There is no "AT" or "NT". We only have "market acceptable" or "no

ecichlid · March 24, 2011 2:01AM

On another post tradedollarnut had this to say: "IMO, stored improperly in a hot environment is AT, not NT. But the more I think about it, the more I realized that the line between the two is so blurred that the only thing that matters is whether it's Market Acceptable or not. "

I think that point is worth a topic on its own. There is no agreed upon definition of AT and therefore there is no definition of NT (argue all you want). Why not mention market acceptability when it comes to these types of discussions? Why get into the NT/AT debates when you can simply state to what degree you think the market will accept such a coin?

llafoe · March 24, 2011 2:02AM

jesbroken · March 24, 2011 2:11AM

I agree with TDN and ecichlid. I have seen many NT coins that were awful and AT coins that were gorgeous. I happen to have an NT Morgan that is totally unacceptable to anyones taste. So, while I have no problem with TPG's rejecting them for being AT(as they have many warranty considerations to maintain), I think a grade would should still be acceptable with the AT notation and let the public decide whether it is acceptable to them or not. JMO
Jim

Sonorandesertrat · March 24, 2011 2:11AM

I agree with TDN. I recall seeing a 1960's-vintage proof Lincoln cent, evidently stored improperly (while still in the government packaging) that PCGS graded PR1BN.
The TPGs have to financially protect themselves, and this means that they are moving to an increasingly conservative view---from bagging a coin if they were sure it was AT'd to grading
a coin Genuine if they aren't sure it is NT.

'Market acceptable,' like 'NT,' is a slippery slope---what is OK this year may be deemed not acceptable a decade from now as we learn more about methods used to artificially tone coins.

crazyhounddog · March 24, 2011 2:29AM

From my coin chemistry book it reads....Behind all the confusion is the "fact" that silver and copper sulfide as a compounds are the same whether formed intentionally over a short period of time or by accident while setting for years in a safe-deposit box. As an example, consider the synthesis of vitamin C. Can one really tell if a pure form of this chemical is man-made or synthesized by nature? The answer is "obviously not." The same is true for Ag2S film on a coin's surface. Metal sulfides are natural, regardless of how they developed.

If your interested in reading up on this subject I recommend this book "Coin Chemistry" by Weimar W. Whire......Joe

dragon · March 24, 2011 3:47AM

<<< Why get into the NT/AT debates when you can simply state to what degree you think the market will accept such a coin? >>>

Ok, perhaps you can now define exactly who or what "the market" is? Is it me, is it you, a dealer in New York, a collector in Alaska, a PNG dealer in Arizona, a grader in a dark room in Newport Beach, CA.. an auction gallery in Chicago, an elderly collector wearing coke bottle glasses in Florida?

RedTiger · March 24, 2011 4:10AM

<< <<< Why get into the NT/AT debates when you can simply state to what degree you think the market will accept such a coin? >>>

Ok, perhaps you can now define exactly who or what "the market" is? Is it me, is it you, a dealer in New York, a collector in Alaska, a PNG dealer in Arizona, a grader in a dark room in Newport Beach, CA.. an auction gallery in Chicago, an elderly collector wearing coke bottle glasses in Florida? >>

Each collector makes that decision. Some coins are 99% acceptable, some 90%, some 80%, some 50%, some 20%, some 1%. The TPGs aim for a certain ballpark of acceptable to put a coin in the holder, perhaps 80% acceptable.

RedneckHB · March 24, 2011 4:21AM

<< <<< Why get into the NT/AT debates when you can simply state to what degree you think the market will accept such a coin? >>>

Ok, perhaps you can now define exactly who or what "the market" is? Is it me, is it you, a dealer in New York, a collector in Alaska, a PNG dealer in Arizona, a grader in a dark room in Newport Beach, CA.. an auction gallery in Chicago, an elderly collector wearing coke bottle glasses in Florida? >>

The debate would be moot if not for the $$$$$ surrounding the AT/NT arguement. Its not so much about whether the coin is AT or NT, but how much you paid.

Kove · March 24, 2011 4:22AM

These discussions often flash warning signs for me about paying big premiums for toned coins. While I agree that a coin stored improperly in a hot environment is NT, the more of these coins that the TPGs grade as "market acceptable," the more it dilutes the existing supply. As we see more and more of these coins deemed market acceptable, all of us who paid premiums for color in the past have the value of our coins chipped away at a little at a time.

ecichlid · March 24, 2011 5:37AM

I think RedTiger is correct in his response to dragon. There is a range of acceptability in the market. For example, if 99% of us see a toned coin and we like the look of it and would like to own that coin, it will drive up the value. If only 1% of us see and a toned coin that we like, it will drive down the value. There is no "market" in a absolute sense.

Kove, you do have reason to be concerned. The fact of the matter is the reverse is true as well. When PCGS slabs a coin as Genuine, it's their own interpretation of what is market acceptable. They don't always know exactly what conditions led to the toning of that coin.

The fact is that there is no definition of AT or NT. People draw the line in different places and for different reasons. Once you accept this as being true, then the you realize the NT/AT debate is a stupid one. The real driving force is what the market will pay for a coin.

Baley · March 24, 2011 5:47AM

Agree on all points

Nysoto · March 24, 2011 6:14AM

In the words of dorkkarl on 9/29/2004:

<< i have simple def'ns that clears up the matter pretty well. >>

<< natural tone: the tone that a coin would acquire through normal methods of circulation. >>

<< artificial tone: all other toning >>

<< market-acceptable tone: if a coin is ever successfully in a free-market environment, then the toning is market acceptable. >>

<< in the context of slabs, it does not matter what was the source of toning on a coin. what matters is whether the plastic co. believes the market will accept the coin or not. >>

Lakesammman · March 24, 2011 6:27AM

I get coins all the time that must be market acceptable since they are in holders but they ain't acceptable to me!

That sort of definition is too vague.

TomB · March 24, 2011 6:30AM

The definitions of AT and NT are flexible depending upon who writes them. However, it is important for all to study coins and purchase items they believe they understand at levels that they are comfortable with at the time of purchase and at any point in the future for liquidation. I likely would not agree with the AT and NT definitions put forth by many folks, but I also will not accept many coins that are otherwise claimed to be "market acceptable" or MA. To each their own in every niche of this hobby-industry; just attempt to be educated and safe.

jesbroken · March 24, 2011 6:37AM

What seems strange to me is that if a coin is left in a warm environment in a Wayte Raymond holder for 30 years, then the toning is considered natural, but if it is toned over a weekend using the same chemical treatment then it is artificial. I think the bottom line comes down to what one paid for the process. If a collector paid big bucks for an NT coin then they are not going to accept an AT coin with the same look unless it is certified NT. It is truly a vicious circle that really is about money--where all the coins of the same value, their would be no issue.
Jim

crazyhounddog · March 24, 2011 6:43AM

I would like to go on to say this is a never ending debate, I'm the one that really decides, on the coins that I buy, whether if it's slabbed or not, is eye appealing and market acceptable in case I ever need to sell it. I have submitted coins to PCGS that have been shot down for "questionable color," and have sent the same coins to NGC and they have graded them with no problem at all. This is how deep rooted the problem is and I agree that what it all boils down to is, is it "market acceptable ??"

BAJJERFAN · March 24, 2011 6:59AM

So are all of those obviously colored coins that appear on eBay market acceptable simply because they sell; even if it is a very small premium over melt? The ones that all the posters here bash and say they would never buy.

The best way to get a feel for the value of a toner would be to put it in an auction available to all interested bidders. There is lots of stuff I would like to buy, but I don't have a limitless checking account.

yellowkid · March 24, 2011 7:28AM

One man's trash is another's treasure

DoubleEagle59 · March 24, 2011 7:51AM

<< On another post tradedollarnut had this to say: "IMO, stored improperly in a hot environment is AT, not NT. But the more I think about it, the more I realized that the line between the two is so blurred that the only thing that matters is whether it's Market Acceptable or not. "

I think that point is worth a topic on its own. There is no agreed upon definition of AT and therefore there is no definition of NT (argue all you want). Why not mention market acceptability when it comes to these types of discussions? Why get into the NT/AT debates when you can simply state to what degree you think the market will accept such a coin? >>

I agree 100%

and what it does is eliminate the constant debate regarding whether or not a coin is AT or not.

Rather, the coins' toning is either accepted by the market or not.

PawPaul · March 24, 2011 11:17AM

gotta love a thread like this .......... where most everyone agrees

Baley · March 24, 2011 2:44PM

Often, some one will come on here and ask, "If i do so and so to a coin, or store it in such and such conditions, is it AT or NT?"

and I always answer, "It depends on what it looks like!"

ricko · March 24, 2011 10:00PM

Buy the coin, not the tarnish. Cheers, RickO

poorguy · March 24, 2011 11:06PM

<< Buy the coin, not the tarnish. Cheers, RickO >>

In reference to toning, what alot of people don't understand is that while toning can be produced through accellerated methods, it produces certain patterns and shades that appear "different" from natural toning that took nearly a century to develop. It's the same sort of difference just as you can taste the difference between food that has been cooked on a stove vs. microwaved.

Sure, silver sulfide is a natural compound. However, how it develops is the most important aspect. Morgans that have been toned via accellerated methods will generally have deep purply blue, pink, and dark burnt orange in billowy shades that don't have a proper cooresponding pattern on the other side of the coin. Others, with more rainbow colors have funky reds and greens that look "off". Some like this may actually be natural (not likely) but the odds are that it has been AT'd and I, among others, stay away from those patterns. So, you could say that unnatural looking patterns are NOT market acceptable.

Now, in the recent months, I have taken note of at least 3 Morgans in TPG holders that are blatantly AT. One was actually damn good but still noticably different from a naturally toned Morgan.

I believe that alot of the animosity about toned coins and toning in general is due to lack of experience with naturally toned coins. People tend to fear what they don't fully understand.

llafoe · March 24, 2011 11:14PM

<< I believe that alot of the animosity about toned coins and toning in general is due to lack of experience with naturally toned coins. People tend to fear what they don't fully understand. >>

I think a lot of the animosity about toned coins is due to the greed of the coin doctors and the confusion caused when AT coins are in TPG slabs.

TomB · March 24, 2011 11:25PM

<< 

<< I believe that alot of the animosity about toned coins and toning in general is due to lack of experience with naturally toned coins. People tend to fear what they don't fully understand. >>

I think a lot of the animosity about toned coins is due to the greed of the coin doctors and the confusion caused when AT coins are in TPG slabs. >>

I believe you are both correct to a certain extent with respect to the opinions of many collectors. We might also add that some folks want their coins to look as closely as possible to how they did at the time of manufacture and also some folks simply do not find toned coins attractive in the least. I'm sure we could come up with other reasons to dislike toned coins, too.

poorguy · March 24, 2011 11:29PM

<< 

<< I believe that alot of the animosity about toned coins and toning in general is due to lack of experience with naturally toned coins. People tend to fear what they don't fully understand. >>

I think a lot of the animosity about toned coins is due to the greed of the coin doctors and the confusion caused when AT coins are in TPG slabs. >>

Sure, I also agree with that. You also have to add in the greed of collectors who buy the AT crap because it's cheap and they think they got a rip. Then, they go to sell it to someone who knows who tells them the hard truth. That'll leave a bitter taste in their mouth and suddenly, since they can't tell the difference because they refuse to learn something thoroughly, all toned coins are AT.

The more people who can tell the difference between Natural (Market Acceptable) and Artificial / Accellerated (Market Unacceptable), the less of a problem and the less of a civil war will erupt every time someone posts a toned coin.

The fact is that the VAST majority of coin doctoring is NOT done to add purdy colors on coins. It is to cover something up the coin-doc did to the coin or to hide a problem that would prevent the coin from upgrading.

People who artificially toned coins specifically for the color are nothing but two bit scam artists like the dope selling knock-offs of expensive purses and shoes on the sidewalk. People who know better will keep walking.

<< I believe you are both correct to a certain extent with respect to the opinions of many collectors. We might also add that some folks want their coins to look as closely as possible to how they did at the time of manufacture and also some folks simply do not find toned coins attractive in the least. I'm sure we could come up with other reasons to dislike toned coins, too. >>

Absolutely. White or toned, each of us has our own preference and there is no right or wrong either way. I really dig a bright, flawless, fully struck MS68 Morgan just as much as I do a beautifully toned example. I don't think I would want more than one of the prior though.

ricko · March 25, 2011 12:15AM

"The fact is that the VAST majority of coin doctoring is NOT done to add purdy colors on coins. It is to cover something up the coin-doc did to the coin or to hide a problem that would prevent the coin from upgrading.

People who artificially toned coins specifically for the color are nothing but two bit scam artists like the dope selling knock-offs of expensive purses and shoes on the sidewalk. People who know better will keep walking."

Excellent points....AT is 'mostly' low level opportunism. I have spent many hours studying metallurgy (in my apprenticeship and business) and a lot of time applying this to my investigation of coin tarnish. A lot of experiments over the years have given me a good understanding of the process - not to mention in-depth posts by TomB and Sumorado that have helped a great deal. The market for these colored coins is mainly (not exclusively) among comparative neophytes to coin collecting, following what they believe, due to what they read on forums and hear at shows and shops - is desirable on coins.
Meanwhile, 'real' coin docs are working to make more valuable coins 'acceptable' through other, more esoteric methods.
Cheers, RickO

ecichlid · March 25, 2011 9:29AM

Geeez ricko. You sound damn smart in your reply. With your many one line posts, I didn't even knew you had it in you! ;-)

In all seriousness, I think you made some great points.

The fact remains that it's market acceptance that drives a coins price, no matter how a coin was toned. It's also to impossible to define what AT means to the masses or expect that a TPG will be consistent with their definition. For some, toning is about how long it took, for others it's the intent, for others it's how the coins were stored, for others it is a combination of these factors.

Therefore to restate the original point: There is no "AT" or "NT". We only have "market acceptable" or "not market acceptable

cosmicblunder · March 25, 2011 9:49AM

All coins are AT. Coin Doctors should be celebrated. Let the most beautiful coin win.

poorguy · March 25, 2011 10:36AM

<< Geeez ricko. You sound damn smart in your reply. With your many one line posts, I didn't even knew you had it in you! ;-)

In all seriousness, I think you made some great points.

The fact remains that it's market acceptance that drives a coins price, no matter how a coin was toned. It's also to impossible to define what AT means to the masses or expect that a TPG will be consistent with their definition. For some, toning is about how long it took, for others it's the intent, for others it's how the coins were stored, for others it is a combination of these factors.

Therefore to restate the original point: There is no "AT" or "NT". We only have "market acceptable" or "not market acceptable >>

The fact remains that it's market acceptance that drives a coins price, no matter how a coin was (GRADED). It's also to impossible to define what EACH GRADE means to the masses or expect that a TPG will be consistent with their definition.

Therefore to restate the original point: There is no "AT" or "NT". We only have "market acceptable" or "not market acceptable.

I suppose same can be said for coins and their grades by TPG's.

Just trying to point out the relationship between ATvs.NT and TPG grading. No mal-intention to the quoted poster.

Yeah, there is a strong degree of market acceptance regarding toned coins. If the market accepts it as original, it is ok. If the market rejects as artificial, regardless of whether or not the coin is AT, the coin is not market acceptible. The same thought process goes along with graded coins. Undergraded coins have a premium market value. Perfectly graded coins have a standard market value, and overgraded coins have a lower market value. Just as you would study coins to learn how to grade them, if you like toned coins, spend just as much time focusing on how to determine natural vs. artificial toning.

ecichlid · March 25, 2011 11:35AM

True, but we do have a grading standard. There is not toning standard. There lies the difference.

TomB · March 25, 2011 11:50AM

<< True, but we do have a grading standard. There is not toning standard. There lies the difference. >>

I wouldn't want to rest too much upon that very fine blade. There is no single grading standard. There is an ANA grading standard, but it is not universal. There are in-house, proprietary standards developed and used by the TPGs such as PCGS and NGC, but they are not necessarily the same. Therefore, grading standards might be more like the AT vs. NT debate than they appear at first blush.

ecichlid · March 25, 2011 1:05PM

I can define a description of a AU coin and there will be little debate. Try describing "artificially toned" and see where that gets you. There is no popularly defined definition!

There is no "AT" or "NT". We only have "market acceptable" or "no

Comments

Leave a Comment

There is no &quot;AT&quot; or &quot;NT&quot;. We only have &quot;market acceptable&quot; or &quot;no

Comments

Leave a Comment

There is no "AT" or "NT". We only have "market acceptable" or "no