Last week I invited readers to a forum about labeling coins with “cleaned,” “environmental damage,” “artificial toning,” and the like. Notations such as this on holders severely damage the value of coins.
An 1884 Morgan dollar featuring rainbow toning on both sides, graded MS-65. Image courtesy of PCGS. Hover to zoom.
Picking up on this, let’s revisit artificial toning. Excuse me for repeating myself, but here goes. For starters, if an MS-65 Morgan dollar, for example, has beautiful rainbow toning it might sell for twice the price of a brilliant one. In a PCGS or NGC holder, such attract a lot of attention.
However, if the holder says “Uncirculated, artificially toned” it loses nearly all of its value. If it is a common date, say 1886, it becomes worth about melt!
Last week I said this:
Many years ago David Hall and I were discussing the appearance of Morgan dollars rainbow-toned on both sides. Both of us had handled countless quantities of Morgan dollars from the 1962-1964 Treasury release and other early sources. Neither of us had seen a Morgan dollar toned on both sides. Colorful toning had been seen and admired on many coins, but on one side of the coin only. This was produced when the obverse or reverse of a dollar was directly in contact with the cloth of a 1,000-coin bag. Such bags became damp on occasion, and over a long period of years toning developed. Such sealed bags were kept in storage. To get toning on both sides a bag of coins would have to be emptied out and refilled, and a coin with toning on one side would have to be placed in contact with the canvas once again and spend many years gaining toning on the other side. I have never heard of this happening.
This is not to be confused with concentric toning gained by having a dollar stored for many years in a cardboard holder, such as a Raymond “National” album, that becomes colorfully toned.
I have said versions of this in print several times, and no one has ever challenged the comment. “Better coins through chemistry” is a given. A dealer no longer living told me he made a fortune in the late 20th century by buying AU silver coins, dipping them to be brilliant, and then carefully toning them in colorful hues, after which they were certified without question.
A particularly bad example of an artificially toned 1991 American Silver Eagle. As you can see, the result is not always desirable.
Also, what is artificial? I also mentioned that I put a bright freshly-minted medal on an oak surface, and in a short time it gained gorgeous electric blue toning. This was unintentional, as I had left it in the drawer of a new table I had recently purchased. Is this natural toning or artificial toning?
What about restoring brightly-dipped copper to a rich chocolate color as outlined by Dr. William H. Sheldon in this 1949 Penny Whimsy. Such restored/conserved coins abound and are certified without negative commentary, unless the work is blotchy.
Despite appearing “natural,” this is just another artificially toned American Silver Eagle which is much more pleasing to the eyes than the previous example.
One of the respondents to last week’s column, J.S., sent extensive comments, including wondering why modern silver eagles with colorful toning are not mentioned as “artificial,” concluding with this:
Perhaps collectors should just decide whether toning is appealing or not, and the third-party grading services just give the numerical grade. Cleaned coins could also be dealt with in the same way, but obvious impairments like whizzing or abrasive cleaning that greatly detract from a coin’s value and do not look like anything original could be mentioned. We should make problem coins more marketable, since other characteristics like history, art, and so on matter perhaps more than typical problems we focus on.
This to me would be a win-win situation. For the grading services, “problem coins” could be resubmitted and evaluated for numerical grade only, unless there was obvious impairment. For owners of coins, this would increase their value. For the grading services, this would mean more revenue.
An artist’s depiction of the sinking of the Central America.
The careful conserving of coins would be a great subject for study, drawing upon the talents of those who have conserved coins in the past. PCGS and NGC have both conserved coins recovered from the undersea wrecks of 19th-century treasure ships, carefully removing grime, rust, and stains to restore their original surfaces. Such coins from steamships such as the New York, Central America, Brother Jonathan, and Republic have been holdered without negativity by these services, while the fact that they have been conserved in a laboratory has been openly discussed as well.
Probably every Old Master painting in the great museums of the world has been conserved, usually by cleaning, often by retouching and repairing as well. The National Archives conserves documents by adding silk to strengthen the backs of some, to remove stains, and more. Just about every museum of history that I have ever visited has a conservation department.
There are some coins such as the aforementioned whizzing, not to overlook retooling and repairing (such as filling holes) that need to have these problems mentioned.
The J.S. suggestion that the services give the numerical grading only, with no negatives except for certain situations (to be specified so everyone understands) is a brilliant step in the right direction.
Less satisfactory would be a list of conservation, toning, and related practices that the certification services would accept without adding negative wording.
I have other letters from readers on this subject, and in a future column will pick up the subject. In the meantime, if you have any ideas to share, send them along.
If you wish to reach out to me for commentary, questions, or suggestions, I can be contacted via e-mail at
❑
I’m impressed, I must say. Rarely do I encounter a blog that’s both educative and amusing, and let me tell you, you have hit the nail on the
head. The problem is something not enough people are speaking intelligently about.
I am very happy I found this during my search for something regarding this.
Greetings Q David,
Perhaps you could also take a critical look at the phrases used to describe the condition of coins. Especially when one looks at the description of About Good and Good as written in the Red Book. They are all positive sounding. But when you look at an About Good graded coin, there is nothing “about good” to be seen. It’s nothing but a slick round disc. A Good coin is nothing but a disc with a shadow of the device on it. These aren’t good coins they are nothing but a worn out piece of junk. I’ve seen silver coins on their way to the smelter that were in better condition but still weren’t “keepers.” I think it’s time for some honesty in the grade descriptions that are assigned to these coins. Of course, it’s only my opinion.
I would be inclined to continue noting questionable or obviously deliberately induced toning on slab labels, because, as it should go without saying, ofttimes toning is artificially induced in hopes of hiding surface flaws, and doubtless sometimes effectively so. That said, I think that by this stage of my collecting experience I stand a good chance of telling naturally-developed toning from that intentionally induced, thus don’t myself risk unfortunate purchases.
I ALSO AM VERY IMPRESSED WITH MR BOWERS THOUGHTS ON COIN TONING. AND OTHER THINGS HE MENTIONED. I WANT TO TELL MR BOWERS SOMETHING THAT BOTHERED ME IN THE COIN WORLD. 5 MINUTES FROM MY HOME THERE IS A COIN SHOP. I ALWAYS BOUGHT AND SOLD SMALL TRANSACTIONS. EVERYTIME I GO TO ANOTHER STATE. I ALWAYS CHECK OUT THE COIN SHOPS. I HAVE BEEN LUCKY SO FAR, BECAUSE I BOUGHT SOME BEAUTIFUL MORGANS AND PEACE DOLLARS THROUGHOUT MY JOURNEYS. BACK TO THE LOCAL COIN SHOP IN MY TOWN. I FINALLY GOT A MEMBERSHIP WITH PCGS TO HAVE ALOT OF MY COLLECTION GRADED. BEFORE I GOT THE MEMBERSHIP. THE OWNER OF THE COIN SHOP AGREED TO SEND 3 OF MY COINS OUT TO NGC FOR GRADING. NOT TO BAD, HE CHARGED ME $25 A COIN. WHAT DISTURBED ME WAS THAT I HAD A FLAWLESS, AND WHEN I SAY FLAWLESS. I MEAN STRAIGHT OFF THE COIN DIE AND NEVER HANDLED OR EVER TOUCHED ANOTHER COIN. A FLAWLESS 1922 POSSIBLE LOW RELIEF PROOF PEACE DOLLAR. KNOWING THAT ALL I WANTED WAS MY COINS GRADED TO PUT BACK INTO MY COLLECTION. AND THERE WAS NO CHANCE OF THE COIN SHOP OWNER HAVE ME SELL HIM MY NOW GRADED COINS. SO HE WOULD NOT SEND OUT MY FLAWLESS 1922 PEACE DOLLAR TO BE GRADED, CAUSE HE KNEW HOW MUCH MORE VALUABLE IT WOULD BE IF GRADED. HIS EXCUSE FOR NOT SENDING OUT THE COIN WAS (HIS WORDS) I CAN’T SEND OUT A COIN THATS NOT POPULAR, NOT WORTH MUCH. I CAN’T SEND IT TO NGC. BECAUSE THEY WILL GET MAD AND ASK ME WHY AM I SENDING THEM LOW GRADE COINS. I KNEW HE WAS LYING, BECAUSE HE IS A SELFISH LITTLE MAN. SO I CALLED NGC AND EXPLAINED WHAT HE SAID. SO I ASKED THE MANAGER AT NGC. ISN’T TRUE THAT YOU GUYS ARE IN BUSINESS TO MAKE MONEY. IF YOU REALLY TURNED DOWN GRADING CERTAIN COINS YOU WOULD LOSE MONEY. HE TOLD ME THAT I AM RIGHT. THEY WILL GRADE PRETTY MUCH ANY COIN. BECAUSE EVEN IF THE COINS FAKE OR REAL LOW GRADE. WE STILL HAVE TO CHARGE MONEY TO LOOK AT THAT COIN. JUST A LITTLE STORY ABOUT THE COIN SHOP AND OWNER FOR YOUR FOLLOWERS TO READ. THANKS, ANTHONY.