How Long Does Toning Take?

So, then. Rainbow toning is a result of fortuitous accidents? It would seem that once achieved, even if it took years, the accidents would be repeated to produce an unnaturally large number of rainbow toned coins.

My personal thought is that the only natural toning occurs when coins are used as they were meant to be used: circulating, in people's wallets and pockets. This results in coins that are shiny, worn and in general not very attractive. The very act of holding coins out of circulation is artificial, whether uncirculated in bags, or in SD boxes, or in dynamite boxes, or cigar boxes, or coin books. ALL of these are artificial toning techniques. Some produce rainbows, some produce tarnish, but none of them has the original toning created by circulation. Consider Redman's exploded peaches-stained Morgans: an excellent example of accidental but still artificial toning. Even though they are obviously tampered with, they are still avidly collected.

So there is acceptable artificial toning which results from ageing and varying storage conditions (ie a coin book's sulfur content), and there is unacceptable artificial toning which results from heat and chemistry. How does one draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable?

It seems as though many of us have a bias agains toning that (a) is the result of a premeditated human act, and (b) happens quickly (minutes, hours or a few days), but have little problem with toning that is random and happens over years or decades.

First, we are talking about toning, and other types of coin doctoring is irrelevant to the argument.

Now, I understand perfectly the affects different environmental elements have on metal coins. I also can prove, if I had the funds, that a person can buy a BU roll of Morgan silver dollars and subject them to certain elements that will tone the coin, and the majority will not tone desirably.

We DO know how to artificially tone coins with rainbow affects, but who wants to take a chance of ruining several coins in roll just to get a couple toned nicely?

I repeat, not all coins from the same mint, date, roll, bag or collection will tone the same when subjected to the very same elements.

It takes years of experience to discern how certain coins are toned. In example, album toning looks different than end roll toning and both are different from "heat" toning.

However, desirable examples can be found with all three examples of toning.

Furthermore, if I place a coin in a sock drawer because I know it will tone and be more desirable, then I take another coin and place it in an old album that has (edited) has "acetate" slides, then I take another coin and subject it to heat and sulphur fumes.

Now, all three coins come out with desirable toning that appears natural. What did I do wrong? It is all a matter of opinion. And unless I damaged the coins and sell then as a damage free coins, then I have not I violated any ethics.

One would be surprised at the amount of Silver Dollars, that have been unnaturally altered, for sale, in collections and/or graded by the top companies in the business.

We can debate about ethics, natural, unnatural toning and the differences thereof, but it is entirely possible the beautifully toned coin or that high grade and bright white specimen you cherish in your collection may have, in the past, achieved it most desirable quality by the hands of another.

All his life my grandfather has been a dealer and so has my father since the 1950's, and I have since the 1970's. I grew up in a coin shop, and remember when we bought silver coins by the barrel full.

I have seen coins in every type of condition and altered state imaginable. However, I don't claim to know it all, but what I say comes from a lot of experience and teaching.

Another thing, I, for one, will never sell a coin if I know how it was toned without first telling how it was toned. So, the value of the coin depends on the buyer. I believe in honesty and integrity and my statements in no way reflect a tolerance for altering coins to cover up problems or to sell for greater profits.

I agree there is issues with coin doctors because they are in business to cheat the buyer. I do not condone this behaviour.

I did mean acetate plastic slides for albums from the 1920's and up. But they are not inert, it was popular to place coins in the albums for toning. You can find one refernce to this in the Whitman Photograde Guide.

quote:

---

It seems as though many of us have a bias agains toning that (a) is the result of a premeditated human act, and (b) happens quickly (minutes, hours or a few days), but have little problem with toning that is random and happens over years or decades.

---

Hunter, I think you really hit the nail on the head. People accept the toning IF a: it happened by accident, and b: it happened over a long period of time. I'm also one of those people.

metalman

quote:

---

I do not believe that coin doctors can achieve the same toning !!

---

But why not? If the exact cause for such toning could be known, why couldn't it be repeated?

As a trained scientist (but one no longer working as a scientist) I have to say that I believe that if we start with identical coins (composition, surface quality, etc.) and subject them to identical conditions, that all will tone in predictable, repeatable ways. Now getting identical coins with identical surface qualities, and being able to precisely control the toning process may not be so easy for a backyard chemist to do, so getting predictable, repeatable results could be tricky.

If the process repeats a "natural toning" process, then the results will be indistinguishable, all other variables being equal (i.e., time since toning occured, storage since toning, etc.)

In the end...there really would be no tangible or measurable difference. Because precision is so difficult to accomplish, I'm certain that a trained eye can distinguish between "well-toned" and "ill-toned" coins.

As long as differences are discernible, then differences in value are supportable. I'm not at all sure that it should make a difference, but it does, and so be it. The objective and subjective reasons we collectors value different qualities in our coins are myriad and not always rational. A repunched date or mint mark on one coin can command a huge premium; on another coin in another series, even if equally or more rare, the same variation commands little or no premium. That's not rational...but it is still valid.

Toning can add to eye appeal...and when it does it will tend to enhance the value of the coin, since more buyers will be attracted to it. Is it "rational" that most collectors want "natural toning" if looking for toning at all? I would suggest that it is rational. We tend to value coins primarily for what happened at the time of minting. Examples: number minted, quality of strike, minting errors, etc. We tend to devalue things that happened after minting ("environmental damage", wear, and so forth.) Value is inversely proportional to scarcity, so long as demand exceeds supply. So even though toning is an "after the mint" occurence and should actually devalue the coin, it's enhancement of eye appeal increases rarity and adds net value. Just as soon as the "enhancement" is predictable and repeatable, then scarcity goes out the window, and value to a collector diminishes. It is this subtle interplay of attributes that are the result of minting, and after-minting, rare and random (unrepeatable) occurences that develop demand for a coin and result in a "value" attached to it.

Sorry for the long and rambling post...

Again...just some thoughts...

quote:

---

Im a bit predjudiced against coin doctors

---

Absolutely! If I had two identical, beautifully toned coins (impossible I know).. one was by chance, and one was diliberately done using the same conditions... I would be attracted to the coin toned by accident, and I would consider the "doctored" coin to be trash.

But it strange when you think about it because there's NO DIFFERENCE between the coins. I just feel like the latter coin has been.... molested.