1892 IHC Rainbow... Altered Or No?

I wouldn't touch it.

It's not necessary and a waste of money to certify some coins. Other coins must be certified because there is doubt and they're simply worth more with the doubt removed. This coin is definitely the latter. Knowing that the seller could easily make up for the cost of certification and more, the obvious question is why not certify it. The logical answer is because it's altered. I don't know either way, which is why I'd only buy it certified.

Yeah, ten foot pole. I asked them once what they put on their IHC's to get the colors they get. I never got a response.

Run away from it as fast as you can.

Looks real to me just artifically toned some how or another.
Wouldn't appeal to me in that condition.

Yeah , I see where you could be temped with this, but trust
us it's only make believe.
if Great Southern Coins would have left well enough alone, he would have had a real nice IHC with a lot of eye appeal and strike.

I remain unconvinced that this coin was artificially toned, but it could have been. I recall seeing coins with similar toning back in the seventies and eighties. They had usually spent years, housed in the early envelopes and albums, laden with sulfur content, dating back to the 1930's. Was that toning artificial or dare I say, natural? Does the term "artificial" now speak to intent? Hmmm ....

IF this coin was intentionally toned, it may have been done to mask spots or some other surface issue. I do believe I see a spot or two.

I've not as yet bought a coin from this seller. It's evident from the comments that he's not held in high regard. I tend to judge a coin not by the slab or the seller but by its own merits. With a piece like this one, perhaps a proof as claimed, I'd need to see it in hand, turn it at angles, let the light dance off its surface, etc.