AT and QT

[Kurtdog]

OK, I'll call you. You asked two questions. You asked whether I understand that coin grading is subjective and what I think the grade of a coin would be when the professional graders differed on the grade. I understand that coin grading is subjective and I think the grade would be the grade that the professional graders say the coin will trade at in their plastic. After all, that's what plastic grading is.

 

OK, let's see what you got. Define the terms.

[lehigh96]

OK, I'll call you. You asked two questions. You asked whether I understand that coin grading is subjective and what I think the grade of a coin would be when the professional graders differed on the grade. I understand that coin grading is subjective and I think the grade would be the grade that the professional graders say the coin will trade at in their plastic. After all, that's what plastic grading is.

 

OK, let's see what you got. Define the terms.

 

That isn't an answer to my question. Now pay attention Kurtdog. What you just posted is a "DODGE"! It really isn't that hard, is the coin an MS64 or MS65?

 

I will define your terms in the way that the TPG's treat them. But keep in mind, the only 2 that even matter are QT & MA. I have never seen a TPG declare a coin NT.

 

AT: A questionably toned coin that is so questionable that it is safe to publicly declare the toning artificial.

 

QT: A coin whose toning is not consistent with established toning patterns and color schemes and is not considered market acceptable.

 

MA: A coin whose toning is consistent with established toning patterns and color schemes.

 

NT: A coin whose toning pattern and color scheme are so common that it becomes safe to publicly declare the toning natural.

 

I know that you next question is: what are established toning patterns and color schemes? The answer is different for each and every series of coin so I can't answer it for you in this thread. Furthermore, all MA toning should follow some general guidelines. An example of the general guidelines would be that the colors should be in repeating bands of yellow-magenta-cyan. For more information on the subject, please reads Sunnywood's thread from CU.

 

A Color Chart for the Thin Film Color Progression

 

The only way to handle the toning issue when it comes to grading is one coin at a time. There is no way to make blanket hard and fast rules that will cover everything. Just as the other aspects of grading are subjective, so is the evaluation of toning. What one grader/collector might consider QT, another might consider MA. For example, NGC determined that the toning on this Jefferson Nickel is MA.

 

 

What is your opinion? And yes, it matters! When a coin with questionable or even artificial toning ends up in graded TPG plastic, the market will often respond by not offering the same type of price premiums that are typically seen for other dramatically toned coins with market acceptable toning. The reason for that drop in price is because we as collectors reject the coin using our own opinions.

[Afterword]

"AT: A questionably toned coin that is so questionable that it is safe to publicly declare the toning artificial."

 

Are you certain this is the standard NGC uses?

 

If it is questionable, it should not be declared anything but questionable.

 

 

 

[lehigh96]

"AT: A questionably toned coin that is so questionable that it is safe to publicly declare the toning artificial."

 

Are you certain this is the standard NGC uses?

 

If it is questionable, it should not be declared anything but questionable.

 

 

 

They don't publish their standards on the topic, but I have seen both AT & QT on NGC slabs so there must be a distinction between the two. This "define the terms" session is Kurtdog's little circle jerk, it doesn't mean anything. Everybody on this forum with the exception of him understands the TPG handling of toning.

[Afterword]

Perhaps NGC should publish their standards on the topic. I would be interested in knowing what they are and the level of reliability involved when a coin is declared NT, AT or QT - so I can make a more informed decision when these labels are encountered.

[Kurtdog]

OK, I'll call you. You asked two questions. You asked whether I understand that coin grading is subjective and what I think the grade of a coin would be when the professional graders differed on the grade. I understand that coin grading is subjective and I think the grade would be the grade that the professional graders say the coin will trade at in their plastic. After all, that's what plastic grading is.

 

OK, let's see what you got. Define the terms.

That isn't an answer to my question. Now pay attention Kurtdog. What you just posted is a "DODGE"! It really isn't that hard, is the coin an MS64 or MS65?

I did answer it. Your problem is you don't understand plastic grading. This coin is going into their plastic, Lehigh. The grade is the grade they say the coin trades at in that plastic.

 

Now, that understood, if I'm getting a good read at this end of the table, you now want to go popping off on subjectivity, again. OK, let's go there. Do you know what's subjective about your MS64/MS65 coin? It's not the criteria that go into the evaluation of that grade, but how that criteria is weighed. The ANA tells us, contact marks and luster, those are the criteria. The TPGs say their markets like strike, OK, good for their markets. Those all are objective criteria, they're not subjective. Weigh them, that's what the ANA doesn't tell us how to do. That's where the subjectivity in grading comes in, it comes in in the weights, in the subjective significance assigned to those objective criteria. One TPG wants to say that gash on her brow is deep enough and cosmetically distracting enough to keep her out of trading at gem in its market, that's the level of quality that TPG wishes to represent in its plastic, she goes into that plastic at MS64. Are you beginning to get the idea? I hope so.

 

I will define your terms in the way that the TPG's treat them. But keep in mind, the only 2 that even matter are QT & MA. I have never seen a TPG declare a coin NT.

 

AT: A questionably toned coin that is so questionable that it is safe to publicly declare the toning artificial.

 

QT: A coin whose toning is not consistent with established toning patterns and color schemes and is not considered market acceptable.

 

MA: A coin whose toning is consistent with established toning patterns and color schemes.

 

NT: A coin whose toning pattern and color scheme are so common that it becomes safe to publicly declare the toning natural.

 

I know that you next question is: what are established toning patterns and color schemes? The answer is different for each and every series of coin so I can't answer it for you in this thread. Furthermore, all MA toning should follow some general guidelines. An example of the general guidelines would be that the colors should be in repeating bands of yellow-magenta-cyan. For more information on the subject, please reads Sunnywood's thread from CU.

 

A Color Chart for the Thin Film Color Progression

 

The only way to handle the toning issue when it comes to grading is one coin at a time. There is no way to make blanket hard and fast rules that will cover everything. Just as the other aspects of grading are subjective, so is the evaluation of toning. What one grader/collector might consider QT, another might consider MA. For example, NGC determined that the toning on this Jefferson Nickel is MA.

 

 

What is your opinion? And yes, it matters! When a coin with questionable or even artificial toning ends up in graded TPG plastic, the market will often respond by not offering the same type of price premiums that are typically seen for other dramatically toned coins with market acceptable toning. The reason for that drop in price is because we as collectors reject the coin using our own opinions.

You really love those "toning patterns," don't you? You're an expert on those, aren't you? But sometimes you're "wrong," but nobody's perfect. "Gee, I thought it was NT, it had that pattern, but it's really AT!" Yeah, I know how that goes. Let me rephrase it in terms of your useless definitions. "Gee, I thought the toning pattern and color scheme are so common that it becomes safe to publicly declare the toning natural, but now I know it's a questionably toned coin that is so questionable that it is safe to publicly declare the toning artificial!" Some criteria that is. You're still dodging defining what you mean by "natural" and "artificial." You can't use those terms in your definition. Don't you understand that? Define "freedom." "Freedom is when you're free!" OK.

 

I'll ask you, again, define the terms. These are the terms you're using to judge the grade-worthiness of tarnish on. Oh, I'm sorry, you have to play your little game, change that to "toning." But, call it what you will, that's the only way you're going to learn anything, by trying to define that specious criteria you're relying on. In fact, that's why you dodge that. Isn't it?

 

Collect what you want. That stuff is called "tarnish." If you like it, buy it. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Real hard.

 

I have a flight to catch. Wish me a happy landing. Good night.

 

 

[lehigh96]

OK, I'll call you. You asked two questions. You asked whether I understand that coin grading is subjective and what I think the grade of a coin would be when the professional graders differed on the grade. I understand that coin grading is subjective and I think the grade would be the grade that the professional graders say the coin will trade at in their plastic. After all, that's what plastic grading is.

 

OK, let's see what you got. Define the terms.

That isn't an answer to my question. Now pay attention Kurtdog. What you just posted is a "DODGE"! It really isn't that hard, is the coin an MS64 or MS65?

I did answer it. Your problem is you don't understand plastic grading. This coin is going into their plastic, Lehigh. The grade is the grade they say the coin trades at in that plastic.

 

Now, that understood, if I'm getting a good read at this end of the table, you now want to go popping off on subjectivity, again. OK, let's go there. Do you know what's subjective about your MS64/MS65 coin? It's not the criteria that go into the evaluation of that grade, but how that criteria is weighed. The ANA tells us, contact marks and luster, those are the criteria. The TPGs say their markets like strike, OK, good for their markets. Those all are objective criteria, they're not subjective. Weigh them, that's what the ANA doesn't tell us how to do. That's where the subjectivity in grading comes in, it comes in in the weights, in the subjective significance assigned to those objective criteria. One TPG wants to say that gash on her brow is deep enough and cosmetically distracting enough to keep her out of trading at gem in its market, that's the level of quality that TPG wishes to represent in its plastic, she goes into that plastic at MS64. Are you beginning to get the idea? I hope so.

 

I will define your terms in the way that the TPG's treat them. But keep in mind, the only 2 that even matter are QT & MA. I have never seen a TPG declare a coin NT.

 

AT: A questionably toned coin that is so questionable that it is safe to publicly declare the toning artificial.

 

QT: A coin whose toning is not consistent with established toning patterns and color schemes and is not considered market acceptable.

 

MA: A coin whose toning is consistent with established toning patterns and color schemes.

 

NT: A coin whose toning pattern and color scheme are so common that it becomes safe to publicly declare the toning natural.

 

I know that you next question is: what are established toning patterns and color schemes? The answer is different for each and every series of coin so I can't answer it for you in this thread. Furthermore, all MA toning should follow some general guidelines. An example of the general guidelines would be that the colors should be in repeating bands of yellow-magenta-cyan. For more information on the subject, please reads Sunnywood's thread from CU.

 

A Color Chart for the Thin Film Color Progression

 

The only way to handle the toning issue when it comes to grading is one coin at a time. There is no way to make blanket hard and fast rules that will cover everything. Just as the other aspects of grading are subjective, so is the evaluation of toning. What one grader/collector might consider QT, another might consider MA. For example, NGC determined that the toning on this Jefferson Nickel is MA.

 

 

What is your opinion? And yes, it matters! When a coin with questionable or even artificial toning ends up in graded TPG plastic, the market will often respond by not offering the same type of price premiums that are typically seen for other dramatically toned coins with market acceptable toning. The reason for that drop in price is because we as collectors reject the coin using our own opinions.

You really love those "toning patterns," don't you? You're an expert on those, aren't you? But sometimes you're "wrong," but nobody's perfect. "Gee, I thought it was NT, it had that pattern, but it's really AT!" Yeah, I know how that goes. Let me rephrase it in terms of your useless definitions. "Gee, I thought the toning pattern and color scheme are so common that it becomes safe to publicly declare the toning natural, but now I know it's a questionably toned coin that is so questionable that it is safe to publicly declare the toning artificial!" Some criteria that is. You're still dodging defining what you mean by "natural" and "artificial." You can't use those terms in your definition. Don't you understand that? Define "freedom." "Freedom is when you're free!" OK.

 

I'll ask you, again, define the terms. These are the terms you're using to judge the grade-worthiness of tarnish on. Oh, I'm sorry, you have to play your little game, change that to "toning." But, call it what you will, that's the only way you're going to learn anything, by trying to define that specious criteria you're relying on. In fact, that's why you dodge that. Isn't it?

 

Collect what you want. That stuff is called "tarnish." If you like it, buy it. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Real hard.

 

I have a flight to catch. Wish me a happy landing. Good night.

 

 

You are nothing more than a common troll. You can't even answer a simple question. I asked if the coin is an MS64 or MS65. The correct answer is both. Because sometimes that coin will come back in an MS64 holder and other times it will come back in an MS65 holder. And are you ready for this, both grades are correct. And you are going to lecture me about understanding? What a joke. Your numismatic knowledge is non existent. In fact, in all the time you have been on this forum, I don't think I have ever seen you even post a coin. If you have some area of expertise, by all means, please educate us with your knowledge. At least it will temporarily divert your attention away from subjects that you don't understand at all, like toning. But you won't do that, because you can't, you don't have the skills.

 

Nice little hypothetical rant you just had. Proves my point that there will always be exceptions to every rule. It doesn't matter if a coin we think is NT is actually AT, doesn't matter a bit. And I can define the terms anyway I want buddy. What are you, the definition police? Oh wait, thats right, you want me to use your definitions. And let me guess, in your definitions INTENT is included, isn't it? How many times do I need to tell you that INTENT has nothing to with the TPG's evaluations of toning, no matter how much your little heart wants it to be true. But based on your attitude in this thread, you believe that you are the expert on this subject. Go ahead! Teach us! Tell us what your definitions are and why me and the entire numismatic community are wrong, but you, Ricko, and Weimar White are right. Go ahead, astonish us!

 

BTW, I asked for your opinion about the toning on that Jefferson nickel. Are you too afraid to answer or don't you have the requisite knowledge on the subject matter in order to offer a logical opinion?

[lehigh96]

Perhaps NGC should publish their standards on the topic. I would be interested in knowing what they are and the level of reliability involved when a coin is declared NT, AT or QT - so I can make a more informed decision when these labels are encountered.

 

There is an "ASK NGC" section of the forum, perhaps you should ask what their standards are in that section. Maybe they will give you an answer.

[Kurtdog]

OK, I'll call you. You asked two questions. You asked whether I understand that coin grading is subjective and what I think the grade of a coin would be when the professional graders differed on the grade. I understand that coin grading is subjective and I think the grade would be the grade that the professional graders say the coin will trade at in their plastic. After all, that's what plastic grading is.

 

OK, let's see what you got. Define the terms.

That isn't an answer to my question. Now pay attention Kurtdog. What you just posted is a "DODGE"! It really isn't that hard, is the coin an MS64 or MS65?

I did answer it. Your problem is you don't understand plastic grading. This coin is going into their plastic, Lehigh. The grade is the grade they say the coin trades at in that plastic.

 

Now, that understood, if I'm getting a good read at this end of the table, you now want to go popping off on subjectivity, again. OK, let's go there. Do you know what's subjective about your MS64/MS65 coin? It's not the criteria that go into the evaluation of that grade, but how that criteria is weighed. The ANA tells us, contact marks and luster, those are the criteria. The TPGs say their markets like strike, OK, good for their markets. Those all are objective criteria, they're not subjective. Weigh them, that's what the ANA doesn't tell us how to do. That's where the subjectivity in grading comes in, it comes in in the weights, in the subjective significance assigned to those objective criteria. One TPG wants to say that gash on her brow is deep enough and cosmetically distracting enough to keep her out of trading at gem in its market, that's the level of quality that TPG wishes to represent in its plastic, she goes into that plastic at MS64. Are you beginning to get the idea? I hope so.

 

I will define your terms in the way that the TPG's treat them. But keep in mind, the only 2 that even matter are QT & MA. I have never seen a TPG declare a coin NT.

 

AT: A questionably toned coin that is so questionable that it is safe to publicly declare the toning artificial.

 

QT: A coin whose toning is not consistent with established toning patterns and color schemes and is not considered market acceptable.

 

MA: A coin whose toning is consistent with established toning patterns and color schemes.

 

NT: A coin whose toning pattern and color scheme are so common that it becomes safe to publicly declare the toning natural.

 

I know that you next question is: what are established toning patterns and color schemes? The answer is different for each and every series of coin so I can't answer it for you in this thread. Furthermore, all MA toning should follow some general guidelines. An example of the general guidelines would be that the colors should be in repeating bands of yellow-magenta-cyan. For more information on the subject, please reads Sunnywood's thread from CU.

 

A Color Chart for the Thin Film Color Progression

 

The only way to handle the toning issue when it comes to grading is one coin at a time. There is no way to make blanket hard and fast rules that will cover everything. Just as the other aspects of grading are subjective, so is the evaluation of toning. What one grader/collector might consider QT, another might consider MA. For example, NGC determined that the toning on this Jefferson Nickel is MA.

 

 

What is your opinion? And yes, it matters! When a coin with questionable or even artificial toning ends up in graded TPG plastic, the market will often respond by not offering the same type of price premiums that are typically seen for other dramatically toned coins with market acceptable toning. The reason for that drop in price is because we as collectors reject the coin using our own opinions.

You really love those "toning patterns," don't you? You're an expert on those, aren't you? But sometimes you're "wrong," but nobody's perfect. "Gee, I thought it was NT, it had that pattern, but it's really AT!" Yeah, I know how that goes. Let me rephrase it in terms of your useless definitions. "Gee, I thought the toning pattern and color scheme are so common that it becomes safe to publicly declare the toning natural, but now I know it's a questionably toned coin that is so questionable that it is safe to publicly declare the toning artificial!" Some criteria that is. You're still dodging defining what you mean by "natural" and "artificial." You can't use those terms in your definition. Don't you understand that? Define "freedom." "Freedom is when you're free!" OK.

 

I'll ask you, again, define the terms. These are the terms you're using to judge the grade-worthiness of tarnish on. Oh, I'm sorry, you have to play your little game, change that to "toning." But, call it what you will, that's the only way you're going to learn anything, by trying to define that specious criteria you're relying on. In fact, that's why you dodge that. Isn't it?

 

Collect what you want. That stuff is called "tarnish." If you like it, buy it. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Real hard.

 

I have a flight to catch. Wish me a happy landing. Good night.

You are nothing more than a common troll. You can't even answer a simple question. I asked if the coin is an MS64 or MS65. The correct answer is both. Because sometimes that coin will come back in an MS64 holder and other times it will come back in an MS65 holder. And are you ready for this, both grades are correct. And you are going to lecture me about understanding? What a joke. Your numismatic knowledge is non existent. In fact, in all the time you have been on this forum, I don't think I have ever seen you even post a coin. If you have some area of expertise, by all means, please educate us with your knowledge. At least it will temporarily divert your attention away from subjects that you don't understand at all, like toning. But you won't do that, because you can't, you don't have the skills.

 

Nice little hypothetical rant you just had. Proves my point that there will always be exceptions to every rule. It doesn't matter if a coin we think is NT is actually AT, doesn't matter a bit. And I can define the terms anyway I want buddy. What are you, the definition police? Oh wait, thats right, you want me to use your definitions. And let me guess, in your definitions INTENT is included, isn't it? How many times do I need to tell you that INTENT has nothing to with the TPG's evaluations of toning, no matter how much your little heart wants it to be true. But based on your attitude in this thread, you believe that you are the expert on this subject. Go ahead! Teach us! Tell us what your definitions are and why me and the entire numismatic community are wrong, but you, Ricko, and Weimar White are right. Go ahead, astonish us!

 

BTW, I asked for your opinion about the toning on that Jefferson nickel. Are you too afraid to answer or don't you have the requisite knowledge on the subject matter in order to offer a logical opinion?

Do you mind if I make an observation, while you, um, catch your breath? You get too riled up when people challenge you, pal, that's your problem. You need to control your temper. Needless to say, this discussion is over.

[lehigh96]

Do you mind if I make an observation, while you, um, catch your breath? You get too riled up when people challenge you, pal, that's your problem. You need to control your temper. Needless to say, this discussion is over.

 

If you were to engage in an honest debate, I wouldn't get riled up. But you start a conversation and then go into troll mode. It is in a word, infuriating.

[Catbert]

If you were to engage in an honest debate, I wouldn't get riled up. But you start a conversation and then go into troll mode. It is in a word, infuriating.

 

Paul - the antidote is the ignore button. It really works!

[jom]

Myself, I liked the debate Leigh and KD had. The only problem is that I don't quite understand the differences in their opinion. Leigh might think there is a difference but then KD will deny that. It's a challenge for me really...

 

I'll just have to go with Greg on this one. I've always kind of felt the debate is useless on what is NT or AT. I think the TPGs now just say they are willing to guarantee "MA" and leave it at that...whether that "MA" was made with intent just doesn't matter.

 

It just comes down to buy what you like and ignore the rest. I know it's hard but it can be done...

 

jom

[Kurtdog]

OK, I started this nonsense, now I think I’ll finish it. This is the last thing I’m going to say on it. If this works for you, fine. If it doesn’t work, don’t come looking for me, I’m done, this isn’t worth the demeaning allegations and personal attacks, I had enough.

 

MA is all they’re doing. You can lose the other terms. More precisely, BA (“Brand Acceptable”). It’s just like when Nike puts its swoosh or Ralph Lauren puts its little polo guy on a shirt. It’s BA to them. It rates with their quality standards. That doesn’t mean the other shirts that don’t so rate are artificial. Really, there’s no such thing as that, artificial shirts. If you like the shirts that don’t so rate the swoosh or the little polo guy, buy them. They’re just shirts. And tarnish, get this, is just tarnish.

 

Thank you, all, for your participation.