Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

Recommended Posts

According to the description accompanying this ebay auction, the coin displays "fresh violet, purple, and blue toning". I wonder if this toning is fresher than one might imagine. Any opinions?

Pattern farthing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a milled collector, but I've noticed, on Coinpeople, the fixation with "pretty" patenas., and I've been convinced that the colours are more due to chemicals than time! :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

YeeeuK! :wacko: "Never seen like this" says the listing - and a good job too I think! Violet purple and blue - like a bruise and definitely artificial!

I know there are some people out there who like such extreme 'toning' but I kinda wish they'd keep it to themselves!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest E. Dawson

Definately arteficial, and very much the fashion to do this to the Morgan dollar series - many others done as well and one seller on ebay with a nomen to the effect of "beautiful toning" (or close to it) that does that to all of his coins to spruce up the values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Artifical toning and surgically enhanced boobs....both a BIG NO. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nasty if you ask me, reminds me of an oil spill in the road. Hence why i call coins of this nature 'slickers'.

With reference to Coinpeople, ah it's not just there, you'll find wherever there are alot of Americans there seems to be almost a cult following of coins of this nature. Personally i wouldn't touch it with three barge poles bolted together with titanium, but our friends across the pond seem to view it differently and actually drool over such toning.

To me silver should be bright or grey and copper should be bright or brown, anything outside those parameters and it's been mucked about with as far as i'm concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this wasn't this colour when it sold at Baldwin's in May. This piece was coloured the same as Nicholson 157 when seen in the hand, with the same dull finish as becomes a halfpenny in VF or thereabouts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree it is sacrilege to tone that pattern farthing. I recently bought a toned halfpenny because it was going cheap and thought it would be interesting in my collection, but I think that coins with any great value or rarity should not be toned.

Now everyone will probably say I was wrong to buy such a coin and you are probably right, but coins and metals do react to chemicals and change colour i.e. old shillings will acquire a dark tone over time etc. and some coins in the past in private collections have toned colourfully (inevitably) depending on how and where they were stored.

Sellers who like the colours produced by this chemical reaction apply this chemistry to coins to attract certain buyers. I suppose it is like buying a car but you chouse to buy one with fancy metallic paint work. It is a bit of fun on newer less valuable coins but older coins and rarer coins in my opinion shouldn't be toned!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sellers who like the colours produced by this chemical reaction apply this chemistry to coins to attract certain buyers. I suppose it is like buying a car but you chouse to buy one with fancy metallic paint work. It is a bit of fun on newer less valuable coins but older coins and rarer coins in my opinion shouldn't be toned!

Toning a coin to sell is no different than cleaning a coin to sell. It's an altered coin and thus of no interest to collectors. (Except Americans)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Toning a coin to sell is no different than cleaning a coin to sell. It's an altered coin and thus of no interest to collectors. (Except Americans)

It bothers me on some US forums how dipping coins is taken so lightly. The Oh-I'll-just-dip-X-Y-Z-to-bump-it-up-a-point-or-two syndrome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toning a coin to sell is no different than cleaning a coin to sell. It's an altered coin and thus of no interest to collectors. (Except Americans)

It bothers me on some US forums how dipping coins is taken so lightly. The Oh-I'll-just-dip-X-Y-Z-to-bump-it-up-a-point-or-two syndrome.

Quite agree. Toning or cleaning a coin is dameging the coin. However nature also does this and over time no coin will stay in mint state or colour. I do agree with you both though, dameging a coin intensionally is not a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toning a coin to sell is no different than cleaning a coin to sell. It's an altered coin and thus of no interest to collectors. (Except Americans)

Now correct me if I am wrong but, there are a lot of people that collect hammered coins, and a lot of these coins have been clipped (altered or damaged) however people still collect them.

Also what about Victorian Crowns, Shillings etc that have had chop marks put on them are these coins not damaged or altered yet there are collectors of these types of coins.

You could argue that these coins that have been toned have been done so to make the seller extra money, but this is no different to the person in the middle ages clipping a coin to make money and then (passing) selling it on at face value.

Now I'm not pro toning coins in anyway far from it however. I always like to look at both sides of a debate.

There is the saying that “Beauty is in the eye of the beholderâ€.

I say if people like collecting altered coins let them. Each to themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Each to themselves," yet I see a difference between a hammered coin that was clipped 5 centuries ago at the time it circulated and a 17th century copper halfpenny that was recoloured 5 months ago in order to sell it at a high price to a gullible collector. Are the dealers who are colouring and selling these coins really any different than those of the past who used to sell whizzed (polished) coins as mint state to unsuspecting and often inexperienced collectors? To add insult to injury, the US grading services are rewarding these coins with mint state grades one or two points higher than those submitted without recolouring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, artificial colouring is no different to the practice of enamelling coins. It hurts when the subject is one that you'ld give your eye teeth for in 'normal' condition. But I suppose we must admit that "each to his own" although messing about with coins is, in reality, messing with a small piece of history. :huh:

Edited by Geordie582

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet another coin (this one with "exceptional eye appeal") being offered by the same firm..

Ebay auction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You could argue that these coins that have been toned have been done so to make the seller extra money, but this is no different to the person in the middle ages clipping a coin to make money and then (passing) selling it on at face value.

Two things;

1) Medieval/Ancients are indeed cleaned often, the reason for this is that most are from hoards that have been dug up, and often they are encased in soil etc. and they have to be cleaned to be identified. That said some are cleaned for collector's 'benefit'.

2) With the example you give above there is a difference. The important difference being CONTEXT. The act of an unscrupulous medieval individual clipping a coin to pass it on is part of historical context of the period, it is in no way aimed at collectors. Likewise cartwheel twopences were sometimes converted into smuggling tins, that is they'd cut the coin in half so the obverse and reverse were separate and then they'd hollow the coin out and install a screw type mechanism in the recessed part so that you could unscrew the obverse from the reverse hide small messages inside and then reclose the box and it'd look like an ordinary coin. This might seem like mindless vandalism, now if a coin dealer did it tomorrow to one and the tried to pass it off as a genuine article it'd be very wrong. A genuine 19th century engineered piece for use in the Napoleonic Wars would be quite sought after for it's potentially valuable role in history.

Cleaning/recolouring a coin on the other hand doesn't have any of the context, infact altering a coin is removing it from it's historical context. Under normal circumstances (i.e not buried) dirt accumulates on the coin over many years, removing this dirt and then recolouring is removing it's history.

I also strongly agree with Oli's point about the flippant use of dipping, as far as i'm concerned coins should never be meddled with, they should never be cleaned or altered. With the following seldom exceptions;

1) When cleaning is required in order to identify the coin

2) If the coin has verdigris

3) Any other chemicals on the coin that will cause more damage if left. PVC residue for one.

You'll note the reasons i provide are never for æsthetic purposes but are in cases when the coin's well being or identification require it to be so.

The number one rule, if you don't like the way a coin looks then don't try and alter it just sell it and buy one you do like, better still don't buy it in the first place.

Oh and Hussulo just for the record i think your halfpenny is actually naturally toned that way, i don't think it's a case of doctored at all, i just think poor storage is to blame. Did it come from the US by any chance? Because some of their storage methods leave alot to be desired, many of the older methods particularly so because they cause alot of damage to coins.

Yet another coin (this one with "exceptional eye appeal") being offered by the same firm..

Ebay auction

Actually i think that one is probably natural, copper can sometimes pick up light colouring, if you look at the bottom picture of the coin in it's coffin you'll see it looks fairly normal (although very dark to me due to my screen colours being a tad off), however, the top image looks like it's been shall we say enhanced?

Someone turned the colour up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do find the degree of interest in this topic very reassuring! Like, I supect, most of you I prefer my coins to look 'natural'.

Collecting hammered as I do, that generally means either shiny bright, since it has been recovered from the ground and had to be cleaned, or 'tarnished' through age, as silver will do if left exposed to the air. In some cases this tarnishing is really quite attractive. In other cases it's kinda dull.

As to the cleaned coins - given the choice, I'd rather not have those bright shiny faces gleaming at me from the tray! I can't say I haven't been tempted to speed up the natural process of time and dull them down. I admit, the logical thing is to say, ok - if you don't like the look of a coin, don't buy. With 'modern' coins one may have the choice to pass on a particular specimen and buy a 'nicer' one later. Unfortunately with some hammered this isn't an option. Pass up a coin and you may never see another!

There is however, in my view at least, a difference between keeping a coin in an old manilla envelope in the hope that it will dull down a bit and creating a quite frankly 'cosmetic' look. Maybe I'm wrong?

Apart from the artificiality of it all, there is another point. Now I may be wrong but I gathered that the US system is geared to giving the highest relative value to coins that most closely match the condition that they would have had at the point of striking (or at least, leaving the mint).

I cannot see how such 'rainbow' specimens could possibly meet this criteria. They strike me as a fad, rather like enamelling coins. Unfortunately I worry that, like many things American, the trend may yet get a foothold over here. But I hope not!

Edited by TomGoodheart

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toning a coin to sell is no different than cleaning a coin to sell. It's an altered coin and thus of no interest to collectors. (Except Americans)

Not to this American.

I like subtle toning only - rim can be nice.

AT coins are truly awful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Toning a coin to sell is no different than cleaning a coin to sell. It's an altered coin and thus of no interest to collectors. (Except Americans)

Not to this American.

I like subtle toning only - rim can be nice.

AT coins are truly awful.

I was speaking generically there, i didn't mean every single American collector. I knew a few who don't care for it. Conversly i know some British collectors that like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm an American as well, but Sylvester has a point. It's depressing to read some of the posts to the Collectors Universe (PCGS) forum extolling the virtues of toned coins, many of which appear to have had help in getting that way. There are more than a few dealers who are willing to sell these coins at huge premiums, often many multiples of trends, and unfortunately, there are collectors who are taking the bait. This will not end well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last year toning kits were selling on Ebay...and selling very well.

Looking at the feedbacks they were selling to some respectable dealers on BOTH sides of the pond.

There was a thread on here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm an American as well, but Sylvester has a point. It's depressing to read some of the posts to the Collectors Universe (PCGS) forum extolling the virtues of toned coins, many of which appear to have had help in getting that way. There are more than a few dealers who are willing to sell these coins at huge premiums, often many multiples of trends, and unfortunately, there are collectors who are taking the bait. This will not end well.

You hit the nail on the head there.

What really irks me is two things;

1) Know it all collectors that can distinguish between NT (Natural toning) and AT (Artificial toning). The question is, the difference is very shady indeed.

Point in case, a coin that was in a collection say 80 years ago was stored in a sulphur envelope. It has developed colourful toning, this would be regarded as natural. I can see why, it was not intended. But yet modern day collectors purposely putting coins into these envelopes now to get the desired effect and it's still considered natural! I would say that's Artificial because they know what the results will be if they store them in Sulphur containing envelopes and they're doing it on purpose. It doesn't matter how long it takes! In my mind it's the 'motive' of doing something, toning to increase value/eye appeal, that is the benchmark between NT and AT, not 'length of time taken' as everyone else seems to measure it by, which frankly is ludicrous.

How anyone can tell the difference between AT and NT is therefore a mystery to me. It would have to have a provence of over 50 years in that toned condition before i would class it as natural. Still makes it ugly in my opinion though.

2) The thing that really annoys the hell out of me is the hypocrisy of it all. There seems to be an implicit understanding that 'toning' a coin or putting it somewhere where it will tone 'naturally' like in a high sulphur envelope in a warm attic for ten years is instantly preferable and completely 'natural' and yet different from 'cleaning' a coin which people should be shot for. Unless of course they are only dipping it to remove unwanted unattractive tones and dirt which is undesirable and is affecting the eye appeal, so they can then retone it to more current tastes. And yet these people are the same people that often bash newbies for cleaning coins saying "coins should never be altered! Originality is paramount!"

Now this seems like a very flawed ideology to me, is that not Orwellian doublethink in action there? It's against something (cleaning/AT), for something similar (dipping/'NT') and yet not standing for either at the same time (retaining originality at all costs).

And they wonder why i have a problem with it, there's just no logic in it. And they say i'm mad!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest E. Dawson

Beauty being in the eye of the beholder is probably the key here, not to mention the cliche of all things in moderation....

A bigger problem, but related, is that of "processing" whereby a coin such as a Lincoln cent from the US (like the 1909 SVDB) is stripped and then very slightly toned (AT) to look nearly full red. Please see the online listed catalogues from firms such as Heritage (www.heritagecoin.com) where there will be 6 or 8 or more gem MS 65+ encapsulated cents with peculiar surfaces.

But back to the first point: some toning is blatant and nearly neon in presentation and this is obvious, other toning is quite subtle. My own opinion is that if it is not too outrageous, then it is acceptable; obviously there are variances in opinion both on individual bases and on sub-cultural bases. A bit of toleration might be of value as well a s a bit of conservatism when in doubt...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm an American as well, but Sylvester has a point. It's depressing to read some of the posts to the Collectors Universe (PCGS) forum extolling the virtues of toned coins, many of which appear to have had help in getting that way. There are more than a few dealers who are willing to sell these coins at huge premiums, often many multiples of trends, and unfortunately, there are collectors who are taking the bait. This will not end well.

You hit the nail on the head there.

What really irks me is two things;

1) Know it all collectors that can distinguish between NT (Natural toning) and AT (Artificial toning). The question is, the difference is very shady indeed.

Point in case, a coin that was in a collection say 80 years ago was stored in a sulphur envelope. It has developed colourful toning, this would be regarded as natural. I can see why, it was not intended. But yet modern day collectors purposely putting coins into these envelopes now to get the desired effect and it's still considered natural! I would say that's Artificial because they know what the results will be if they store them in Sulphur containing envelopes and they're doing it on purpose. It doesn't matter how long it takes! In my mind it's the 'motive' of doing something, toning to increase value/eye appeal, that is the benchmark between NT and AT, not 'length of time taken' as everyone else seems to measure it by, which frankly is ludicrous.

How anyone can tell the difference between AT and NT is therefore a mystery to me. It would have to have a provence of over 50 years in that toned condition before i would class it as natural. Still makes it ugly in my opinion though.

2) The thing that really annoys the hell out of me is the hypocrisy of it all. There seems to be an implicit understanding that 'toning' a coin or putting it somewhere where it will tone 'naturally' like in a high sulphur envelope in a warm attic for ten years is instantly preferable and completely 'natural' and yet different from 'cleaning' a coin which people should be shot for. Unless of course they are only dipping it to remove unwanted unattractive tones and dirt which is undesirable and is affecting the eye appeal, so they can then retone it to more current tastes. And yet these people are the same people that often bash newbies for cleaning coins saying "coins should never be altered! Originality is paramount!"

Now this seems like a very flawed ideology to me, is that not Orwellian doublethink in action there? It's against something (cleaning/AT), for something similar (dipping/'NT') and yet not standing for either at the same time (retaining originality at all costs).

And they wonder why i have a problem with it, there's just no logic in it. And they say i'm mad!

You're not mad (at least in this case!! ;) ). I agree with this. Both artificial toning/ugly "natural" toning and cleaning are bad. I recently got a PCGS MS66 sixpence from a well known US seller that was not at all attractive, sight unseen with full return privileges. To my utter disappointment, it was very ugly in spite of the technically high grade. Initially I sought to return it, but since postage/insurance was so bloomin' expensive I decided to sell it on ebay. That turned out to be the right decision.

6d_1926_Obv.JPG

6d_1926_Rev.JPG

Edited by wybrit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×