Can anyone share FABULOUS TONED STEEL CENTS? Anything out there?

[KeyMan64]

Just curious what a nice toner Steel Cent might look like if they even exist...how common they might be etc.

I have never seen anything beyond the typical spotted, dull gray and damaged stuff.

I have never seen a cool toner.

[Raisethis2]

I think I still have one with powdery blue overtones. Probably not very easy to photograph if I still even have any. I too have never seen anything eyecatching.

[RWB]

The active surface metal on 1943 cents is zinc. That combines with atmospheric contaminants and oxygen to produce only bluish colors. Too much moisture creates brown oxide. The only 1943 cents with color I have seen were prooflike strikes that were kept in a dry environment.

[KeyMan64]

The active surface metal on 1943 cents is zinc. That combines with atmospheric contaminants and oxygen to produce only bluish colors. Too much moisture creates brown oxide. The only 1943 cents with color I have seen were prooflike strikes that were kept in a dry environment.

Yup, I have seen light bluish-steel colored examples but nothing more and certainly nothing attractive or significant.

[RWB]

The best zinc coated steel piece I've seen is a 1942 experimental cent struck from strip that was deliberately polished. (See my book of WW II Pattern and Experimental Pieces.)

[robec1347]

I took these photos for someone a few years ago, but can't remember who. The file name lists it as MS67. Again I don't remember by which company.

 

I have my doubts if the toning is natural.

 

[KeyMan64]

Bob, that looks pretty cool but it looks like HEAT caused that one. Just my guess.

[david3142]

I am working on a toned 20th century type set (see my signature) and the 1943 Lincoln might be the single hardest coin to find. I would certainly love it if anyone could locate one. The resident rainbow Lincoln expert ATS says he has a few but I don't think any of them was acceptable to PCGS. I think I'll have to settle for a nice PL example instead.

 

Bob, that coin is very cool and I'd love to own it, but I have my doubts as well.

[robec1347]

Bob, that looks pretty cool but it looks like HEAT caused that one. Just my guess.

 

That could be. I've also heard that it may have been caused by an application of lacquer.

[KeyMan64]

Interesting. Someone ATS send me a PM of a wild toned one that of course came back genuine....but it is cool looking for sure!

[dimefreak]

The one Bob photographed is mine! It wasn't heat! It was the no line fatty holder.... Just my opinion

 

[Coinbuf]

The one Bob photographed is mine! It wasn't heat! It was the no line fatty holder.... Just my opinion

 

Have you owned the coin since 1943? Are you the one that sent the coin in to be graded? Because if the answer is no to both of those then there is no way you can say 100% that the tone on that coin was not heat induced or natural. I could almost see the obv, but the rev screams AT to me.

[MarkFeld]

The one Bob photographed is mine! It wasn't heat! It was the no line fatty holder.... Just my opinion

 

Have you owned the coin since 1943? Are you the one that sent the coin in to be graded? Because if the answer is no to both of those then there is no way you can say 100% that the tone on that coin was not heat induced or natural. I could almost see the obv, but the rev screams AT to me.

 

To be fair, he did say, in part "Just my opinion". And my opinion is the same as his.

[Coinbuf]

The one Bob photographed is mine! It wasn't heat! It was the no line fatty holder.... Just my opinion

 

Have you owned the coin since 1943? Are you the one that sent the coin in to be graded? Because if the answer is no to both of those then there is no way you can say 100% that the tone on that coin was not heat induced or natural. I could almost see the obv, but the rev screams AT to me.

 

To be fair, he did say, in part "Just my opinion". And my opinion is the same as his.

 

Did you actually read what I wrote Mark or did you just jump in to aid a friend? Because if you had read my post you would see that I asked some questions about the history of the coin. I'm willing to bet that very few if any collectors (myself included) of pre 64 coins have owned/submitted any of the coins in their collection since the day they were minted. So it stands to reason that dimemans statement; "it was not heat!" cannot be verified and not fact as his post would imply through his use of punctuation.

 

[MarkFeld]

The one Bob photographed is mine! It wasn't heat! It was the no line fatty holder.... Just my opinion

 

Have you owned the coin since 1943? Are you the one that sent the coin in to be graded? Because if the answer is no to both of those then there is no way you can say 100% that the tone on that coin was not heat induced or natural. I could almost see the obv, but the rev screams AT to me.

 

To be fair, he did say, in part "Just my opinion". And my opinion is the same as his.

 

Did you actually read what I wrote Mark or did you just jump in to aid a friend? Because if you had read my post you would see that I asked some questions about the history of the coin. I'm willing to bet that very few if any collectors (myself included) of pre 64 coins have owned/submitted any of the coins in their collection since the day they were minted. So it stands to reason that dimemans statement; "it was not heat!" cannot be verified and not fact as his post would imply through his use of punctuation.

 

Yes, I read what you wrote - that's why I posted what I did.

 

You wrote "..Because if the answer is no to both of those then there is no way you can say 100% that the tone on that coin was not heat induced or natural." That made it appear as if you had either missed or ignored his "Just my opinion". By using the words "Just my opinion", it was obvious he wasn't implying that he was (100%) certain "that the tone on that coin was not heat induced or natural.".

 

 

[coinman_23885]

The one Bob photographed is mine! It wasn't heat! It was the no line fatty holder.... Just my opinion

 

Have you owned the coin since 1943? Are you the one that sent the coin in to be graded? Because if the answer is no to both of those then there is no way you can say 100% that the tone on that coin was not heat induced or natural. I could almost see the obv, but the rev screams AT to me.

 

To be fair, he did say, in part "Just my opinion". And my opinion is the same as his.

 

Did you actually read what I wrote Mark or did you just jump in to aid a friend? Because if you had read my post you would see that I asked some questions about the history of the coin. I'm willing to bet that very few if any collectors (myself included) of pre 64 coins have owned/submitted any of the coins in their collection since the day they were minted. So it stands to reason that dimemans statement; "it was not heat!" cannot be verified and not fact as his post would imply through his use of punctuation.

 

Which is why it was labeled as opinion and not fact. When you see the doctor, for example, in many cases, a doctor will offer an empirical diagnosis based on the symptoms but cannot say conclusively that you necessarily have the diagnosed condition. It is a medical opinion. You don't seem to grasp the distinction between fact and opinion.

 

[brg5658]

Which is why it was labeled as opinion and not fact. When you see the doctor, for example, in many cases, a doctor will offer an empirical diagnosis based on the symptoms but cannot say conclusively that you necessarily have the diagnosed condition. It is a medical opinion. You don't seem to grasp the distinction between fact and opinion.

 

Pretty much the majority of medicine is opinions and guesses. It's one of the only fields that, even after 20+ years of schooling, they still call it "practicing" medicine. Much of what a doctor does is order tests (labs, imaging, etc) in a rational and orderly fashion based on their training and biases to try to confirm or rule-out his/her suspicions.

 

There are a few medical fields where they aren't guessing. For example, if you have an obviously broken bone, they can see that and treat it accordingly. In complex diseases (e.g., Parkinson's disease) it can take upwards of 5 years to get a "hard" diagnosis -- and even then, there is no current treatment of the pathology of the disease available, only treatment of the symptoms.

 

=================

 

With regard to the "opinion" at hand...

 

In defense of coinbuf, the statements made (though suffixed with "Just my opinion") were stated as fact in the reply. The intent could have been much clearer if the expression of "opinion" were not an apparent afterthought. Alas, this isn't a technical writing class or English 101, so the point still stands -- unless you have owned a coin forever, stating such wild-a$$-guesses to the way a coin attained its toning is an opinion and nothing more, regardless of how the person describes it.

 

For what it's worth, I don't know that I have really seen much evidence to suggest that no-line-fattie NGC holders impart toning on coins in general. PCI slabs, yes -- but I have owned dozens of NGC no-line-fatties, and none of the coins therein I would describe as having likely attained their toning from the holder. At one time, someone proposed that the label not being in a separate chamber from the coin could possibly cause some toning, but if that were the case, I'd surmise that the toning should be limited to, or at least more vibrant on, the upper half of the coin most proximate to the label (and potential sulfur containing substances?). But, I guess that's just my opinion.

[Coinbuf]

The one Bob photographed is mine! It wasn't heat! It was the no line fatty holder.... Just my opinion

 

Have you owned the coin since 1943? Are you the one that sent the coin in to be graded? Because if the answer is no to both of those then there is no way you can say 100% that the tone on that coin was not heat induced or natural. I could almost see the obv, but the rev screams AT to me.

 

To be fair, he did say, in part "Just my opinion". And my opinion is the same as his.

 

Did you actually read what I wrote Mark or did you just jump in to aid a friend? Because if you had read my post you would see that I asked some questions about the history of the coin. I'm willing to bet that very few if any collectors (myself included) of pre 64 coins have owned/submitted any of the coins in their collection since the day they were minted. So it stands to reason that dimemans statement; "it was not heat!" cannot be verified and not fact as his post would imply through his use of punctuation.

 

Yes, I read what you wrote - that's why I posted what I did.

 

You wrote "..Because if the answer is no to both of those then there is no way you can say 100% that the tone on that coin was not heat induced or natural." That made it appear as if you had either missed or ignored his "Just my opinion". By using the words "Just my opinion", it was obvious he wasn't implying that he was (100%) certain "that the tone on that coin was not heat induced or natural.".

 

 

No I did not miss his "just my opinion", I just dismissed it due to the wording and punctuation just prior to that, which it seems that you have missed or ignored. If you look closely and read you will notice this segment: "it was not heat!" That statement is definite and leaves no room for discussion, and the use of an exclamation mark shows that he feels that is more than just opinion. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the definition of an exclamation mark; from Wikipedia:

"The exclamation mark or exclamation point is a punctuation mark usually used after an interjection or exclamation to indicate strong feelings" It would seem that you only focused on the disclamer "just my opinion" and skipped over the meat of the post. Which is somewhat funny as it is you who has had issues in the past with posts that are definitive in the past.

 

Perhaps you would care to share some of your vast numismatic wisdom with us and explain why you agree that this coin came to have this tone from the label and not from some other source. Perhaps you have some examples or chemical analisys of this phenom you'd care to share to explain why you agree with this opinion. Surely NGC encapsulated more than one 1943 cent in fatty holders. If this tone came from the label why would these not be more common?

 

If you care to look in my custom set I have an example of a 1943-S in an NGC fatty slab and if you check the pics of that coin you will not see an signs of any color; strange since it's dimeman's and your's opinion that this tone came from the label. I guess I just didn't get the special label with my example.

[Coinbuf]

The one Bob photographed is mine! It wasn't heat! It was the no line fatty holder.... Just my opinion

 

Have you owned the coin since 1943? Are you the one that sent the coin in to be graded? Because if the answer is no to both of those then there is no way you can say 100% that the tone on that coin was not heat induced or natural. I could almost see the obv, but the rev screams AT to me.

 

To be fair, he did say, in part "Just my opinion". And my opinion is the same as his.

 

Did you actually read what I wrote Mark or did you just jump in to aid a friend? Because if you had read my post you would see that I asked some questions about the history of the coin. I'm willing to bet that very few if any collectors (myself included) of pre 64 coins have owned/submitted any of the coins in their collection since the day they were minted. So it stands to reason that dimemans statement; "it was not heat!" cannot be verified and not fact as his post would imply through his use of punctuation.

 

Which is why it was labeled as opinion and not fact. When you see the doctor, for example, in many cases, a doctor will offer an empirical diagnosis based on the symptoms but cannot say conclusively that you necessarily have the diagnosed condition. It is a medical opinion. You don't seem to grasp the distinction between fact and opinion.

 

Nope I can grasp the concept just fine, but you like Mark skiped over the meat of the post and only focused on the part you wanted to. Please see my reply to Mark and that might help you to "grasp" the big picture.

[MarkFeld]

The one Bob photographed is mine! It wasn't heat! It was the no line fatty holder.... Just my opinion

 

Have you owned the coin since 1943? Are you the one that sent the coin in to be graded? Because if the answer is no to both of those then there is no way you can say 100% that the tone on that coin was not heat induced or natural. I could almost see the obv, but the rev screams AT to me.

 

To be fair, he did say, in part "Just my opinion". And my opinion is the same as his.

 

Did you actually read what I wrote Mark or did you just jump in to aid a friend? Because if you had read my post you would see that I asked some questions about the history of the coin. I'm willing to bet that very few if any collectors (myself included) of pre 64 coins have owned/submitted any of the coins in their collection since the day they were minted. So it stands to reason that dimemans statement; "it was not heat!" cannot be verified and not fact as his post would imply through his use of punctuation.

 

Yes, I read what you wrote - that's why I posted what I did.

 

You wrote "..Because if the answer is no to both of those then there is no way you can say 100% that the tone on that coin was not heat induced or natural." That made it appear as if you had either missed or ignored his "Just my opinion". By using the words "Just my opinion", it was obvious he wasn't implying that he was (100%) certain "that the tone on that coin was not heat induced or natural.".

 

 

No I did not miss his "just my opinion", I just dismissed it due to the wording and punctuation just prior to that, which it seems that you have missed or ignored. If you look closely and read you will notice this segment: "it was not heat!" That statement is definite and leaves no room for discussion, and the use of an exclamation mark shows that he feels that is more than just opinion. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the definition of an exclamation mark; from Wikipedia:

"The exclamation mark or exclamation point is a punctuation mark usually used after an interjection or exclamation to indicate strong feelings" It would seem that you only focused on the disclamer "just my opinion" and skipped over the meat of the post. Which is somewhat funny as it is you who has had issues in the past with posts that are definitive in the past.

 

Perhaps you would care to share some of your vast numismatic wisdom with us and explain why you agree that this coin came to have this tone from the label and not from some other source. Perhaps you have some examples or chemical analisys of this phenom you'd care to share to explain why you agree with this opinion. Surely NGC encapsulated more than one 1943 cent in fatty holders. If this tone came from the label why would these not be more common?

 

If you care to look in my custom set I have an example of a 1943-S in an NGC fatty slab and if you check the pics of that coin you will not see an signs of any color; strange since it's dimeman's and your's opinion that this tone came from the label. I guess I just didn't get the special label with my example.

 

I have no desire to address your questions. And that is based upon (what is in my opinion) your sarcastic and bellicose tone.

 

 

[AHFreak]

Hey Coinbuf... can you tell us what it was like to go from coin enthusiast to Internet TROLL? Was there a funky transition all at once or was it subtle, taking place over time? Just curious. ..

[MarkFeld]

The one Bob photographed is mine! It wasn't heat! It was the no line fatty holder.... Just my opinion

 

Have you owned the coin since 1943? Are you the one that sent the coin in to be graded? Because if the answer is no to both of those then there is no way you can say 100% that the tone on that coin was not heat induced or natural. I could almost see the obv, but the rev screams AT to me.

 

To be fair, he did say, in part "Just my opinion". And my opinion is the same as his.

 

Did you actually read what I wrote Mark or did you just jump in to aid a friend? Because if you had read my post you would see that I asked some questions about the history of the coin. I'm willing to bet that very few if any collectors (myself included) of pre 64 coins have owned/submitted any of the coins in their collection since the day they were minted. So it stands to reason that dimemans statement; "it was not heat!" cannot be verified and not fact as his post would imply through his use of punctuation.

 

Which is why it was labeled as opinion and not fact. When you see the doctor, for example, in many cases, a doctor will offer an empirical diagnosis based on the symptoms but cannot say conclusively that you necessarily have the diagnosed condition. It is a medical opinion. You don't seem to grasp the distinction between fact and opinion.

 

Nope I can grasp the concept just fine, but you like Mark skiped over the meat of the post and only focused on the part you wanted to. Please see my reply to Mark and that might help you to "grasp" the big picture.

 

I get the impression that due to the placement of and what preceded "in my opinion", you took the poster's comment the same way you would have, had those words not been included. It wasn't that I focused on what I "wanted to", but rather, I looked at the post as a whole and therefore gave those words some weight, too.

[Coinbuf]

The one Bob photographed is mine! It wasn't heat! It was the no line fatty holder.... Just my opinion

 

Have you owned the coin since 1943? Are you the one that sent the coin in to be graded? Because if the answer is no to both of those then there is no way you can say 100% that the tone on that coin was not heat induced or natural. I could almost see the obv, but the rev screams AT to me.

 

To be fair, he did say, in part "Just my opinion". And my opinion is the same as his.

 

Did you actually read what I wrote Mark or did you just jump in to aid a friend? Because if you had read my post you would see that I asked some questions about the history of the coin. I'm willing to bet that very few if any collectors (myself included) of pre 64 coins have owned/submitted any of the coins in their collection since the day they were minted. So it stands to reason that dimemans statement; "it was not heat!" cannot be verified and not fact as his post would imply through his use of punctuation.

 

Yes, I read what you wrote - that's why I posted what I did.

 

You wrote "..Because if the answer is no to both of those then there is no way you can say 100% that the tone on that coin was not heat induced or natural." That made it appear as if you had either missed or ignored his "Just my opinion". By using the words "Just my opinion", it was obvious he wasn't implying that he was (100%) certain "that the tone on that coin was not heat induced or natural.".

 

 

No I did not miss his "just my opinion", I just dismissed it due to the wording and punctuation just prior to that, which it seems that you have missed or ignored. If you look closely and read you will notice this segment: "it was not heat!" That statement is definite and leaves no room for discussion, and the use of an exclamation mark shows that he feels that is more than just opinion. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the definition of an exclamation mark; from Wikipedia:

"The exclamation mark or exclamation point is a punctuation mark usually used after an interjection or exclamation to indicate strong feelings" It would seem that you only focused on the disclamer "just my opinion" and skipped over the meat of the post. Which is somewhat funny as it is you who has had issues in the past with posts that are definitive in the past.

 

Perhaps you would care to share some of your vast numismatic wisdom with us and explain why you agree that this coin came to have this tone from the label and not from some other source. Perhaps you have some examples or chemical analisys of this phenom you'd care to share to explain why you agree with this opinion. Surely NGC encapsulated more than one 1943 cent in fatty holders. If this tone came from the label why would these not be more common?

 

If you care to look in my custom set I have an example of a 1943-S in an NGC fatty slab and if you check the pics of that coin you will not see an signs of any color; strange since it's dimeman's and your's opinion that this tone came from the label. I guess I just didn't get the special label with my example.

 

I have no desire to address your questions. And that is based upon (what is in my opinion) your sarcastic and bellicose tone.

 

 

Sarcastic, sure I tend to lean that way. Bellicose, hardly as you are the one that picked this fight and now are running away.

[Coinbuf]

Hey Coinbuf... can you tell us what it was like to go from coin enthusiast to Internet TROLL? Was there a funky transition all at once or was it subtle, taking place over time? Just curious. ..

 

Were you born with your lips on someones butt or did it happen over time? Just curious.

[MarkFeld]

The one Bob photographed is mine! It wasn't heat! It was the no line fatty holder.... Just my opinion

 

Have you owned the coin since 1943? Are you the one that sent the coin in to be graded? Because if the answer is no to both of those then there is no way you can say 100% that the tone on that coin was not heat induced or natural. I could almost see the obv, but the rev screams AT to me.

 

To be fair, he did say, in part "Just my opinion". And my opinion is the same as his.

 

Did you actually read what I wrote Mark or did you just jump in to aid a friend? Because if you had read my post you would see that I asked some questions about the history of the coin. I'm willing to bet that very few if any collectors (myself included) of pre 64 coins have owned/submitted any of the coins in their collection since the day they were minted. So it stands to reason that dimemans statement; "it was not heat!" cannot be verified and not fact as his post would imply through his use of punctuation.

 

Yes, I read what you wrote - that's why I posted what I did.

 

You wrote "..Because if the answer is no to both of those then there is no way you can say 100% that the tone on that coin was not heat induced or natural." That made it appear as if you had either missed or ignored his "Just my opinion". By using the words "Just my opinion", it was obvious he wasn't implying that he was (100%) certain "that the tone on that coin was not heat induced or natural.".

 

 

No I did not miss his "just my opinion", I just dismissed it due to the wording and punctuation just prior to that, which it seems that you have missed or ignored. If you look closely and read you will notice this segment: "it was not heat!" That statement is definite and leaves no room for discussion, and the use of an exclamation mark shows that he feels that is more than just opinion. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the definition of an exclamation mark; from Wikipedia:

"The exclamation mark or exclamation point is a punctuation mark usually used after an interjection or exclamation to indicate strong feelings" It would seem that you only focused on the disclamer "just my opinion" and skipped over the meat of the post. Which is somewhat funny as it is you who has had issues in the past with posts that are definitive in the past.

 

Perhaps you would care to share some of your vast numismatic wisdom with us and explain why you agree that this coin came to have this tone from the label and not from some other source. Perhaps you have some examples or chemical analisys of this phenom you'd care to share to explain why you agree with this opinion. Surely NGC encapsulated more than one 1943 cent in fatty holders. If this tone came from the label why would these not be more common?

 

If you care to look in my custom set I have an example of a 1943-S in an NGC fatty slab and if you check the pics of that coin you will not see an signs of any color; strange since it's dimeman's and your's opinion that this tone came from the label. I guess I just didn't get the special label with my example.

 

I have no desire to address your questions. And that is based upon (what is in my opinion) your sarcastic and bellicose tone.

 

 

Sarcastic, sure I tend to lean that way. Bellicose, hardly as you are the one that picked this fight and now are running away.

 

From my first post directed at you "To be fair, he did say, in part "Just my opinion".

 

From your first post directed at me "Did you actually read what I wrote Mark or did you just jump in to aid a friend?"

 

And I am the one who "picked this fight" (and am running away)".

 

Please feel free to have the last word.

[coinman_23885]

So it stands to reason that dimemans statement; "it was not heat!" cannot be verified and not fact as his post would imply through his use of punctuation.

 

Which is why it was labeled as opinion and not fact. When you see the doctor, for example, in many cases, a doctor will offer an empirical diagnosis based on the symptoms but cannot say conclusively that you necessarily have the diagnosed condition. It is a medical opinion. You don't seem to grasp the distinction between fact and opinion.

 

Nope I can grasp the concept just fine, but you like Mark skiped over the meat of the post and only focused on the part you wanted to. Please see my reply to Mark and that might help you to "grasp" the big picture.

 

In interpreting prose and ascertaining the author's intent, it seems odd to treat language as superfluous unless absolutely necessary to provide meaning to the sentence. Why would he state that it is his opinion if he really meant it as fact? And I didn't interpret his comments as sarcastic at all.

[coinman_23885]

If you care to look in my custom set I have an example of a 1943-S in an NGC fatty slab and if you check the pics of that coin you will not see an signs of any color; strange since it's dimeman's and your's opinion that this tone came from the label. I guess I just didn't get the special label with my example.

 

You cannot view slabs and labels in isolation. The environment that the slab was stored in could make a difference. So notwithstanding the fact that your coin was not toned by the label does not necessarily mean that his coin could not have been toned by the label. I am not opining either way, but your logic is flawed.

[MarkFeld]

If you care to look in my custom set I have an example of a 1943-S in an NGC fatty slab and if you check the pics of that coin you will not see an signs of any color; strange since it's dimeman's and your's opinion that this tone came from the label. I guess I just didn't get the special label with my example.

 

You cannot view slabs and labels in isolation. The environment that the slab was stored in could make a difference. So notwithstanding the fact that your coin was not toned by the label does not necessarily mean that his coin could not have been toned by the label. I am not opining either way, but your logic is flawed.

 

Based on his observations, another poster to this thread is apparently of the opinion that labels in certain NGC holders do not impart toning to coins. On the other hand, I know many collectors and dealers who share very different experiences/observations. Additionally, while I was still at NGC, we consulted a chemist in order to try to find out why it appeared that coins in those holders were more likely to tone. My recollection is that no specific finding was offered.

 

My personal observation is that some coins - particularly silver ones - in certain NGC holders, have a tendency to tone in a blend of purplish and/or pinkish and/or greenish hues.

[Coinbuf]

If you care to look in my custom set I have an example of a 1943-S in an NGC fatty slab and if you check the pics of that coin you will not see an signs of any color; strange since it's dimeman's and your's opinion that this tone came from the label. I guess I just didn't get the special label with my example.

 

You cannot view slabs and labels in isolation. The environment that the slab was stored in could make a difference. So notwithstanding the fact that your coin was not toned by the label does not necessarily mean that his coin could not have been toned by the label. I am not opining either way, but your logic is flawed.

 

100% agree with you, which is why we cannot view this coin and say that the label alone and no other factor resulted in this outcome. The fact that my coin has no tone to it does not disprove the label theory, but it does offer evidence that the label alone is not the most likely culprit, its the conditions and contaminates that the coin sees in its life that ultimately determine the look of a coin. Keep in mind that I never said that the label could not have been a part of the stimulus, but to draw the conclusion that the label was the cause without knowing the complete history of this coin's life is irrational. The only one that really knows if this coin had this tone to it prior to slabbing is the person that slabbed it. Without that key piece of info this is all just guessing.

[Afterword]

Guessing - a highly analytical evaluation of an assumption based on conjecture firmly grounded in theoretical probability.