Is Artificially Toning Ethical? Suspect Edynamicmarketing Fraud

The second question is easier to answer: yes, artificial toning does lower a coin's value, just like cleaning, corrosion or other damage will lower a coin's value, assuming it is detected by the buyer.

Now, to the ethics issue.

Is it ethical to artificially tone a coin? "Artificial toning" is, essentially, chemistry, and chemistry does not inherently have "ethics" - there are no "evil chemical reactions". The laws of chemistry and physics tell us what we can (or cannot) do; they do not help with answering the question "what should we do?". For ethical questions, we need to add the human element. Including the concept of a coin as being a piece of history, which artificial toning destroys.

Is it ethical to artificially tone a coin, and then sell it for 2000% of its actual value? This is debatable. On one hand, making an offer to sell a coin is just asking a question: "do you think my coin is worth this much money?". And to quote Dilbert's Boss: "There's no law against optimism". On the other hand, stating something is valuable implies a belief that you actually believe the coin is worth the price you are asking. Which, for such toned coins, they are not, unless perhaps such toning is actually "natural". The general consensus is "no", selling coins under those conditions is not ethical. From a legal perspective, implying that a coin you are selling has natural toning while knowing full well that it has artificial toning (because you did the artificial toning yourself), would constitute fraud.

Is it ethical to artificially tone a coin and then sell it, while clearly and unambiguously stating that the coin has indeed been artificially toned? If selling a coin in scenario 2 above is considered unethical, then clearly stating the toning is not "natural" would clear up the ethical quandary (and legal difficulty) with the scenario. However, it does create a new dimension, of future liability. That "monster toned" coin sitting in the buyer's collection is eventually going to be sold or passed on to someone else; that next buyer/owner of that coin will not be in the same position to see the original seller's disclaimer. They will presumably believe that any monster toned coins they acquire are likely to be "natural", and not artificial, thus creating an unwitting victim of ignorance. The ethical burden thus falls on the new owner, to show proper duty of care in passing forwards the information about the artificiality of the toning on that coin. This is all assuming, of course, that artificial toning will still look much the same over time, which is not necessarily a valid assumption.

In terms of ethics, even though we would prefer them not to (especially when they're bad at it) the act itself is not unethical. Where it becomes unethical is where lies come into play if a story is told with it which almost always happens.

There are acts that can be both ethical and unethical such as added mint marks, wizzing, putty on gold. If you disclose what you did you can be ethical there though you pretty much know someone else wont be.

The stories and hype of old collections etc is generally where the ethics really fly out the window with flat out lies




Usually yes, when it's bad without question.

When lies come into play and you claim it is NOT artificially toned (but you did tone it) it moves beyond ethics and into illegal fraudulent action. selling a coin you know you toned and not divulging it is unethical. Artificially toning a coin is NOT unethical. It's your coin and you can do what you want with it.

Unfortunate but so many coins are toned, cleaned, etc. and it is sometimes difficult to spot that. Once purchased and put into an Album or Folder, they sit there possibly for a long, long time. Purchasers don't know and sellers are now a bit richer. It is almost as common as counterfeiting coins.

To me, artificially toned coins are in the same category as colorized coins, plated coins, etc. Ethics comes into the question only when something is being misrepresented.

The problem with hucksters is that they seek out and prey on the inexperienced buyers.

Artificial toning is not likely to entice an experienced collector who knows the difference. It is not likely to entice any collector who dislikes toned coins. It is, however, designed to lure the curious, but inexperienced, buyer.

This isn't unusual in coin marketing. Consider the shady TV and print ads for generic Morgan dollars: "coins will grade from Brilliant Uncirculated to Fine." This deliberate inverse ordering of grades implies to novice buyers that "Fine" somehow is better than "Brilliant Uncirculated." The statement is technically correct, but deliberately misleading in its implication.

The word "toning" implies a natural process. Making that definition mandatory - such as by law - would give buyers some protection. This approach has been used with foods. For example, France defines "chocolate" to exclude milk chocolate and defines "cheese" to exclude that mystery substance that comes out of pressurized spray cans.

@moxking hit the nail on the head: "The major problem is our loss of collectors because of it." Coming up with a definition will be easier than enforcing it to protect the hobby, but IMHO this step is needed.

The only real difference between natural and artificial toning is the INTENT of the person who put the coin into the circumstances that resulted in the toning. If there was no intent to deliberately tone the coin then the toning is natural. The problem is there is usually no way to look at a coin and definitely devine the intent of the person.

If you want to make sure that no one gets taken in by an artificially toned coin I have a couple suggestions, nether of which would be popular, all toned coins must be sold with the disclaimer that the coin may potentially be artificially toned, or all coins MUST be dipped before resale.

Wow. You guys are really savvy about this.

Thank all of you for some good discussion.