• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

AT or nT Peace$ - PCGS 64

Started by mumu,

33 posts in this topic

mumu

mumu

Posted
Posted

From teletrade auction archives.

Anyway IMO this coin is blatantly AT. Can anyone convince me otherwise?

 

c32841909-1a_w2560.jpg

c32841909-1b_w2560.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coinman_23885

coinman_23885

Posted
Posted

Is the coin slabbed or raw? I agree with you. Based on the photograph, I would have guessed that the coin was artificially toned as well. Most importantly, even if it were natural toning (which I am not convinced of either), it is a very ugly coin and certainly wouldn't command any premium to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MJ

MJ

Posted
Posted

Unattractive even if it was NT so I'm not sure it matters. JMHO. MJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mumu

mumu

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Is the coin slabbed or raw? I agree with you. Based on the photograph, I would have guessed that the coin was artificially toned as well. Most importantly, even if it were natural toning (which I am not convinced of either), it is a very ugly coin and certainly wouldn't command any premium to me.

 

 

Its in a PCGS MS64 holder

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TomB

TomB

Posted
Posted

I don't trust the feel of the color saturation with respect to the images. Of course, if these coins are in dealer inventory and you are posting questions about them then I guess the dealer might not be too happy to sell them to you, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mumu

mumu

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I don't trust the feel of the color saturation with respect to the images. Of course, if these coins are in dealer inventory and you are posting questions about them then I guess the dealer might not be too happy to sell them to you, anyway.

 

So coins held by dealers are off limits to discussion? I am 100% sure I know less than this dealer so am I not allowed to try and learn what I might not know about this coin? Opinions are allowed and if this dealer stands behind his coins, which having dealt with him before I know he does, then I dont see why a discussion that brings attention to his inventory should be seen as offensive. If the coin is NT then he got free promotion. The only way I can see a dealer having a problem is if it turns out to be determined without question that the coin is AT, then if it is implied that me posting it is offensive then it is also implied that said dealer would be the type of person to purposely try and pass off AT coins. Personally I am more concerned with PCGS having slabbed this coin, considering DHalls stance on P$ than the dealer trying to pass anything off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TomB

TomB

Posted
Posted

I made the comment because you started your thread by stating that the dealer would hate you for starting discussions on two of his/her coins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mumu

mumu

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I made the comment because you started your thread by stating that the dealer would hate you for starting discussions on two of his/her coins.

 

So do you think s/he would/should?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nk1nk

nk1nk

Posted
Posted
I don't trust the feel of the color saturation with respect to the images. Of course, if these coins are in dealer inventory and you are posting questions about them then I guess the dealer might not be too happy to sell them to you, anyway.

 

So coins held by dealers are off limits to discussion? I am 100% sure I know less than this dealer so am I not allowed to try and learn what I might not know about this coin? Opinions are allowed and if this dealer stands behind his coins, which having dealt with him before I know he does, then I dont see why a discussion that brings attention to his inventory should be seen as offensive. If the coin is NT then he got free promotion. The only way I can see a dealer having a problem is if it turns out to be determined without question that the coin is AT, then if it is implied that me posting it is offensive then it is also implied that said dealer would be the type of person to purposely try and pass off AT coins. Personally I am more concerned with PCGS having slabbed this coin, considering DHalls stance on P$ than the dealer trying to pass anything off.

 

???? This coin is on teletrade.

 

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TomB

TomB

Posted
Posted

I have no idea who owns the coins so I have no idea how the owner might react. If they were questions about coins that I had in my own inventory then I would simply respond with my opinions or observations, but not everyone is like me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
e1cnr

e1cnr

Posted
Posted

colors look electronically played with

- can't convince you of anything - but seeing in hand may sway many people

 

Teletrades reverse pic

 

c32841909-1b_w2560.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TomB

TomB

Posted
Posted

Okay, now that you have changed all the images and the entirety of your text, I can state that I think I was correct about my initial interpretation of the first set of images in this thread. Other than that, I simply do not like this coin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mumu

mumu

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I wasnt as concerned about the asking price. I believe you can ask anything you want for an item. If I HAD to put a price on some of my favorite coins, it would be just as ridiculous. Appears the coin goes to auction today anyway so the market will decide. I thought it was from the archives but its todays auction. Anyway the point was more to bring about a discussion over PCGS' declared stance on colorful P$. If they slab that then I dont see how anything within range can be turned away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark T

Mark T

Posted
Posted

The colors are somewhat suspect but I would not call it a blatant AT .

Mark F - you are not in the minority here - I wont call it attractive but I would never call it ugly. This is one of those coins that needs to be seen in hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coinman_23885

coinman_23885

Posted
Posted
The colors are somewhat suspect but I would not call it a blatant AT .

Mark F - you are not in the minority here - I wont call it attractive but I would never call it ugly. This is one of those coins that needs to be seen in hand.

 

But, it is also noteworthy that this isn't the picture that everyone saw when they made their initial posts. The photos were updated. I still am not a fan, but the coin looks more attractive compared to what looked like an EZ Bake job initially. It may be MA with the new photos, but it still looks suspect to me (maybe it's my monitor).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark T

Mark T

Posted
Posted
The colors are somewhat suspect but I would not call it a blatant AT .

Mark F - you are not in the minority here - I wont call it attractive but I would never call it ugly. This is one of those coins that needs to be seen in hand.

 

But, it is also noteworthy that this isn't the picture that everyone saw when they made their initial posts. The photos were updated. I still am not a fan, but the coin looks more attractive compared to what looked like an EZ Bake job initially. It may be MA with the new photos, but it still looks suspect to me (maybe it's my monitor).

 

At first glance those colors look like something was applied to the coin and then baked. Hey maybe the coin was stored in a mint bag in Miami under extreme humidity !! They did not have A/C or dehumidifiers back then . :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
kryptonitecomics

kryptonitecomics

Posted
Posted

I don't like the look and the oversized images make me think AT...I have no clue what it looks like in hand and the fact that the reverse is untoned makes it a little less likely its AT...not impossible...just more market acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MarkFeld

MarkFeld

Posted
Posted
The colors are somewhat suspect but I would not call it a blatant AT .

Mark F - you are not in the minority here - I wont call it attractive but I would never call it ugly. This is one of those coins that needs to be seen in hand.

 

But, it is also noteworthy that this isn't the picture that everyone saw when they made their initial posts. The photos were updated. I still am not a fan, but the coin looks more attractive compared to what looked like an EZ Bake job initially. It may be MA with the new photos, but it still looks suspect to me (maybe it's my monitor).

 

I liked the color seen in both sets of images.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jom

jom

Posted
Posted

PCGS graded it because they thought it was MA not whether it's NT. Maybe it is...I don't know.

 

My judgement is that it's ugly but that's just me.

 

Whether it's NT or AT doesn't matter to me because of what I think of the coin....although if I had to guess I'd go with AT on the obverse.

 

jom

Link to comment
Share on other sites
e1cnr

e1cnr

Posted
Posted

I have no problem with the reverse and think NT

 

the obverse makes me think either

 

1- NT and colors look better with lay and transitions than can be easily photod

2- chemically AT and has progressed after PCGS has seen it because not neutralized

 

 

 

either way, currently $1150 on Teletrade and would not pay that myself, although could understand some collectors who like it for that

(I like color, but have not been able to pull the trigger when 10-20 times white)

 

the original pics I feel were juiced and if still on someones website, suspect the current bid maybe a reserve and could be going back to dealer

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mumu

mumu

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I guess I'm in the minority, here. I think it looks like a naturally and attractively toned example.

 

I am somewhat surprised. I am curious to look back and see what your opinion has been on other P$ toners if I get the time. But I am curious what your thoughts are specifically on the green roundish splothces on the right side and the goldish ones on the left. It has generally been stated byt many such as sunnywoods that these type of "shapes" are common when they are in the form of luster breaks that are luster colored but when they are a whole different color altogether, suspisions begin to arise. Would you propose that the coin may have toned mulitple times in multiple enviroments?

 

There are certain elements of this coin that I think are NT. namely the gold into magenta progression. I think that progression is legit and very nice and I have a 24 with it radiating from a golden center out to the reddish magenta. I also think the mini rainbow clusters near the edge are legit. But those roundish blotches i mentioned above and then the 2 dark spots that look black here and blue in the first set of pics.

 

Ultimately I posted this coin because I am surprised PCGS slabbed it. Whether its nice or NT i almost dont care. But based on what PCGS has body bagged by other submitters, I cant help but wonder yet again if some submitters get special favors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
michael

michael

Posted
Posted

MA but not to me just based on the photo ............... anyways is it possible?? that it funkified a little bit after the coin was slabbed and/or a poor photo??

 

but i defer my opinion as i would need to see it in hand sight seen to confirm or deny the above

 

but the demigogs deemed it MA so it must be A-okie (thumbs u

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing