Update on the envelope SAE, and an OT update too...

Chrysta Wilson wrote:

In article , iDontCare-
says...

A little late but here is an image of Chrysta's beautiful toned ASE in
it's new plastic prison.
http://www.error-coins.com/misc/sept...ilvereagle.jpg
I'm not taking pictures of coins as much as I used to so I'm losing my
touch ;(


Wow! Looks good to me!




It shipped out the day before yesterday so it should be there by
Saturday I'm hoping.

--
Jason Craton ---- CONECA N-3407 --- WINS #5
---------------------------
Interested in error coins?
http://www.error-coins.com - A work in progress (lack of progress really).

Nick is a DICK!
Reid is a troglodyte!
"note.boy" is an IDIOT!

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 17:24:03 +1000, "A.Gent"
wrote:


"Edward McGrath" wrote in message
...
A.Gent wrote: So, Ed, how would you define "artificially toned"? snip
I always thought of an artificially toned coin as being intentionally
created through such means as chemical, baking or placing a coin in an
environment that will create rapid toning.

Fine.
Is Chrysta's SAE AT?

Chrysta's SAE was intentionally toned. The question then is
whether intentional toning is the same as (or implies) artificial
toning.

Artificial toning is always contrasted to "natural" toning. The
next question, is just what is "natural" meaning in natural
toning. It doesn't mean toning occurring by naturalistic
processes; _all_ toning is by natural processes. Rather, it is
apparent that natural implies something about the lack of human
activity in the toning process. We can think of this two ways;
first, that the toning has nowhere in its causal web (other than
the minting) something a human did intentionally, whether or not
their intent was to cause toning. Or, that the toning was not
caused by a method that some human intended to effect toning in
the coin. As "natural toning" is used, I think the second
definition is used. End-of-roll toning, envelope toning (of
classic commemorative original envelopes, that is), Wayte Raymond
toning, coin cabinet toning, and so forth, does suggest that
natural toning can occur as a side product of human activity, it
just wasn't the end of human activity.

And so, given that Artificial and natural toning are generally
assumed to be mutually exclusive and exhaustive (as to forms of
toning), artificial toning is that caused by human activity with
the intent to cause toning, which should answer your two
questions below, or at least how I would answer. Not everyone
uses such an expansive definition; for example, NGC says that
artificial toning is accelerated through physical or chemical
means. This would imply a nonequivalence between intentional and
Artificial toning; Artificial toning being a subset of
intentional. As to whether this implies three types of toning:
natural, intentional, and artificial, that is tough to say. My
opinion is that "artificial toning" is better called "intentional
toning," and that there are many types of intentional toning,
including as to means, as to aesthetics, and as to similarity to
natural toning (even to the extent that in some cases the only
difference between some forms of intentional toning and natural
toning _is_ intent.

(This of course leaves open the question as to the ethics of
artifical/intentional toning. Let me say I don't think the
answer is so simple, and have no intent (nor thoughts) of
impeaching Chrysta's actions in this.)

Would it be AT if she had just innocently *stored* the coin in the envelope?

Does intent count?

I believe if you own a coin
you have the right to do anything you want with it including experiments
but it's another thing to have the coin slabbed. The thing that makes no
sense is, if you submit a blast white whizzed coin to a professional
grading service they will body bag that coin

As they should. Different case entirely.
Whizzing does terrible things to a coin's surface.

Toning changes the surface of a coin. Just being undamaged is
not enough for a coin not to be bodybagged. For example, glue
residue or lacquer also would result, even though those too also
are not damage per se.

...but if you send in a coin
that you toned rapidly and on purpose they will grade it and slab that
coin, it doesn't seem right to me.

Why?
AT doesn't necessarily damage a coin at all. (It *might* - and dipping to
remove it might damage the lustre - but it doesn't *have* to.)


I always thought of natural toning as
a coin that was placed in a coin album many, many years ago to protect
and preserve the coin and toning had occurred naturally and unexpectedly
as a result and that was the reason toned coins sold for a premium over
blast white coins because it took many years to tone.

Most people know that most albums will tone coins over time. Therefore, if I
keep my coins in an album, am I artificially toning them?

...I believed if a
toned coin was slabbed by one of the top two grading companies it was
guaranteed to be a naturally toned coin, I thought the graders could
tell the difference. Ed

How, Ed?
How could they differentiate?
Nasty AT (e.g. "tonedcoins" on ebay) is easy to spot, but Chrysta's SAE sure
looks legit to me (I'm no toning expert). How can a coin grader tell what a
person was thinking when they placed a coin in an envelope?

"(1): Hmmmmm. He meant to tone this coin. Bodybagged."
"(2): Well, he didn't know this envelope would tone the coin. MS68."

The grader is certifying the condition of the coin *under* the toning.
The colour is evident, and has no effect on the numerical grade.
Maybe it will affect - what's that handy expression? - its "glomworthyness",
or eye appeal, but it makes no difference to its grade.

Eye appeal is generally thought to affect grade. I think,
however, that this says more about the market than it does about
grading.

Of course, YMMV.

--
Ed. Stoebenau
a #143

The question then is
whether intentional toning is the same as (or implies) artificial
toning.

The distinction between "artificial" and "natural" toning is too subtle to be
meaningful. Human activity is involved in the preservation (or lack of
preservation) of every coin that leaves the Mint.

To me, the important question is whether a coin deserves a premium because of
altered surfaces, and that determination rests on the answers to two questions:

1) Can certain types of toning be manufactured to order?

2) Is the toning progressive, i.e. does the process of surface deterioration
continue after a certain effect is achieved?

Regards,
Tom

Ed. Stoebenau wrote: Let me say I don't think the answer is so simple,
and have no intent (nor thoughts) of impeaching Chrysta's actions in
this.) snip I thought Chrysta's experiment with putting an SAE in an
envelope and seeing what would happen was interesting. I had a problem
with the fact that the SAE experiment made it into a slab. Ok correct me
if I'm wrong, this is what I've learned so far from this thread. Natural
toning and rapid toning are the same thing and are acceptable to
collectors of toned coins. A artificially toned coin 'chemically or
baked' is not acceptable because it damages the surface of the coins.
BTW before I forget Congrats Chrysta on your twin girls. Ed

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 13:47:41 -0700, "J. Craton"
wrote:

Gary Loveless wrote:

On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 18:11:43 -0700, "J. Craton"
wrote:


Gary Loveless wrote:


On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 15:05:37 -0700, "J. Craton"
wrote:



Gary Loveless wrote:



On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 10:48:30 -0700, "J. Craton"
wrote:




A little late but here is an image of Chrysta's beautiful toned ASE in
it's new plastic prison.
http://www.error-coins.com/misc/sept...ilvereagle.jpg
I'm not taking pictures of coins as much as I used to so I'm losing my
touch ;(


Plastic Prison......shame shame.......are we not a fan of TPG
services??

Gary




No, I am a big fan of three or four of them but it is what it is


Jason -

That's what i meant, was the "Big Four" the rest are
wannabees???

Gary



I think that the rest suck ... but don't tell anybody


tell who?? you might get sued!!

Gary



Who, me?

Yes you!

Gary

'the quote arrows are starting to get deep'

In article , dahlia-
says...
Ed. Stoebenau wrote: Let me say I don't think the answer is so simple,
and have no intent (nor thoughts) of impeaching Chrysta's actions in
this.) snip I thought Chrysta's experiment with putting an SAE in an
envelope and seeing what would happen was interesting. I had a problem
with the fact that the SAE experiment made it into a slab. Ok correct me
if I'm wrong, this is what I've learned so far from this thread. Natural
toning and rapid toning are the same thing and are acceptable to
collectors of toned coins. A artificially toned coin 'chemically or
baked' is not acceptable because it damages the surface of the coins.
BTW before I forget Congrats Chrysta on your twin girls. Ed

Yikes! Not twins! Not twins! But thanks... ;o)

--
~Chrysta~

~Chrysta~ wrote: Yikes! Not twins! Not twins! snip I could swear I
read a past post a while back that someone said you're going to have
twins. I just looked closely at this thread and found your link to the
ultrasound pictures, yep there is only one bun in the oven lol. Giving
birth must be like passing a bowling ball through a straw,, I'm glad I'm
a guy : )

Chrysta Wilson wrote:
Hi! Long time no post. Probably only like 6 people here even remember me
now. You may recall the story of my envelope-toned SAE:


I am sure that you do not believe that you are one of our special people.

http://chrystawilson.com/saeexp2.html

Well, Jason Craton sent it off to PCGS for me, and it seems they liked
it fine. It graded MS 68...quite acceptable. (Sales of envelopes
expected to skyrocket nationwide!)

Also, we went for an ultrasound today, and it seems that the
determination of the graders there was a probable MS70 (everything
looking healthy) and probably of the pink persuasion...

http://chrystawilson.com/baby.html

So happy news all around!



Congratulations on both the coin and the upcoming new collector.

--
George D
Phoenix, AZ
AAA, AARP, ANA, NRA, RCC ?+1, PIA, PIAAZ, GATF 85006-3032-18-4


Please use this address to mail me. Or remove the arizona in the link.
Remember there is no Arizona.


ALL emails incoming and outgoing are run thru Norton and AVG anti virus.

On 17 Sep 2004 13:28:08 GMT, espam
(WinWinscenario) wrote:

The question then is
whether intentional toning is the same as (or implies) artificial
toning.

The distinction between "artificial" and "natural" toning is too subtle to be
meaningful. Human activity is involved in the preservation (or lack of
preservation) of every coin that leaves the Mint.

To me, the important question is whether a coin deserves a premium because of
altered surfaces, and that determination rests on the answers to two questions:

1) Can certain types of toning be manufactured to order?

I think it is safe to say that any sort of natural toning in
which we know what caused it (and this is most, consider Wayte
Raymond toning, bad toning, end-of-roll toning, etc), are types
of toning which can be done intentionally, perhaps using heat
(gentle or not) to speed up the reactions involved.

2) Is the toning progressive, i.e. does the process of surface deterioration
continue after a certain effect is achieved?

Well, I'm one of those who does not think that toning is
necessarily surface "deterioration"; change in the surface is not
necessarily a detrimental one, it could be neutral (or, in some
cases, even good. Consider "recolored.") And I think it's
probably safe to say that in most cases continued toning (if
moved to a more inert environment) should not be an issue,
whether or not the toning was intentional or not.


--
Ed. Stoebenau
a #143