Toned Half Dollar 1 1

[EagleRJO]

I picked up the attached 1807 Capped Bust Half Dollar for not that much since it's a little beat up and worn, but when I got the coin I was really amazed at the toning the coin had, which didn't completely present from the listing pictures at all (intentionally?).  Like a bright rainbow but mostly bluish color with some light greenish highlights that really pops when tilted under a light, similar to cartwheeling for some MS coins.

At first, I thought something was wrong with maybe the coin not being legit because I have never seen that to such an extent but the dims, weight, appearance, etc. of the coin checks out including the die mark at the 5 in 50C (it's a "Large Stars 50/20" half).  Maybe these coins get that type of toning from being about 11% copper, which I think is called "verdigris" when it tones like that?

I don't think the attached pics really capture the toning completely, but it's one of my favorite coins now in the collection as far as a toned appearance goes.

Edited August 24, 2022 by EagleRJO

[DWLange]

The toning is appealing, but it is not first generation. That coin was cleaned at some point before retoning.

[EagleRJO]

On 8/23/2022 at 9:19 PM, DWLange said:

The toning is appealing, but it is not first generation.

I don't have that many older half dollars, but do many of the older ones' tone like the one I have?  I am going to keep my eyes open for more of those coins if they do.

The ones I have come across from just casual looking are usually a darker brown/green or maybe mixed with bright splashed rainbow appearance, like the attached, which I don't find that appealing.

Edited August 24, 2022 by EagleRJO

[Coinbuf]

The 1807 has a very unnatural look and is without a doubt 100% not original.   If you like it and you did/do not pay a premium for this type of AT look that is all well and fine.   I would suggest that you note in your files or inventory that this coin is AT.

[Sandon]

    The problem is that a coin can be abrasively or chemically "cleaned" and then retone, either naturally over time or artificially with the "help" of a "coin doctor" who wishes to hide the "cleaning" from unsuspecting purchasers.  It's hard to see the hairlining or other indications of cleaning under the toning without looking at the actual coin at different angles and lightings and not by just looking at a photo.  (Even from your photo, I can see, as have others, that the toning is too irregular and the underlying surface too shiny to be original.)  If you like it and are satisfied with the price you paid, that's all that really matters, however. It's still "history in your hands".

   Here's the obverse of an 1840-O no drapery Seated quarter that was obviously "cleaned" to an unnatural shade of grayish white but subsequently developed a band of rainbow toning.  Lovely, isn't it?

 

[The Neophyte Numismatist]

On 8/23/2022 at 10:23 PM, EagleRJO said:

 

The ones I have come across from just casual looking are usually a darker brown/green or maybe mixed with bright splashed rainbow appearance, like the attached, which I don't find that appealing.

I agree. This 1864 is hideous.  Send it to me quick and I will dispose of it.

[EagleRJO]

On 8/23/2022 at 11:24 PM, Sandon said:

It's hard to see the hairlining or other indications of cleaning under the toning. 

They are randomly there throughout from a close examination, particularly at the outer portion of the eagles' wing on the left side as well as some on the right side of the eagles' wing on the reverse which I see in the pics, but maybe I only notice it there since I had it in hand.  They presented a little more in the listing pics, along with the wear, which is how I got the coin for a very low price.

On 8/23/2022 at 11:24 PM, Sandon said:

Lovely, isn't it?

Ummm, yea I don't know about that 1840.  But I can "dispose" of that one for you. 

On 8/24/2022 at 12:43 AM, The Neophyte Numismatist said:

I agree. This 1864 is hideous.  Send it to me quick and I will dispose of it.

I don't know about "hideous", but it's really not my style.  I think it's from PCGS CoinFacts, so you will have to talk to them about disposal. 

On 8/23/2022 at 10:56 PM, Coinbuf said:

The 1807 has a very unnatural look and is without a doubt 100% not original.   If you like it and you did/do not pay a premium for this type of AT look that is all well and fine.   I would suggest that you note in your files or inventory that this coin is AT.

I know it has been a little beat up with the cleaning and wear, but I do still like the look, so I decided to keep it.  The appearance was similar to a few coins on CoinFacts and PhotoGrade, so I assumed it had just naturally re-toned after that from how it appeared in hand.  Keep in mind I took the above pics shining an LED light on it in a darkened room to try and pick up the color kaleidoscope I was seeing when tilted under a light in hand, so that may be what you and Sandon are seeing.

The attached are the first set of pics for the coin with regular lighting, but the toning really isn't very apparent like it is in hand or the orig pics.  If you guys still think its AT, I will note that in my log just to be on the safe side.  That really is a shame if the appearance of the coin is in fact from AT, and I have trouble finding others with a similar appearance as a result of that.  It really jumped out at me, like the first time I really looked for and noticed cartwheeling on some better MS coins.

Edited August 24, 2022 by EagleRJO

[J P M]

On 8/24/2022 at 1:25 AM, EagleRJO said:

They are randomly there throughout from a close examination, particularly at the outer portion of the eagles' wing on the left side as well as some on the right side of the eagles' wing on the reverse which I see in the pics, but maybe I only notice it there since I had it in hand.  They presented a little more in the listing pics, along with the wear, which is how I got the coin for a very low price.

Ummm, yea I don't know about that 1840.  But I can "dispose" of that one for you. 

I don't know about "hideous", but it's really not my style.  I think it's from PCGS CoinFacts, so you will have to talk to them about disposal. 

I know it has been a little beat up with the cleaning and wear, but I do still like the look, so I decided to keep it.  The appearance was similar to a few coins on CoinFacts and PhotoGrade, so I assumed it had just naturally re-toned after that from how it appeared in hand.  Keep in mind I took the above pics shining an LED light on it in a darkened room to try and pick up the color kaleidoscope I was seeing when tilted under a light in hand, so that may be what you and Sandon are seeing.

The attached are the first set of pics for the coin with regular lighting, but the toning really isn't very apparent like it is in hand or the orig pics.  If you guys still think its AT, I will note that in my log just to be on the safe side.  That really is a shame if the appearance of the coin is in fact from AT, and I have trouble finding others with a similar appearance as a result of that.  It really jumped out at me, like the first time I really looked for and noticed cartwheeling on some better MS coins.

Is this the same coin as the first photo. If so it looks better in this shot . I still looks like it was cleaned at some point but the tone is not as bright like the first shots??

[ldhair]

On 8/23/2022 at 8:19 PM, DWLange said:

The toning is appealing, but it is not first generation. That coin was cleaned at some point before retoning.

Great post. This is what many don't understand about early coins. Most were cleaned at some point. Some retone and are pretty and others turn out ugly. If the cleaning was not harsh and the toning is not funky, they have a good chance of straight grading. 

[World Colonial]

On 8/24/2022 at 1:25 AM, EagleRJO said:

I don't know about "hideous", but it's really not my style.  I think it's from PCGS CoinFacts, so you will have to talk to them about disposal. 

I think he was being sarcastic.

The image on the Liberty Seated is better but personally, I like the toning on it better than the 1807, for the reasons given by other posts.

[World Colonial]

On 8/24/2022 at 1:25 AM, EagleRJO said:

The attached are the first set of pics for the coin with regular lighting, but the toning really isn't very apparent like it is in hand or the orig pics.  If you guys still think its AT, I will note that in my log just to be on the safe side.  That really is a shame if the appearance of the coin is in fact from AT, and I have trouble finding others with a similar appearance as a result of that.  It really jumped out at me, like the first time I really looked for and noticed cartwheeling on some better MS coins.

The coin looks obviously cleaned to me in this image.  Maybe dipped in a solution where it wasn't properly rinsed?  I have never attempted this before myself.

[Just Bob]

On 8/24/2022 at 7:13 AM, ldhair said:

Great post. This is what many don't understand about early coins. Most were cleaned at some point. Some retone and are pretty and others turn out ugly. If the cleaning was not harsh and the toning is not funky, they have a good chance of straight grading. 

That's a good point, and an important one to remember. Years ago, cleaning was the norm. Remember the Saltus cyanide incident? That was in 1922. 100 years is plenty of time for a coin to re-tone naturally

[zadok]

...this subject has no precise answer...toning n the appeal for or the rejection of is purely a personal matter...there is no pluses or minuses listing in any grading guides...preferences for or against have been cyclical over the past few years, especially in the highly manipulated n market oriented morgan series, to lesser degree in the franklins, washington quarters n roosevelt dime series...its pretty much which ever way the market wind blows ($)...in the US collecting sphere most coins especially pre 1900 issues have been cleaned, dipped and/or improved upon at one time or another, after all pretty was deemed better...toning as most know is simply oxidation and the colors mostly dependent upon the environment in which it was subjected or exposed to...toned coins that were dipped or lightly cleaned will retone over time unless protected from their environment, its all natural, the real concern is the AT that is so prevalent in the current market, in virtually every instance this should be a negative regarding pricing n grading, but once again market whims enter into the picture...if one is looking for a precision assessment on toning and/or AT on coins...its just not going to happen....

Edited August 24, 2022 by zadok
spelling

[EagleRJO]

On 8/24/2022 at 6:29 AM, J P M said:

Is this the same coin as the first photo. If so it looks better in this shot . I still looks like it was cleaned at some point but the tone is not as bright like the first shots?

Yes, both pics are of the same coin, with the first pic taken with an LED light shining on the coin in an attempt to show the toning.  As stated above I knew from the start that the coin had some wear and was cleaned at some point in the past (classic random cleaning scratches or scuffs, which are a little more apparent on the eagles' wings), which is partly why I got the coin for such a good price.  So, I'm really not that worried about it having been cleaned, which many older raw coins have been as @ldhair mentioned, and why I am generally okay with older raw coins having been lightly cleaned which can straight grade.

It's very hard to describe or show in pictures the amazing toning this coin has, but I hope it was in fact a natural re-toning after having been cleaned and that I can find other coins with similar toning.  I always had more of a preference for a straight brighter silver appearance for similar older coins until I came across this one.

[Just Bob]

On 8/23/2022 at 9:56 PM, Coinbuf said:

The 1807 has a very unnatural look and is without a doubt 100% not original.   If you like it and you did/do not pay a premium for this type of AT look that is all well and fine.   I would suggest that you note in your files or inventory that this coin is AT.

 

On 8/24/2022 at 11:14 AM, zadok said:

...this subject has no precise answer...toning n the appeal for or the rejection of is purely a personal matter...there is no pluses or minuses listing in any grading guides...preferences for or against have been cyclical over the past few years, especially in the highly manipulated n market oriented morgan series, to lesser degree in the franklins, washington quarters n roosevelt dime series...its pretty much which ever way the market wind blows ($)...in the US collecting sphere most coins especially pre 1900 issues have been cleaned, dipped and/or improved upon at one time or another, after all pretty was deemed better...toning as most know is simply oxidation and the colors mostly dependent upon the environment in which it was subjected or exposed to...toned coins that were dipped or lightly cleaned will retone over time unless protected from their environment, its all natural, the real concern is the AT that is so prevalent in the current market, in virtually every instance this should be a negative regarding pricing n grading, but once again market whims enter into the picture...if one is looking for a precision assessment on toning and/or AT on coins...its just not going to happen....

Do either of you gentlemen differentiate between artificial toning, accelerated natural toning, and "assisted" toning?

[zadok]

On 8/24/2022 at 2:28 PM, Just Bob said:

 

Do either of you gentlemen differentiate between artificial toning, accelerated natural toning, and "assisted" toning?

...i personally do not, to me those r all AT...but, if u r saying that "assisted" toning is say putting a coin in an old kraft type paper envelope n letting it sit for several years n tone naturally in a high sulphur content envelope, i can go along with that as being natural toning...these qualifers "artificial, accelerated, assisted" r ambiguous words n need to be described to have a clear conversation...

[Just Bob]

On 8/24/2022 at 2:25 PM, zadok said:

..these qualifers "artificial, accelerated, assisted" r ambiguous words n need to be described to have a clear conversation...

True. I should have given at least a simple definition. Rather than hijack this thread, I will start another one on the subject, if you or others would like to continue the discussion.

[EagleRJO]

On 8/24/2022 at 4:08 PM, Just Bob said:

True. I should have given at least a simple definition. Rather than hijack this thread, I will start another one on the subject, if you or others would like to continue the discussion.

I am completely okay with discussing AT in this thread as the subject is really about toning I noticed with a recent coin purchase.  The milage of others may vary.