logic in stating that fact over and over till it becomes a joke to most of the forum?? it's as though you're on a crusade and figure you can wear us down till we agree. the strange thing is that all collectors i know that appreciate toned coins also appreciate the beauty of brilliant coins and have them in their collections. you appear to me that you're defending a position against an enemy that just doesn't exist.
Toning is a positive term describing a patina that formed on the surface of the coin, made a skin, and didn't eat too far into the surface of the coin. The result is a skin that actually will prevent further potential environmental damage to the metal underneath the toning. Toning may or may not add to the eye appeal of the coin.
Tarnish is a negative term describing aggressive deep corrosion that will most likely lead to further deep corrosion of the underlying metal on the coin. An unattractive toned coin can also be referred to as being tarnished, but in this case it is just a description of the eye appeal.
Obviously there will be some coins that can go either way. Also, if a blast white coin has an invisible skin layer that helps the underlying metal resist being affected in the future it actually shares the properties of a toned coin, but wouldn't typically be called toned because you can't see it. A dipped coin, or a freshly minted coin, is much more sensitive and reactive than a toned coin or one with an invisible skin.
This is my take on it.
I had a dealer I've known for many years offer to buy my stunning toner (IMHO) Lafayette...I almost fainted
If I collected morgans or late date walkers I too would likely prefer blast white...Thank God I don't!!!
<< <i>Ricko is far from the only one with his viewpoint, just the most vocal one on the forum. Even if you think his singular obsession has toned his reputation.
I had a dealer I've known for many years offer to buy my stunning toner (IMHO) Lafayette...I almost fainted
If I collected morgans or late date walkers I too would likely prefer blast white...Thank God I don't!!! >>
Thank God you don't what? Collect Morgans or late date Walkers OR prefer blast white?
Cheers, RickO
<< <i>Al, I call it the popular path simply because many, many new or inexperienced collectors are influenced by what they read and see other collectors espousing, AND paying premiums to own. This says to them "It must be the right thing.", and therefore I will emulate. Tarnish IS all the popular rage right now, more so than it was 20 to 30 years ago. It is not nonsense. I do not have difficulty with people who like tarnished coins... it is their collection and their money. The many collectors here state "OVER AND OVER" that they like tarnished coins... you do not take exception to that refrain. I am not trying to wear anyone down, however, neither you nor anyone else will silence me. I state what I believe, as do others. It will be appreciated if you refrain from making this a one man crusade to change me. Remember, YOU initiated this thread and I saw no banner telling anyone they could not participate.
Cheers, RickO >>
Rick, you're a cool guy, I'm sure. But you are aware you repeat the same mantra cry over and over (and over again?) In other words, you state the same position time and again. Repeating it. Again. Over and over. Again. Toning bad. Bright (dipped) good. Patina is of the devil. Blast white (curated) angelic. You write that. And then you write it again. The same message in every toning thread. Sometimes not even in just toning threads.
It would be comical/annoying if it was just a teensy weensie lbit repetitive, but it's kind of sort of a lot and thus a bit more than that.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
TDN posts one of his beauties
tarnish is not mentioned
When the rest of us mortals posts a toned coin
it is called tarnish
????
<< <i>
<< <i>The difference is toning implies added value while tarnish implies no added value. >>
The difference is that "toning" (which can be viewed as a positive or a negative), is a neutral term, whereas "tarnish" generally has a negative connotation. >>
Agreed
--- Jack Handy
Positive BST transactions with members - Tander123, Twincam, UtahCoin, ianrussell
i don't know about that but one thing is for certain; around the time the internet really got going(in the mid-1990's) is when theTONE of our Hobby really leapt into a new dimension. i'm sure it's just a coincidence. also, the old-timers are only so eager to remind us that toned coins have always been available and collected by a specialized segment of collectors. from my way of thinking there's no popular path that somehow emerged, just a well worn one that many of us discovered.
i can speak only for myself, but nobody has had to convince me that i like toned coins or that they are what i should be collecting. i simply never knew they existed. i can draw a parallel with Proof coinage from my own experience which is interesting......................although i collected coins and had an assorted group of Proof Sets when i got my first computer/internet connection around 1998 i was held in awe of the Deep Cameo coins i was suddenly seeing. till then i thought Brilliant Proofs were all that there was. my real epiphany came when i discovered R&I Coins and bought the first 1950-1970 Proof book.
trust me when i say that noone had to tell me i needed to collect those coins and noone had to get my feet set on the popular path to anywhere.
<< <i>Rick, you're a cool guy, I'm sure. But you are aware you repeat the same mantra cry over and over (and over again?) In other words, you state the same position time and again. Repeating it. Again. Over and over. Again. Toning bad. Bright (dipped) good. Patina is of the devil. Blast white (curated) angelic. You write that. And then you write it again. The same message in every toning thread. Sometimes not even in just toning threads. >>
I don't know RickO, personally, but I do think some of you are being a little hard on him. Why don't you just get off his back? He's been contributing on these forums since 2001. You, by stark contrast, if I might observe, must have been doing a lot of reading in the one month you've been here. That doesn't mean I think you're any the less entitled to pick your threads and express your positions, therein. It means everybody is entitled to the same, get used to it. It's just a thing we got, here...
<< <i>
<< <i>Rick, you're a cool guy, I'm sure. But you are aware you repeat the same mantra cry over and over (and over again?) In other words, you state the same position time and again. Repeating it. Again. Over and over. Again. Toning bad. Bright (dipped) good. Patina is of the devil. Blast white (curated) angelic. You write that. And then you write it again. The same message in every toning thread. Sometimes not even in just toning threads. >>
I don't know RickO, personally, but I do think some of you are being a little hard on him. Why don't you just get off his back? He's been contributing on these forums since 2001. You, by stark contrast, if I might observe, must have been doing a lot of reading in the one month you've been here. That doesn't mean I think you're any the less entitled to pick your threads and express your positions, therein. It means everybody is entitled to the same, get used to it. It's just a thing we got, here... >>
The day a member here, and I don't care if they've been here a decade or a week, posts a toned coin photo of a recent and proud purchase and RickO doesn't blast them for it and belittle their fun, is the day collectors such as myself will back off of him.
RickO is entitled to mock and make fun of all toned coins whether the OP is soliciting his comments or not. I'm allowed to voice my displeasure at such behavior.
And as you surmise above, the nature of internet forums I suppose.
And I believe that the OP hit the explosion of the toned coin market right on the head. The combination of internet growth and advances in digital photography technology presented rainbow toned coins to many collectors who did not even know they existed, myself included. The timeline is consistent with the late 90's or early part of the new millenium. And for those that believe that the toned coin market is a fad that faces an inevitable crash, I have one question. Are you expecting the internet to disappear? Because as long as it exists, every newbie coin collector of the future will have access to view, discuss, buy & sell rainbow toned coins.
<< <i>RickO is entitled to mock and make fun of all toned coins whether the OP is soliciting his comments or not. I'm allowed to voice my displeasure at such behavior. >>
OK, but, you do understand, in so doing, you're aiming at suppressing speech, based on its content. And, I don't think that's a road we want to go on, if we're smart...
<< <i>The terms toning and tarnish are synonymous in that they refer to the oxidation of the metal surface. However as others have pointed out, toning is used to project oxidation in a positive light while tarnish is used in a negative connotation. More importantly, the use of those words is much more a reflection of the speaker than the appearance of the oxidation layer on the coin. Toning enthusiasts like the OP and myself probably never use the word tarnish to describe oxidized coins. We may come out and state that the toning on the coin is unattractive, but we always use the word toning (or patina) to describe it. The crowd of collectors that includes Ricko use the word tarnish as a weapon to voice their displeasure about toned coins. But reading "Coin Chemistry" too many times does not make toning evil, and that viewpoint is basically on the fringe whereas the large majority of numismatists appreciate the virtues of toned coins.
And I believe that the OP hit the explosion of the toned coin market right on the head. The combination of internet growth and advances in digital photography technology presented rainbow toned coins to many collectors who did not even know they existed, myself included. The timeline is consistent with the late 90's or early part of the new millenium. And for those that believe that the toned coin market is a fad that faces an inevitable crash, I have one question. Are you expecting the internet to disappear? Because as long as it exists, every newbie coin collector of the future will have access to view, discuss, buy & sell rainbow toned coins. >>
OK, got time for just one more; you're all in luck.
Simply-stated, it's not anybody else's fault that some of you laying out multiples beyond the technical grade for these coins are so insecure with those decisions that you feel the almost compulsive need to distort the reality that you're collecting tarnish. My wife collects tarnished jewelry and antiques, and they don't call that "toned," they call it, "tarnished." The only difference is, she doesn't pay for it.
PS: I pay for it; she collects it.
Could it be, instead, that Rick's simply trying to impress his opinions and tastes on others by using such pejorative terms, rather than simply being objective and warning others as he would have us believe?
Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that, but it is the only conclusion I can reach on this topic.
<< <i>
<< <i>Al, I call it the popular path simply because many, many new or inexperienced collectors are influenced by what they read and see other collectors espousing, AND paying premiums to own. This says to them "It must be the right thing.", and therefore I will emulate. Tarnish IS all the popular rage right now, more so than it was 20 to 30 years ago. It is not nonsense. I do not have difficulty with people who like tarnished coins... it is their collection and their money. The many collectors here state "OVER AND OVER" that they like tarnished coins... you do not take exception to that refrain. I am not trying to wear anyone down, however, neither you nor anyone else will silence me. I state what I believe, as do others. It will be appreciated if you refrain from making this a one man crusade to change me. Remember, YOU initiated this thread and I saw no banner telling anyone they could not participate.
Cheers, RickO >>
Rick, you're a cool guy, I'm sure. But you are aware you repeat the same mantra cry over and over (and over again?) In other words, you state the same position time and again. Repeating it. Again. Over and over. Again. Toning bad. Bright (dipped) good. Patina is of the devil. Blast white (curated) angelic. You write that. And then you write it again. The same message in every toning thread. Sometimes not even in just toning threads.
It would be comical/annoying if it was just a teensy weensie lbit repetitive, but it's kind of sort of a lot and thus a bit more than that. >>
No different from the repetitive posts concerning 64d counterfeit dollars now is it ? Oh..wait..it is , Ricko is entertaining
tarnish = dirty
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The difference is toning implies added value while tarnish implies no added value. >>
The difference is that "toning" (which can be viewed as a positive or a negative), is a neutral term, whereas "tarnish" generally has a negative connotation. >>
The real difference is that "toning" is a term used by coin collectors while everyone else calls it "tarnish". >>
But a suggestion for those who want to sound classy and actually can be understood by the less numismatically-abled who are within the collectibles field: patina >>
yes patina...Ilike that the best...
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
Is there any copper, silver or gold that does not tone over time?
If that is true and you don't like coins in their natural state, I say dip the hell out of them till their nice and white again if that is what you like.. .......
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.