American Rainbow Tone

[Accumulator]

Given that NT and AT both occur and at some point the boundary between the two must become a little blurred. How does anybody decide what is natural and what isn't? It seems to me that the opinion here is: if it's brightly coloured or multi-coloured then it must be AT, otherwise it's NT.

What is your opinion of the toning on this 1911 proof set? The toning is pretty similar toning to that of my 1911 proofs.

I'm not sure about the toning but I'm very happy with the price!! :D

It's an old page that hasn't quite been removed properly. That set was sold long ago. I don't think GK have ever sold anything that cheap!

I bought my MS65RB slabbed1862 penny from George and was very happy indeed. The price was at the top end, but he was prepared to haggle and his service was excellent.

[Mr T]

Given that NT and AT both occur and at some point the boundary between the two must become a little blurred. How does anybody decide what is natural and what isn't? It seems to me that the opinion here is: if it's brightly coloured or multi-coloured then it must be AT, otherwise it's NT.

Reading this it's not too clear what is accepted as natural and what isn't.

[Gary D]

Given that NT and AT both occur and at some point the boundary between the two must become a little blurred. How does anybody decide what is natural and what isn't? It seems to me that the opinion here is: if it's brightly coloured or multi-coloured then it must be AT, otherwise it's NT.

What is your opinion of the toning on this 1911 proof set? The toning is pretty similar toning to that of my 1911 proofs.

My 1911 set is a even steely blue, I have never understood why a coin would tone from the edge in, especially when the edges are protected by the case. If anything the edges should show the least tone and the middles the greater amount.

[TomGoodheart]

Given that NT and AT both occur and at some point the boundary between the two must become a little blurred. How does anybody decide what is natural and what isn't? It seems to me that the opinion here is: if it's brightly coloured or multi-coloured then it must be AT, otherwise it's NT.

Reading this it's not too clear what is accepted as natural and what isn't.

Gosh. Some shit ugly coins there!

[Nick]

Given that NT and AT both occur and at some point the boundary between the two must become a little blurred. How does anybody decide what is natural and what isn't? It seems to me that the opinion here is: if it's brightly coloured or multi-coloured then it must be AT, otherwise it's NT.

What is your opinion of the toning on this 1911 proof set? The toning is pretty similar toning to that of my 1911 proofs.

My 1911 set is a even steely blue, I have never understood why a coin would tone from the edge in, especially when the edges are protected by the case. If anything the edges should show the least tone and the middles the greater amount.

But if the toning is caused by an interaction between the silver and a constituent chemical of the case then the closer the proximity to the contaminant the greater the effect. However, it would seem to be extremely unlikely for a cased proof set to tone similarly on both sides.

[azda]

Given that NT and AT both occur and at some point the boundary between the two must become a little blurred. How does anybody decide what is natural and what isn't? It seems to me that the opinion here is: if it's brightly coloured or multi-coloured then it must be AT, otherwise it's NT.

Reading this it's not too clear what is accepted as natural and what isn't.

Gosh. Some shit ugly coins there!

Yes, and reading it they blame the toning on Coins sitting in Sacks and Sulphur being the culprit. Yet the author of the page has coins for sale which states

Darth Verde"

1885 $1 NGC MS65

$2,450 "Wild Endroller Twin Pair from the Same Roll"

1884-O $1 NGC MS64* STARS

$3,000 (pair)

So if these toned Coins came from a ROLL and were'nt sitting in a Sack individually how is it the possible for them to tone in a roll?

During that time, the coins closest to the canvas of the bag or near the top of the bag were constantly bombarded by a minute concentration of sulfur.....

Edited February 24, 2013 by azda

[TomGoodheart]

Given that NT and AT both occur and at some point the boundary between the two must become a little blurred. How does anybody decide what is natural and what isn't? It seems to me that the opinion here is: if it's brightly coloured or multi-coloured then it must be AT, otherwise it's NT.

Reading this it's not too clear what is accepted as natural and what isn't.

Gosh. Some shit ugly coins there!

Yes, and reading it they blame the toning on Coins sitting in Sacks and Sulphur being the culprit. Yet the author of the page has coins for sale which states

Darth Verde"

1885 $1 NGC MS65

$2,450 "Wild Endroller Twin Pair from the Same Roll"

1884-O $1 NGC MS64* STARS

$3,000 (pair)

So if these toned Coins came from a ROLL and were'nt sitting in a Sack individually how is it the possible for them to tone in a roll?

During that time, the coins closest to the canvas of the bag or near the top of the bag were constantly bombarded by a minute concentration of sulfur.....

Ironically 'Monster' is a very apt description for the things to my mind. And what I got from the article is that they are all artificially toned, since he makes a clear distinction between this toning and oxidation, it's just the old ones from bags were toned accidentally and AT coins are done deliberately over a shorter period of time.

I just think the whole thing is a result of the fact that in a market where you have a limited number of different coins, out of which a huge number are in top grade condition, you need to invent another means of giving some coins added desirability or else people will get bored and stop buying. Quite what makes some of the examples shown desirable, I'm not sure. But then I don't get why kids want to keep the holographic stickers on their baseball caps when they wear them either...

[Rob]

Every cloud has a silver lining. With 656m Morgans struck over the listed period, less than 20000 are impaired with this toning. That still leaves lots of unadulterated examples for collectors, even allowing for melting.

[VickySilver]

Lovely bit added in about spectrum colours and thickness of tone. I wonder what MEASURED proof he has of this?

Why would not coins stored in the lovely climes of Britannia ever show toning or even originate from tropical hothouses

with outrageous humidity like Brazil or Congo, or??

I think the colour adding brings 10x or more greater gain.

[azda]

Lovely bit added in about spectrum colours and thickness of tone. I wonder what MEASURED proof he has of this?

Why would not coins stored in the lovely climes of Britannia ever show toning or even originate from tropical hothouses

with outrageous humidity like Brazil or Congo, or??

I think the colour adding brings 10x or more greater gain.

And exactly why there are people defending these as original toning. If there were a multitude of these sitting in sacks but in rolls and only the nearest to the sack were toned/tarnished, there seems a hell of a lot of coins. 1 or 2 coins per roll would tarnish, top and bottom coin, but it seems that nearly 1 in 2 are rainbow toned

[Rob]

Lovely bit added in about spectrum colours and thickness of tone. I wonder what MEASURED proof he has of this?

Why would not coins stored in the lovely climes of Britannia ever show toning or even originate from tropical hothouses

with outrageous humidity like Brazil or Congo, or??

I think the colour adding brings 10x or more greater gain.

And exactly why there are people defending these as original toning. If there were a multitude of these sitting in sacks but in rolls and only the nearest to the sack were toned/tarnished, there seems a hell of a lot of coins. 1 or 2 coins per roll would tarnish, top and bottom coin, but it seems that nearly 1 in 2 are rainbow toned

That's because they either ran out of time - or blue rinse.