how horrible is this?

[moneyer12 0]

found this on an american web site, a really beautiful coin ruined by the severe toning, not to mention the slab............

[TomGoodheart 434]

found this on an american web site, a really beautiful coin ruined by the severe toning, not to mention the slab............

Your links didn't work for me so I've amended them moneyer.

And, no. Burnt caramel doesn't appeal much to me either.

Edited March 17, 2012 by TomGoodheart

[Peter 615]

Awfull

That is so false.

Toning kits,gold mounters,polishers and dippers should be named and shamed.

Its like a quality car with wide wheels added and an Essex boy exhaust.Have em shot and their parents sterilised.

[scott 145]

looks like copper.

is it artificial?

Edited March 17, 2012 by scott

[VickySilver 883]

Good Heavens! Don't ask that on the PCGS chat room, EVERYTHING is NT (naturally toned, as opposed to AT = artificially toned). I suspect the coin is an AU/GEF that shows wear on the obverse high points and has been artificially toned in an attempt to hide that and get an all-important MS grade (i.e. 60-70). This is frequently done and to "out" a severe culprit to whom I have written, check the seller "Greattoning"! Ouch! Ouch!

By the way, what grade did NGC bestow on this coin?

[Peckris 579]

found this on an american web site, a really beautiful coin ruined by the severe toning, not to mention the slab............

(I had to see this via Tom's relinking...)

I'm afraid I'm going to buck the trend here. From the description I expected to see yet another artificial 'rainbow' ugliness, but this wasn't. I agree that it may be artificial and the golden toning is a little too rich, but on the whole I love silver coins with a single colour toning - e.g. blue, or gold, or even grey-pewter. That's not nearly as ugly as I thought it was going to be.

[Nick 329]

found this on an american web site, a really beautiful coin ruined by the severe toning, not to mention the slab............

(I had to see this via Tom's relinking...)

I'm afraid I'm going to buck the trend here. From the description I expected to see yet another artificial 'rainbow' ugliness, but this wasn't. I agree that it may be artificial and the golden toning is a little too rich, but on the whole I love silver coins with a single colour toning - e.g. blue, or gold, or even grey-pewter. That's not nearly as ugly as I thought it was going to be.

I'm with you Peck, I like toned silver. Although, in this case the obverse is not very attractive, but I could easily live with the reverse.

Edited March 17, 2012 by Nick

[Peckris 579]

found this on an american web site, a really beautiful coin ruined by the severe toning, not to mention the slab............

(I had to see this via Tom's relinking...)

I'm afraid I'm going to buck the trend here. From the description I expected to see yet another artificial 'rainbow' ugliness, but this wasn't. I agree that it may be artificial and the golden toning is a little too rich, but on the whole I love silver coins with a single colour toning - e.g. blue, or gold, or even grey-pewter. That's not nearly as ugly as I thought it was going to be.

I'm with you Peck, I like toned silver. Although, in this case the obverse is not very attractive, but I could easily live with the reverse.

Agreed

[Coinery 1,248]

found this on an american web site, a really beautiful coin ruined by the severe toning, not to mention the slab............

(I had to see this via Tom's relinking...)

I'm afraid I'm going to buck the trend here. From the description I expected to see yet another artificial 'rainbow' ugliness, but this wasn't. I agree that it may be artificial and the golden toning is a little too rich, but on the whole I love silver coins with a single colour toning - e.g. blue, or gold, or even grey-pewter. That's not nearly as ugly as I thought it was going to be.

I'm with you Peck, I like toned silver. Although, in this case the obverse is not very attractive, but I could easily live with the reverse.

Agreed

With you two on this one! The toning over the veil looks very 'right' to me, I wonder whether the photography is to blame here and not the toning! I think I'd take a gamble, expecting it to turn up in hand more golden than caramel, I rather like it!

I've taken a few pictures in natural light recently that have 'invented' colours I never knew existed on the coin.

How much is it? I'd buy it to look!

[scott 145]

MS state can't be toned, as it wasnt toned when it left the mint.

i like a good toner, but there are things there that make it look more random, purples etc, i bet it would look differant in differant light, but i dont get where yellow has come from here.

[Gary D 76]

Surely toning is just environmental damage, the more the toning the poorer the coin has been looked after. So a heavily toned coin is bad not good.

[Colin G. 147]

Surely toning is just environmental damage, the more the toning the poorer the coin has been looked after. So a heavily toned coin is bad not good.

Suerly though all coins that are not full lustre have toned, so how do you determine what is acceptable environmental damage and what isn't? We are all familiar with how our collected coins normally tone, and what types of colour range are to be expected....and at the other end of the scale we can all spot those "rainbow toned" uglies!!

The middle ground however is not so clear, I have seen many farthings that have toned as a result of being in flips, and whilst 99% of them are uneven, or even damaged by this environment, the odd occasion results in a very attractive coin.

This coin recently came from part of a collection in flips, you can see where the PVC window has sat, but has given the coin stunning eye appeal. Even the photo does not do it justice, it really is a beauty.

Therefore is it only intentional toning that is unacceptable?

Discuss

[scott 145]

i like toned coins, especially EF as that damage is caused by the slight handling the coin has had, working the silver over long periods

[Nick 329]

Surely toning is just environmental damage, the more the toning the poorer the coin has been looked after. So a heavily toned coin is bad not good.

How would you explain the fact that proof coins are usually more toned than non-proof? Surely proof coins would be better looked after than non-proofs, but tone more readily due to an interaction between the metal, the atmosphere and the material contained within the presentation case.

[Coinery 1,248]

found this on an american web site, a really beautiful coin ruined by the severe toning, not to mention the slab............

Hi, do you mind me asking which site? Have you got an easy link?

[Peckris 579]

Surely toning is just environmental damage, the more the toning the poorer the coin has been looked after. So a heavily toned coin is bad not good.

How would you explain the fact that proof coins are usually more toned than non-proof? Surely proof coins would be better looked after than non-proofs, but tone more readily due to an interaction between the metal, the atmosphere and the material contained within the presentation case.

Agreed. Proof coins that are in absolute mint state and have never left their sealed plastic tombs, can tone horribly as we all know from 1973 sets.

[Gary D 76]

Surely toning is just environmental damage, the more the toning the poorer the coin has been looked after. So a heavily toned coin is bad not good.

How would you explain the fact that proof coins are usually more toned than non-proof? Surely proof coins would be better looked after than non-proofs, but tone more readily due to an interaction between the metal, the atmosphere and the material contained within the presentation case.

Agreed. Proof coins that are in absolute mint state and have never left their sealed plastic tombs, can tone horribly as we all know from 1973 sets.

Isn't that due to chemicals in the packaging.

[VickySilver 883]

Yes, and moisture and temperature, etc.

[Gary D 76]

Yes, and moisture and temperature, etc.

Well no one has yet in my opinion come up with a convincing counter argument to my previous state that the amount of toning and rate of toning is in direct relationship to the quantity of environmental damage. The heavier the toning the harsher the environment the coin has been keeps in. Just putting a coin away in an envelope although may be considered as protecting it could actually do more damage than leaving it in open air. I still maintain that although all coins will tone with age a lightly toned coin is better than a deeply tone coin, so we shouldn't be seeking out toning and equating it with quality.

[TomGoodheart 434]

Yes, and moisture and temperature, etc.

Well no one has yet in my opinion come up with a convincing counter argument to my previous state that the amount of toning and rate of toning is in direct relationship to the quantity of environmental damage. The heavier the toning the harsher the environment the coin has been keeps in. Just putting a coin away in an envelope although may be considered as protecting it could actually do more damage than leaving it in open air. I still maintain that although all coins will tone with age a lightly toned coin is better than a deeply tone coin, so we shouldn't be seeking out toning and equating it with quality.

I think there's a difference between seeking out and accepting toning. If you try to avoid all toning then you get the situation I believe they have in Germany where coins are dipped and varnished to preserve their state. Whereas the Americans seem to have gone the other way completely.

Some coins will tone and, certainly with hammered coins that are likely to have been cleaned at some time, I prefer a bit of toning than the bright shininess like this:

And once a coin has toned then I think it does more harm to try to reverse it than let it be. But perhaps it's a personal thing? Shiny bright-as-the-day-they-were-struck Roman coins somehow don't seem so bad to me as the shilling above for some reason.

[Peckris 579]

Agreed. Proof coins that are in absolute mint state and have never left their sealed plastic tombs, can tone horribly as we all know from 1973 sets.

Isn't that due to chemicals in the packaging.

Yes, most probably, especially with those 73 sets.

Yes, and moisture and temperature, etc.

Not with those modern proof sets - they're well sealed

Yes, and moisture and temperature, etc.

Well no one has yet in my opinion come up with a convincing counter argument to my previous state that the amount of toning and rate of toning is in direct relationship to the quantity of environmental damage. The heavier the toning the harsher the environment the coin has been keeps in. Just putting a coin away in an envelope although may be considered as protecting it could actually do more damage than leaving it in open air. I still maintain that although all coins will tone with age a lightly toned coin is better than a deeply tone coin, so we shouldn't be seeking out toning and equating it with quality.

I think there's a difference between seeking out and accepting toning. If you try to avoid all toning then you get the situation I believe they have in Germany where coins are dipped and varnished to preserve their state. Whereas the Americans seem to have gone the other way completely.

Some coins will tone and, certainly with hammered coins that are likely to have been cleaned at some time, I prefer a bit of toning than the bright shininess like this:

And once a coin has toned then I think it does more harm to try to reverse it than let it be. But perhaps it's a personal thing? Shiny bright-as-the-day-they-were-struck Roman coins somehow don't seem so bad to me as the shilling above for some reason.

Isn't that because that's more usual for Roman coins than hammered? I've seen lots of untoned denarii, but never an untoned hammered except the one in your picture. It may be several causes - (i) the thickness of the coin, (ii) the quality of the silver, (iii) the frequency of hoarded Roman coins especially in this country.

[scott 145]

i dunno about roman silver, but arn't some roman silver coins plated?

[VickySilver 883]

I would say "au contraire" in that modern sets, albeit better sealed with possibly more inert plastics, etc., are still vulnerable to in-case toning and that I have seen it; I would quite imagine other members will support me in this observation.

[Coinery 1,248]

I really want to buy the coin that sparked this conversation, does anyone have the link? I'm confident this is nothing other than fancy, overdone, photographic software!

I raise this point again, because my original request is slipping further down the posts unanswered! Anyone?

[TomGoodheart 434]

I really want to buy the coin that sparked this conversation, does anyone have the link? I'm confident this is nothing other than fancy, overdone, photographic software!

I raise this point again, because my original request is slipping further down the posts unanswered! Anyone?

The original photos maneyer posted were from the cointalk website but whether linked to someone showing off their purchase, I don't know. Perhaps pm him?