| Author |
 Replies: 16 / Views: 3,438 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2845 Posts |
Me too, I definitely am drawn toward natural toning especially when it adds highlights and emphasis to the coin. The other end of the spectrum - blast white (dipped)......no thanks.
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
228 Posts |
I voted toned, but only if the toning is natural and adds eye appeal.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1346 Posts |
Afraid I am tone deaf. Voted "no"
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
397 Posts |
I too voted not toned. Prefer the original mint luster on uncirculated coins.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
18456 Posts |
Actually I'm a blast white man myself . I do own some lightly toned coins that toned naturally while in my possession through out the years . So my vote was NO .  |
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
5402 Posts |
Natural eye appealing light tone combined with superb lustre.
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
413 Posts |
Tough one - depends on the coin I guess, but I lean more toward not toned  |
|
Valued Member
Canada
393 Posts |
 with many of the comments posted. Difficult to answer exactly as it would depend on the coin. Lack of toning on an older coin might be deemed suspicious although I'm sure there are many artificially toned coins out there. Attractive toning certainly adds to the eye appeal but heavily toned coins have to be the most difficult to grade. How one sees the 'underlying luster' is something I could never figure out.  |
|
Moderator
United States
189340 Posts |
I will take them either way. |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2187 Posts |
I love toned coins as long as the toning is VERY visible. I'd rather have a blast white coin than have one with light gold toning. But a nice, wildly toned coin beats anything anytime for me
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
220 Posts |
I love toned coins and knowing the source, it adds to the originality of the item. In recent years, however, I have become aware of artificial toning which to me really takes the fun out of collecting. To me it's a form of cheating and I can't believe someone would consider the risk of harming the surface of an original coin through artificial toning. When I see a nicely toned coin nowadays it's always in the back of my mind it may be an AT coin, which I find very disappointing. I have considered going back to collecting white/brilliant finish coins to get around this problem.
At the end of the day though, if I had a way of confirming AT isn't present on a toned coin, I would always lean towards the toned coin.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5676 Posts |
I love naturally toned coins, but it really comes down to the attractiveness of the coin. If the luster shines through and there is beautiful color, I'll take the toned coin over blast white any day.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Australia
7096 Posts |
Quote:
How one sees the 'underlying luster' is something I could never figure out.
Send note to If you can't see the underlying lustre then it isn't there, Simple as that  |
|
New Member
38 Posts |
I prefer not toned; however, I like coins that have a bit of toning (this depends on the coin of course).
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
288 Posts |
I would take an original, lightly toned coin with radiant lustre over a white coin any day. I don't mind rich iridescence either as long as it's eye-appealing. So many coins have been dipped, I find it much more rewarding to locate a coin with original patina.
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 16 / Views: 3,438 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 08/14/2016 4:57 pm
