Are untoned proof silver coins more desirable than toned?

[Sword 1,330]

I noticed that in the last LCA, a 1935 raised edge proof crown (described as "nFDC with some light hairlines and retaining full original mint brilliance") realised £850. This seems to a lot of money to me especially with the coin having hairlines. If this coin is toned (and so the mint lustre is less obvious), I think it will only sell for about half that amount. I know I sound very naïve for asking this question but are untoned proof coins a lot more desirable than toned?

[Rob 3,002]

I think any coin should look its age. i.e. untampered with. I would always want a toned 200 year old coin over a dipped 'blast white' piece. There are very few reasons why old silver wouldn't tone and all involve keeping the coin in anaerobic conditions.

[azda 973]

dup

Edited September 10, 2015 by azda

[azda 973]

I'm not sure if a dipped proof would retain its proof fields, i've never tried obviously, but dipping even a currency coin for longer than 10 seconds and it looses all its life and looks like stone.

Martin P from ebay does this quite often and those he's overdipped are very obvious, proofs in my opinion might lose its brilliant fields somewhat.

Anyone want to experiment?

Rocking horse proofs normally sell around the £450-£500+ region

[Rob 3,002]

I don't have a spare 1937 proof, otherwise I would.

Someone must have a spare that is toned. A 6d or a 3d is only worth a tenner max in any case.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Rob

[azda 973]

I don't have a spare 1937 proof, otherwise I would.

Oh, just try one of your others Rob

[Sword 1,330]

I too prefer coins to look their age and get suspicious with a blazing white 19th century proof coin.

But nevertheless, I still don't understand why that coin was sold for so much. Has someone just pay way over the top on this occasion or do blazing white proof coins with reflective fields always sell for a lot more (for right or wrong reasons)?

Just out of interest, I brought this one for £420 + juice a couple of years back. (Probably paid a little too much then and I concede the toning on the reverse is not great looking. But it has no obvious hairlines)

[Sword 1,330]

the reverse

[Rob 3,002]

It might have looked good in the hand. What you see in a picture is often a lot worse than the same thing to the eye. The minute I use a flash I find it makes everything look severely abused. Very often there is no hairlining to be seen despite what the picture says..

[Sword 1,330]

Very true and hence I never use a flash to take photos of coins. But for this particular coin, the auction description does state it has "some light hairlines"

[azda 973]

This one was once mine

[Coinery 926]

I personally think you'd knacker the fields of a proof with even the lightest of dips.

[VickySilver 775]

Uh, well, I'm guilty of having done that and worse!

Light dip will not affect the proof nature of the coin, heavier will.

Do NOT use dip on copper-nickel (don't ask). Obviously NOT copper coins either.

Not as good on .500 as .925 silver.

If one does dip, it is possible a light dip will not do more than minimally strip SOME of the toning.

5 or 10 seconds of dip will not destroy the coin but err to the latter and nearly all toning will go.

Please do rinse, wash with mild soap, and rinse liberally again with high nap cotton white towel tamp dry.

Sword, IMO, that first coin has been dipped to "full original mint brilliance"...

Edited September 10, 2015 by VickySilver

[Sword 1,330]

Uh, well, I'm guilty of having done that and worse!

Light dip will not affect the proof nature of the coin, heavier will.

Do NOT use dip on copper-nickel (don't ask). Obviously NOT copper coins either.

Not as good on .500 as .925 silver.

If one does dip, it is possible a light dip will not do more than minimally strip SOME of the toning.

5 or 10 seconds of dip will not destroy the coin but err to the latter and nearly all toning will go.

Please do rinse, wash with mild soap, and rinse liberally again with high nap cotton white towel tamp dry.

Sword, IMO, that first coin has been dipped to "full original mint brilliance"...

Many thanks for sharing your experience VS!

It is really surprising to me that some collectors would pay so much money for a coin that is likely to have been dipped.

[sound 25]

Sword,

As to your original question. I just think its a matter of taste.

I have noticed that some 1911 silver proofs with blue green lustre are stunning and attract a premium.

If a coin develops toning with lustre and eye appeal why should it be cheaper than a coin with original brilliance? Of course with copper and bronze its different, the market gives a premium rating to original brilliance.

M

[Rob 3,002]

The 1911 proof sets in boxes seem to all(?) tone to a blue green colour. This consistency suggests to me that it is the internal padding material, or at least the dye with which it is coloured which is responsible.

[azda 973]

The 1911 proof sets in boxes seem to all(?) tone to a blue green colour. This consistency suggests to me that it is the internal padding material, or at least the dye with which it is coloured which is responsible.

Agreed, i don't think i've seen any which haven't toned to some degree

[sound 25]

Rob,

I think you make an interesting point as to toning with 1911's. Often wondered why this should be. Makes sense.

M

[argentumandcoins 70]

Assuming of course that the bidders have the first clue about what they were bidding on! If you sit in enough salerooms you'll see plenty of jaw droppers and they all just confirm one thing, "a fool and his/her money...."