Opinion's on this unique toned morgan from teletrade.

[newprepper]

My local grocery waits until the hamburger has toned before they sell it....very festive at holiday time with the green meat and red blood.

 

It'll go great with the "Green eggs and Ham, Sam"

[Kurtdog]

If this was deliberate AT, many more coins with those characteristic magnetic field stripes will show up. If it was accidental AT, maybe nobody will remember how it happened. Either way it is absolutely AT.

I believe it is absurd to make the statement "Either way it is absolutely AT". You don't KNOW how the toning occurred. And even if you did, that wouldn't automatically render it "AT".

You don't know how he defines that arbitrary term, that's where you don't get off telling him that. Neither does he, for that matter, from one coin to the next. Neither do any of you.

[delta]

Oh no, not this again. Please don't forget that over the course of thousands of posts in oodles of threads among multiple numismatic forums it was conclusively settled in absolutely precise scientific terms:

 

NT: It happened all by itself.

AT: Somebody did something to it.

 

 

 

If this was deliberate AT, many more coins with those characteristic magnetic field stripes will show up. If it was accidental AT, maybe nobody will remember how it happened. Either way it is absolutely AT.

I believe it is absurd to make the statement "Either way it is absolutely AT". You don't KNOW how the toning occurred. And even if you did, that wouldn't automatically render it "AT".

You don't know how he defines that arbitrary term, that's where you don't get off telling him that. Neither does he, for that matter, from one coin to the next. Neither do any of you.

[MarkFeld]

Oh no, not this again. Please don't forget that over the course of thousands of posts in oodles of threads among multiple numismatic forums it was conclusively settled in absolutely precise scientific terms:

 

NT: It happened all by itself.

AT: Somebody did something to it.

 

That's your standard for NT/AT?

 

Someone places a coin in an album - AT.

Someone places a coin in an envelope - AT

Someone places a coin in a roll - AT

Someone touches a coin - AT

 

It sounds like any and every coin with toning is AT. After all, somebody has done something to every coin in existence.

[EVillageProwler]

Heisenberg's Principle.

[lehigh96]

Heisenberg's Principle.

 

What does quantum physics have to do with toning?

[newprepper]

I thought that was the choking thing............oops

[Kurtdog]

Oh no, not this again. Please don't forget that over the course of thousands of posts in oodles of threads among multiple numismatic forums it was conclusively settled in absolutely precise scientific terms:

 

NT: It happened all by itself.

AT: Somebody did something to it.

 

That's your standard for NT/AT?

 

Someone places a coin in an album - AT.

Someone places a coin in an envelope - AT

Someone places a coin in a roll - AT

Someone touches a coin - AT

 

It sounds like any and every coin with toning is AT. After all, somebody has done something to every coin in existence.

Yeah, Delta, keep swinging.

[Kurtdog]

Heisenberg's Principle.

What does quantum physics have to do with toning?

Heisenberg specifically states at Farm Hall he "never made a critical mass calculation." He was a quasi-pacifist, and we can thank our lucky stars for that. One only needs look at his pre-war philosophical ramblings to see that.

 

Oh, you boys were saying?

 

[delta]

Just reread the posts under this topic, and apologize for not previously crediting mumu for describing the toning so well, in one of the first comments, as an energy warp.

 

That is a trippy coin. Its like an energy warp flying thru liberty.

[delta]

Yes, yes, yes, we are finally in full agreement, it's all AT!

 

How could the outcome, whatever it is, be anything but artificial when someone performs the very artificial action of inserting a coin inside an envelope, both the envelope and the coin already artifacts themselves?

 

Oh no, not this again. Please don't forget that over the course of thousands of posts in oodles of threads among multiple numismatic forums it was conclusively settled in absolutely precise scientific terms:

 

NT: It happened all by itself.

AT: Somebody did something to it.

 

That's your standard for NT/AT?

 

Someone places a coin in an album - AT.

Someone places a coin in an envelope - AT

Someone places a coin in a roll - AT

Someone touches a coin - AT

 

It sounds like any and every coin with toning is AT. After all, somebody has done something to every coin in existence.

[MarkFeld]

Yes, yes, yes, we are finally in full agreement, it's all AT!

 

How could the outcome, whatever it is, be anything but artificial when someone performs the very artificial action of inserting a coin inside an envelope, both the envelope and the coin already artifacts themselves?

 

Oh no, not this again. Please don't forget that over the course of thousands of posts in oodles of threads among multiple numismatic forums it was conclusively settled in absolutely precise scientific terms:

 

NT: It happened all by itself.

AT: Somebody did something to it.

 

That's your standard for NT/AT?

 

Someone places a coin in an album - AT.

Someone places a coin in an envelope - AT

Someone places a coin in a roll - AT

Someone touches a coin - AT

 

It sounds like any and every coin with toning is AT. After all, somebody has done something to every coin in existence.

 

You're the one who, wrote: "AT: Somebody did something to it."

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Yes, yes, yes, we are finally in full agreement, it's all AT!

 

How could the outcome, whatever it is, be anything but artificial when someone performs the very artificial action of inserting a coin inside an envelope, both the envelope and the coin already artifacts themselves?

 

Oh no, not this again. Please don't forget that over the course of thousands of posts in oodles of threads among multiple numismatic forums it was conclusively settled in absolutely precise scientific terms:

 

NT: It happened all by itself.

AT: Somebody did something to it.

 

That's your standard for NT/AT?

 

Someone places a coin in an album - AT.

Someone places a coin in an envelope - AT

Someone places a coin in a roll - AT

Someone touches a coin - AT

 

It sounds like any and every coin with toning is AT. After all, somebody has done something to every coin in existence.

 

A slight and meaningless observation, that I am compelled to state because of my non-artificial nature.

 

I am having a problem with the foundation that supports the logic of the statement made, to wit: "......be anything but artificial when someone performs the very artificial action of inserting a coin in an envelope...".

 

This is an intended action by a living entity.

 

It seems to me the statement is a Posit Flaw, unless the person had a Prosthetic arm/hand, and was brain dead and had a computer for a brain (I watched Star Trek and The Matrix you know, so don't try to pull any fast ones on me).

 

Please consider correcting the foundation of the position offered, for clarity, and to add some color to the discussion, please.

 

I would also comment, though certainly not my Field of expertise, that a few archeologists may not agree that an envelope is an artifact that is artificial in itself, but (blah,blah) I could be and probably am, wrong.

 

Please continue, and I apologize for intruding.

 

[delta]

Hello John, Please don't apologize, your input is always welcome and typically very stimulating.

 

You're implying all toning is natural, from a living entity it's NT.

 

Allow me to paraphrase your perspective. You're saying anything we humans do is natural, because after all we are creatures of nature, the result of natural evolution, so our manipulation of objects we manufactured is also natural. Thus NT.

 

But don't stop there. Toning is also completely natural from other angles. For example, it occurs only due to the molecules involved behaving according to the natural laws of chemistry and physics. NT again.

 

Have I gotten your position correct?

 

A slight and meaningless observation, that I am compelled to state because of my non-artificial nature.I am having a problem with the foundation that supports the logic of the statement made, to wit: "......be anything but artificial when someone performs the very artificial action of inserting a coin in an envelope...". This is an intended action by a living entity. It seems to me the statement is a Posit Flaw, unless the person had a Prosthetic arm/hand, and was brain dead and had a computer for a brain (I watched Star Trek and The Matrix you know, so don't try to pull any fast ones on me). Please consider correcting the foundation of the position offered, for clarity, and to add some color to the discussion, please. I would also comment, though certainly not my Field of expertise, that a few archeologists may not agree that an envelope is an artifact that is artificial in itself, but (blah,blah) I could be and probably am, wrong.Please continue, and I apologize for intruding.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Hello John, Please don't apologize, your input is always welcome and typically very stimulating.

 

You're implying all toning is natural, from a living entity it's NT.

 

Allow me to paraphrase your perspective. You're saying anything we humans do is natural, because after all we are creatures of nature, the result of natural evolution, so our manipulation of objects we manufactured is also natural. Thus NT.

 

But don't stop there. Toning is also completely natural from other angles. For example, it occurs only due to the molecules involved behaving according to the natural laws of chemistry and physics. NT again.

 

Have I gotten your position correct?

 

A slight and meaningless observation, that I am compelled to state because of my non-artificial nature.I am having a problem with the foundation that supports the logic of the statement made, to wit: "......be anything but artificial when someone performs the very artificial action of inserting a coin in an envelope...". This is an intended action by a living entity. It seems to me the statement is a Posit Flaw, unless the person had a Prosthetic arm/hand, and was brain dead and had a computer for a brain (I watched Star Trek and The Matrix you know, so don't try to pull any fast ones on me). Please consider correcting the foundation of the position offered, for clarity, and to add some color to the discussion, please. I would also comment, though certainly not my Field of expertise, that a few archeologists may not agree that an envelope is an artifact that is artificial in itself, but (blah,blah) I could be and probably am, wrong.Please continue, and I apologize for intruding.

 

Thank you for your very nice response.

No, that is not quite an accurate paraphrase.

 

The action of placing a coin in an envelope is genuine and not artificial.

The result of the action may cause an artificial change to the coin after the action.

 

The quandary between us is descibing the motion as a very artificial action.

 

It is a deliberate genuine action, and may, or may not, have been done to accomplish a certain result, however, that is an argument of intent, not artificial action.

 

A small point, really, and again of no consequence, I am sure.

 

With Respect,

Anal John

[Kurtdog]

How could the outcome, whatever it is, be anything but artificial when someone performs the very artificial action of inserting a coin inside an envelope, both the envelope and the coin already artifacts themselves?

Market grading is in and of itself an artifice, as it's beholding to marketing, i.e., market manipulation.

[CyberspaceVoid]

I too must be "anal" about toning ....

 

The problem here is intent ... if one places a coin in an envelope, a cigar box, an old "clam shell" box, a paper napkin or whatever with the INTENT to produce toning then it is indeed AT in my eyes and especially so if one insures that the coin is heated to speed the reaction. While the resultant chemical reaction can perhaps be justified as "natural" by some the circumatances in which they were produced is anything but "natural". This artificial manipulation (and I am sure it happens quite often) is why I look at these wildly toned coins, especially modern issues, as ATed. On the other hand I feel that albumn toning can be correctly be labeled as NT as the INTENT was to preserve and protect the coin.

 

I will pass on the bizzaro toners or Easter Eggs that have literally exploded in their populations and stick with higher quailty, "honest" coins that become rarer and rarer each day.

[MarkFeld]

I too must be "anal" about toning ....

 

The problem here is intent ... if one places a coin in an envelope, a cigar box, an old "clam shell" box, a paper napkin or whatever with the INTENT to produce toning then it is indeed AT in my eyes and especially so if one insures that the coin is heated to speed the reaction. While the resultant chemical reaction can perhaps be justified as "natural" by some the circumatances in which they were produced is anything but "natural". This artificial manipulation (and I am sure it happens quite often) is why I look at these wildly toned coins, especially modern issues, as ATed. On the other hand I feel that albumn toning can be correctly be labeled as NT as the INTENT was to preserve and protect the coin.

 

I will pass on the bizzaro toners or Easter Eggs that have literally exploded in their populations and stick with higher quailty, "honest" coins that become rarer and rarer each day.

 

If collector #1 places a coin in an album, with the INTENT to preserve and protect it, you deem the resulting toning NT. But if collector #2 places a coin in the same type of album, with the INTENT to tone it, you deem the resulting toning AT.

 

That doesn't make sense to me. Intent, alone, should not be the determining factor.

[lehigh96]

I too must be "anal" about toning ....

 

The problem here is intent ... if one places a coin in an envelope, a cigar box, an old "clam shell" box, a paper napkin or whatever with the INTENT to produce toning then it is indeed AT in my eyes and especially so if one insures that the coin is heated to speed the reaction. While the resultant chemical reaction can perhaps be justified as "natural" by some the circumatances in which they were produced is anything but "natural". This artificial manipulation (and I am sure it happens quite often) is why I look at these wildly toned coins, especially modern issues, as ATed. On the other hand I feel that albumn toning can be correctly be labeled as NT as the INTENT was to preserve and protect the coin.

 

I will pass on the bizzaro toners or Easter Eggs that have literally exploded in their populations and stick with higher quailty, "honest" coins that become rarer and rarer each day.

 

If collector #1 places a coin in an album, with the INTENT to preserve and protect it, you deem the resulting toning NT. But if collector #2 places a coin in the same type of album, with the INTENT to tone it, you deem the resulting toning AT.

 

That doesn't make sense to me. Intent, alone, should not be the determining factor.

 

Furthermore, professional graders have absolutely no information about the intent of the previous owners of the coin. All they have is the coin itself to judge and knowledge of historical patterns and color schemes found on that series of coin. So not only should intent not be the determining factor, I submit that it should not be a factor at all.

[newprepper]

Intent is the deciding factor from manslaughter to murder. I think that knowing the results has everything to do with AT/NT. Years ago, (I'm assuming) we did not know the consequences of storing coins in different environments, now we do, or you wouldn't have people talking about Taco Bell napkins, Beauty shops, water heaters, cedar drawers, etc. IMHO, which isn't worth much, this makes the action today AT. What is the difference between putting a coin in an album you know will cause toning, or using heat, electricity, magnetic field, etc to cause toning? The results are the same. If somebody likes it, fine, live and let live, if you don't, thats fine also. Really then, the only natural toning should be the dark yellows to browns to black, and the colors should be considered artificial, since I don't see anybody saying the single colors are AT. The only time the question arises is when it's rainbow or monster. FWIW, I love the wild colors, I can't afford them, but I sure do like them. I wouldn't buy the ones that are the rage on Ebay, since they are moderns and either stated as AT or obviously AT, but I wouldn't mind having a few muted rainbow toners for my lincolns or silver. Just my 1 cent worth, I don't know enough about coins yet to have 2 cents worth.

[CyberspaceVoid]

If there were actions taken by someone whose intent was to tone a coin, how can one ignore that fact and call it NT? And if you do, why stop there ... why don't we use the term when direct heat or chemical fumes are induced to tone a coin ... after all, these too are just extreme environments just less so than other methodologies. There is no right or wrong answer here, just personal beliefs, but I still feel intent and time are important factors

 

[MarkFeld]

Intent is the deciding factor from manslaughter to murder. I think that knowing the results has everything to do with AT/NT. Years ago, (I'm assuming) we did not know the consequences of storing coins in different environments, now we do, or you wouldn't have people talking about Taco Bell napkins, Beauty shops, water heaters, cedar drawers, etc. IMHO, which isn't worth much, this makes the action today AT. What is the difference between putting a coin in an album you know will cause toning, or using heat, electricity, magnetic field, etc to cause toning? The results are the same. If somebody likes it, fine, live and let live, if you don't, thats fine also. Really then, the only natural toning should be the dark yellows to browns to black, and the colors should be considered artificial, since I don't see anybody saying the single colors are AT. The only time the question arises is when it's rainbow or monster. FWIW, I love the wild colors, I can't afford them, but I sure do like them. I wouldn't buy the ones that are the rage on Ebay, since they are moderns and either stated as AT or obviously AT, but I wouldn't mind having a few muted rainbow toners for my lincolns or silver. Just my 1 cent worth, I don't know enough about coins yet to have 2 cents worth.

 

 

People have known for decades, the foreseeable consequences of numerous types of coin storage environments.

 

To many of us, the difference between placing a coin in an album, vs. exposing it to heat, etc. is that albums were/are made fro purposes of coin storage.

 

Individual colors can be and are often noted as AT - it is not only about rainbow or monster color.

[MarkFeld]

If there were actions taken by someone whose intent was to tone a coin, how can one ignore that fact and call it NT? And if you do, why stop there ... why don't we use the term when direct heat or chemical fumes are induced to tone a coin ... after all, these too are just extreme environments just less so than other methodologies. There is no right or wrong answer here, just personal beliefs, but I still feel intent and time are important factors

 

You seem to be equating or confusing "intentional" with "artificial". I don't think they are the same. Coins were meant to be stored in albums, envelopes, etc. They were not meant to be treated with heat, etc.

 

Also, some coins tone naturally and unintentionally, very quickly, while others taker much longer. I don't see why the length of time should be relevant.

[CyberspaceVoid]

 

You seem to be equating or confusing "intentional" with "artificial". I don't think they are the same. Coins were meant to be stored in albums, envelopes, etc. They were not meant to be treated with heat, etc.

 

 

I don't think I am (no offence intended)

 

Definition of ARTIFICIAL (from Meriam-Webster online, emphasis mine)

 

1: humanly contrived often on a natural model : man-made

where contrived is defined as: to bring about or effect by a plan, scheme, or the like

 

2a: having existence in legal, economic, or political theory

b: caused or produced by a human and especially social or political agency

 

3: obsolete: artful, cunning

 

4a: lacking in natural or spontaneous quality ]

where spontaneous is defined as: coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned

b: imitation, sham

 

5: based on differential morphological characters not necessarily indicative of natural relationships

[newprepper]

Intent is the deciding factor from manslaughter to murder. I think that knowing the results has everything to do with AT/NT. Years ago, (I'm assuming) we did not know the consequences of storing coins in different environments, now we do, or you wouldn't have people talking about Taco Bell napkins, Beauty shops, water heaters, cedar drawers, etc. IMHO, which isn't worth much, this makes the action today AT. What is the difference between putting a coin in an album you know will cause toning, or using heat, electricity, magnetic field, etc to cause toning? The results are the same. If somebody likes it, fine, live and let live, if you don't, thats fine also. Really then, the only natural toning should be the dark yellows to browns to black, and the colors should be considered artificial, since I don't see anybody saying the single colors are AT. The only time the question arises is when it's rainbow or monster. FWIW, I love the wild colors, I can't afford them, but I sure do like them. I wouldn't buy the ones that are the rage on Ebay, since they are moderns and either stated as AT or obviously AT, but I wouldn't mind having a few muted rainbow toners for my lincolns or silver. Just my 1 cent worth, I don't know enough about coins yet to have 2 cents worth.

 

 

People have known for decades, the foreseeable consequences of numerous types of coin storage environments.

 

To many of us, the difference between placing a coin in an album, vs. exposing it to heat, etc. is that albums were/are made fro purposes of coin storage.

 

Individual colors can be and are often noted as AT - it is not only about rainbow or monster color.

 

Thanks for your explanation of your beliefs, and helping to educate me, I still have a lot to learn. I don't believe this one will ever be solved. a million collectors and a million opinions.

[MarkFeld]

 

You seem to be equating or confusing "intentional" with "artificial". I don't think they are the same. Coins were meant to be stored in albums, envelopes, etc. They were not meant to be treated with heat, etc.

 

 

I don't think I am (no offence intended)

 

Definition of ARTIFICIAL (from Meriam-Webster online, emphasis mine)

 

1: humanly contrived often on a natural model : man-made

where contrived is defined as: to bring about or effect by a plan, scheme, or the like

 

2a: having existence in legal, economic, or political theory

b: caused or produced by a human and especially social or political agency

 

3: obsolete: artful, cunning

 

4a: lacking in natural or spontaneous quality ]

where spontaneous is defined as: coming or resulting from a natural impulse or tendency; without effort or premeditation; natural and unconstrained; unplanned

b: imitation, sham

 

5: based on differential morphological characters not necessarily indicative of natural relationships

 

Your reasoning still leads to the following glaring inconsistency:

 

A coin which is placed in an album, without regard to whether or how it tones, is NT. Meanwhile, another coin, placed in the identical album, under identical storage conditions, with the intent that it tone, and it later tones, is AT.

[e1cnr]

Many people have more of a definition than intent, and it includes time involved.

 

Putting UNC coins in a Dansco, or Wayte Raymond album and in 40 years having some awesome toned coins

 

is MUCH different than

 

putting coins in a gas chamber with different paper/cloth/moisture/pressure/chemicals/heat

and having awesome toned coins in 2 days

 

 

 

you can argue as much as you want, but if you get a new coin from the mint, unless you air seal it in an inert substance.. the metals are going to react with surroundings, causing differences in appearence over years

[$ilverHawk]

I beg to differ. Strictly speaking any human action is by primary definition artificial. Check any dictionary. The placing of a coin in an envelope is an artificial action. The placing of a coin in a slab is an artificial action.

 

So the question becomes can an artificial action give rise to a natural consequence. The answer IMO is no. But I am left with a conundrum. It is my experience that human behavior is part of natural behavior. Ergo, I refute the primary definition. Now we enter the nebulous area of intent. True intent may be inferred but never defined. Albums known for inducing toning, Taco Bell Napkins etal.

 

That my friends is why we have entered into the area of Market Acceptable. MA is a fuzzy definition of what TPG s and collectors think will sell on the open market. MA is not a decision regarding the processes that gave rise to the toning on a coin. Rather it is an affirmation that the TPG s and collectors believe that the toning on a coin will be marketable.

 

 

Carl

[e1cnr]

well I guess coins are artificial

 

 

so anything related to them must be artificial as well

[$ilverHawk]

well I guess coins are artificial

 

 

so anything related to them must be artificial as well

 

So sorry you didn't read past the first sentences."It is my experience that human behavior is part of natural behavior. Ergo, I refute the primary definition."

 

Carl