Do you consider "dipping" to be a form of "coin doctoring" ?

[MarkFeld]

I think you are attaching value judgments to the term "doctoring" which don't necessarily coincide with the literal meaning. To say that something has been doctored is to imply that something has been done to manipulate it (or presumably enhance it in the instant scenario). Just because it can conserve or improve a coin's appearance or "health" (or even that it is an "accepted" practice) doesn't render it doctoring any less. You are drawing a distinction which I too think is important, and which I address (i.e. what is market acceptable and helpful versus what is market unacceptable and harmful). Regardless of whether the result is viewed as positive and market acceptable or the terminology used, it is doctoring per se. I think you are conflating the term doctoring with negative consequences or evil motive.

 

 

EDITED TO ADD (and I am only using this to explain my logic; please don't misread my intent here):

 

From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary

 

Definition of DOCTOR

transitive verb

1a : to give medical treatment to b : to restore to good condition : repair

2a : to adapt or modify for a desired end by alteration or special treatment b : to alter deceptively

 

There is a distinct line between doctoring and conserving.......

 

In some cases, yes. In others no.

 

 

And things were going so well.....

 

I must disagree.

 

Conserving is to keep from being lost, damaged or wasted.

 

Nothing is kept from being lost/damaged/wasted by "doctoring", as used in the original question.

 

While I understand that a certain Market Enterprise uses the "C" in its initials to impart Conservation, it is not. It is simply pacticing the Art of Restoration.

 

We, as Numismatists, should not blur the line- fine or not.

 

Doctoring is post-mint enhancing, closer to restoring- to return to a former or normal state (or attempting to do so).

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

At what point/under what circumstances is the removal of toning from a coin doctoring vs. conserving it? I submit that the line is blurred, as at some point, in some cases, if left unchecked, the toning will etch itself into the surface of the coin and ruin it.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I think you are attaching value judgments to the term "doctoring" which don't necessarily coincide with the literal meaning. To say that something has been doctored is to imply that something has been done to manipulate it (or presumably enhance it in the instant scenario). Just because it can conserve or improve a coin's appearance or "health" (or even that it is an "accepted" practice) doesn't render it doctoring any less. You are drawing a distinction which I too think is important, and which I address (i.e. what is market acceptable and helpful versus what is market unacceptable and harmful). Regardless of whether the result is viewed as positive and market acceptable or the terminology used, it is doctoring per se. I think you are conflating the term doctoring with negative consequences or evil motive.

 

 

EDITED TO ADD (and I am only using this to explain my logic; please don't misread my intent here):

 

From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary

 

Definition of DOCTOR

transitive verb

1a : to give medical treatment to b : to restore to good condition : repair

2a : to adapt or modify for a desired end by alteration or special treatment b : to alter deceptively

 

There is a distinct line between doctoring and conserving.......

 

In some cases, yes. In others no.

 

 

And things were going so well.....

 

I must disagree.

 

Conserving is to keep from being lost, damaged or wasted.

 

Nothing is kept from being lost/damaged/wasted by "doctoring", as used in the original question.

 

While I understand that a certain Market Enterprise uses the "C" in its initials to impart Conservation, it is not. It is simply pacticing the Art of Restoration.

 

We, as Numismatists, should not blur the line- fine or not.

 

Doctoring is post-mint enhancing, closer to restoring- to return to a former or normal state (or attempting to do so).

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

At what point/under what circumstances is the removal of toning from a coin doctoring vs. conserving it? I submit that the line is blurred, as at some point, in some cases, if left unchecked, the toning will etch itself into the surface of the coin and ruin it.

 

 

The point of the action itself, in all circumstances that something that occured naturally and/or at or because of the minting process was altered, with or without betterment.

 

This is not conserving.

 

Something was "lost"- toning. Something was "damaged"-the natural toning.

Something was "wasted"- a natural post-mint appearance.

 

I do not condemn the act.

 

I simply don't want us, as Numismatists, to ignore the difference, or apply a name to a process that is misleading.

 

To the point of toning that if left unchecked could ruin the coin, this is restoring.

Again, I do not condemn the act.

 

I simply, again, do not want us to ignore the differerence.

 

When the definition of a process is described as "conservation", as opposed to "restoration", it has a more acceptable nuance, and the tendency is to conclude that originality is implied by the use of the word "conserve", while using the word "restore" imparts an "also ran" status, that is of a lower standing.

 

Similarly, "doctoring", as used in the original question, imparts the sense of alteration. Good or bad is not the point, nor was it implied.

 

Is alteration the same as conservation?

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

and again, to make myself clear:

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

[TonerGuy]

 

At what point/under what circumstances is the removal of toning from a coin doctoring vs. conserving it? I submit that the line is blurred, as at some point, in some cases, if left unchecked, the toning will etch itself into the surface of the coin and ruin it.

 

If the coin is simply removed from the toning agent the toning usually does stop at that point... Does it not ?

 

Not sure how removing the original skin is conservation is in your example...

 

Can you explain further ?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

 

At what point/under what circumstances is the removal of toning from a coin doctoring vs. conserving it? I submit that the line is blurred, as at some point, in some cases, if left unchecked, the toning will etch itself into the surface of the coin and ruin it.

 

If the coin is simply removed from the toning agent the toning usually does stop at that point... Does it not ?

 

Not sure how removing the original skin is conservation is in your example...

 

Can you explain further ?

 

All together now- restoring is not conserving.

 

Where is the physics teacher when you need him?

 

For the record, Mr. Feld in no way implied that the process was removing original skin.

 

Removing toning is not removing original skin. It may be removing a secondary skin, of sorts.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

[MarkFeld]

I think you are attaching value judgments to the term "doctoring" which don't necessarily coincide with the literal meaning. To say that something has been doctored is to imply that something has been done to manipulate it (or presumably enhance it in the instant scenario). Just because it can conserve or improve a coin's appearance or "health" (or even that it is an "accepted" practice) doesn't render it doctoring any less. You are drawing a distinction which I too think is important, and which I address (i.e. what is market acceptable and helpful versus what is market unacceptable and harmful). Regardless of whether the result is viewed as positive and market acceptable or the terminology used, it is doctoring per se. I think you are conflating the term doctoring with negative consequences or evil motive.

 

 

EDITED TO ADD (and I am only using this to explain my logic; please don't misread my intent here):

 

From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary

 

Definition of DOCTOR

transitive verb

1a : to give medical treatment to b : to restore to good condition : repair

2a : to adapt or modify for a desired end by alteration or special treatment b : to alter deceptively

 

There is a distinct line between doctoring and conserving.......

 

In some cases, yes. In others no.

 

 

And things were going so well.....

 

I must disagree.

 

Conserving is to keep from being lost, damaged or wasted.

 

Nothing is kept from being lost/damaged/wasted by "doctoring", as used in the original question.

 

While I understand that a certain Market Enterprise uses the "C" in its initials to impart Conservation, it is not. It is simply pacticing the Art of Restoration.

 

We, as Numismatists, should not blur the line- fine or not.

 

Doctoring is post-mint enhancing, closer to restoring- to return to a former or normal state (or attempting to do so).

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

At what point/under what circumstances is the removal of toning from a coin doctoring vs. conserving it? I submit that the line is blurred, as at some point, in some cases, if left unchecked, the toning will etch itself into the surface of the coin and ruin it.

 

 

The point of the action itself, in all circumstances that something that occured naturally and/or at or because of the minting process was altered, with or without betterment.

 

This is not conserving.

 

Something was "lost"- toning. Something was "damaged"-the natural toning.

Something was "wasted"- a natural post-mint appearance.

 

I do not condemn the act.

 

I simply don't want us, as Numismatists, to ignore the difference, or apply a name to a process that is misleading.

 

To the point of toning that if left unchecked could ruin the coin, this is restoring.

Again, I do not condemn the act.

 

I simply, again, do not want us to ignore the differerence.

 

When the definition of a process is described as "conservation", as opposed to "restoration", it has a more acceptable nuance, and the tendency is to conclude that originality is implied by the use of the word "conserve", while using the word "restore" imparts an "also ran" status, that is of a lower standing.

 

Similarly, "doctoring", as used in the original question, imparts the sense of alteration. Good or bad is not the point, nor was it implied.

 

Is alteration the same as conservation?

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

and again, to make myself clear:

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

John, what if I were to change my question to:

At what point/under what circumstances is the removal of toning from a coin, doctoring vs. restoring it? In some cases the removal of the toning might be to protect the coin and in others, to make it more appealing to more people and hence more liquid and/or valuable

 

 

[MarkFeld]

 

At what point/under what circumstances is the removal of toning from a coin doctoring vs. conserving it? I submit that the line is blurred, as at some point, in some cases, if left unchecked, the toning will etch itself into the surface of the coin and ruin it.

 

If the coin is simply removed from the toning agent the toning usually does stop at that point... Does it not ?

 

Not sure how removing the original skin is conservation is in your example...

 

Can you explain further ?

 

My understanding is that the answer to your first question above is "Not necessarily".

 

I believe it could fairly be argued that removing toning from a coin in order to protect it from damage (due to the etching of the toning into the surface of the coin) amounts to conservation. Or, perhaps, better said, doctored for purposes of conservation?

 

As much as I prefer toned coins, I have seen many which have been damaged by the progression of toning - literally environmentally damaged.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I think you are attaching value judgments to the term "doctoring" which don't necessarily coincide with the literal meaning. To say that something has been doctored is to imply that something has been done to manipulate it (or presumably enhance it in the instant scenario). Just because it can conserve or improve a coin's appearance or "health" (or even that it is an "accepted" practice) doesn't render it doctoring any less. You are drawing a distinction which I too think is important, and which I address (i.e. what is market acceptable and helpful versus what is market unacceptable and harmful). Regardless of whether the result is viewed as positive and market acceptable or the terminology used, it is doctoring per se. I think you are conflating the term doctoring with negative consequences or evil motive.

 

 

EDITED TO ADD (and I am only using this to explain my logic; please don't misread my intent here):

 

From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary

 

Definition of DOCTOR

transitive verb

1a : to give medical treatment to b : to restore to good condition : repair

2a : to adapt or modify for a desired end by alteration or special treatment b : to alter deceptively

 

There is a distinct line between doctoring and conserving.......

 

In some cases, yes. In others no.

 

 

And things were going so well.....

 

I must disagree.

 

Conserving is to keep from being lost, damaged or wasted.

 

Nothing is kept from being lost/damaged/wasted by "doctoring", as used in the original question.

 

While I understand that a certain Market Enterprise uses the "C" in its initials to impart Conservation, it is not. It is simply pacticing the Art of Restoration.

 

We, as Numismatists, should not blur the line- fine or not.

 

Doctoring is post-mint enhancing, closer to restoring- to return to a former or normal state (or attempting to do so).

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

At what point/under what circumstances is the removal of toning from a coin doctoring vs. conserving it? I submit that the line is blurred, as at some point, in some cases, if left unchecked, the toning will etch itself into the surface of the coin and ruin it.

 

 

The point of the action itself, in all circumstances that something that occured naturally and/or at or because of the minting process was altered, with or without betterment.

 

This is not conserving.

 

Something was "lost"- toning. Something was "damaged"-the natural toning.

Something was "wasted"- a natural post-mint appearance.

 

I do not condemn the act.

 

I simply don't want us, as Numismatists, to ignore the difference, or apply a name to a process that is misleading.

 

To the point of toning that if left unchecked could ruin the coin, this is restoring.

Again, I do not condemn the act.

 

I simply, again, do not want us to ignore the differerence.

 

When the definition of a process is described as "conservation", as opposed to "restoration", it has a more acceptable nuance, and the tendency is to conclude that originality is implied by the use of the word "conserve", while using the word "restore" imparts an "also ran" status, that is of a lower standing.

 

Similarly, "doctoring", as used in the original question, imparts the sense of alteration. Good or bad is not the point, nor was it implied.

 

Is alteration the same as conservation?

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

and again, to make myself clear:

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

John, what if I were to change my question to:

At what point/under what circumstances is the removal of toning from a coin, doctoring vs. restoring it? In some cases the removal of the toning might be to protect the coin and in others, to make it more appealing to more people and hence more liquid and/or valuable

 

 

Now, that is a closer to fact type of question.

 

It can only have one answer, in the context that "doctoring" is being used:

 

When it is done with the express purpose to deceive, without disclosure.

 

Again, if we present ourselves as Numismatists, then it can not be half/numismatist.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

[cpm9ball]

This discussion has been very interesting for me, and I have enjoyed the way all of you have maintained a civil demeanor regardless of the differing opinions.

 

I don't have an opinion to express because, for the record, I don't dip coins for the same reason I don't perform maintenance on jet engines. If I have a coin that I feel may be harmed in some way by a surface problem, I will either have it conserved or get rid of it.

 

Chris

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

This discussion has been very interesting for me, and I have enjoyed the way all of you have maintained a civil demeanor regardless of the differing opinions.

 

I don't have an opinion to express because, for the record, I don't dip coins for the same reason I don't perform maintenance on jet engines. If I have a coin that I feel may be harmed in some way by a surface problem, I will either have it conserved or get rid of it.

 

Chris

 

Just guessing here: because the jet engine is not toned?

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

[cpm9ball]

This discussion has been very interesting for me, and I have enjoyed the way all of you have maintained a civil demeanor regardless of the differing opinions.

 

I don't have an opinion to express because, for the record, I don't dip coins for the same reason I don't perform maintenance on jet engines. If I have a coin that I feel may be harmed in some way by a surface problem, I will either have it conserved or get rid of it.

 

Chris

 

Just guessing here: because the jet engine is not toned?

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

Nope! They have a tendency to suck the gum out of my mouth.

 

Chris

[Dcoin]

Late to party however...

 

Like adding to the oxidation process (toning), taking it away is the same (albeit opposite) process.

 

Therefore, knowing the intent of the owner means all the difference to its acceptability in the market.

 

[physics-fan3.14]

On the subject of conserving vs. restoring - I believe they are very different and cannot be used interchangeably, as some have been doing. Conserving is stabilizing a coin in the state it currently is in. Restoring it is altering a coin to try and make it look more like it originally was. Thus, treatment of an old coin by buffing out a scratch or plugging a hole could be argued to be restoration (as some collectors here have done). The big difference between restoration and doctoring is a much greyer line based on intent - far more blurry than conservation vs. doctoring.

[cpm9ball]

On the subject of conserving vs. restoring - I believe they are very different and cannot be used interchangeably, as some have been doing. Conserving is stabilizing a coin in the state it currently is in. Restoring it is altering a coin to try and make it look more like it originally was. Thus, treatment of an old coin by buffing out a scratch or plugging a hole could be argued to be restoration (as some collectors here have done). The big difference between restoration and doctoring is a much greyer line based on intent - far more blurry than conservation vs. doctoring.

 

This is just a question, but would you consider this as conservation, restoration or a little of both. I submitted this medal to NCS, and here are the before and after photos. As you can see, they weren't able to completely remove the problem areas, but it certainly looks a lot better than it did before.

 

Chris

[physics-fan3.14]

That would not be restoration, in my opinion. Nothing was "restored".

[kryptonitecomics]

Yes...I consider it coin doctoring but that doesn't mean I think it's all bad. If done to preserve a coin and or reduce or eliminate deteriation then it's acceptable doctoring. If done to enhance a coins appearance then I think it's not acceptable.

 

Either way we will never get everyone on the same page just like the AT vs NT debate because opinions are like belly buttons...everybody has one

 

 

[cpm9ball]

That would not be restoration, in my opinion. Nothing was "restored".

 

Okay! Perhaps I am taking your statement too literally.

 

Restoring it is altering a coin to try and make it look more like it originally was.

 

"Try" infers an attempt, but not necessarily complete success. "More" infers as close to as possible, but not necessarily completely.

 

In the case of this medal, wouldn't the NCS conservation to stabilize it also be considered an attempt to (try) as much as possible to restore it to be (more) like it's original appearance?

 

Chris

[cpm9ball]

.........opinions are like belly buttons...everybody has one

 

Why is it that when we were kids, we used to get lint in them, but now that we are older, there is no lint?

 

Chris

[BillJones]

The question was and is: Do you consider "dipping" to be a form of "coin doctoring", and why or why not?

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

I thought that I had answered this question, but I suppose not to your satisfaction, so I shall be more plain.

 

A light dip to remove unattractive tarnish is not doctoring. Doctoring involves the radical removal or alteration of the fundamental surface of the coin. Properly done on an appropriate subject (Many coins will not benefit from a dip, and IMO too many pieces have been dipped over the years.), the mint luster of the coin should not be altered or perceptively diminished.

 

Dipping can become doctoring if it is done too harshly or too often. The dip solution is a mild acid that does remove oxidized metal. If you're going to argue that the removal of ANY metal is doctoring then you entitled to your opinion, but that’s not my definition of doctoring.

 

[MarkFeld]

That would not be restoration, in my opinion. Nothing was "restored".

 

I'd call it both restoration and doctoring.

[x2rider]

.........opinions are like belly buttons...everybody has one

 

Why is it that when we were kids, we used to get lint in them, but now that we are older, there is no lint?

 

Chris

Just to totaly side track this { sorry Mark } but did you know that only men get navel lint

[cpm9ball]

.........opinions are like belly buttons...everybody has one

 

Why is it that when we were kids, we used to get lint in them, but now that we are older, there is no lint?

 

Chris

Just to totaly side track this { sorry Mark } but did you know that only men get navel lint

 

Yeah, but lint doesn't weigh anywhere close to a baby.

 

Me, too, Mark!

 

Chris

 

PS. Never mind! I take it back after that remark about my sanity.

[TonerGuy]

 

At what point/under what circumstances is the removal of toning from a coin doctoring vs. conserving it? I submit that the line is blurred, as at some point, in some cases, if left unchecked, the toning will etch itself into the surface of the coin and ruin it.

 

If the coin is simply removed from the toning agent the toning usually does stop at that point... Does it not ?

 

Not sure how removing the original skin is conservation is in your example...

 

Can you explain further ?

 

My understanding is that the answer to your first question above is "Not necessarily".

 

I believe it could fairly be argued that removing toning from a coin in order to protect it from damage (due to the etching of the toning into the surface of the coin) amounts to conservation. Or, perhaps, better said, doctored for purposes of conservation?

 

As much as I prefer toned coins, I have seen many which have been damaged by the progression of toning - literally environmentally damaged.

 

Can you provide some evidence to illustrate your statement "not necessarily ?"

 

I am not a chemist and to my limited knowledge silver or copper will not continue to tone unless provided an environment to do so... whether that is an album, an envelope, the bottom of a wooden desk draw or even the natural environment (air) the coin rests in... If a naturally toned coin is place inside a current PCGS or NGC slab it should for all intents and purposes stop the toning process -- > Is this correct ?

 

Now I would tend to agree that dipping an altered/artificially toned coin WOULD be considered conservation since it is (or theoretically is) a zero sum gain to the coin.... Oxidation was purposefully added and oxidation was purposefully removed.

 

[MarkFeld]

 

At what point/under what circumstances is the removal of toning from a coin doctoring vs. conserving it? I submit that the line is blurred, as at some point, in some cases, if left unchecked, the toning will etch itself into the surface of the coin and ruin it.

 

If the coin is simply removed from the toning agent the toning usually does stop at that point... Does it not ?

 

Not sure how removing the original skin is conservation is in your example...

 

Can you explain further ?

 

My understanding is that the answer to your first question above is "Not necessarily".

 

I believe it could fairly be argued that removing toning from a coin in order to protect it from damage (due to the etching of the toning into the surface of the coin) amounts to conservation. Or, perhaps, better said, doctored for purposes of conservation?

 

As much as I prefer toned coins, I have seen many which have been damaged by the progression of toning - literally environmentally damaged.

 

Can you provide some evidence to illustrate your statement "not necessarily ?"

 

I am not a chemist and to my limited knowledge silver or copper will not continue to tone unless provided an environment to do so... whether that is an album, an envelope, the bottom of a wooden desk draw or even the natural environment (air) the coin rests in... If a naturally toned coin is place inside a current PCGS or NGC slab it should for all intents and purposes stop the toning process -- > Is this correct ?

 

Now I would tend to agree that dipping an altered/artificially toned coin WOULD be considered conservation since it is (or theoretically is) a zero sum gain to the coin.... Oxidation was purposefully added and oxidation was purposefully removed.

 

I have heard of numerous examples of both untoned and toned coins, toning or continuing to tone in PCGS and NGC holders. In some cases, fairly quickly and in others, slowly.

 

Can I PROVE that all of those coins had been "removed from the toning agent"? No. And in many cases, the "toning agent" might not even be known. So, on a practical basis, the coin can't be removed from it.

 

I have heard of enough examples of coins toning in their holders, such that I believe my "not necessarily" reply is correct.

[BillJones]

I have heard of numerous examples of both untoned and toned coins, toning or continuing to tone in PCGS and NGC holders. In some cases, fairly quickly and in others, slowly.

 

 

The vast majority, if not all of the silver and gold coins that tone in PCGS and NGC holders, especially those that toned rapidly, did so because they were dipped before they went into the holders and the dipping solution was not properly rinsed and neutralized. It has been my experience that a dipped coin, properly rinsed and stored in the proper environment will not tone if it is in a slab or Capital Plastics style holder. I’ve owned some coins for over 35 years, and they have not changed at all.

 

My comments apply to silver and gold. Copper is a more reactive metal, and it can do things seemingly “on its own.”

 

[MarkFeld]

I have heard of numerous examples of both untoned and toned coins, toning or continuing to tone in PCGS and NGC holders. In some cases, fairly quickly and in others, slowly.

 

 

The vast majority, if not all of the silver and gold coins that tone in PCGS and NGC holders, especially those that toned rapidly, did so because they were dipped before they went into the holders and the dipping solution was not properly rinsed and neutralized. It has been my experience that a dipped coin, properly rinsed and stored in the proper environment will not tone if it is in a slab or Capital Plastics style holder. I’ve owned some coins for over 35 years, and they have not changed at all.

 

My comments apply to silver and gold. Copper is a more reactive metal, and it can do things seemingly “on its own.”

 

Bill, what about coins that are already toned at the time of encapsulation - do you believe that they wont tone?

[James_OldeTowne]

Mark knows my position, but I repeat it here simply as dipping IS a form of doctoring. However, some doctoring is good, some doctoring is bad. We tend to accept good doctoring, and file lawsuits over bad doctoring (tongue in cheek).

 

according to Q.D. Bowers in many of his books, the majority of 19th century silver coins in AU and uncirculated grades have been dipped

Does he really state that? Because I for one do not believe it to be true. I'd guess the vast majoriyt are NOT dipped, if only because BU Morgan dollars by the tens of millions in original rolls have never been dipped, and they outnumber everything else that's silver.

[BillJones]

I have heard of numerous examples of both untoned and toned coins, toning or continuing to tone in PCGS and NGC holders. In some cases, fairly quickly and in others, slowly.

 

 

The vast majority, if not all of the silver and gold coins that tone in PCGS and NGC holders, especially those that toned rapidly, did so because they were dipped before they went into the holders and the dipping solution was not properly rinsed and neutralized. It has been my experience that a dipped coin, properly rinsed and stored in the proper environment will not tone if it is in a slab or Capital Plastics style holder. I’ve owned some coins for over 35 years, and they have not changed at all.

 

My comments apply to silver and gold. Copper is a more reactive metal, and it can do things seemingly “on its own.”

 

Bill, what about coins that are already toned at the time of encapsulation - do you believe that they wont tone?

 

It all depends upon the circumstances. If the stuff that is causing the coin to tone is still active, the coin will continue to darken. If the toning is arrested, the coin might very well stabilize.

 

I bought this 1806 half dollar at a large (for the time) New York City auction in November 1975 (Grand Central show and auction by Paramount International Coin Corp.). The coin had this toning when I bought it, and over the last 36 years it has divided its time between a custom Capital Plastics holder and an NGC slab. The coin has not changed over that time.

 

On the other hand I’ve owned “bright white” commemorative half dollars that toned ugly in year’s time or less. Generally if a coin does not do anything for a couple of years, it’s probably stable. That’s one reason to like “old” slabs. You can figure that given proper storage it’s more than likely that the coin won’t change very much.

 

 

[ccinalvin]

Wow, 56 posts in 1 thread in 24hrs. When was the last time that happened on this forum?

[ccinalvin]

Wow, 56 posts in 1 thread in 24hrs. When was the last time that happened on this forum?

[TonerGuy]

I have heard of numerous examples of both untoned and toned coins, toning or continuing to tone in PCGS and NGC holders. In some cases, fairly quickly and in others, slowly.

 

Can I PROVE that all of those coins had been "removed from the toning agent"? No. And in many cases, the "toning agent" might not even be known. So, on a practical basis, the coin can't be removed from it.

 

I have heard of enough examples of coins toning in their holders, such that I believe my "not necessarily" reply is correct.

 

So you are basing your opinion on hearsay evidence ? Without actually proof I cannot believe that a coin removed from the toning agent will continue to tone. I will have to agree with BillJones on this one that it may be due to an improper rinse.

 

I have also heard about coins continuing to tone in old no line fatty NGC holders but I would unscientifically attribute that to the fact that the coin is in close proximity to a paper label. Or perhaps these slabs were not inert or too porous to keep out the environmental toning agents. Not to the fact that the toning continues to progress on its own without assistance.

 

Does anyone have an example of a encapsulated coin that continued to tone despite being in a newer PCGS/NGC slab and being properly stored ? (ie., SDB, home safe, shoe box ect)