Toned Peace $ - AT/NT/MA and Grade...

[MarkFeld]

I'm a little surprised by some of the opinions. I like the coin. The only problem I see with it is the dark rims on the reverse. If it doesn't grade I would guess environmental damage as the reason.

Even if it doesn't grade , I still like her.

 

I'm surprised as well, but for a different reason.

 

Based on the image, the obverse looks AT to me and the reverse, quite nice and likely NT. Regardless, it is an odd combination, though I have certainly seen a fair number of coins that were AT'd on just one side. And other coins that, no doubt, looked very nice on their own, but we're still "helped along".

 

The above comments and opinions notwithstanding, this might be an example of a coin that toned "naturally", but which looks AT and will not grade.

[newprepper]

question: does somebody get it toned on 1 side, and decide it should be toned on both?

[TonerGuy]

I'm a little surprised by some of the opinions. I like the coin. The only problem I see with it is the dark rims on the reverse. If it doesn't grade I would guess environmental damage as the reason.

Even if it doesn't grade , I still like her.

 

I'm surprised as well, but for a different reason.

 

Based on the image, the obverse looks AT to me and the reverse, quite nice and likely NT. Regardless, it is an odd combination, though I have certainly seen a fair number of coins that were AT'd on just one side. And other coins that, no doubt, looked very nice on their own, but we're still "helped along".

 

The above comments and opinions notwithstanding, this might be an example of a coin that toned "naturally", but which looks AT and will not grade.

 

Can you explain the hows and whys of ATing a coin on one side ?

[Kurtdog]

I'm a little surprised by some of the opinions. I like the coin. The only problem I see with it is the dark rims on the reverse. If it doesn't grade I would guess environmental damage as the reason.

Even if it doesn't grade , I still like her.

I'm surprised as well, but for a different reason.

 

Based on the image, the obverse looks AT to me and the reverse, quite nice and likely NT. Regardless, it is an odd combination, though I have certainly seen a fair number of coins that were AT'd on just one side. And other coins that, no doubt, looked very nice on their own, but we're still "helped along".

 

The above comments and opinions notwithstanding, this might be an example of a coin that toned "naturally", but which looks AT and will not grade.

Can you explain the hows and whys of ATing a coin on one side ?

TonerGuy, let me let you in on a little secret. That coin is a perfectly good coin. Those surfaces are perfectly good surfaces. That color is called, "tarnish." That happens to silver when it oxidizes.

 

Understanding that, understand this. Do you know what you're really asking? You're asking whether that tarnish on that coin is market acceptable to the TPGs based on arbitrary standards that defy definition. That's what you want to know. You're asking whether the TPGs will bless that tarnish based on arbitrary standards that defy definition and as such permit that coin to play in their market.

 

Well, get this. Nobody here knows the answer to that. Why? I just told you that. Because the standards are arbitrary and defy definition. If standards are arbitrary and defy definition, how could anybody rationally apply such standards? They can't. Unless they're some crackpot.

 

Let me tell you what you do. Quit talking about the coin, and submit it. If it comes back blessed, you silence the critics. That's all you have to do.

[MarkFeld]

I'm a little surprised by some of the opinions. I like the coin. The only problem I see with it is the dark rims on the reverse. If it doesn't grade I would guess environmental damage as the reason.

Even if it doesn't grade , I still like her.

 

I'm surprised as well, but for a different reason.

 

Based on the image, the obverse looks AT to me and the reverse, quite nice and likely NT. Regardless, it is an odd combination, though I have certainly seen a fair number of coins that were AT'd on just one side. And other coins that, no doubt, looked very nice on their own, but we're still "helped along".

 

The above comments and opinions notwithstanding, this might be an example of a coin that toned "naturally", but which looks AT and will not grade.

 

Can you explain the hows and whys of ATing a coin on one side ?

 

I can explain the "whys", but not the "hows". I have never had personal experience ATing coins, other than using a hard boiled egg on pocket change about 30 years ago.

 

The "why" is to mask flaws and/or make a coin potentially more appealing looking, in an effort to add to its "value". And that can apply to just one side of a coin, as easily as it can to both sides.

[TonerGuy]

I'm a little surprised by some of the opinions. I like the coin. The only problem I see with it is the dark rims on the reverse. If it doesn't grade I would guess environmental damage as the reason.

Even if it doesn't grade , I still like her.

I'm surprised as well, but for a different reason.

 

Based on the image, the obverse looks AT to me and the reverse, quite nice and likely NT. Regardless, it is an odd combination, though I have certainly seen a fair number of coins that were AT'd on just one side. And other coins that, no doubt, looked very nice on their own, but we're still "helped along".

 

The above comments and opinions notwithstanding, this might be an example of a coin that toned "naturally", but which looks AT and will not grade.

Can you explain the hows and whys of ATing a coin on one side ?

TonerGuy, let me let you in on a little secret. That coin is a perfectly good coin. Those surfaces are perfectly good surfaces. That color is called, "tarnish." That happens to silver when it oxidizes.

 

Understanding that, understand this. Do you know what you're really asking? You're asking whether that tarnish on that coin is market acceptable to the TPGs based on arbitrary standards that defy definition. That's what you want to know. You're asking whether the TPGs will bless that tarnish based on arbitrary standards that defy definition and as such permit that coin to play in their market.

 

Well, get this. Nobody here knows the answer to that. Why? I just told you that. Because the standards are arbitrary and defy definition. If standards are arbitrary and defy definition, how could anybody rationally apply such standards? They can't. Unless they're some crackpot.

 

Let me tell you what you do. Quit talking about the coin, and submit it. If it comes back blessed, you silence the critics. That's all you have to do.

 

Pssssst. Go look at when I started posting here... I have been collecting toned coins for 20 yrs. But you make my point - exactly.

 

No one here can say whether the coin is AT or not. Unless someone wants to say they have extensive experience ATing coins. Even Mark Feld cannot say whether the coin is AT since he has admittedly never AT'd a coin.

 

The best comment or opinion that someone can give is "not MA."

 

I am not really concerned whether the coin grades or not. I posted it here to discuss the issue of NT/AT/MA. This coin is a conundrum as Jersey pointed out. Thats why it makes a perfect example to use. And since its a toned Peace $ I knew it would be held to even a higher level of scrutiny.

 

I lurk. And a lot of times I see people on these forums and across the street making comments about AT who appear to have no actual first hand knowledge of AT.

 

I would also say that most (all) graders do not have a background in AT as well.

 

I would like to see the TPGs drop the moniker artificially toned and replace it with not market acceptable...

 

If we can even define what that means....

[mumu]

I'm surprised that no one has considered the possibilty that the reverse was NT by acceptable means and that the obverse later became toned by AT means, but not done so on purpose. Coin may have been placed on some kind of wet chemical surface or fell into some couch and caught some kind of tar or checmical product and not deliberately toned by a "coin doctor". I had a lincolc cent once get stuck in between the inside edges of and old kodak automatic camera film cartridge. The part where the film is exposed once you roll it. The chemicals gave that side some wild neon colors that may have flown at a tpg, granted I wouldnt submit it nor was it a coin that mattered, it was like a 1976 or something. In any case, I didnt do it on purpose, the bag full of film carts just happened to get some pennies mixed in. Does that make me a coin doctor?

[Kurtdog]

I'm surprised that no one has considered the possibilty that the reverse was NT by acceptable means and that the obverse later became toned by AT means, but not done so on purpose. Coin may have been placed on some kind of wet chemical surface or fell into some couch and caught some kind of tar or checmical product and not deliberately toned by a "coin doctor". I had a lincolc cent once get stuck in between the inside edges of and old kodak automatic camera film cartridge. The part where the film is exposed once you roll it. The chemicals gave that side some wild neon colors that may have flown at a tpg, granted I wouldnt submit it nor was it a coin that mattered, it was like a 1976 or something. In any case, I didnt do it on purpose, the bag full of film carts just happened to get some pennies mixed in. Does that make me a coin doctor?

How do we know you're telling the truth? If I might observe, you didn't say, "I mean it, I mean it, I mean it, I mean it."

[TonerGuy]

I'm surprised that no one has considered the possibilty that the reverse was NT by acceptable means and that the obverse later became toned by AT means, but not done so on purpose. Coin may have been placed on some kind of wet chemical surface or fell into some couch and caught some kind of tar or checmical product and not deliberately toned by a "coin doctor". I had a lincolc cent once get stuck in between the inside edges of and old kodak automatic camera film cartridge. The part where the film is exposed once you roll it. The chemicals gave that side some wild neon colors that may have flown at a tpg, granted I wouldnt submit it nor was it a coin that mattered, it was like a 1976 or something. In any case, I didnt do it on purpose, the bag full of film carts just happened to get some pennies mixed in. Does that make me a coin doctor?

 

How can AT be accidental ?

 

AT implies that a deliberate chemical process was applied to the coin to add toning in an expedited fashion. A coin that tones because it was left on a window sill or in a Polaroid film pack or even purposely stored in an album with the intent for it to tone (over numerous years) is not AT. I would argue all of that toning is NT but it certainly is not AT and should be called MA or not MA.

 

Mark - wasnt there an effort this year to deal with the definitions within the PNG community ?

 

Whatever happened ? (Sorry if I missed that)... Was the resolution ever adopted and if so what it did say ?

[mumu]

I'm surprised that no one has considered the possibilty that the reverse was NT by acceptable means and that the obverse later became toned by AT means, but not done so on purpose. Coin may have been placed on some kind of wet chemical surface or fell into some couch and caught some kind of tar or checmical product and not deliberately toned by a "coin doctor". I had a lincolc cent once get stuck in between the inside edges of and old kodak automatic camera film cartridge. The part where the film is exposed once you roll it. The chemicals gave that side some wild neon colors that may have flown at a tpg, granted I wouldnt submit it nor was it a coin that mattered, it was like a 1976 or something. In any case, I didnt do it on purpose, the bag full of film carts just happened to get some pennies mixed in. Does that make me a coin doctor?

 

How can AT be accidental ?

 

AT implies that a deliberate chemical process was applied to the coin to add toning in an expedited fashion. A coin that tones because it was left on a window sill or in a Polaroid film pack or even purposely stored in an album with the intent for it to tone (over numerous years) is not AT. I would argue all of that toning is NT but it certainly is not AT and should be called MA or not MA.

 

Mark - wasnt there an effort this year to deal with the definitions within the PNG community ?

 

Whatever happened ? (Sorry if I missed that)... Was the resolution ever adopted and if so what it did say ?

 

I would be surprised if 1% of people had the same view as you on AT.

 

Just to be clear youre saying a coin toned by camera film is NT?

[TonerGuy]

I'm surprised that no one has considered the possibilty that the reverse was NT by acceptable means and that the obverse later became toned by AT means, but not done so on purpose. Coin may have been placed on some kind of wet chemical surface or fell into some couch and caught some kind of tar or checmical product and not deliberately toned by a "coin doctor". I had a lincolc cent once get stuck in between the inside edges of and old kodak automatic camera film cartridge. The part where the film is exposed once you roll it. The chemicals gave that side some wild neon colors that may have flown at a tpg, granted I wouldnt submit it nor was it a coin that mattered, it was like a 1976 or something. In any case, I didnt do it on purpose, the bag full of film carts just happened to get some pennies mixed in. Does that make me a coin doctor?

 

How can AT be accidental ?

 

AT implies that a deliberate chemical process was applied to the coin to add toning in an expedited fashion. A coin that tones because it was left on a window sill or in a Polaroid film pack or even purposely stored in an album with the intent for it to tone (over numerous years) is not AT. I would argue all of that toning is NT but it certainly is not AT and should be called MA or not MA.

 

Mark - wasnt there an effort this year to deal with the definitions within the PNG community ?

 

Whatever happened ? (Sorry if I missed that)... Was the resolution ever adopted and if so what it did say ?

 

I would be surprised if 1% of people had the same view as you on AT.

 

Just to be clear youre saying a coin toned by camera film is NT?

 

No thats not what I am saying. I am saying AT/NT has to be redefined as Market Acceptable or Not Market Acceptable.

 

AT implies someone doing something purposeful to the coin - does it not ?

 

But that's not always the truth of the matter. Sometimes the situation you described happens...accidental toning.

 

And there really is no way to know AT from NT, so why not drop that nomenclature and just use MA or NMA ?

[mumu]

"AT implies someone doing something purposeful to the coin - does it not ?"

 

I dont think so. Artifical and intent or seperate matters. If I put a coin in an album, not because I want an album but because I know they tone them, the coin would be considered NT and MA but my intent was to tone. Therefore intent does not define AT the way you are making it out to.

[TonerGuy]

"AT implies someone doing something purposeful to the coin - does it not ?"

 

I dont think so. Artifical and intent or seperate matters. If I put a coin in an album, not because I want an album but because I know they tone them, the coin would be considered NT and MA but my intent was to tone. Therefore intent does not define AT the way you are making it out to.

 

Then define what AT means to you for me please....

[mumu]

"AT implies someone doing something purposeful to the coin - does it not ?"

 

I dont think so. Artifical and intent or seperate matters. If I put a coin in an album, not because I want an album but because I know they tone them, the coin would be considered NT and MA but my intent was to tone. Therefore intent does not define AT the way you are making it out to.

 

Then define what AT means to you for me please....

 

Toning aquired by means not consistent with the hobby or manufacturing.

Album storage for example would be conistent with the hobby.

Storage in bank bags are consistent with the manfacturing process.

 

Toning on a roll of film is not either or. Regardless of whether it was "purposeful" or not.

 

Maybe there is a list somewhere of all the things someone thought of but for me its a case by case basis. Its subjective. Just like grading. But there are some guildelines im sure most would agree on, granted there are also grey areas. But I think that neither film rolls nor whatever happened to this coin, would fall into the MA or NT or whatever 2 letters you think are more accurate of the same thing we are talking about regardless of the 2 letters used.

[TonerGuy]

I am not sure what manufacturing means but I assume that you would say that everything toned outside of an album, bag or third party holder you would then consider AT.

 

For example, I will assume that you would consider a coin that became toned in a 20th Century Type set cardboard wall frame to be NT because these were widely used and marketed for coin displays.

 

What about print toning ? A coin stored in newspapers would not be consistent with the hobby. There are plenty of coins that have newspaper print toned on them ? Would you consider those coins to be AT ? The TPGs dont.

 

What about a coin that had been laying around on the bottom of a cedar cigar box that toned from the wood ? Thats not a recommended way of storing coins consistent with the hobby but plenty of people did put coins in wood or cardboard cigar boxes... AT or NT ?

 

How about tissues ? Of course if you have a tissue toned 1800s seated proof that would probably be acceptable but what about a Peace $ wrapped in tissue and given as a gift 70 yrs ago that lay untouched ? NT for an 1800s proof but AT for a 1934 Peace $ ? What about a Peace $ I put into a Taco Bell napkin 12 years ago ?

 

Well thats the problem, toning shouldnt be subjective. TPGs try not to make grading subjective. Like minded people might disagree on MS64 or MS65 but at least anyone with knowledge of grading would never call a MS64 coin a VF35.

 

Toning should be the same. AT and NT are subjective. AT infers something less then honest. We equate AT with coin doctors. MA and NMA are less subjective, less damaging to the toned coin market. And more akin to the Sheldon's scale. The scale might slightly move over time but it doesnt radically change. And no one is going to differ that much on an opinion of grade. I would be much more inclined to purchase a coin that is graded NMA by NGC then I would buy a coin that has Artificially Toned on the slab. That hurts the market and hurts the business.

 

I cannot submit a coin with a description of the toning process when I send one in for grading. I cannot write a little note to the grader that I pulled this coin out of a 20th Century Type Set cardboard frame and thats why its wildly toned and should be graded. And thus, the grader isnt really concerned with how or why the coin toned. He/she simply decides whether the toning is either something he has seen before and is comfortable with or he/she isnt.

 

They are grading the toning on market acceptability. And I think if they are going to grade toning on market acceptability they should label the coin as such, or in the reverse say the coin is not market acceptable - NOT artificially toned since there is no way on God's green earth that a grader could ever possibly know that.

 

Okay, thats my opinion. Hopefully some of you agree. Most wont, but if anyone from NGC is reading this.... seriously consider the idea.

[mumu]

My goal was not to make a definitive list. Only to give an example. I concede that there are other NT/MA. That was never the question though. The question was is THIS coin AT or NT and i offered the possibilty that it is both. Regardless of what ends up on the official list. The question then turned to one example I gave with the film. It sounds like you disagree with a film toned coin being AT and on that point we disagree, but not that there is a list of other ways a coin can tone and still be NT/MA, which now seems to be the focus of your response.

[mhomei]

this is a interesting thread

submit it and keep us posted

and if you remember me I would expect better pics from you

I still got your old camera, ....and I still cant take a decent pic.