| Author |
 Replies: 32 / Views: 4,086 |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4867 Posts |
I know a lot of people dig toned coins but I am not one of them. I find them hideous and consider them to be damaged. Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I just can't see how a toned coin could ever be graded as mint state whatever number. Toning is not how the coins were meant to be. I know this is a very controversial subject for many collectors. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
2843 Posts |
The way I see it. Mint state refers to the strike of the coin. From a technical standpoint- a coin that is covered in mud could be mint state, though nobody would be able to know that without cleaning off the mud first. It is important to note that toning is not like corrosion. It is not damage, and it is basically inevitable with silver coins. Some would argue and say this since the coins will naturally tone, they were meant to be that way. They would posit that blast white is not how a coin is meant to be.
i personally find some toning to be appealing, and some not.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6130 Posts |
I can appreciate a subtle, even toning. One of my favorite (clad) half dollars has been slowly picking up a very nice purple tint in the fields. I also love older circulated silvers with the grey/black toning that's easy on the eyes, as opposed to the ones that are dipped until they are shiny again. Splotchy toning that impairs my ability to see the details of the coin? No thanks!  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3479 Posts |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
449 Posts |
For the most part I don't care much about toned coins, but I do like a rainbow toned coin if it's evenly toned. I also have a Walking Liberty half dollar I found in circulation that toned a beautiful light golden color. Given the choice of a mint state blast white or mint state toned coin I'd probably pick the blast white in 99.9% of instances. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2843 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3479 Posts |
Quote:
I agree. That coin is not attractive to me. unless it looks different in hand. I never said it was ugly. I merely suggested it would be an appropriate center piece for this discussion. If you want my opinion on it, I need to wipe my lip first.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1656 Posts |
It used to be called tarnish, and negatively impacted a coin's value.
That's why so many silver coins, including ones that are now "re-toned" were dipped.
The marketing of tarnished coins as "beautifully toned" makes old timers smile.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2843 Posts |
Quote:
I never said it was ugly. I merely suggested it would be an appropriate center piece for this discussion Yes, that is what I was agreeing to. I then proceeded to expalin why I agree. The reason it would be a good centerpiece is because I don't like it and you do. It highlights the differences in taste between collectors. |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3479 Posts |
Quote:
Yes, that is what I was agreeing to.
I then proceeded to expalin why I agree.
The reason it would be a good centerpiece is because I don't like it and you do. It highlights the differences in taste between collectors. Oh, ok... I had no idea you followed my posts and knew my preferences.  Edited by MikeF
02/08/2017 1:09 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
4867 Posts |
I had a collection of Jefferson nickels which many were from bu rolls or mint sets. I ended up spending them as I thought the golden tones were undesirable. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
20753 Posts |
To me a toned coin is just damaged.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1839 Posts |
I think that the era the coin is from plays a part in preference for some people. For myself I'm ok with a blast white coin that was minted after 1934 but for older coins I prefer nicely toned coins. To me if I see an older coin that is blast white I just assume it's been dipped and I subconsciously then feel it's been "tampered with" Also the grade of the coin matters to me as well. If a coin is below MS60 and has no toning at all, again it looks "tampered with" to me. Here's a couple of examples where I very much prefer the coin that is toned to the one that is not. And of course this is just my own opinion. These are both MS coins   These are both circulated coins   |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6370 Posts |
Quote:
I know a lot of people dig toned coins but I am not one of them. I find them hideous and consider them to be damaged. Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I just can't see how a toned coin could ever be graded as mint state whatever number. Toning is not how the coins were meant to be. I know this is a very controversial subject for many collectors. What do you think? Some people prefer blast-white coins. It is a matter of fact. However, for classic coins, that means you are likely getting a coin that does not have original surfaces, and you further run the risk of getting a cleaned or overdipped coin. I prefer surface originality over blast-white. As far as damage is concerned, the oxidation of silver has hardly any effect on the surface quality of the coin. However, it does eat away at the silver as a result of the chemical reaction. Most colorful toning is caused by a patina that is less than 1000 nm thick. To know how infinitesimally small this is, imagine a meter stick. It is divided into 1000 millimeters. Take one of these millimeters and cut it up into 1000 even slices. That is 1000nm, and most patinas on AU/uncirculated coins are less than half that number. Yes, technically it is damage, but it is so minor (and it is reversible to a point) that I would think it is fallacious to call it such. You say "toning is not how a coin is meant to be." If left to natural processes, yes, that is how it is going to be, especially considering the storage methods of the 1800's. Coins of this era readily toned because the industrial revolution was pumping sulfur into the atmosphere. As a result, I say completely natural toning is an aspect to the coin's history, and removing it with silver dip is erasing part of its history. What about toning do you find hideous? Is it the presence of color altogether? To me, there must be some kind of symmetry to the toning in order for me to call it attractive. Some Monster-Toned Morgans that bring $$$$ are downright ugly to me. My local coin dealer has a few, and I don't know why he likes them so much. Edited by TypeCoin971793
02/08/2017 9:40 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
6370 Posts |
Quote:
Here's a couple of examples where I very much prefer the coin that is toned to the one that is not. And of course this is just my own opinion.
For the UNC halves, I like the dipped one better because it's luster is much more vibrant and actually looks MS. The toned one looks AU that was bumped for color. The AU Half Dimes is the opposite. The white one looks unnatural and overdipped, while the toned one is quite nice. This shows it really depends on the coin, not just the presence/absence of color. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
19947 Posts |
|
| |
Replies: 32 / Views: 4,086 |
Posted 02/08/2017 10:38 am
