LostDutchman Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 which is it....I know, do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccg Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 Tough call. AT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostDutchman Posted October 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 please try to post a reason why you think what it is....it will help trust me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccg Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 Yellow on obverse- there's toning, but not much. Makes me suspect that it might be some sort of heat/chemical job. NT pieces I've seen that are nearly all white on one side have toning as a cresent, rather than isolated spots. Reverse- bright purple on eagle seems to be unusual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stujoe Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 Honesty, it is a shot in the dark for me on this one. I am far from a toning expert but these are the type ramblings I go through when looking at a toned coin... I don't like the color of some of the toning (esp the Pink) but nothing stands out as totally unbelievable or that which I have not seen slabbed before. Sequence of color seems mostly right and it seems to be everywhere it should be but I don't like the very dark areas with no fading into other colors. I see a little spotting that could be from chemical pooling but it could not be too. Obverse looks natural. When in doubt, I err on the safe side and QT it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostDutchman Posted October 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 Yellow on obverse- there's toning, but not much. Makes me suspect that it might be some sort of heat/chemical job. NT pieces I've seen that are nearly all white on one side have toning as a cresent, rather than isolated spots. you mean like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccg Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 you mean like this? Yeah, that looks pretty NT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stujoe Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 If the original coin is NT, I am guessing end roll as I guess that could leave an odd pattern... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grifter Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 I say AT, because it's a rather inexpensive coin, and it looks nice, so someone probably used it to AT because it's cheap and looks nice. Also, the pattern is quite random. I think you're testing us too, so yea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostDutchman Posted October 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 I will reveal the truth tommorow evening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gxseries Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 If you really force me to put an answer to this, here is my opinion and it is theory based. I am not going to claim every single element of it is true. Suppose if this 1884 Morgon dollar coin is blasting white originally with hints of toning on the edge of the coin, that is what I would be happy to call initial stages of toning as no matter how hard you try to prevent toning to happen, toning often has a tendency to start on the edges first or areas that has been affected by some chemicals. Naturally such a prestigious coin would only be handled by the edges and hence, more "unnatural" chemicals on the edges. However, on the reverse, what would one expect of a blasting white lustre would probably be a shock horror. I am NOT willing to agree that this is natural as the variance on the obverse and the reverse differs so greatly that theorically it's not possible. You could argue that this coin was at the end of a roll, but honestly, the waving style of the toning color as you can call it isn't very concentric (sorry, I study silly waves in maths ) and it seems that this was done in a fairly short and extreme manner. One way is probably to overlay surphic paper over the reverse and toast it under the hot summer sun, but the waves rarely form in that manner unless the reverse has been cleaned at one stage which acceralates the toning process or there was ample of sulphur ONLY on the reverse. Also have you noticed how waves head from the bottom left to the the eagle's chest? That to me seems to be some heat processing toning "damage" and if you creative enough, you can draw some parabola graphs. Either the coin was tilted slightly when the sun was doing it's job, or the light ray was limited to a certain range of the coin. In my opinion, AT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostDutchman Posted October 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 Very intresting oppinion...we will see tommorow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 AT for me. The reverse coloration appears to be chemically induced. If it were album toning I'd guess you'd see more toning on the obv as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stujoe Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 You could argue that this coin was at the end of a roll, but honestly, the waving style of the toning color as you can call it isn't very concentric One thing about old rolls, I believe, is that they were the type that folded on the ends (and not the machine ends we see in bank rolls today), so you can end up with some sharp lines and odd patterns. Still, it doesn't really look to me like that either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpnyc Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 AT. Looks like someone took a torch to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 I think that the coin is AT. The ones that I have seen that I know to be NT have a 'directionality" (if there is such a word) to the toning. In other words, the toning looks like it comes from a certain direction. Whereas the coin in question is 'one-sided' and the obverse doesn't have the same intensity of toning that the reverse does. so much for my two cents worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostDutchman Posted October 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 you guys ready to find out the truth???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostDutchman Posted October 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 50cents Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 I voted NT because i know a hot shot toning expert like you would not own an AT coin...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostDutchman Posted October 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 Alright guys for those of you that said Natural Toning....Congrats...This coin is as natural as they get....the reason I know this is that I bought the original roll yesterday still in the original paper at the show....and I know it is an original roll because all of the coins are from the same die pair and ALL have a repunched mintmark. The 2 coins I posted were the end coins in the roll...the reason they are so different is from the way they were stored....this roll sat vertical in a cigar box (it was falling apart when the lady brought it in) for the last 80 or so years. That is why the one coin is toned more then the other one because the paper was being pressed against it with all the weight of the other 19 coins squishing it....if you have any questions please post them and I will answer the best I can Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbycoin Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 Cool info Dutch. I didnt vote becasue I dont know where to begin when looking at toning. I like the story behind the coins though. Thanks for sharing. -Bobby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 50cents Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 The reasons this coin is NT. I will start. 1.) Hairlines on the reverse are tone. 2.) toning start are rims and goes in. 3.) the toning is part of the reverse and is not pour on. Next Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostDutchman Posted October 3, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 Yes Yes And Yes Coins that are toned on one side are normal and most of the rainbow coins you see are like that. They will have just a little on the side of the coin that is against another one and be all sorts of colors on the other side....coins that are rainbow on both sides should be at the least suspect... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burks Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 The obverse was easily NT for me for reasons people have already mentioned. Reverse was a little more difficult. If anything I leaned very, very, very slightly AT. Why? Because I've never seen a coin with colors like that in a similar combination. Chalk it up to inexperience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stujoe Posted October 3, 2005 Report Share Posted October 3, 2005 I am satisfied with my answer at least. I thought the obverse looked ok and if the reverse was natural, it was possibly end roll toned. Not bad for a rank armature. Being stored vertically certainly did change the look I am familiar with for an end roll coin. Thanks for the lesson! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.