| Author |
 Replies: 107 / Views: 10,588 |
|
|
|
|
Rest in Peace
 United States
9104 Posts |
Quote:
You indicated that the other side was totally white so I'm leaning towards AT. The environment should have done at least something to both sides. Shouldn't it? Maybe, maybe not. The air couldn't get to the other side. I'm still waiting for a definition of either AT or NT that will always apply. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
716 Posts |
Bigg Fredd, this an interesting and obviously controversial thread that you started but it seems to me that it is a continuation of past threads that started before I joined the foum. It is also a topic that I know nothing about. Hoped to follow the posts on this thread to learn something. But when intelligent discussion and disagreement are reduced to insults and name calling then I lose interest, and I doubt that you will ever get your definition.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
592 Posts |
 Deleting my topic subscription. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
584 Posts |
Ding Ding Ding, Lets go to the score cards! I say let em slug it out. Its one thing to feel a certain way, another to push that feeling onto anyone else. I believe if we started talking about coins again, with out the egos. Each side could better understand the other side. If I collect dog turds that have been roasted in the sun for a week, does it still make it a dog turd.? OK how many of you are thinking about this.  Nothing like a good distraction before getting back to topic at hand. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
584 Posts |
And on a side note, I saw this video again http://www.youtube.com/pcgsvideo#p/.../mA3nZeADTBg @ 47sec into the video it shows some examples of substances used that will reject a coin.  I'm not sure if Verdi Gone is the same as Verdi Care but I think PCGS went a little over board. Bad Thad I've been using my Verdi Care and enjoy it. I say sniff my..... I know its a family forum.  And it is just a matter of time before the standard PCGS Slab is looked down upon because your coin wasn't sniffed. Dont get me wrong I think its brilliant to use for a lot of your Kibler Elves altering coins. But as one said how do they know what every coin came in contact with at the mint. Such is life. To much of a good thing is.....happiness! Witch is bad. lol Edited by amassey08873
07/21/2011 9:22 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3592 Posts |
biggfredd, I'm not sure a definition would solve anything...as for me, if I like it, I collect it and don't worry what others think, heck I even have some cleaned coins and I don't get out the microscope to be disappointed..I just enjoy em.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
9104 Posts |
Quote:
Once again, artificially induced catalyzed oxidation will result in a completely different toning product than will a slow natural process- mode of onset is quite critical and cannot be ignored.
Returning to the toning in ?, is it live, or is it memorex? If they result in different products, how can we tell them apart? I guess I'm looking for the line in the sand.  Edited by biggfredd
07/21/2011 11:30 pm
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
9104 Posts |
Quote:
But when intelligent discussion and disagreement are reduced to insults and name calling then I lose interest, and I doubt that you will ever get your definition.
I would request everyone put their grown up pants on when commenting. You can't put together a type set until you define what constitutes a type. Until you know what constitutes errors vs PMD, you can't categorize coins. All I'm asking for is a set of definitions. Once we have those, we can compare each coin to the definition and see where it fits. |
|
New Member
United States
14 Posts |
Okay, would it help if we revise our terms? What if we were to discuss "natural toning" vs. "intentional toning" and simply abandon the term "artificial toning"?
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
9104 Posts |
Doesn't matter to me, but I still feel no matter the terms, they must be defined before going any futher.
When working with errors, Alan Herbert created the PDS system: errors are either because of the planchet, die or striking. You could have a 1955 double-die off center clip, but you can still categorize the errors: planchet=clip, die=double die, striking=off center.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3755 Posts |
Biokemist, again, the reaction that occurs when the sulphur is applied is the natural reaction. Period. The reaction is natural. The result is the natural end of the process. That simple. And it IS that simple. The toning is natural.
Now, are the circumstances the toning got there something that happened without human intervention? Nope, they werent. Hence my point. The toning is purposeful.The method the toning got there is puposeful. But that doesn't mean the toning is anything but the result of natural process.
Your argument is against someone purposefully causing the toning. Thats all anyone who doesn't like it is arguing about. That the toning was brought about on purpose. And as pointed out (and I will point out again) the original coin in question occured through accidental occurence. Yet most folks looking at it start screaming artificial and its a horror! Betcha I can get that same effect with the potato thing. And how are you going to know the difference? You wont.
As for the difference in result due to a sped up process; I disagree. Its not the speed of the reaction, but the concentration of the oxidizer in the atmosphere of the coin. In some cases, like the original coin, the atmosphere contains higher levels of sulpher or what have you than the air in you house. So the coin in your house isn't going to react the same way. In the soup that fredd worked in for 20 years (dude, are you sure you dont have extra appendages? ;) LOL) the coin did what we see.
Uechi, baaaad analogy dude. You are comparing scenery to a movie set. If I was saying painting a coin those colors was natural, THEN you would have a point. Here is a better way to put it....
An emerald is an emerald. chemically there is no difference between one dug out of the ground or one grown in the lab. You can use that as an example, but it still points out MY point. The stones are the same.
Biokemist, if I set a found emerald and a grown emerald in front of you, you are not going to know the difference. I have seen trained gemologists mess it up. I had two that I would take to fossil/gem shows and mess with them to prove the point.
Anyway, no matter how you try to slice it, the reaction and the toning are natural in and of themselves. HOW the coin came into that situation certainly can be ignored.
Like I said, make the distinction of accidental or purposeful.
Edited by smokeriderdon
07/22/2011 12:23 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1547 Posts |
Quote:
Knock off that smarmy attitude right now- who are you to be talking down to me? I understood what you stated but that still doesn't make it correct.
I am a coin collector but I am also a trained chemist, the two cannot be separated. It is obvious to me that you are in over your head in this discussion and have no clue in regards to the chemistry of toning. You show that you have no interest in understanding the subject, you just want to stick to your dogma that ALL toning is natural. Once again, artificially induced catalyzed oxidation will result in a completely different toning product than will a slow natural process- mode of onset is quite critical and cannot be ignored. Fine. If it should be of any consequence to you I had rather looked at what I had said as an honest effort to try wake you up and shake you out of your delusions. I was mistaken. You're not worth the bother. I hadn't meant any offense, though. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1547 Posts |
Quote:And on a side note, I saw this video again http://www.youtube.com/pcgsvideo#p/../mA3nZeADTBg @ 47sec into the video it shows some examples of substances used that will reject a coin.  FWIW, this is what I said back in April in this thread: Quote:
Let me just fast-forward a little bit to the present state of affairs on this term. Did you know that PCGS now has a submissions tier called "SecurePlus?" Did you know that they put every single one of those coins submitted at that tier through a chemical analyzer? Did you know that machine checks for, among a laundry list of other trace chemicals, the trace chemicals found in Verdi-Gone(TM)? I do. I submitted several coins at that tier that were treated with same, those were the only chemicals those coins had ever been treated with, and they all failed to grade at that tier, each and every one of them, being returned as "QT." PCGS SecurePlus is putting BadThad out of business, and he doesn't even know it, yet. |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
9104 Posts |
Aside from the question of definitions, I'll say this: If I could take a blast white ASE "canvas" and with a few seconds of "painting" consistently produce coins that looked like this, I'd be running a production line for people who like the look of that kind of toning. I've seen plenty of toned coins that are obviously doctored, and usually not even attractive, just blotches of color, but somebunny must like them. I appreciate that some are also interested in protecting Clewless Gnubees™ from buying a few-second paint job while thinking they're getting decades of Mother Nature's finest work, like mass-produced cowries as "counterfeit" money. If you can't define the difference, and they look the same, then for all practical purposes, they are the same. At one point, I had four $2.50 Indians. The price difference between raw and slobbed was less than the cost, but I was curious. I showed them to a half dozen gold dealers who had 20 years or more gold coin experience. 1) Opinions ranged from "all good" to "all fake". 2) No two dealers agreed. 3) All were willing to buy all of them. 4) Draw your own confusions. |
|
Rest in Peace
United States
9104 Posts |
pix from PCGS
 Edited by biggfredd
08/03/2011 05:40 am
|
|
|
Replies: 107 / Views: 10,588 |
|
First Page
Previous Page
Posted 07/21/2011 7:45 pm
