AT and QT

[Kurtdog]

Does AT mean you're sure and QT mean you're not sure? This can get confusing.

[wdrob]

 

Sounds like it to me.

 

It would seem as though they should do away with QT and give the coin the benefit of the doubt, then let the market decide.

 

Innocent until proven guilty type of thinking. Instead I beleive they take the guilty until proven innocent approach by using QT.

 

 

 

 

[MarkFeld]

Sounds like it to me.

 

It would seem as though they should do away with QT and give the coin the benefit of the doubt, then let the market decide.

 

Innocent until proven guilty type of thinking. Instead I beleive they take the guilty until proven innocent approach by using QT.

 

 

 

 

Calling a coin QT is giving more of the benefit of the doubt than calling it AT.

[wdrob]

 

Calling a coin QT is giving more of the benefit of the doubt than calling it AT.

 

So if someone asked me about Mark Feld's character and I stated "he is a man of questionable character" as opposed to "he is a man of bad character" you would consider this as me giving you the benefit of the doubt?

 

And before anyone jumps on me about Mark's character, reputation, and integrity, this was just a example that might hit home with more impact. Mark Feld, in my opinion, has impeccable character.

 

 

 

 

[MarkFeld]

Calling a coin QT is giving more of the benefit of the doubt than calling it AT.

 

So if someone asked me about Mark Feld's character and I stated "he is a man of questionable character" as opposed to "he is a man of bad character" you would consider this as me giving you the benefit of the doubt?

 

And before anyone jumps on me about Mark's character, reputation, and integrity, this was just a example that might hit home with more impact. Mark Feld, in my opinion, has impeccable character.

 

 

 

 

"Questionable character" is giving more benefit of the doubt than "bad character" is, just as "questionable toning" is giving more benefit of the doubt than "artificial toning" is.

 

In each case, the former term leaves the question up for debate, while the latter has already determined the answer. So on a relative basis, the former is giving more benefit of the doubt than the latter.

 

Thank you for your very kind comment.

[wdrob]

 

I understand what you are saying, and technically it is accurate, but calling someones character questionable is an insult in my opinion, regardless of what other possibilities are available.

 

And you are very welcome.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

I understand what you are saying, and technically it is accurate, but calling someones character questionable is an insult in my opinion, regardless of what other possibilities are available.

 

And you are very welcome.

 

 

I agree with you that it's an insult. But it's not as insulting as the one other option you provided. And at least it allows some/more of the benefit of the doubt - quite a bit more.

 

I do have a question for you:

 

When a grading company is on the fence about a coin's color, what would you prefer that they label; it?

 

Unfortunately, I don't think there's an option that let's people know the grading company is uncertain, that doesn't also "insult" the coin.

 

[bsshog40]

Whether it shows AT or QT, to me, the coin is basically bodybagged. So regardless of which one is used, the coin is treated as AT, Right?

[MarkFeld]

Whether it shows AT or QT, to me, the coin is basically bodybagged. So regardless of which one is used, the coin is treated as AT, Right?

 

Among other things, that depends on who's looking at the coin, what they think of it, how highly they value the opinion of the grading company, how highly they value their own opinion and whether they distinguish "AT" from "QT".

[cpm9ball]

If you are old enough to remember the phrase, "On the QT." it was a shortened form of "quiet" and the phrase meant "with stealth" or sneaky.

 

Chris

[wdrob]

I do have a question for you:

 

When a grading company is on the fence about a coin's color, what would you prefer that they label; it?

 

Unfortunately, I don't think there's an option that let's people know the grading company is uncertain, that doesn't also "insult" the coin.

 

Just noticed this part of the post.

 

I feel that if a TPG can not conclusively determine that a coins color has been altered or that a coin has been artificially toned, then they should just grade it on it's wear, strike, eye appeal, luster, etc....

 

One might question this line of thinking but I tend to believe that the marketplace will ultimately decide the coins fate.

 

As Bobby said, AT and QT essentially leave a negative impression no matter what, so why even bother with the QT? If a grader decides it is AT then so be it. Slap the label on it and stick it in a details holder. However, if the graders can not come to a definitive conclusion, then grade it. Even coins that they consider to be QT, as of right now, can still posses a great amount of eye appeal, imo. and the marketplace will either demonstrate that to be true or not.

 

Fact is, they do this now anyway. There are many coins that were initially considered by the graders to be QT, I would think, but they gave the submitter the benefit of the doubt anyway and slabbed them problem free and consider them market acceptable. Problem, of-course, as in all aspects of this TPG process; it is plagued with inconsistency.

 

 

 

 

[RWB]

It would likely help if people wrote out the terms instead of using "AT" or "QT" or "NT."

 

The authentication services use "questionable authenticity" as a legal out for saying the coin is probably false without making an absolute declaration. The same would apply to "questionable toning."

 

For common usage, questionable toning suggests that the colors on the coin are inconsistent with most other naturally toned coins, but that the method of obtainign the toning cannot be determined. "Artificial toning" supposes that a method of obtaining the colors can eb identified: such as "blow torch" or "dip in sulfuric acid" etc.

[bsshog40]

It would likely help if people wrote out the terms instead of using "AT" or "QT" or "NT."

 

The authentication services use "questionable authenticity" as a legal out for saying the coin is probably false without making an absolute declaration. The same would apply to "questionable toning."

 

For common usage, questionable toning suggests that the colors on the coin are inconsistent with most other naturally toned coins, but that the method of obtainign the toning cannot be determined. "Artificial toning" supposes that a method of obtaining the colors can eb identified: such as "blow torch" or "dip in sulfuric acid" etc.

Kind of really still means the same here. Questionable Toning also insinuates that it cannot be determined whether it is Artificially Toned either. I would think that AT would also be QT as how can one be soo certain that it is AT. I've seen some wild looking SAE's that look AT but have been graded. I could see doing away with the term AT altogether and just leaving it as QT.

[MarkFeld]

I do have a question for you:

 

When a grading company is on the fence about a coin's color, what would you prefer that they label; it?

 

Unfortunately, I don't think there's an option that let's people know the grading company is uncertain, that doesn't also "insult" the coin.

 

Just noticed this part of the post.

 

I feel that if a TPG can not conclusively determine that a coins color has been altered or that a coin has been artificially toned, then they should just grade it on it's wear, strike, eye appeal, luster, etc....

 

One might question this line of thinking but I tend to believe that the marketplace will ultimately decide the coins fate.

 

As Bobby said, AT and QT essentially leave a negative impression no matter what, so why even bother with the QT? If a grader decides it is AT then so be it. Slap the label on it and stick it in a details holder. However, if the graders can not come to a definitive conclusion, then grade it. Even coins that they consider to be QT, as of right now, can still posses a great amount of eye appeal, imo. and the marketplace will either demonstrate that to be true or not.

 

Fact is, they do this now anyway. There are many coins that were initially considered by the graders to be QT, I would think, but they gave the submitter the benefit of the doubt anyway and slabbed them problem free and consider them market acceptable. Problem, of-course, as in all aspects of this TPG process; it is plagued with inconsistency.

 

 

 

 

Thanks and while I don't know if I agree with your stance or not, it certainly sounds reasonable.

[Kurtdog]

Sounds like it to me.

 

It would seem as though they should do away with QT and give the coin the benefit of the doubt, then let the market decide.

 

Innocent until proven guilty type of thinking. Instead I beleive they take the guilty until proven innocent approach by using QT.

The trouble is the TPGs and the so-called experts look at it like a "who-dun-it?" As such, they're all over the place. I agree with you, somebody should alert them to a big new word, "presumption." Get that big new word into their vocabulary. Toning should either be presumed natural until proven artificial, or the other way around. Choose one or the other and stick by it. That's what I think. And lose "QT," that's just more vagueness.

[jpcienkus]

I understand what you are saying, and technically it is accurate, but calling someones character questionable is an insult in my opinion, regardless of what other possibilities are available.

 

And you are very welcome.

 

 

I agree with you that it's an insult. But it's not as insulting as the one other option you provided. And at least it allows some/more of the benefit of the doubt - quite a bit more.

 

I do have a question for you:

 

When a grading company is on the fence about a coin's color, what would you prefer that they label; it?

 

Unfortunately, I don't think there's an option that let's people know the grading company is uncertain, that doesn't also "insult" the coin.

 

I like the fact the TPG's are willing to see some "gray" in this area by labeling it QT.

[Kurtdog]

"Gray" in the area, I love it. They can't even define what they mean by AT and NT. That's "gray" enough.

[jpcienkus]

"Gray" in the area, I love it. They can't even define what they mean by AT and NT. That's "gray" enough.

 

That and subjective grading is what makes this hobby interesting. Just think how boring it would be if every coin graded, for example, MS65 could not be debated on it's grade. Looking at the subjective TPG grades then trying to assess their evaluation to determine whether you agree and want to add the coin to your collection is part of the fun.

 

Otherwise it would be a little boring.

[gmarguli]

Does AT mean you're sure and QT mean you're not sure? This can get confusing.

 

AT: This toning is not natural, because I say so.

QT: This toning may not be natural, because I say so.

NT: This toning is natural, because I say so.

 

Now if there were only a definition of 'natural' that we could all accept, we could start to move on from this silly game of AT/QT/NT.

 

I'd write more, but I need to go into my attic and flip over the Morgan dollars I've placed in sulfur soaked burlap bags. They're well on their way to being NT, because I say so.

[EVillageProwler]

I think this thread overlooks a fourth term: MA.

[Coindude]

AT: This toning is not natural, because I say so.

QT: This toning may not be natural, because I say so.

NT: This toning is natural, because I say so.

Greg pretty much summed it up right there.

[Kurtdog]

Does AT mean you're sure and QT mean you're not sure? This can get confusing.

AT: This toning is not natural, because I say so.

QT: This toning may not be natural, because I say so.

NT: This toning is natural, because I say so.

 

Now if there were only a definition of 'natural' that we could all accept, we could start to move on from this silly game of AT/QT/NT.

 

I'd write more, but I need to go into my attic and flip over the Morgan dollars I've placed in sulfur soaked burlap bags. They're well on their way to being NT, because I say so.

That's it in a nut. (thumbs u

[wdrob]

I think this thread overlooks a fourth term: MA.

 

I thought I addressed Market Acceptability about 8 or 9 posts back.

 

Or does MA stand for something else?

 

 

[Conder101]

Just noticed this part of the post.

 

I feel that if a TPG can not conclusively determine that a coins color has been altered or that a coin has been artificially toned, then they should just grade it on it's wear, strike, eye appeal, luster, etc....

Of course most collectors will then assume that since it is in a problem free slab that the toning must be NT. More and more of these QT coins will end up in problem free slabs and eventually any coin with that "look" will be assumed to be NT.

 

And of course then there is the corollary, "We can't be sure this coin isn't altered/counterfeit, so we'll just go ahead and slab it as if we were sure it is real."

 

If they slab a QT coin as problem free and it is later proven/shown that it isn't NT it's the TPG's neck on the line not the submitter. The TPG is going to have to cough up the money to make it right. but you don't want them to protect themselves by not slabbing coins they aren't sure of. OK,then how about this, on a QT coin go ahead and grade it on wear, strike, eye appeal, luster , etc, and include on the label that this coin is not covered by their guarantee. You've got your QT coin in a slab, and the TPG is protected.

[wdrob]

 

OK,then how about this, on a QT coin go ahead and grade it on wear, strike, eye appeal, luster , etc, and include on the label that this coin is not covered by their guarantee. You've got your QT coin in a slab, and the TPG is protected.

 

Sounds reasonable to me.

 

I was not aware that they guaranteed the validity of toning now.

 

 

[Kurtdog]

If they slab a QT coin as problem free and it is later proven/shown that it isn't NT it's the TPG's neck on the line not the submitter. The TPG is going to have to cough up the money to make it right. but you don't want them to protect themselves by not slabbing coins they aren't sure of. OK,then how about this, on a QT coin go ahead and grade it on wear, strike, eye appeal, luster , etc, and include on the label that this coin is not covered by their guarantee. You've got your QT coin in a slab, and the TPG is protected.

Don't you get it yet? They don't know what NT/AT/QT even is. All they know is what's MA to them, and that changes from grader to grader. They know NT/AT/QT only in the abstract.

 

Here, tell me about their guarantee. It's proven through direct testimony that the coin they just graded was in a sulphur-rich envelope for the purpose of toning it, is the toning AT? It's proven through direct testimony that the coin they just graded was in a sulphur-rich envelope for the purpose of storing it without regard to toning to it, is the toning NT? It's proven through direct testimony that the coin they just graded was in a sulphur-rich envelope for the purpose of storing it without regard to toning to it and the owner didn't know it was a sulphur-rich envelope, is the toning QT? The TPGs are going to stand by what? If NT/AT/QT is but what they say it is, there are no standards to stand by.

[lehigh96]

If they slab a QT coin as problem free and it is later proven/shown that it isn't NT it's the TPG's neck on the line not the submitter. The TPG is going to have to cough up the money to make it right. but you don't want them to protect themselves by not slabbing coins they aren't sure of. OK,then how about this, on a QT coin go ahead and grade it on wear, strike, eye appeal, luster , etc, and include on the label that this coin is not covered by their guarantee. You've got your QT coin in a slab, and the TPG is protected.

Don't you get it yet? They don't know what NT/AT/QT even is. All they know is what's MA to them, and that changes from grader to grader. They know NT/AT/QT only in the abstract.

 

Here, tell me about their guarantee. It's proven through direct testimony that the coin they just graded was in a sulphur-rich envelope for the purpose of toning it, is the toning AT? It's proven through direct testimony that the coin they just graded was in a sulphur-rich envelope for the purpose of storing it without regard to toning to it, is the toning NT? It's proven through direct testimony that the coin they just graded was in a sulphur-rich envelope for the purpose of storing it without regard to toning to it and the owner didn't know it was a sulphur-rich envelope, is the toning QT? The TPGs are going to stand by what? If NT/AT/QT is but what they say it is, there are no standards to stand by.

 

They have standards. I have explained them to you about a thousand times. I have told you repeatedly that INTENT has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with AT/NT/QT/MA determinations. The graders look at the coin and judge the toning they see versus color schemes & toning patterns that are common for the type of coin they are evaluating. If they think the toning is market acceptable, the coin gets graded.

 

This process successfully rejects a large majority of the artificially toned coins from getting graded. There are a small number of coins that appear MA that are actually AT based on INTENT that get graded. It is unfortunate, but that is the result of the subjective nature of coin grading. Likewise, there are people who had no intent to artificially tone their coins but they stored them improperly and their coins are deemed either QT or AT. While this may not seem fair to you, if the coin shows questionable toning it deserves to reside in a problem holder. The QT was not the result of malicious intent, rather it resulted from improper storage. Either way, it deserves to reside in a details/genuine holder.

 

I really don't understand your obsession with the topic of toning. Do you understand that coin grading is subjective? The numerical grade is just as subjective as the nature of the toning. Just as a coin can be deemed QT in one submission and deemed MA the next, so a coin can be graded MS64 upon first submission and MS65 the next. There are areas of grading that will result in differences of opinion between graders. There is no way to avoid it, you just have to deal with it. For example, if you showed a Morgan Dollar to 10 professional graders and 6 graded the coin MS64 and 4 graded it MS65, what should the grade of the coin be?

[Kurtdog]

Your "explanations?" You had to reach for that one, didn't you? The fact is, your "explanations" are a dodge. Do you want me to prove it to you? Define the terms.

[lehigh96]

Your "explanations?" You had to reach for that one, didn't you? The fact is, your "explanations" are a dodge. Do you want me to prove it to you? Define the terms.

 

The reason you call my explanations "a dodge" is because you don't have an answer for them. If you want me to answer your questions, then answer mine first.

 

 

[MJ]

Calling a coin QT is giving more of the benefit of the doubt than calling it AT.

 

So if someone asked me about Mark Feld's character and I stated "he is a man of questionable character" as opposed to "he is a man of bad character" you would consider this as me giving you the benefit of the doubt?

 

And before anyone jumps on me about Mark's character, reputation, and integrity, this was just a example that might hit home with more impact. Mark Feld, in my opinion, has impeccable character.

 

 

 

 

"Questionable character" is giving more benefit of the doubt than "bad character" is, just as "questionable toning" is giving more benefit of the doubt than "artificial toning" is.

 

In each case, the former term leaves the question up for debate, while the latter has already determined the answer. So on a relative basis, the former is giving more benefit of the doubt than the latter.

 

Thank you for your very kind comment.

 

Mark is a character. End of story.

 

MJ