I have important information that I don't feel I can safely release

[physics-fan3.14]

Shane, the 1964D definitely looks like a mint set toner - I'm pretty sure if I saw that on a 58D instead, I wouldn't have questioned it. It looks out of place on the 64D, however.

[Kamillion]

ya i like the blue 1964-D the best

[MarkFeld]

None of them are even remotely attractive. What a waste of certification fees.

Perhaps not to you, but I think some of them are attractive.

 

And If I saw those images and knew nothing about the coins, admittedly, I would think most of them stood a decent chance of receiving grades. The 1964 Dime looks the most questionable to me.

[Hard Times]

Had Shane not told us that these are AT, with the exception of the Genuine dime, I would have thought these are NT. Shane how did you tone these with apologies if you have already mentioned this in the thread?

[Catbert]

I must admit that I am particularly attracted to the reverse of that 64-D.

[kryptonitecomics]

What I find interesting is that folks don't see the coins as blatantly AT.....everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinions but to me....there really is no doubt about it and I can honestly say that I would not purchase these coins as NT in any holder and yes I would say that even if someone else posted them and I didn't know the origin. Spots and strange color patterns with no rhyme or reason mixed in with blast white areas....I have purchased hundreds of 50's double mint sets and none of them looked like this from front to back. The blue yes but the blue with spots and then orange and red etc on the reverse...never seen it?

[Buffalo Head]

What I find interesting is that folks don't see the coins as blatantly AT.....everyone is certainly entitled to their own opinions but to me....there really is no doubt about it and I can honestly say that I would not purchase these coins as NT in any holder and yes I would say that even if someone else posted them and I didn't know the origin. Spots and strange color patterns with no rhyme or reason mixed in with blast white areas....I have purchased hundreds of 50's double mint sets and none of them looked like this from front to back. The blue yes but the blue with spots and then orange and red etc on the reverse...never seen it?

 

 

But....but....It passed the sniffer, or did it? I really don't have any idea when it's on or when it's off, or, when they decide to use it. I have coins like this in my mint sets so I suppose this is my problem.......Oh noooooooo

[James_OldeTowne]

Personally, I would have passed on every coin whether certified or not. Just as Shane stated, they all look obviously AT to me (to use the term how others use it), and for PCGS to certify them is scary, for sure.

 

If "the sniffer", aka "THE BIG ONE", allowed these to pass, then it has to be the biggest joke PCGS has ever played on us.

 

I'm starting to think "the sniffer" is nothing more than an empty tin can.

[kryptonitecomics]

I don't know if they use the sniffer on every coin but I would think the sniffer would only really be effective on coins where something was applied to the surface of the coin...a toning agent if you will so a coin stored in a high sulfer environment is unlikely to give off any strange smell/fumes etc any more than a mint set toner would.

[Glossy]

I don't see how PCGS passed those coins. Perhaps the blue quarter, but then again the reverse looks suspicious. They pretty much scream cooked. Secondly, I'm amazed someone wasted a submission.

[Bruceswar]

Thanks for the photos Shane. All of them look pretty AT to me. The 64 Quarter has the closest to MA possible.

[lehigh96]

Shane,

 

My take is that these coins are not as clearly AT as you led us to believe. I really think your knowledge that they were AT is affecting your judgement in this case. I guess what I am saying is that I have seen much, much worse make it into TPG slabs.

 

Paul

[Keigwin]

The sniffer is only used with Secure Plus, unless the grader feels there is something suspicious about a regular submission.

 

I don't know how effective it is, but from the demo I saw a huge blob of putty was applied before the barking began. Makes you wonder about a faint trace of VerdiCare or Blue Ribbon.

 

Me, I'm from Missouri.

 

As for blatant AT, we've all seen graded and bagged coins that made us shake our heads. I figure it's still just a shot in most cases and borderline ones from persistent submitters will eventually make it through.

Lance.

 

edited to ask: What, you can't say cr*p shot without the PC police stepping in?

[kryptonitecomics]

Shane,

 

My take is that these coins are not as clearly AT as you led us to believe. I really think your knowledge that they were AT is affecting your judgement in this case. I guess what I am saying is that I have seen much, much worse make it into TPG slabs.

 

Paul

 

I think in hand you would probably change your stance but alas they aren't my coins so I can't send them to you. The blue on the MS64 quarter looks painted on like enamel and no mint luster shows through...that a big tell that may not be coming across in the images. Also if you look towards the top of the obverse of that quarter you will see lots of little circles...almost like moisture built up and little drops dried. I have yet to see that affect on any mint set coins I have ever pulled out of original sets. The reverse colors on both the quarters are classic AT colors especially in combination. Alas I can't make folks agree with me and as I stated before everyone is free to judge the coins as they see fit but my experiment allowed me to see just how easily these colors are to duplicate even by a novice with match sticks. As was recomended to me many years ago I urge anyone who collects toners to try some of these simple experiments and arm yourself with the knowledge. Then of course....blow the coins up as we wouldn't want them making it into holders like mine did

[Dcoin]

The reason they graded, IMO is that they closely resemble estasblished toning patterns for that series.

 

Maybe not for a particular year/MM, but close enough.

[jom]

If "the sniffer", aka "THE BIG ONE", allowed these to pass, then it has to be the biggest joke PCGS has ever played on us.

 

I'm starting to think "the sniffer" is nothing more than an empty tin can.

 

I think the only thing they are sniffing over there is glue.

 

jom

[James_OldeTowne]

Me, I'm from Missouri.

WHAATTT??? Where? I'm in St. Louis!

[chinook]

You people are really screwed up. There's no such thing as "AT." It doesn't exist. It's a purely arbitrary term. It can mean anything anybody wants it to mean at any given moment in time. You believe in the existence of it because you were "led" to believe in the existence of it and because of the very fouled-up perception in your just as fouled-up minds that "everybody" including all the so-called "scholars" believe in the existence of the it, ergo, it must exist. That's the sum and substance of your capacity to reason on it. Need one remind you that there was a time when everybody including all the so-called scholars believed in the existence of witches? No way. It wouldn't do any good. You're way too far gone for that.

 

Listen, good luck. You don't know it, yet, I'm sure, but you're going to need it. You need permissions from third-parties to like what your eyes can plainly see on a coin? You need more than luck.

 

PS: FWIW, I'd have bought all five of those toned coins, if I liked them. That's my standard. Let the record reflect, I don't take my mind's eye off the face of the coin for anybody. That means, anybody. Just thought I'd get that in, too...

 

I understand your point, but to completely ignore the fact that most collectors seek originality is not financially prudent. It makes no difference that it is almost impossible to discern AT from NT in many instances. Once the general collecting public loses confidence in the TPG's to separate NT from AT, the premiums driven by toned coins will be in real jeopardy. Blindly ignoring that fact because you buy what you like will leave you the one with no outs.

 

People on the coin forums may understand the concept are market acceptability as it relates to toned coinage, but for many collectors, the TPG evaluation of toning defines AT vs NT.

 

Surviving as a dealer in the toned coin market takes experience and constant evaluation of prices. Anything that affects prices is of paramount importance to these dealers. A change in TPG grading standards as they relate to toning would have a huge impact on prices. It has nothing to do with luck, and Shane will not need luck. It sounds as though he was surprised by the TPG's decision to grade what to him are "obvious AT coins". However, I think that if he were not personally involved in the creation of these coins, he would be able to analyze the situation more objectively.

Hmmm. Try explaining to a TPG (either NCG or PCGS or for that matter CAC) that you want the premium bock that you paid for a toner 3 or 4 years ago because you believe its artificially toned. Not chemically enhanced but Artificially (as in accelerated) toned.

 

I'm have no doubts that many arguments and disagreements will occur.

 

IMO, anybody that pays an exhorbitant premium for a coin simply because it's toned is making a gamble that they can never collect on.

 

Here's a fine example: MS66 Toner - $3,600

 

TPG grading regarding toning in nothing more than market acceptable because unless the toning is blatantly obvious such as transluscent spray paint, its nearly impossible to tell what is natural vs what is artificial vs what is naturally accelerated.

 

Originality is nothing more than a merketing concept which has been accepted by some "discerning" collectors. It cannot be proven.

 

 

The above example is a perfect illustration. There is nothing wrong with that coin, only the price paid. We are all in shock at the $3600 price tag, but what if it sold for $36, or maybe $360. Would we really care? Paying absurd prices for TPG "annointed" coins is just plain silly. Its no different than those that paid $1000/sq. ft for a house in California a few years ago.

 

"Fools and their money.........."

 

Except for one thing. The owner of that coin has received multiple higher offers for it since it made it into a new secure plus slab. It is what it is. He actually hit a homerun. MJ

 

 

I dont doubt that. Homes in California often went through bidding wars. The greatest fool won everytime.

 

Im not against toned coins, in fact, I prefer them over blast white, but as a value investor, the value is making sure there is another buyer out there.

 

If people didnt pay moon money for toned coins, then the incentive to create toned coins would decrease. Laura always talks about stopping the doctors. That will never happen as long as there are patients.

 

 

 

RE: the coins Shane posted. If people paid $10-$15 for these coins, would there really be a problem? Would anyone care if they are AT or not?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I would appreciate an explanation of the reason for using the term of "Art toning AT".

 

Is this for marketing purposes?

 

Is there a higher level of acceptance of a coin that is labeled "Art toning AT", as opposed to "AT Altered Toning"?

 

Is it possible that the word "Art" conveys a certain level of comfortability?

 

Would it not be a good marketing practice to use the term "altered color"?

 

I am not certain I understand the logic of selling the coins, that were clearly used as an experiment, considering the numismatic community stated opinions on the issue.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

[relicsncoins]

The toning itself would not concern me, as it's not anything I or most collectors would pay any premium for. What concerns me is what that toning might be covering up. Unfortunately, a lot of collectors equate toning to orginality and may not look as closely at the coins surfaces.

[comicdonna]

I would appreciate an explanation of the reason for using the term of "Art toning AT".

 

Is this for marketing purposes?

 

Is there a higher level of acceptance of a coin that is labeled "Art toning AT", as opposed to "AT Altered Toning"?

 

Is it possible that the word "Art" conveys a certain level of comfortability?

 

Would it not be a good marketing practice to use the term "altered color"?

 

I am not certain I understand the logic of selling the coins, that were clearly used as an experiment, considering the numismatic community stated opinions on the issue.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

Isn't artificial toning the correct term here? Also, Shane sold the coins as scrap silver, noting that they were AT. I believe it's safe to say that if he was to do more testing, he would take a different approach in getting rid of the test coins to ensure this didn't happen again.

[James_OldeTowne]

Isn't artificial toning the correct term here?

Many numismatists and collectors, myself included, satirically use the term "artful toning" when discussing ATed coins.

[kryptonitecomics]

I would appreciate an explanation of the reason for using the term of "Art toning AT".

 

Is this for marketing purposes?

 

Is there a higher level of acceptance of a coin that is labeled "Art toning AT", as opposed to "AT Altered Toning"?

 

Is it possible that the word "Art" conveys a certain level of comfortability?

 

Would it not be a good marketing practice to use the term "altered color"?

 

I am not certain I understand the logic of selling the coins, that were clearly used as an experiment, considering the numismatic community stated opinions on the issue.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

I believe it said both in my auction description but no specific reason I can think of as far as a marketing purpose. I have heard AT referred to as Art toning so by including AT and art toning I assumed I was covering all basis so that it was clear they weren't natural. They did sell for melt so I would say there doesn't appear to be any lift in price in stating AT/Art toned from what I saw...perhaps others have used it as a gimmick on ebay...I don't know.

[Kurtdog]

You people are really screwed up. There's no such thing as "AT." It doesn't exist. It's a purely arbitrary term. It can mean anything anybody wants it to mean at any given moment in time. You believe in the existence of it because you were "led" to believe in the existence of it and because of the very fouled-up perception in your just as fouled-up minds that "everybody" including all the so-called "scholars" believe in the existence of the it, ergo, it must exist. That's the sum and substance of your capacity to reason on it. Need one remind you that there was a time when everybody including all the so-called scholars believed in the existence of witches? No way. It wouldn't do any good. You're way too far gone for that.

 

Listen, good luck. You don't know it, yet, I'm sure, but you're going to need it. You need permissions from third-parties to like what your eyes can plainly see on a coin? You need more than luck.

 

PS: FWIW, I'd have bought all five of those toned coins, if I liked them. That's my standard. Let the record reflect, I don't take my mind's eye off the face of the coin for anybody. That means, anybody. Just thought I'd get that in, too...

 

I understand your point, but to completely ignore the fact that most collectors seek originality is not financially prudent. It makes no difference that it is almost impossible to discern AT from NT in many instances. Once the general collecting public loses confidence in the TPG's to separate NT from AT, the premiums driven by toned coins will be in real jeopardy. Blindly ignoring that fact because you buy what you like will leave you the one with no outs.

 

People on the coin forums may understand the concept are market acceptability as it relates to toned coinage, but for many collectors, the TPG evaluation of toning defines AT vs NT.

 

Surviving as a dealer in the toned coin market takes experience and constant evaluation of prices. Anything that affects prices is of paramount importance to these dealers. A change in TPG grading standards as they relate to toning would have a huge impact on prices. It has nothing to do with luck, and Shane will not need luck. It sounds as though he was surprised by the TPG's decision to grade what to him are "obvious AT coins". However, I think that if he were not personally involved in the creation of these coins, he would be able to analyze the situation more objectively.

Lehigh96, with all due respect, tell that to those intellectual flyweights ATS. They're the ones who need those rationalizations to justify the maintenance of the delusional standards those dealers over there have them collecting by. I don't need that. I know what I'm doing.

[PCcoins]

AT, not hard to tell for me. I guess because I see so many toned examples of these types of coins.