AT or NT....What's your call

[KMAG100]

 

 

[bsshog40]

It looks AT to me, BUT, these eagles tone so differently that my guess is just a guess.

[Lablover]

Looks like it was once housed in a PCI Holder. Has the same toning...some grade, some don't.

[AHFreak]

My first thought was that it acquired that toning in a PCI holder as well. As far as AT or NT, well...... that's a whole other story. One that I couldn't even begin to understand...

 

[KMAG100]

yes it is in a PCI holder

[michael]

for me it is not NT

 

it is a fine line between MA and AT

 

so you send it into the pricing services pcgs/ngc and see what they do

 

my price is 21 dollars as of today

 

but in a priced holder with a straight grade someone

most likely?

will pay more

 

good luck

[KMAG100]

for me it is not NT

 

it is a fine line between MA and AT

 

so you send it into the pricing services pcgs/ngc and see what they do

 

my price is 21 dollars as of today

 

but in a priced holder with a straight grade someone

most likely?

will pay more

 

good luck

 

I think I feel the same way about it as you do Michael.

 

If AT versus NT is based on intent, then how can any coin placed in a PCI holder ever be considered NT? Or rather, is AT vs NT based on intent and process? Such as intent coupled with smoke is AT, intent coupled with heat is AT etc....., but intent coupled with sulfur enriched material such as, envelopes, PCI holders, albums..... is NT......Disappointingly, it appears intent is irrelevant, the power all lies with the "pricing services" of the industry.

 

 

What I struggle with :

 

If PCI knows their slabs cause toning and they continue to use the same material in the slab, then one has to believe they are doing it on purpose to gain sales. Thus, one can conclude that they purposely developed their slabs to do this as their business plan/model. Secondly, if people know PCI slabs cause toning and continue to send their coins in to be slabbed by them, then one can conclude the intent is to develop toning on their coins. Further, If a pricing service, as Michael put it, knows of this and continues to slab these coins, thus allowing the owners of these coins to garner massive premium on the coins. Creating a strong desire for the industry participants to repeat the process driven by the desire of larger profits. Wow everybody wins.....PCI repeat business, pricing service more coins to grade....owners huge premium...Capitalism at its finest. I guess the consumer gets slaughter, but what they don't know will not hurt them. I would argue that it could be construed as a fraudulent behavior by the industry elite depending on how you defined NT vs AT.

 

It is kind of funny, the more and more I learn about this industry, the more and more it looks and smells like wall street. All the power of the market is in the hands of a few select elite. The rest are herded up like cows to slaughter. Like wall street the marketing is so skillful and the cows gladly rush to the slaughter house with notions of finding the next best of class coin or investment gain, all the while being eviscerated by the industry elite carving out massive profits. Got to love capitalism.... I guess at the end of the day, like wall street, you decide to join in or you choose not to. Unfortunately, I have always been a sucker and never have been able to resist all the masterful marketing ploys.

 

Its kind of a bummer though, I prefer thing honest and pure. I guess one can never expect that when larger amounts of money are at stake. It always seems to become a dog eat dog environment.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

for me it is not NT

 

it is a fine line between MA and AT

 

so you send it into the pricing services pcgs/ngc and see what they do

 

my price is 21 dollars as of today

 

but in a priced holder with a straight grade someone

most likely?

will pay more

 

good luck

 

I think I feel the same way about it as you do Michael.

 

If AT versus NT is based on intent, then how can any coin placed in a PCI holder ever be considered NT? Or rather, is AT vs NT based on intent and process? Such as intent coupled with smoke is AT, intent coupled with heat is AT etc....., but intent coupled with sulfur enriched material such as, envelopes, PCI holders, albums..... is NT......Disappointingly, it appears intent is irrelevant, the power all lies with the "pricing services" of the industry.

 

 

What I struggle with :

 

If PCI knows their slabs cause toning and they continue to use the same material in the slab, then one has to believe they are doing it on purpose to gain sales. Thus, one can conclude that they purposely developed their slabs to do this as their business plan/model. Secondly, if people know PCI slabs cause toning and continue to send their coins in to be slabbed by them, then one can conclude the intent is to develop toning on their coins. Further, If a pricing service, as Michael put it, knows of this and continues to slab these coins, thus allowing the owners of these coins to garner massive premium on the coins. Creating a strong desire for the industry participants to repeat the process driven by the desire of larger profits. Wow everybody wins.....PCI repeat business, pricing service more coins to grade....owners huge premium...Capitalism at its finest. I guess the consumer gets slaughter, but what they don't know will not hurt them. I would argue that it could be construed as a fraudulent behavior by the industry elite depending on how you defined NT vs AT.

 

It is kind of funny, the more and more I learn about this industry, the more and more it looks and smells like wall street. All the power of the market is in the hands of a few select elite. The rest are herded up like cows to slaughter. Like wall street the marketing is so skillful and the cows gladly rush to the slaughter house with notions of finding the next best of class coin or investment gain, all the while being eviscerated by the industry elite carving out massive profits. Got to love capitalism.... I guess at the end of the day, like wall street, you decide to join in or you choose not to. Unfortunately, I have always been a sucker and never have been able to resist all the masterful marketing ploys.

 

Its kind of a bummer though, I prefer thing honest and pure. I guess one can never expect that when larger amounts of money are at stake. It always seems to become a dog eat dog environment.

 

 

Who says AT vs. NT is based on intent? Certainly not everyone.

 

Here's a problem with basing it on intent:

 

One person leaves coins in an album, thinking/knowing they will acquire beautiful patina.

 

Meanwhile, another person leaves them in an album, not having any idea the coins will tone. Or even thinking they wont tone.

 

In each case, the coins develop gorgeous toning, which looks nearly identical.

 

How can you fairly label one group NT, but the other, AT?

[Afterword]

How can you fairly label any coin NT or AT without knowing its history?

 

You have one kind of toning created without the intention to deceive and another kind of toning created with the intention to deceive. The former instance of toning, considering exposure from the environment and all the myriad possibilities that entails, would create a very large variety of toning types - some varieties of which are yet to be produced.

 

So how would you differentiate between the two kinds of toning?

 

Some claim this can be achieved by observing one’s own coins and how they tone and applying this experience to other toned coins they encounter. This method ignores the possibility of other environments that could affect a coin and the different toning types that could result from this exposure.

 

Others claim this can be achieved by observing toned coins in the marketplace and seeking out the most commonly observed toning types. This method also ignores the possibilities mentioned in the previous paragraph and only serves to determine the toning types that are most prevalent.

 

Neither of these claims answers the question presented above. Both methods are based on the assumption that intention can be determined by toning type, when there is virtually no limit to the types of toning nature can create from virtually limitless environmental possibilities.

 

So how would you differentiate between the two kinds of toning mentioned in the opening paragraph?

 

Can you differentiate between the two - without knowing the circumstances that produced the toning?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[KMAG100]

 

Who says AT vs. NT is based on intent? Certainly not everyone.

 

Here's a problem with basing it on intent:

 

One person leaves coins in an album, thinking/knowing they will acquire beautiful patina.

 

Meanwhile, another person leaves them in an album, not having any idea the coins will tone. Or even thinking they wont tone.

 

In each case, the coins develop gorgeous toning, which looks nearly identical.

 

How can you fairly label one group NT, but the other, AT?

 

Yes, I can see how that does present a problem, so are you suggesting AT vs NT should be a function of process approach ie, smoke, heat, chemical, etc... and intent should be dismissed as irrelevant? Which does appear to be the case in so far as how the market handles toning. Again, the PCI example is what I struggle with, not necessary what the industry participants struggles with.

 

[Kurtdog]

Kmag, why do you even care what anyone calls these? Don't you understand, yet, these are totally arbitrary standards? You're asking for "expert" opinions on what? And, from whom, did you think about that? Are there "experts?" Honestly? Hell, they can't even define what the hell they're being asked to opine on!

 

It's pretty. There's my expert opinion. Collect it, you have my expert permission.

[KMAG100]

 

It's pretty. There's my expert opinion. Collect it, you have my expert permission.

 

 

....thanks I appreciate that..... (thumbs u but yes it did head down a rabbit hole...although I think it a valid subject matter due to market behaviors based off designations

[MarkFeld]

 

It's pretty. There's my expert opinion. Collect it, you have my expert permission.

 

 

....thanks I appreciate that..... (thumbs u

 

That sounds good (if you don't think it through), but, here's why it wont work for some of us...

 

If certain toning patterns/hues can be replicated by coin doctors, coins with that type of look will be more prevalent and that will impact supply, as well as value.

 

Additionally, even if one can't tell the difference, some of us have a far greater appreciation for the thought of certain toning, or other works of nature, which occur on their own, and which defy the odds, over something produced in a lab.

[MarkFeld]

 

Who says AT vs. NT is based on intent? Certainly not everyone.

 

Here's a problem with basing it on intent:

 

One person leaves coins in an album, thinking/knowing they will acquire beautiful patina.

 

Meanwhile, another person leaves them in an album, not having any idea the coins will tone. Or even thinking they wont tone.

 

In each case, the coins develop gorgeous toning, which looks nearly identical.

 

How can you fairly label one group NT, but the other, AT?

 

Yes, I can see how that does present a problem, so are you suggesting AT vs NT should be a function of process approach ie, smoke, heat, chemical, etc... and intent should be dismissed as irrelevant? Which does appear to be the case in so far as how the market handles toning. Again, the PCI example is what I struggle with, not necessary what the industry participants struggles with.

 

I'm torn on that issue. I would like to penalize coins that have been toned intentionally, but there are limitations and problems in defining AT vs. NT, whether or not you include intent. Additionally, in most cases, intent can't be determined, anyway.

[Kurtdog]

 

It's pretty. There's my expert opinion. Collect it, you have my expert permission.

....thanks I appreciate that..... (thumbs u but yes it did head down a rabbit hole...although I think it a valid subject matter due to market behaviors based off designations

I do get you. We want in their plastic, we play their games.

[coinman_23885]

I agree with those that say that it looks like toning commonly induced by PCI holders. Whether it is NT or AT depends on whether you consider coins toned by a slab through normal storage conditions as NT. If so, I would say NT. Now market acceptability is a different issue. At one point PCGS loved these and would even grade some non PCI holder style toned coins, and some of them quite farcical for NT IMO. The market has tightened and PCGS's standards appear to have tightened considerably at least in my observations. I do not know whether they would slab it now with a straight grade or not. NGC has historically hated these, and I can count on one hand the number of toned MS silver Eagles I have seen in NGC holders on one hand. None of those had vibrant rainbow colors either.

 

For anyone critical, also keep in mind that .9993 silver tones more quickly and in different patterns than .900 silver.

 

My vote NT and possibly MA depending on the service and prevailing standards at the time.

[KMAG100]

 

 

If certain toning patterns/hues can be replicated by coin doctors, coins with that type of look will be more prevalent and that will impact supply, as well as value.

 

That is exactly my point, and what I struggle with. I see no difference between a "coin doctor", PCI, or the people that send into PCI to have their coins slabbed in an attempt to tone their coins. All three have the intent to accelerate the toning process of a coin motivated solely by the potential of financial gain. The TPGs simply sets and exacerbates the market dynamics. I am not sure how one can differentiate between the three as it relates to toning

 

Anyway thanks for everyone's comments

 

[e1cnr]

 

 

If certain toning patterns/hues can be replicated by coin doctors, coins with that type of look will be more prevalent and that will impact supply, as well as value.

 

That is exactly my point, and what I struggle with. I see no difference between a "coin doctor", PCI, or the people that send into PCI to have their coins slabbed in an attempt to tone their coins. All three have the intent to accelerate the toning process of a coin motivated solely by the potential of financial gain. The TPGs simply sets and exacerbates the market dynamics. I am not sure how one can differentiate between the three as it relates to toning

 

Anyway thanks for everyone's comments

 

PCI no longer uses that slab version, Many of the great PCI toners also say 100% white, which they were when slabbed. The holder was never planned or anticipated to cause toning. Same can be said for Wayte Raymond, Meghrig, some Capital, Bigelow, and other aftermarket holders...

 

Since you a struggling, the difference is hours versus years.

[coinman_23885]

 

 

If certain toning patterns/hues can be replicated by coin doctors, coins with that type of look will be more prevalent and that will impact supply, as well as value.

 

That is exactly my point, and what I struggle with. I see no difference between a "coin doctor", PCI, or the people that send into PCI to have their coins slabbed in an attempt to tone their coins. All three have the intent to accelerate the toning process of a coin motivated solely by the potential of financial gain. The TPGs simply sets and exacerbates the market dynamics. I am not sure how one can differentiate between the three as it relates to toning

 

Anyway thanks for everyone's comments

 

PCI no longer uses that slab version, Many of the great PCI toners also say 100% white, which they were when slabbed. The holder was never planned or anticipated to cause toning. Same can be said for Wayte Raymond, Meghrig, some Capital, Bigelow, and other aftermarket holders...

 

Since you a struggling, the difference is hours versus years.

 

I agree with this. It was a serendipitous discovery.

[physics-fan3.14]

I agree, it looks like PCI toning. Whether it will get in NGC or PCGS plastic is a -shoot, but I think it is pretty market acceptable.

[Kurtdog]

I agree, it looks like PCI toning. Whether it will get in NGC or PCGS plastic is a -shoot, but I think it is pretty market acceptable.

Do you mean by "pretty market acceptable" most collectors would accept it even though NGC and PCGS reject it? Ah, I don't know. I know I'd accept it. I like it, it's pretty.

[david3142]

The coin looks good to me. I don't necessarily care to classify it as AT or NT, but I am about 75% sure PCGS would straight grade this based on how the toning looks compared to other PCGS coins I've seen. If their standards have changed recently, my percentages may be off. As many of you already know I am building a toned type set, and I like this coin and will bid on it. In the current holder, I'd probably pay about 1/2 to 2/3 of what I would pay in a PCGS holder. This is both because the PCI holder does my registry set no good and because the big-name holder is a seal of approval of the toning.

[WoodenJefferson]

You should be happy there are no milk spots.

[wdrob]

 

This one looks very similar (to me) color wise. PCGS MS67