Modern Mint Silver Proof Sets And Toning

I am a neophyte when it comes to numismatics, but I have to start somewhere. I apologize in advance if this very topic (modern mint silver proof sets) is taboo among real coin collectors, but I hope you'll read this and respond even if that is the case with earnest care to educate those who are not so versed in the ways of coin collecting.

So, when it comes to modern mint sets (i.e. still in the original mint packaging . . . is that the cause of the toning? hmm) ... on a coin that should not be old enough to have toning (unless it was handled with bare fingertips on the surfaces, or left in sunlight?), what is the real implications on a coin's desirability/value when that coin is toned in a natural (but not pretty) way?

For example, a silver 1999 Pennsylvania quarter where the entire bottom third of the dress of the woman on the reverse has a browning that looks like a shirt someone spilled coffee on. But nowhere else on the coin is there any browning. I suppose I should think it because it was merely a beautiful darling who had just crossed a muddy shallow river?

Or how about something else (which I think may not be toning at all) . . . an area that is, like a little foggy cloud, ruining the mirror surface of the background on the reverse of a silver 1999 Delaware quarter in a little splotch around the horse's tail, almost like a flatulent statement about me for buying such a coin. But strangely, it never starts right *at* any raised (non-mirror) surfaces, but always a little ways from them. Is this some kind of defect from the mint, or a blemish caused by handling in a strange way, or just some weird freak chemical action from environment?

I can't help but wonder, based on the shape of these different "marks" on the coin (both the browing areas I see and the ones that are "foggy" against the mirror background), and how they seem to be in relation to the frosted subjects in each coin, that they were all done by human contact. But then again, I don't know anything, so this is purely speculation. Still, it seems like either someone touched this with bare fingers (leaving oils which dulled the surface, or left it ready to react with environmental gasses?) or else they touched it with something else, but either way, it hit the high spots and then only the low spots that weren't protected by the high spots. Or so I think ?

In any case, I am not at the stage yet where I really care that these types of things are on my coins. I only care to know why they are there and learn what this meant; did I get ripped off, did I get something that is still valuable, what? I know I am an idiot, when it comes to coins, and I know that it will take time and experience, and chance encounters with those who truly know and are willing to share. I consider the money I spend (or "lose" as the case may be) to be educational.

But there is a find line. A coin that is a silver 2001 that is so browned that it seems like someone dropped it in a fire, then spilt burnt steak juice on it while setting it in a fire seems a bit too much for me to accept as far as worth my time and effort. And even some "browned" specimens seem too much for me, for a coin that is so new, and that should not be so blatantly browned in such strange and random areas. If all the coins I looked at were browned in the same spots or the same fashion, I might think it natural for the year, but when some are browned on top and some on the bottom and some on the side, and in (what seems to me in my short viewing period) completely different spots for each set I view, I wonder if any of these are "typical".

As it stands, toning I've seen on older coins can be attractive, beautiful, or just make it look. . . well . . . old, and as "it should be" ! Toning just seems to fit on older coins. But on newer mint issues, such as something made in 1999, why is it that I can find flawless perfect examples of a 2000 quarter (name your state), but when I look at possible purchases in 1999 or 2001 (both valued much higher, perhaps due to inflated market values), I cannot find anything that is "flawless", but see instances of toning or "fogging" (for lack of the correct term).

From what I've gathered from talking to others interested in coin collecting, I take it that as someone interested in ultra-modern issues that the US Mint has heavily marketed is . . . considered mercenary at best and foolish and naive at worst.

Still, I ask how toning affects the desirability of these coins because even if I am naive and foolish, this is my start, and I'm only trying to learn. Better and much older coins will surely follow. And in fact, my very first purchase wasn't a modern issue. Well, maybe some thing it was (it was actually a 1917 standing liberty type 1 quarter, but I probably got very ripped off on it, heh - once I have a camera capable of taking photos of this, which won't be any time soon, I'll post photos for your input, but for now, let's just say it seems to have some very nasty scratches that I didn't notice until I put a 10x loupe on it, but that's a story for another post).

The truth is, there is more to the beginnings of my collecting, but it was oh so amateurish and naive when I was 6 listening to my grandfather tell me of how I should save any dimes or quarters I found that had a date of 1964 or earlier. In my life to now, I've only found 3 in circulation (2 dimes, 1 quarter), and in such poor shape, they aren't worth more than the silver in them. Still, each step is . . . well, a step in the right direction, even if sometimes I take two steps back to take one step foward.

Sorry for the long winded but silly explication of . . . not much. For those who actually read it, thank you. Thank you in advance for your thoughts, comments, and constructive criticism to my questions, as well as any advice in general. I'll try to make my future posts more concise and to the point. I've wanted to ask this, however, for a while (at least since mid October). I apologize if this is not the right forum for this.

marcos