What is "Natural" or "Original" Toning as Opposed to "Artificial" Toning? 1 1

[Sandon]

    When I began collecting U.S. coins as an older child in the early 1970s, most collectors preferred coins that were brilliant and avoided coins that had changed in color from chemical reactions with substances in the environments to which they had been exposed.  Changes in color on silver and copper nickel coins were generally referred to as "tarnish" or "discoloration", and coins were regularly "dipped" in anti-tarnish solutions or "cleaned" to give them a brilliant, though usually not original looking, appearance.  By the 1990s, however, collectors had come to understand that such changes are often inevitable and that dipping or "cleaning" a coin is likely to do harm rather than good.  Many collectors came to regard what began to be called "toning" as a positive characteristic, especially if colorful. Nowadays, toned coins often realize premium prices, including some with heavy, dark toning that I regard as ugly. 

   Inevitably, some unscrupulous persons began to treat coins with chemicals, blow smoke on them, and the like, to produce rapid changes in the appearance of coins that simulated the toning that occurs over time. Grading services claim to be able to tell the difference between "natural" or "original" and "artificial toning" and "details" grade coins determined to be in the latter category, with NGC describing such coins as "artificially toned" and PCGS using a less certain description of "questionable color". I have never read any satisfactory account of how "natural" and "artificial" toning can always be told apart, nor for that matter, just what processes that result in toning are to be regarded as "natural" rather than "artificial".  For example, some older coin albums, such as those sold by Wayte Raymond during the second quarter of the last century, are known to promote distinctive patterns of toning on coins, and coins that were stored in such albums are often considered to have desirable "album toning". Yet if someone deliberately stores coins in such albums with the intent to create this type of toning, should the toning be considered "artificial" or "natural", and how could anyone tell the difference anyway?

   In or about 1974 an uncle of mine accompanied me at a coin show. He had a casual interest in coins and purchased for $4 an 1889 Morgan dollar that was then fully brilliant, untoned and perhaps previously "dipped", a "slider" that would now be called AU 58 or perhaps low-end mint state though not fully struck.  My uncle liked to look at the coin from time to time and left it lying unprotected on a windowsill for an extended period.  He was fascinated by the gradual changes in color on the side of the coin that was exposed to the open air and periodically turned the coin over to make the toning more even. By the time I received it about 35 years later, this once "white" coin looked like this:

   Dealers and collectors to whom I have shown this coin have differed over whether a grading service would regard the toning pattern as "natural" or "artificial".  What do you think?  How does your knowing that someone deliberately allowed the coin to tone affect your opinion?

[cobymordet]

I would think natural toning of a coin would be less formed.  That may not make sense because I can't seem to find the right word.  Your coin, the OBV has a clear outer ring and the REV has a clear ring separating center from rim, it seems unnatural to me.  I get what causes toning, but I can't fathom how it presents on many coins.  Like snowflakes, no two seem alike.  I do like some of the toning I have seen on various coins but I suspect nearly everyone of them to be artificial.  I have a few naturally toned coins and mine seem very minimal as opposed to many coins like the coin you presented.  The more pronounced, the less I believe. . . and I want to believe!  I have played with artificial toning and it got ridiculous.  I have also found that some methods of cleaning a coin creates a toning of sorts.  I don't think I would spend good money on a raw coin with fanatical toning, maybe on a high TPG graded coin.  I would love to post some of my toners but I can't get an adequate angle to capture it.

[Henri Charriere]

By your account, the coin had lain on a window sill for 15 years.  This much we do know: that coin did NOT reside on any such sill of a window within the five boroughs of New York City. But we face a far greater, insurmountable obstacle in rendering an opinion:  I do not know how much our Grand Master knows about such matters, but he is waiting in the wings ready to pounce on anyone who can go beyond mere conjecture and state conclusively, without a shadow of a doubt, exactly what happened in the case of your coin absent not-up-for-debate, conclusive proof. Consequently, any idle comment I may or may not have an inclination to express, shall have to await until he has spoken, ex cathedra, after which I can come out of hiding, and state with complete confidence: I agree... [for any number of credible reasons I can think of at a moment's notice].   

Edited March 13 by Henri Charriere
Correct misspelling

[RWB]

"Natural" or "original" tarnish occurs without intentional human intervention. Anything else, even if not augmented by human manipulation, is "artificial." The quandary is distinguishing one from the other - especially when it involves incidental circumstances. (I.e., silver coin wrapped in a napkin and given to you by Grandma for your birthday, and a silver coin wrapped in a napkin by a collector to enhance appearance. If both Grandma and collector are the same, well, have some warm gingerbread and let her 'splain it to you.)

[Henri Charriere]

On 3/12/2024 at 1:53 PM, RWB said:

"Natural" or "original" tarnish occurs without intentional human intervention. Anything else, even if not augmented by human manipulation, is "artificial." ....

Very well put.  I can confidently state I agree, and am in complete accord.  

[VKurtB]

On 3/12/2024 at 9:06 PM, Henri Charriere said:

Very well put.  I can confidently state I agree, and am in complete accord.  

#MeToo. If I believe a coin has had “help” becoming toned, EVEN IF UNINTENTIONAL, to me it is artificial toning. I don’t give a singular 💩 what any grading company does or does not say. I reserve the EXCLUSIVE right to make my own determinations regarding artificial toning. Hint: Yes, this means ALL brightly colored ASE’s are, by definition, artificially toned. Only edge darkening is even slightly permissible. Some edge darkening WILL happen to virtually ALL .999 or higher silver coins, even with industry standard storage methods. One literally CANNOT achieve brightly colored ASE’s without “better living through chemistry”.

Edited March 13 by VKurtB

[J P M]

In my opinion. If a coin is toned or as we used to say tarnished it should only be on one side and maybe on a small bit of the edge on the other side. If it is toned on both sides, I tend to think it is artificial.

Edited March 14 by J P M

[Sandon]

    There seems to be some consensus that any toning that is created intentionally, even if gradually, is "artificial" but no agreement as to how one can distinguish such toning from the "natural" kind based upon examination of the coin after the fact.  This shouldn't be very reassuring to anyone who may be willing to pay a premium for a coin because of its toning, which is why I would be very reluctant to pay such a premium.

   Here is an 1887-S Morgan dollar graded MS62 in an early small ANACS holder from about 1989-90, when ANACS was still owned by the American Numismatic Association. (The background of the label is printed with "Official ANA Grade" and the hologram on the back reads, "American Numismatic Association".) The coin already had some toning when I acquired it in 1997, and the toning has become more intense since that time. (A crack on the side of the holder may be permitting air intrusion.) The toning is on both sides but considerably more advanced on the lower portion of the obverse. Presumably, this toning is "natural", but how could one tell for sure?

 

[Rob’s Coins]

I just started collecting seriously for about a year.  I originally thought toned coins were neat, which they are.  I just can’t justify spending additional money on them.  With a little knowledge from other hobbies.  I was able to buy a bottle of “stuff” for $15 that would probably last me two years of toning coins within about 10min each.  Nothing to do with coins.

 Put things into perspective for me.  

Granted mine first couple look very crude and obviously fake.  I bet with a little patience you could get a coin to pass.  No longer a believer in toned coins.  More an art project than a collection for generations.  No, I’m not going to name products or methods, sorry.  Not in the buisness of generating fakes.  Just thought I would share my thoughts.

[Rob’s Coins]

[Mike Meenderink]

I use tarnish or toning as a lighthouse that guides me into the rest of the coin. Many times, nice coins develop a toning that is indicative to the toning being on the original surface of a very nice uncirculated coin. Just my 3 cents. If you haven't noticed many toned coins that are natural, get higher grades and it's not just from the colors or toning its from a coin that sat still for a long long time.

[tklein]

Here is something that has never sat right with me and so maybe a greater mind can enlighten me.  I submitted an entire 1987 Prestige Proof Set for grading. I submitted in the original government case which looked intact (no cracks or holes). But the coins came back as Artificial Toning. It feels wrong to me that coins that never left their original packaging would be considered artificial toning.  What does the forum think?

 

[The Neophyte Numismatist]

This is such a loaded debate.  Toning always seems to get people a little fired-up. All thoughts here are totally subjective, but this is how I look at toned coins personally:

IMO - Natural toning has a gradation to it.  I like seeing one color fade into another.  When the color breaks sharply, I immediately think AT.  This doesn't mean that my system is fool-proof.  There are plenty of Taco Bell napkin coins, windowsill coins, and egg-carton coins that have found their way into straight-graded holders.  Likewise, I am sure there are NT coins that come back AT.

There is some toning that I take for granted as natural every time.  That's battleship grey (or darker grey) toning on old silver coins.  Bust half dollars should have some greying IMO, and I am skeptical when I see a bright white one.

 

[The Neophyte Numismatist]

 

On 5/17/2024 at 9:38 AM, tklein said:

Here is something that has never sat right with me and so maybe a greater mind can enlighten me.  I submitted an entire 1987 Prestige Proof Set for grading. I submitted in the original government case which looked intact (no cracks or holes). But the coins came back as Artificial Toning. It feels wrong to me that coins that never left their original packaging would be considered artificial toning.  What does the forum think?

 

I would like to see these in hand, but I would not say from the pics that they look AT.

[Sandon]

@tklein--You would probably receive better attention by posting a question about a specific coin as a separate topic. 

   There is no way I could develop my own opinion as to whether your 1987 proof coins have "original" or "artificial" toning from the images provided. Grading services have to base their opinions--and that is all they are--on the appearance of the coins. Their personnel cannot know how the coin became toned, and I understand that the personnel who grade the coins are different from those remove them from the packaging. It may be possible to expose coins in government packaging to chemicals or heat that would produce rapid toning that would be considered artificial.  Although proof coins from 1887 would be expected to have toned, proof coins from 1987 that were stored in their government hard plastic holders are expected to be untoned, superb gem (69-70) deep cameos. Although I have seen coins in Prestige sets develop more toning than regular sets, the likely explanation for such coins to be significantly toned is storage in a humid or otherwise less than ideal environment.

   To me, the larger question is why any collector would submit "an entire 1987 Prestige Proof Set for grading".  These sets contain modern collectors' issues, all with mintages in the millions and virtually all in deep cameo, superb gem grades. If you wanted them for a registry set, the only reason of which I can think, you could likely have bought these same issues in NGC or PCGS holders in at least PF 69 UCAM for reasonable prices. It must have cost you $114 ($19 x 6) in grading fees alone, $152 with the return shipping and processing fees plus any cost of shipping to NGC, and you ended up with coins deemed impaired.  Think of the coins you could have bought with that money instead.

[tklein]

On 5/17/2024 at 11:59 AM, Sandon said:

@tklein--You would probably receive better attention by posting a question about a specific coin as a separate topic. 

   There is no way I could develop my own opinion as to whether your 1987 proof coins have "original" or "artificial" toning from the images provided. Grading services have to base their opinions--and that is all they are--on the appearance of the coins. Their personnel cannot know how the coin became toned, and I understand that the personnel who grade the coins are different from those remove them from the packaging. It may be possible to expose coins in government packaging to chemicals or heat that would produce rapid toning that would be considered artificial.  Although proof coins from 1887 would be expected to have toned, proof coins from 1987 that were stored in their government hard plastic holders are expected to be untoned, superb gem (69-70) deep cameos. Although I have seen coins in Prestige sets develop more toning than regular sets, the likely explanation for such coins to be significantly toned is storage in a humid or otherwise less than ideal environment.

   To me, the larger question is why any collector would submit "an entire 1987 Prestige Proof Set for grading".  These sets contain modern collectors' issues, all with mintages in the millions and virtually all in deep cameo, superb gem grades. If you wanted them for a registry set, the only reason of which I can think, you could likely have bought these same issues in NGC or PCGS holders in at least PF 69 UCAM for reasonable prices. It must have cost you $114 ($19 x 6) in grading fees alone, $152 with the return shipping and processing fees plus any cost of shipping to NGC, and you ended up with coins deemed impaired.  Think of the coins you could have bought with that money instead.

Thank you for your response. You make a very good point about it being less expensive to buy already slabbed. I did it because I liked the toning and assumed that submitting the entire set would demonstrate that I didn't do anything to make it that way.  I was wrong.  While I know I didn't do anything to the set other than store it in a closet for decades, I guess the graders assumed someone did something to the coins.  I think the plastics in the set likely caused the toning over time because I've seen other Prestige sets with similar toning on ebay.

I'm much more careful about what I send in. 

[Henri Charriere]

On 4/5/2024 at 2:35 PM, Rob’s Coins said:

....  No, I’m not going to name products or methods, sorry.  Not in the buisness of generating fakes....

It is with a heavy heart that I inform you I am prepared to make you a very attractive offer for that, er, proprietary elixir to make my boring coins come to life.  If "luster" is one of the things taken into consideration in grading a coin, I want my gold roosters to look their Sunday best.  You understand.  🤣