Tone check, color not sound!!

keets · April 22, 2011 10:50PM

Please render your opinion on the color quality and authenticity of these two coins, if you please. Thanks in advance.

Al H.

ricko · April 22, 2011 11:00PM

Cheers, RickO

TomB · April 23, 2011 1:55AM

I don't necessarily trust my own interpretation of the images, but will go ahead and state that they appear to be headed to lives in "Genuine" holders as far as I can tell.

MrSpud · April 23, 2011 2:06AM

Even if they are NT they would be considered to be questionable because you can get the same look with heat

PawPaul · April 23, 2011 6:38AM

I'm in on the war nick ; out on the '67

coindeuce · April 23, 2011 9:08AM

I've never seen a '67 Jeff. from a S.M.S. set acquire that color in a natural manner. I've seen Warnicks tone very vividly, especially if stored long term in a Wayte Raymond board.

Lehigh96 · April 23, 2011 9:36AM

<< <i>I don't necessarily trust my own interpretation of the images, but will go ahead and state that they appear to be headed to lives in "Genuine" holders as far as I can tell. >>

I agree completely. I have never seen that color of blue on a war nickel and the color scheme on the SMS is not market acceptable IMO. However, I do think the SMS is attractive. Given how common rainbow toned war nickels are, I find don't find that one extremely attractive, mostly due to the spotting.

llafoe · April 23, 2011 9:39AM

Are they both already in PCGS holders?

keets · April 23, 2011 4:13PM

Are they both already in PCGS holders?

in a word, yes.

Type2 · April 23, 2011 4:22PM

Did they come back in a "Genuine" holder I like them maybe the 1st one but the 45 looks ok to me Nice.

Meltdown · April 23, 2011 6:31PM

<< <i>Even if they are NT they would be considered to be questionable because you can get the same look with heat >>

I agree. Looks like a frying pan experiment to me.
They might be pretty to look at in person but I can't see that color and pattern happening naturaly.

keets · April 24, 2011 11:22AM

well, the reason i posted the coins was because they looked so unnatural to me and i was quite surprised they were encapsulated. the seller often has dramatic coins which make me shake my head and presume that they must be "one shot wonders" mixed in with normal looking stuff.

Pokermandude · April 24, 2011 11:31AM

#1 definitely AT.

#2 could be NT, but something looks a little off still. I'd still say AT.

AUandAG · April 24, 2011 11:33AM

First one is NT all the way.

Second is suspect in my eye.

bob

jmski52 · April 24, 2011 12:23PM

First one is NT all the way.

Second is suspect in my eye

That's kinda what I was thinking.

magikbilly · April 24, 2011 1:00PM

I was going to post to this last night and forgot. I know it sounds crazy, I guess, but both strike me original. I don't like them, well - particularly the first one, but there is something about the colors (esp under the bust on both) and their relationship and interaction that says "NT" to me in what I must say is a rather loud voice.

Best wishes,
Eric

keets · April 25, 2011 7:52AM

..............says "NT" to me in what I must say is a rather loud voice.

auditory hallucination is a bad thing, you didn't answer the voice , did you??

here is what i say pertaining to the color of both coins: i search for toned Jefferson Nickels and have never stumbled across naturally toned examples which even closely mimic these two, this is why i asked for opinions. for me it sometimes comes down to whether or not a pattern of tone, either the way it lays on the surface or the colors involved looks familiar. these two patterns/colors resemble what i've seen as AT'd coins.

magikbilly · April 25, 2011 8:28AM

<< <i>..............says "NT" to me in what I must say is a rather loud voice.

auditory hallucination is a bad thing, you didn't answer the voice , did you??

>>

Well, not out loud!

I guess I was thinking of some of my old Pr (40% and pre-war) nicks and colors. I had one that was called "coffee spilled" here, but was actually toned quite strikingly. Of course, that coin was not considered AT, just "ugly" (it was not).

Eric

Tone check, color not sound!!

Comments

Leave a Comment