Real or A/T? You make the call!

[jtryka]

Here are two common Roosevelt dimes, a 1962 and 1963. The question for all of you, is the toning natural or artificial? Please post your opinion and your reasoning, and I'll tell you more about these coins later.

 

1962 Obverse

1962 Reverse

1963 Obverse

1963 Reverse

[MAULUMALL]

I have the twin for the 62.I know that mine is real.

 

The 63 looks real to me as well.

[jom]

Real? AT? Who cares...how about UGLY?

 

jom

[robbitheokie-migration]

don't really know but i just picked up two roosies this weekend that are toning blue and gold both have been in the same tube againts each other for quite a few years and the dates are 1965 and 1989P, Really cool and outstanding uesually dont see this knid of toning on business strikes, usually found on proofs.

[Oldtrader3]

The '62 reverse looks like any number of Roosies that I have seen through the years. White spots and all. To me, the '63 Reverse looks AT because the colors look painted on and unaturally distributed to me.

 

The obverses of both coins look legit.

[GDJMSP]

Both look real to me. That type of toning is common on many of the older Mint sets. But those years came in the pliofilm packs. I'd say they have been in a cardboard album for some time.

[jtryka]

Well, here is the story. Both of these coins are naturally toned. These were both stored in a safe deposit box in paper rolls of mixed date silver Roosevelts. As for how they toned, I am not sure, but they were both near the end of the roll, though not at the very end. These were placed in the rolls in 1991 and have remained virtually undisturbed since then. Either way, it's interesting to see that many of the other coins in the roll remained untoned entirely, though there was a third coin that was starting to tone but did not have nearly the color patterns of these two (more of an orange-gold toning). Among other things I found were some gold toned nickels from 1990 that were just sitting in an envelope, I might post photos of them later.