Would this be considered original toning?
1 1

14 posts in this topic

155 posts

Found this beauty recently and most people like it, some very much so. I almost had second thoughts after one person said "Looks like it's been hit by a blow torch". He also said "I don't get this toning thing some collectors have". After explaining to him why I like nicely toned coins he replied "I guess I'm just a purist" which I took for preferring "White" non toned coins..This conversation made me examine the reasons why I and others like toned coins and are willing to pay a premium for them. I came to the conclusion I simply like them, am happy with this one and will continue to get more! 

 

 

s-l1600 (43).jpg

Edited by EleMint Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,792 posts

It looks it to me and obviously, it did to NGC and CAC. If you show a toned coin to enough people, someone will probably question it. And if you show a color-free one to enough people, someone will probably question it, too.😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
475 posts

Everyone does not like a Picasso, Chagall, Monet, Renoir.... need I go on? I really like the more subtle toning of your coin and it's just plain pretty to me. I also like white coins if they are of an age and type that makes it reasonable for them to have remained untoned. To each his own. Pretty dull hobby otherwise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
438 posts

Others know toning better than me, but I think that "type" of toning may be due to the tabs and folds created by rolls.  So, my opinion is, it was likely from a roll and one of the two coins at the end of the roll.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,906 posts

Looks original to me.  

Nice, subtle example but I wouldn't pay a huge premium for it.

Edited by Walkerfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
155 posts
4 hours ago, numisport said:

Great acquisition and looks original to me. Why not MS 66 ?

I've examined the coin thoroughly with a quality glass 4x magnifier and determined the obverse with it's clean cheek and  distinct hairline is MS65+. Some very light chatter on the left field hold it back from a 66 imo. The reverse is clean with no hits and a solid strike. It doesn't have the "Pop" a 66 has, especially in the wreath. Overall, a good candidate for a MS 65+ and I would not send it in for a regrade unless I was sure of a MS 67 designation! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
155 posts
4 hours ago, Walkerfan said:

Looks original to me.  

Nice, subtle example but I wouldn't pay a huge premium for it.

The CAC bean adds exactly 20% to the value according to CDN. I paid about 28% over FMV retail as a BIN on ebay and bought it within minutes of seeing it. I would not have  hesitated to pay more. Had the coin be up for auction, I bet it would have sold for a considerably  higher amount!

Edited by EleMint Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,129 posts

I like the toning, and, yes, it would be considered original. (and obviously has been.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,906 posts
4 hours ago, EleMint Man said:

The CAC bean adds exactly 20% to the value according to CDN. I paid about 28% over FMV retail as a BIN on ebay and bought it within minutes of seeing it. I would not have  hesitated to pay more. Had the coin be up for auction, I bet it would have sold for a considerably  higher amount!

Sounds reasonable. (thumbsu

Edited by Walkerfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17,047 posts

I'm a little late to the party but I like that color. Looks like nice NT to me. 

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
1 1