Options
An old toning experiment that took 8+ years longer than I expected
roadrunner
Posts: 28,303 ✭✭✭✭✭
I mentioned this 1890 MS65 seated quarter in the post about the Gardner 4 sale. Gene had acquired it in a 1997 Stacks sale. Now that the sale is over I can talk about the history of this coin. While I can not be 100% certain this is my old coin, I am 99.44% sure. The alloy/planchet flaw under star 1 in the field is exactly as I remember. And the vibrant blue/purple over yellow is exactly how I "toned" this coin.
In 1989 I ran across a killer PCGS MS64 1890 seated quarter at one of the Bay State shows. The coin had MS66 luster, blast, and surfaces. 100% blast white and no doubt dipped fairly recently. The only visible flaw might have been the planchet streak/roughness under star 1. I paid something like $1,800-$2,200 for the coin which was very strong 64 money. In my mind it was a no brainer MS65 but maybe too bright for the tastes in 1989. I showed the coin to a dealer I trusted and they offered me a $100-$200 profit as I recall. I passed and took it home to decide its fate.
Rather than going for the immediate MS65, I decided to try toning the coin in yellow tissue paper on my bedroom window sill where plenty of light came through. The coin had the potential to go MS66 if that star 1 field irregularity could tone over. Never had I attempted anything like this before. Within a few weeks the coin had a golden hue on the obverse. Looking good! Within 6 months it was a strong yellow gold with a touch of peripheral color. Not bad. The star 1 anomaly remained a whitish color. Not so good. Over the following 12 months or so the blue/purple really started to come in strong. In my mind it started looking too "artificial." A trip to NGC earned a body bag. Somewhat disgusted with my "experiment" I put the coin up for auction. It fetched something like $400-$500 less than I paid. Lesson learned. Don't do that again...especially watching a market peak and then begin a 5 year crash.
Over the years I wondered what happened to it? Did it ever make it into a holder? I figured it would, even into a 66 holder. When I saw it in Gardner 4 in a MS65 holder I got my answer. No surprise that a 1989 MS64 is a MS65 today. My point is not to poke fun of the current grade or anything remotely close to that. This has always been a wonderful coin. Sticking a coin in an album or a paper envelope is not much different. Assuming this coin graded MS65 in the 1997 period when Gene Gardner bought it, it was likely worth less than an MS64+ coin from 1989. In that period an average MS65 was worth $4000-$4500. Another chapter in the "whatever happened to that" gets closed. It is, what it is.
1890 quarter MS65
In 1989 I ran across a killer PCGS MS64 1890 seated quarter at one of the Bay State shows. The coin had MS66 luster, blast, and surfaces. 100% blast white and no doubt dipped fairly recently. The only visible flaw might have been the planchet streak/roughness under star 1. I paid something like $1,800-$2,200 for the coin which was very strong 64 money. In my mind it was a no brainer MS65 but maybe too bright for the tastes in 1989. I showed the coin to a dealer I trusted and they offered me a $100-$200 profit as I recall. I passed and took it home to decide its fate.
Rather than going for the immediate MS65, I decided to try toning the coin in yellow tissue paper on my bedroom window sill where plenty of light came through. The coin had the potential to go MS66 if that star 1 field irregularity could tone over. Never had I attempted anything like this before. Within a few weeks the coin had a golden hue on the obverse. Looking good! Within 6 months it was a strong yellow gold with a touch of peripheral color. Not bad. The star 1 anomaly remained a whitish color. Not so good. Over the following 12 months or so the blue/purple really started to come in strong. In my mind it started looking too "artificial." A trip to NGC earned a body bag. Somewhat disgusted with my "experiment" I put the coin up for auction. It fetched something like $400-$500 less than I paid. Lesson learned. Don't do that again...especially watching a market peak and then begin a 5 year crash.
Over the years I wondered what happened to it? Did it ever make it into a holder? I figured it would, even into a 66 holder. When I saw it in Gardner 4 in a MS65 holder I got my answer. No surprise that a 1989 MS64 is a MS65 today. My point is not to poke fun of the current grade or anything remotely close to that. This has always been a wonderful coin. Sticking a coin in an album or a paper envelope is not much different. Assuming this coin graded MS65 in the 1997 period when Gene Gardner bought it, it was likely worth less than an MS64+ coin from 1989. In that period an average MS65 was worth $4000-$4500. Another chapter in the "whatever happened to that" gets closed. It is, what it is.
1890 quarter MS65
0
Comments
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.americanlegacycoins.com
No surprise at all that it got in to an MS65 4 prong holder
What year(s) would that holder represent? I seem to recall that's in the last 6 years and not 1997. The current holder shows a sequence # of 20, which means this was graded/seen as part of a large number of coins. I recall the auction purchases in the raw auction days would often have sequence numbers in the 20 to 50 range when you have major dealers buying 5-10% of any one auction.
Latin American Collection
I expect that there are a lot more out there so thanks for sharing.
The name is LEE!
What exactly was that anomaly? Was it a tarnished area or some sort of metal movement?
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I will point to this 1877 Proof Twenty Cent Piece. I know a lot of people don't like this coin because of the "moon" that is to the left of Ms. Liberty. That patch is actually one of three shallow planchet laminations that are on the obverse. The others are to the left of the first big "moon" and just below Ms. Liberty's foot. Those two spots are not visible except with a strong glass.
This piece has totally original surfaces and aside from the toning is as struck. But PCGS gave it a PR-64 grade, which is accurate in my opinion.
Too many positive BST transactions with too many members to list.
I liked the original post better. Before the edit. Doctor.
Thanks, Newbie.
You're a med school drop out!
What exactly was that anomaly? Was it a tarnished area or some sort of metal movement?
It was in the planchet imo. A slight area of roughness where the luster may not be visible. If you look at the reverse there are some other spotty/streaky areas where the luster doesn't show (PL spots?). Those areas often tone differently than the surroundings. In a post yesterday I mentioned an Eliasberg MS66 seated quarter (nearly a pop top) that was missing all the luster in one reverse quadrant...from old and deeply embedded toning. I couldn't see the coin as a MS66 with 10% of the entire coin's luster missing/not apparent. This 1890 is only a MS65 and is at worst missing 2-3% of the luster due to planchet issues.
The 1890 25c reverse has some unusual toning features. The orange spot on the eagle's neck seems out of place. The blue toning on the left wing seems to float on top of it. It also bleeds out into the fields and over the arrow shafts in a ragged pattern.
The 1877 proof 20c piece above also has faint scuffing/hairlining in the fields....apparent from the toning/texture change. That to me is just as distracting as the spot. I would consider it a PF63.
You've inspired me to not throw away all the wrapping paper this year...
In looking back, the ideal play was the 1 or 2 'C' note profit......
Not a problem I would have, since I do not sell my coins... I imagine people who do part
with coins - especially those they may like - wonder what happens to them years later.
Cheers, RickO