Doctoring?

[James_OldeTowne]

Just because the TPGs have conditioned everyone to adapt to their standards doesn't mean they are right, that is just where the money is.

Persuade you through their experts to swallow their bull then just keep feeding you a steady diet of it. That's how it's done. I think if I hear one more expert opine on how you tell the difference between "natural" and "artificial" toning I'm going to croak.

Yep. There is NO difference between so-called "natural" and so-called "artificial" toning. They are both an unnatural alteration of the physical and/or chemical composition of a coin's surface.

[MarkFeld]

Just because the TPGs have conditioned everyone to adapt to their standards doesn't mean they are right, that is just where the money is.

Persuade you through their experts to swallow their bull then just keep feeding you a steady diet of it. That's how it's done. I think if I hear one more expert opine on how you tell the difference between "natural" and "artificial" toning I'm going to croak.

Yep. There is NO difference between so-called "natural" and so-called "artificial" toning. They are both an unnatural alteration of the physical and/or chemical composition of a coin's surface.

 

Yet, and understandably, to some of us, at least, it is easy to understand why some prefer one type over the other.

[coinman_23885]

Just because the TPGs have conditioned everyone to adapt to their standards doesn't mean they are right, that is just where the money is.

Persuade you through their experts to swallow their bull then just keep feeding you a steady diet of it. That's how it's done. I think if I hear one more expert opine on how you tell the difference between "natural" and "artificial" toning I'm going to croak.

Yep. There is NO difference between so-called "natural" and so-called "artificial" toning. They are both an unnatural alteration of the physical and/or chemical composition of a coin's surface.

 

I disagree. Many artificially toned coins involve techniques that make the coin unstable and may damage the underlying surfaces (even more so that normal thick toning). While not all AT coins involve these damaging processes, a good number of them do; thus, I cannot agree with your assertion that there is "NO difference" between AT and NT coins. Admittedly there are some grey areas, however, your approach is categorical.

[coinman_23885]

I'm always thankful when I hear collectors say they won't pay a premium for toned coins. Lord knows that we don't need more competition. MJ

 

+1

[TonerGuy]

However, I would like to see NGC and PCGS start to reject dipped coins just as they reject questionable toning... perhaps a new standard should be adopted where "questionable surfaces" should be used whether its an artificially toned coin or a dipped blast white coin.

 

Since a great many coins have been dipped at one time or another what you advocate would seriously impair the value of a great many coins for no good reason. Do we really need another black eye for numismatics by saying that some coins that have been acceptable collectors' items for years are now "damaged" and must go into "genuine" holders?

 

What about the pieces that have been dipped but have since re-toned? Are we going to get into the business of speculating as to whether or not the toning is "original?" Experts can differ over that issue. If a coin is stable has a acceptable appearance, I don't know what the problem is.

 

As for marketability, here is an example of where dipping is necessary to get a decent price for coin. Many silver Proof coins from the 1936 to 1942 era acquire a dull haze that significantly impairs their eye appeal one's ability to sell them at the current market prices. This type of unattractive toning is easily removed, and coin pretty much looks like it did when it was struck. When I was dealer I bought some slabbed Proof coins that had the haze because they had never been dipped. I soon discovered that there was no way to get a fair price for them. I took my lumps and blew them off to dealer who probably cracked them out and dipped them.

 

Once it was proper to clean coins with a fine camel hairbrush as they lay in a coin cabinet... Those early coins still have hairlines and still have value and numerous people still collect them. But the practice of using a brush has fallen out of favor... so should dipping.

 

You cannot change the past or its practices only the future.

[James_OldeTowne]

Just because the TPGs have conditioned everyone to adapt to their standards doesn't mean they are right, that is just where the money is.

Persuade you through their experts to swallow their bull then just keep feeding you a steady diet of it. That's how it's done. I think if I hear one more expert opine on how you tell the difference between "natural" and "artificial" toning I'm going to croak.

Yep. There is NO difference between so-called "natural" and so-called "artificial" toning. They are both an unnatural alteration of the physical and/or chemical composition of a coin's surface.

 

I disagree. Many artificially toned coins involve techniques that make the coin unstable and may damage the underlying surfaces (even more so that normal thick toning). While not all AT coins involve these damaging processes, a good number of them do; thus, I cannot agree with your assertion that there is "NO difference" between AT and NT coins. Admittedly there are some grey areas, however, your approach is categorical.

Much natural toning is also unstable and damages a coin's underlying surface. Consider early copper that took on black toning during normal circulation and promptly became corroded. For that matter, any coin that falls on the ground -- a perfectly normal incident -- can easily become terribly damaged from perfectly natural reactions with acidic or alkaline soil. The coin becomes damaged and ruined, yet it is still "naturally" toned (albeit extremely).

 

In other words, as I've read and participated in so many discussions and arguments about what is natural vs. what is artificial, just two things have become clear to me (1) these terms are completely useless and (2) virtually all of the exact same processes that induce proper toning are also used to induce improper toning.

 

I do agree with you that there are additional processes used to improperly tone coins, that do not occur "naturally". One just doesn't very often find coins toning inside of baked potatoes under normal, natural circumstances.

[BillJones]

Much natural toning is also unstable and damages a coin's underlying surface.

 

To a point, but I think that the point is overstated here. Most artificial re-toning methods involve the application of concentrated chemicals that can have unpredictable and sometimes uncontrollable results. A coin doctor is looking to apply his process quickly so that he can sell his product as soon as possible. Conversely natural toning, unless the coin falls into a bad place, is a slow process that can be virtually arrested by proper numismatic storage. I have owned toned coins for over 35 years that have changed since the day I bought them.

 

In a similar vein the natural toning process can be simulated when a collector places a dipped or lightly cleaned coin into an envelope or out in the atmosphere and allows it to tone over a period of years. The purists will complain, but oddly enough many of them will buy coins that have had such treatments thinking that they have an "original" piece.

 

[Kurtdog]

Just because the TPGs have conditioned everyone to adapt to their standards doesn't mean they are right, that is just where the money is.

Persuade you through their experts to swallow their bull then just keep feeding you a steady diet of it. That's how it's done. I think if I hear one more expert opine on how you tell the difference between "natural" and "artificial" toning I'm going to croak.

Yep. There is NO difference between so-called "natural" and so-called "artificial" toning. They are both an unnatural alteration of the physical and/or chemical composition of a coin's surface.

 

I disagree. Many artificially toned coins involve techniques that make the coin unstable and may damage the underlying surfaces (even more so that normal thick toning). While not all AT coins involve these damaging processes, a good number of them do; thus, I cannot agree with your assertion that there is "NO difference" between AT and NT coins. Admittedly there are some grey areas, however, your approach is categorical.

Much natural toning is also unstable and damages a coin's underlying surface. Consider early copper that took on black toning during normal circulation and promptly became corroded. For that matter, any coin that falls on the ground -- a perfectly normal incident -- can easily become terribly damaged from perfectly natural reactions with acidic or alkaline soil. The coin becomes damaged and ruined, yet it is still "naturally" toned (albeit extremely).

 

In other words, as I've read and participated in so many discussions and arguments about what is natural vs. what is artificial, just two things have become clear to me (1) these terms are completely useless and (2) virtually all of the exact same processes that induce proper toning are also used to induce improper toning.

 

I do agree with you that there are additional processes used to improperly tone coins, that do not occur "naturally". One just doesn't very often find coins toning inside of baked potatoes under normal, natural circumstances.

Exactly. I knew there was something I liked about you.

[newprepper]

Just because the TPGs have conditioned everyone to adapt to their standards doesn't mean they are right, that is just where the money is.

Persuade you through their experts to swallow their bull then just keep feeding you a steady diet of it. That's how it's done. I think if I hear one more expert opine on how you tell the difference between "natural" and "artificial" toning I'm going to croak.

Yep. There is NO difference between so-called "natural" and so-called "artificial" toning. They are both an unnatural alteration of the physical and/or chemical composition of a coin's surface.

 

I disagree. Many artificially toned coins involve techniques that make the coin unstable and may damage the underlying surfaces (even more so that normal thick toning). While not all AT coins involve these damaging processes, a good number of them do; thus, I cannot agree with your assertion that there is "NO difference" between AT and NT coins. Admittedly there are some grey areas, however, your approach is categorical.

 

 

Much natural toning is also unstable and damages a coin's underlying surface. Consider early copper that took on black toning during normal circulation and promptly became corroded. For that matter, any coin that falls on the ground -- a perfectly normal incident -- can easily become terribly damaged from perfectly natural reactions with acidic or alkaline soil. The coin becomes damaged and ruined, yet it is still "naturally" toned (albeit extremely).

 

In other words, as I've read and participated in so many discussions and arguments about what is natural vs. what is artificial, just two things have become clear to me (1) these terms are completely useless and (2) virtually all of the exact same processes that induce proper toning are also used to induce improper toning.

 

I do agree with you that there are additional processes used to improperly tone coins, that do not occur "naturally". One just doesn't very often find coins toning inside of baked potatoes under normal, natural circumstances.

Exactly. I knew there was something I liked about you.

 

I found a silver eagle inside a baked potato once. So it might be a natural occurance.......just sayin