Where are all the Cool Blue IHC's?
Mission16
Posts: 1,413 ✭✭✭
?
0
Mission16
Posts: 1,413 ✭✭✭
Comments
Sold to collectors.
I got some in Houston but Charmy snapped them up from me before I could get away with them.
siliconvalleycoins.com
<< <i>oh....lots of things cause that.
it begins with M and ends with 70
Empty Nest Collection
There is a whole chapter about them in this book.
<< <i>I think my son would love to collect the blue IHCs. What causes them to turn blue? >>
Two reasons, generally: Storage in the tissue paper issued by the mint or the application of a soap like MS-70. Here are examples of the latter:
I would be VERY careful collecting these.
<< <i>
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>
<< <i>oh....lots of things cause that.
it begins with M and ends with 70
Not always. Many proof IHC's were kept in wrapping paper. The MS70'd coins exhibit a certain shade of blue that seems to be "on top of the coin" (meaning it was accelerated) instead of ingrained. Takes a special eye.
a little forum research will provide you with the names of members involved in one of the West Coast-MS70-buy/crack/enhance/reslab-profit schemes of the early part of this Century. no doubt some IHC's obtain the color you're interested in legitimately, but many of them are blatant AT, yet collectors are willing to pay premiums for them and dealers are willing to vouche for their authenticity and promote them.
<< <i>Where are all the Cool Blue IHC's?.............................it begins with M and ends with 70.
a little forum research will provide you with the names of members involved in one of the West Coast-MS70-buy/crack/enhance/reslab-profit schemes of the early part of this Century. no doubt some IHC's obtain the color you're interested in legitimately, but many of them are blatant AT, yet collectors are willing to pay premiums for them and dealers are willing to vouche for their authenticity and promote them. >>
I concur with everything except your spelling of vouch.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
<< <i>I got some in Houston but Charmy snapped them up from me before I could get away with them. >>
Here are the "blue" ones that I got from Rick in Houston - they are beauties!
Here's my FAVORITE BLUE Indian....
And here are a few others....
The Penny Lady®
Cheers!
Kirk
<< <i>There is a whole chapter about them in this book.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BONGO HURTLES ALONG THE RAIN SODDEN HIGHWAY OF LIFE ON UNDERINFLATED BALD RETREAD TIRES
vouche is actually the true spelling for the word as it comes from the French. the correct pronunciation is voo-shay, much like diz-may(disme) but i'd rather not start that up.
<< <i>I concur with everything except your spelling of vouch.
vouche is actually the true spelling for the word as it comes from the French. the correct pronunciation is voo-shay, much like diz-may(disme) but i'd rather not start that up.
No, the true spelling for the English word is vouch.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
And after the acetone had evaporated (multiple dunkings used) some of them (gasp) were blue !!!!!!
This was about the time a major dealer (NOT a copper specialist but one who really really liked color) was experiencing embarassment because of an MS70 induced attack of the Blue Meanies.
Vituperative and vitriolic attacks on anyone who disagreed, who wasn't outraged, who didn't see jail for the perpetrators in the future, then followed.
Hey, I get pissed-off at myself sometimes when my reach exceeds my grasp and I shoot myself in the foot.
I'm glad to see the baby didn't get thrown out with the bathwater. Some of these are just gorgeous.
Keith, i was trying to inject a little humor, how could you miss that???
so your point would be that copper/bronze tends to develop these types of colors all by itself?? this has been discussed here ad nauseum. the coins look cool, collectors seem to like them, the grading services sometimes do and sometimes don't grade them, they may be AT'd depending on your point of view and the accepted boundaries of the definition for that term.
while i'm not an expert in this area of the Hobby, i tend to believe that left to themselves these coins won't develop those types of intense colors. your post seems to bear that out.
Anaerobic storage not being available to previous generations who have collected necessitates our acceptance of the fact that any coin not so stored has NOT been left to itself. Hon. Jimmy Hayes had, back in the '80's, the most amazing set of first year of type (included Cleanay-Jackman-Ryder MS65 Chain 1c) around. He lived in Louisiana. He kept all his copper in a bank vault in Denver. If "left to themselves" in the Delta they would all have turned. The intent of lacquer was the same. Out with the bad air.
Perhaps, and this is so deep I'm wiggling into my hip boots as I type, our need for "virgin, unfussed-with" coins is, at it's core, an attempt to recapture the perfection we believed in before we lost the innocence of childhood.
Call it the "Rosebud Syndrome"
While 99% of numismatists use diz-mee, the correct pronunciation is deem, rather than the corrupted transliteration of "disme", itself the corrupted spelling of "dixieme". I think RWB or MidLifeCrisis did an excellent etymological exegisis on this term a few months ago.
In fairness, the Brasher family pronounces their name "bray-zher".
I can vouche for that
<< <i>Hon. Jimmy Hayes had, back in the '80's, the most amazing set of first year of type (included Cleanay-Jackman-Ryder MS65 Chain 1c) around. He lived in Louisiana. He kept all his copper in a bank vault in Denver. If "left to themselves" in the Delta they would all have turned. >>
They wouldn't have turned blue, which was, I believe, Keets' point, and quite a correct one from where I sit...Mike
p.s. I like your "Rosebud Syndrome" theory and think there's quite a bit of truth to it.
Fact is, that in the 1930's Abe Kosoff's first coin deal as a professional was with hundreds of blue-toned proof Indian cents from the 1878-1909 era. This is from "Dean of Numismatics" by Q. David Bowers. The coins had at that time been stored for 50 years in mint tissue.
So, it is not a new phenomenon.
Now if those coins got ugly brown when they were coated in PVC, lacquer or dirt and grime of 70 years of storage then I guess they would lose their vibrancy. Ans, yes - any solvent will remove that and expose the coin beneath.
The coins I'm taking about are deep patinated brown coins with blue/meganta/lavender color. Not the acetone-color you see on psuedo-red coins.
<< <i>No, the true spelling for the English word is vouch.
Keith, i was trying to inject a little humor, how could you miss that???
I missed nothing. My sense of humour is merely on the dry side.
Oh, and Rick, thanks for your post above. I remember discussing this with you a couple of times at shows, and you pointing out the different look of the "true blue" from the acetone/ MS70 example.
Thanks!
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
<< <i>You know all this is written in my book, which was the sole reason to write a second edition. If you comment on blue-toned Proofs without reading it you are speaking from ignorance. That's not a good way to post. >>
Hi Rick!
Certainly you are not suggesting I'm "speaking from ignorance".
First, I own your book, have read the section you refer to several times, and I find it more than noteworthy that the section does not include a single mention MS-70 or its tendency to turn copper blue, despite the fact that you are both well aware of the phenomenon and its use in the marketplace to dupe collectors. To the contrary you say that "a rinse in acetone or other soaps and solvents can remove the gunk and show the true colors underneath", as if this coloration was there the whole time only waiting for soaps to reveal them .
Second, I have experimented with MS-70 and copper. I speak from first hand experience.
<< <i>Fact is, that in the 1930's Abe Kosoff's first coin deal as a professional was with hundreds of blue-toned proof Indian cents from the 1878-1909 era. This is from "Dean of Numismatics" by Q. David Bowers. The coins had at that time been stored for 50 years in mint tissue. >>
The fact is you cannot speak authoritatively on how those coins were stored, or if soaps were use to "brighten" them before selling them -- and QDB repeating what he read or heard is hardly proof. It is also interesting to note that your quote of QDB says nothing of their coloration, yet the one author you do quote (Breen) describes them as iridescent, and NOWHERE does he mention the color blue.
Furthermore, you're changing your story. In your book, on page 249 when describing this hoard, you say "The bronze cent toned to a deep chocolate brown with multicolored toning" -- that's quite a far cry from "hundreds of blue-toned" examples. So, which is it, blue-toned as you suggest above or multicolored as you state in your book?
More to the point, there have been more than a few original proof sets complete with provenance that have come to market over the years and not a single one that I am aware of that shows monochromatic blue toning. I challenge you or anyone else to show otherwise, and this is not the first time I have made that challenge.
<< <i>So, it is not a new phenomenon. >>
That's right. Soap has been used in numismatics for a very long time -- certainly prior to the 1930s -- and it is a proven fact that soaps turn copper blue. In addition, I am not aware of a single instance of documented tissue-paper provenance resulting in monochromatic blue toning that can so easily be replicated with a quick MS-70 bath.
Listen, Rick, I'm not suggesting that all copper with blue is the result of a soap like MS-70. Nor am I suggesting multi-color coins are the result of it. Certainly there is a chance that some of the blue-toned proofs of today are naturally toned. However, to stick your head in the sand, and point to (and mis-characterize) anecdotal evidence like the Proskey hoard, and all the while ignoring/downplaying the convincing evidence that soaps like MS-70 can and do result in quite artificial blue toning is disingenuous at best and a disservice to our hobby, IMO -- and to the point of this thread, new collectors should be warned of such things.
All of the above said, your book was wonderful (as are your other authored works, of which I own them all) and I thank you for your contributions to numismatics. I have learned a lot from you over the years, but you can and should, IMO, do more to educate collectors on the more nefarious methods behind many examples this type of toning...Mike
all other opinion aside, absent more convincing evidence i think i'll stand fast on my page one comment/warning.
one historical thing that is known is that during the mid-late 1800's it wasn't unusual for collectors to clean coins and try things like the aforementioned lacquer to preserve them. once substances like that are applied it tends to place the coins in doubt, wouldn't you agree?? from my way of thinking, if a coin is sealed in lacquer with the intent to isolate it from the atmosphere/environment, there should be no reaction(other than what takes place between the coin and the lacquer) which might cause these colors. added to that is the need to remove the lacquer/sealant from the coin with a harsh solvent, primarily acetone as attested to by you and others, or some type of soap(nowadays the chosen substance is MS70). this in turn causes yet another potential chemical reaction would might possibly alter the surface color of the coin(s).
my presumption is that the colors which many seem to maintain "were there all along" simply weren't. they came into being as a result of the chemicals which were appliad to the coin(s).
So much quibbling over what might or might not have happened when there's no way to capture the history without a "Way-Back Machine". And then to look into the soul of the numismatist and divining his "intention".
Speculation and theory are useful. We all want to know the world we live in and theory can help us construct a map of what we think that world might be. We revise our map as new data shows up.
Perhaps except when we want the answer to be what we want the answer to be. Basic human nature.
One of the things that bothers me most about these forums is the way in which much expert knowledge is discounted because someone took high school chemistry. Or did some of their own experimenting. That's a start. But.....
Expert knowledge is based on long-term PRACTICAL experience. As in "I saw the Eliasberg coins". Or "I've looked at 100,000 of these". Or "funny how nothing with that color showed up for 75 years and now look at all this bluish gold".
I've discussed toning with Ph.D. chemists who have said certain things were impossible until shown the processes that created them. No one can possibly imagine all the permutations of storage conditions and what might result. Reality sure is complex. How much more satisfying to be black-and-white (or is it blue-or-red) and be able to parse all the data unit a clear yes-or-no emerges.
We will all spend the rest of our lives making decisions based upon incomplete data. Stressful sometimes, ain't it.
Rick has seen "The Elephant". He's not the last word. But keep devaluing his experience/advice and a less generous dealer may find it easier to eat your lunch.
I usually post ATS but I had to come over here given this thread. Yesterday I posted the gorgeous large cent below and MikeinFl immediately told me it was AT created by MS70, which, given it is in a recent PCGS MS64 holder, obviously shocked my system. So reading through this thread, I have to say I strongly disagree and believe Rick Snow is on the right path. No way a detergent can instantaneously create sulfide and oxide layers (the cause of toning on metal) on a coin during a cleansing. Or can it? I would love to see if anyone has demonstrable proof of this. Instead, a detergent will clean off surface particulants and bring out the underlying toning, be it an old copper proof or buisness strike, it is all the same metal and tones. So here it is and thanks for looking:
It's actually pretty cool, but I probably wouldn't have bought it if I'd known a little more at the time. It would be cheaper to buy BN Indians and do it myself, if I were so inclined.
<< <i> Yesterday I posted the gorgeous large cent below and MikeinFl immediately told me it was AT created by MS70, which, given it is in a recent PCGS MS64 holder, obviously shocked my system. So reading through this thread, I have to say I strongly disagree and believe Rick Snow is on the right path. No way a detergent can instantaneously create sulfide and oxide layers (the cause of toning on metal) on a coin during a cleansing. Or can it? I would love to see if anyone has demonstrable proof of this. Instead, a detergent will clean off surface particulants and bring out the underlying toning, be it an old copper proof or buisness strike, it is all the same metal and tones. >>
Don't believe me? Think I'm wrong?
Cool. No problem. Believe who and what you want.
But please do me a favor, go buy some MS-70 and try it yourself on some copper (circulated pre-83 cents work very well, as long as they have a little bit of skin on them). Or go into your laundry room and use some liquid laundry detergent. Please don't forget to report back what you learn, and compare the color you see to the large cent you posted.
Here are the results of someone else's experiments: Thread ATS
Is James wrong too?
Happy holidays to all....Mike
<< <i>
<< <i> Yesterday I posted the gorgeous large cent below and MikeinFl immediately told me it was AT created by MS70, which, given it is in a recent PCGS MS64 holder, obviously shocked my system. So reading through this thread, I have to say I strongly disagree and believe Rick Snow is on the right path. No way a detergent can instantaneously create sulfide and oxide layers (the cause of toning on metal) on a coin during a cleansing. Or can it? I would love to see if anyone has demonstrable proof of this. Instead, a detergent will clean off surface particulants and bring out the underlying toning, be it an old copper proof or buisness strike, it is all the same metal and tones. >>
Don't believe me? Think I'm wrong?
Cool. No problem. Believe who and what you want.
But please do me a favor, go buy some MS-70 and try it yourself on some copper (circulated pre-83 cents work very well, as long as they have a little bit of skin on them). Or go into your laundry room and use some liquid laundry detergent. Please don't forget to report back what you learn, and compare the color you see to the large cent you posted.
Here are the results of someone else's experiments: Thread ATS
Is James wrong too?
Happy holidays to all....Mike >>
2 points.
1) MS70 is not a detergent. It is sodium hydroxide with detergent in it. So the color change is not from detergent but a chemical reaction.
2) Faulty logic . Just because MS70 can turn copper blue doesn't mean that the only way that copper can turn blue is from MS70.
Try out the validity of this syllogism.
Every good strong punch in the nose creates flowing blood.
I have a bloody nose.
Therefore someone hit me a good strong punch in the nose.
This is the same logic as
All copper coins rinsed in MS70 turn blue.
This is a blue copper coin.
Therefore this coin has been rinsed in MS70.
Some people think that the questionable toning no-grade translates into "someone can do this artificially, therefore all coins looking like this have some possibility of having been doctored, and I can't tell, so I'll throw out the baby with the bathwater".
<< <i>1) MS70 is not a detergent. It is sodium hydroxide with detergent in it. So the color change is not from detergent but a chemical reaction. >>
I have no idea if it's the detergent or sodium hydroxide that changes the color, and of course there's a chemical reaction. However, the copper does not lie. Try it yourself.
<< <i>2) Faulty logic . Just because MS70 can turn copper blue doesn't mean that the only way that copper can turn blue is from MS70. >>
Who said it was the only way? Certainly not me. To the contrary, I stated earlier in this thread:
Listen, Rick, I'm not suggesting that all copper with blue is the result of a soap like MS-70. Nor am I suggesting multi-color coins are the result of it. Certainly there is a chance that some of the blue-toned proofs of today are naturally toned. However, to stick your head in the sand, and point to (and mis-characterize) anecdotal evidence like the Proskey hoard, and all the while ignoring/downplaying the convincing evidence that soaps like MS-70 can and do result in quite artificial blue toning is disingenuous at best and a disservice to our hobby, IMO -- and to the point of this thread, new collectors should be warned of such things.
I have no idea if it's the detergent or sodium hydroxide that changes the color, and of course there's a chemical reaction. However, the copper does not lie. Try it yourself. <<<
Whoever said the copper doesn't lie? I swear we are agreeing on this specific point.
>>> Who said it was the only way? Certainly not me. <<<
But if you did state categorically that the specific coin shown by our poster from mostly ATS was an MS70 job, then what is your rationale for this characterization?
We could ask an EAC guy, but the ones I know tend towards the position that 95% of early copper has been screwed with. However, the EAC definition of "early" may be Sheldon dates only, not the Newcomb issues.
<< <i>But if you did state categorically that the specific coin shown by our poster from mostly ATS was an MS70 job, then what is your rationale for this characterization? >>
I most certainly did not state anything categorically (other than my opinion), and I would appreciate it if you would not put words in my mouth. Here's what I said, bold emphasis added:
The coin posted by the OP looks to me to be a MS-70ed Randall Hoard (although I must admit I don't know off the top of my head if this particular year/variety was present in the hoard) coin with some surface issues that likely looked much worse before it was improved.
I gave my opinion, and my rationale was the particular hue of blue, the absence of other colors, along with "bright" surfaces. In my experience, that can be indicative of a bath in MS-70 or another similar detergent.
Take care...Mike (an EAC guy
Which coin was that??
Here is a link to the thread ATS.
In which case I defer ....
I also wonder why it apparently doesn't react with all copper coins. When I looked at the NGC thread of numerous examples, it showed big differences, with the Lincoln cents posted showing the 'classic color changes', but others (particularly foriegn coins) did not. I'm guessing the alloys, as well as surface states of the coins (how and where stored), play a big role in the reactions that occur. I also know that a light brushing with BlueRibbon takes the blue frost away - whether it just masks it or actually dissolves it, I do not know.
I read my label of MS70, and all it states as far as 'ingredients' is that it 'contains strong cleaners', and on the front label states 'contains no acids'. However, the smell of it reminds of diluted Castrol Super Clean, a popular cleaner/degreaser. This does list the composition:
Butoxyethanol, sodium metasilicate, and sodium hydroxide (as already stated as a component of MS70 by ColonelJessup).
Where is TomB to help us with this?