The term “carbon spots” refers to tiny, black concentrations of corrosion. Oftentimes these are so small as to escape notice by the naked eye, though they may be seen with low power magnification. Also called “flyspecks” by some in the hobby, these spots are actually slightly raised from the surface of the coin, as the corrosion forms around some particle of organic matter, such as paper dust (often present with coin albums and cardboard “2x2” stapled holders) or human saliva deposited unknowingly by a numismatist during casual handling. Oxygen, humidity, and other atmospheric elements react with the debris to form a minute mound of corrosion around it, and this is called a carbon spot.
@keets said:
since I have owned coins with a similar appearance, submitted them to PCGS and had them straight grade I will say that it is almost 100% that this coin looked like that prior to grading and it didn't change later. prior to submitting my coin I used acetone and it did nothing. I did a rinse in 50/50 E-Z-Est and distilled water and it did nothing. I only louped the surface with a 9x glass, but it looked as though the "spots" were raised off the surface as opposed to etching into the surface as I would expect with corrosion.
perhaps if someone has a coin with similar spots they could examine it and report what they see.
They are raised. It is a build up of corrosion byproducts. It is like the rust buildup on iron only much harder.
so we agree!!! I am noting the time/date/sun and moon position along with other variables and recording same to be locked in my SDB. this is truly an Historic occasion!!!
@RogerB said:
No....only if there was a perceivable change. But, all but the lightest tarnish leaves a chloride or sulfide residue.
Try to remove any tarnish from a copper coin...
It has been done lots of times. The coins are chemically or mechanically altered with many virtually undetectable. I've seen it from the doorway in a large closet, One of the chemical baths was copper sulfate (blue solution). The mechanical treatment was first seen in the 1080's. I named it "micro-whizzing" although it looked nothing like actual whizzing ID'd by the movement of metal. Anyone can "fix" a non-red copper coin and turn it brown again. One method is in the old-time literature.
That's not my point. I've done it myself. But even if "virtually" undetectable, the surface is altered. Roger's point, which I think is silly, says that any spot whose removal would change the surface renders the coin ungradeable. The fact is that ALL TONING is a form of corrosion and does change the surface, even if removed. The darker the toning, the more obvious the removal. So, by his definition, any toned coin especially darkly toned coins are ungrade-able. That would render a whole lot of silver and copper ungrade-able.
@RogerB said:
No....only if there was a perceivable change. But, all but the lightest tarnish leaves a chloride or sulfide residue.
Try to remove any tarnish from a copper coin...
It has been done lots of times. The coins are chemically or mechanically altered with many virtually undetectable. I've seen it from the doorway in a large closet, One of the chemical baths was copper sulfate (blue solution). The mechanical treatment was first seen in the 1080's. I named it "micro-whizzing" although it looked nothing like actual whizzing ID'd by the movement of metal. Anyone can "fix" a non-red copper coin and turn it brown again. One method is in the old-time literature.
That's not my point. I've done it myself. But even if "virtually" undetectable, the surface is altered. Roger's point, which I think is silly, says that any spot whose removal would change the surface renders the coin ungradeable. The fact is that ALL TONING is a form of corrosion and does change the surface, even if removed. The darker the toning, the more obvious the removal. So, by his definition, any toned coin especially darkly toned coins are ungrade-able. That would render a whole lot of silver and copper ungrade-able.
Roger is a purist. Just as Dr. White. While they have a good argument, it should be very obvious that the coin market and the TPGS ignore their opinions for the most part.
Some forms of tarnish removal/replacement are not detectable - but, naturally, like undetectable counterfeits, they are "undetectable" by definition. OR - all detectable cleaning is detectable....or is that delectable... but not correctable? Depends on which of the Marx brothers you ask or if you just like duck soup. (No, I don't expect insider or jm to understand the language or humor....but neither does it matter.
To the OP's thought -- if removing the spots is done without damaging the coin surface, then it doesn't matter; but if "pitting" remains behind (or in front) as has been commented, then the coin is ungradable. Would not the best approach be to ask the authentication company of that 1936 nickel about their approach, instead of us wandering about guessing?
@RogerB said:
RE: "LOL, The ones that were imaged were fossilized! "
Didn't the member mean "imagined" not "imaged?"
Well, it did take an electron microscope to find the microbes so I guess if we cannot see something with our naked eye or normal powers of magnification it does not exist. Did an undetectable conservation ruin the coin? NOI
Unfortunately, 'm not allowed to post before and after images or instructions here.
@RogerB said:
RE: "LOL, The ones that were imaged were fossilized! "
Didn't the member mean "imagined" not "imaged?"
Well, it did take an electron microscope to find the microbes so I guess if we cannot see something with our naked eye or normal powers of magnification it does not exist. Did an undetectable conservation ruin the coin? NOI
Unfortunately, 'm not allowed to post before and after images or instructions here.
Sorry to burst your fantasy bubble - no microbial life or remnants of life have been discovered any place except planet earth.
If you look hard enough (10X glass, microscope) you can find spots like this on most any Proof Buffalo Nickel. The trouble is they are numerous and obvious on this piece. This type of deterioration effects the grade. This piece is over graded in my opinion.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
@RogerB said:
RE: "LOL, The ones that were imaged were fossilized! "
Didn't the member mean "imagined" not "imaged?"
Well, it did take an electron microscope to find the microbes so I guess if we cannot see something with our naked eye or normal powers of magnification it does not exist. Did an undetectable conservation ruin the coin? NOI
Unfortunately, 'm not allowed to post before and after images or instructions here.
Sorry to burst your fantasy bubble - no microbial life or remnants of life have been discovered any place except planet earth.
Scientists are still divided on the "possible microbe" found in the meteorite sample. I misspoke when I said asteroid above. Anyway, we'll find out about the asteroids after they are sampled. I happen to believe that "life" exists in many forms out in the universe.
Nickel doesn't "conserve" well.
This is a 1919-S that I had conserved to remove a mark in front of the Indian's nose.
It ...kinda....went away.
But not for long.
This is where NGC has been good at identifying particulate damage as being environmental damage. This would likely not cross at NGC and would come back details grade. Hint it might grade if submitted raw. Consider environmental conditions at the Philadelphia mint in those days. Gasoline engines were gross polluters and fuel may have had tetra ethyl lead added to reduce detonation back then. Add in localized acid rain from heavy manufacturing facilities and there you have it, a mess.
@topstuf said:
Nickel doesn't "conserve" well.
This is a 1919-S that I had conserved to remove a mark in front of the Indian's nose.
It ...kinda....went away.
But not for long.
That's why I would dump any coin like it immediately after conservation.
@illini420 said:
Probably a coin that is a 67 based on the surfaces, marks, luster, etc. But then downgraded a couple of points to 65 because of the negative eye appeal of the ugly toning spots.
@ChrisH821 said:
No idea, I wouldn't want to pay 5 money for it.
By the way this coin is currently being offered by “APMEX” on eBay "by-it-now” for $1,505.21! And best of all they do not offer returns! Wonder why?
Have learned a good bit bit reading all the posts above. If you take away the flyspecks this coin would probably merit a 67.
No other problems but this fly specking. So that may take it down a few pegs but still the eye appeal is very
negative, at least to me.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I do not think that the fly specks are PMD. They remind me of an issue that I had with weld grinding specks embedding in epoxy paint and over time rusting and revealing the grinding residue. Perhaps repairs were being conducted in the Mint that distributed particulate matter of some form into the air.
But the coin is over-graded at 65........should be PR60.
@OldIndianNutKase said:
I do not think that the fly specks are PMD. They remind me of an issue that I had with weld grinding specks embedding in epoxy paint and over time rusting and revealing the grinding residue. Perhaps repairs were being conducted in the Mint that distributed particulate matter of some form into the air.
But the coin is over-graded at 65........should be PR60.
OINK
OINK??
I would go at least OINK OINK OINK!!!
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Here is a 1937 buffalo proof-64 CAMEO that will be coming up on a Heritage auction next month.
Take a look at this obverse photo of the coin. To me no better than a proof-60. Look at the disturbed surfaces.
Appears to be dip residue. What a shame as it is hard to find 1937 buffs with the CAMEO designation.
I almost think the new “lucky” owner of this coin might be better off cracking it out and dipping it again and making sure
it gets rinsed in water the right way?
I you have the time go to the Heritage website and look at this coin. Blow the image up full sized to fit your screen
-- would you want a coin like this in your set?
Who knows, if this coin dips out well without disturbing the cameo effect and the price is right (like cheap) this could work out to be a good deal, but its a big risk me thinks.
Collector of Buffalo Nickels and other 20th century United States Coinage a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Comments
from the NGC website:
The term “carbon spots” refers to tiny, black concentrations of corrosion. Oftentimes these are so small as to escape notice by the naked eye, though they may be seen with low power magnification. Also called “flyspecks” by some in the hobby, these spots are actually slightly raised from the surface of the coin, as the corrosion forms around some particle of organic matter, such as paper dust (often present with coin albums and cardboard “2x2” stapled holders) or human saliva deposited unknowingly by a numismatist during casual handling. Oxygen, humidity, and other atmospheric elements react with the debris to form a minute mound of corrosion around it, and this is called a carbon spot.
They are raised. It is a build up of corrosion byproducts. It is like the rust buildup on iron only much harder.
so we agree!!! I am noting the time/date/sun and moon position along with other variables and recording same to be locked in my SDB. this is truly an Historic occasion!!!
That's not my point. I've done it myself. But even if "virtually" undetectable, the surface is altered. Roger's point, which I think is silly, says that any spot whose removal would change the surface renders the coin ungradeable. The fact is that ALL TONING is a form of corrosion and does change the surface, even if removed. The darker the toning, the more obvious the removal. So, by his definition, any toned coin especially darkly toned coins are ungrade-able. That would render a whole lot of silver and copper ungrade-able.
Fractal geometry on a coin! Nice!
https://www.ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm100/us/en/icons/fractal/words/
RE: "LOL, The ones that were imaged were fossilized! "
Didn't the member mean "imagined" not "imaged?"
Roger is a purist. Just as Dr. White. While they have a good argument, it should be very obvious that the coin market and the TPGS ignore their opinions for the most part.
So you are a coin doctor? Say it isn't so!!!
Some forms of tarnish removal/replacement are not detectable - but, naturally, like undetectable counterfeits, they are "undetectable" by definition. OR - all detectable cleaning is detectable....or is that delectable... but not correctable? Depends on which of the Marx brothers you ask or if you just like duck soup. (No, I don't expect insider or jm to understand the language or humor....but neither does it matter.
To the OP's thought -- if removing the spots is done without damaging the coin surface, then it doesn't matter; but if "pitting" remains behind (or in front) as has been commented, then the coin is ungradable. Would not the best approach be to ask the authentication company of that 1936 nickel about their approach, instead of us wandering about guessing?
Well, it did take an electron microscope to find the microbes so I guess if we cannot see something with our naked eye or normal powers of magnification it does not exist. Did an undetectable conservation ruin the coin? NOI
Unfortunately, 'm not allowed to post before and after images or instructions here.
Sorry to burst your fantasy bubble - no microbial life or remnants of life have been discovered any place except planet earth.
"POP"
If you look hard enough (10X glass, microscope) you can find spots like this on most any Proof Buffalo Nickel. The trouble is they are numerous and obvious on this piece. This type of deterioration effects the grade. This piece is over graded in my opinion.
Scientists are still divided on the "possible microbe" found in the meteorite sample. I misspoke when I said asteroid above. Anyway, we'll find out about the asteroids after they are sampled. I happen to believe that "life" exists in many forms out in the universe.
Nickel doesn't "conserve" well.
This is a 1919-S that I had conserved to remove a mark in front of the Indian's nose.
It ...kinda....went away.
But not for long.
Try to market it as the elusive small pox variety.
This is where NGC has been good at identifying particulate damage as being environmental damage. This would likely not cross at NGC and would come back details grade. Hint it might grade if submitted raw. Consider environmental conditions at the Philadelphia mint in those days. Gasoline engines were gross polluters and fuel may have had tetra ethyl lead added to reduce detonation back then. Add in localized acid rain from heavy manufacturing facilities and there you have it, a mess.
That's why I would dump any coin like it immediately after conservation.
By the way this coin is currently being offered by “APMEX” on eBay "by-it-now” for $1,505.21! And best of all they do not offer returns! Wonder why?
Have learned a good bit bit reading all the posts above. If you take away the flyspecks this coin would probably merit a 67.
No other problems but this fly specking. So that may take it down a few pegs but still the eye appeal is very
negative, at least to me.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
I do not think that the fly specks are PMD. They remind me of an issue that I had with weld grinding specks embedding in epoxy paint and over time rusting and revealing the grinding residue. Perhaps repairs were being conducted in the Mint that distributed particulate matter of some form into the air.
But the coin is over-graded at 65........should be PR60.
OINK
OINK??
I would go at least OINK OINK OINK!!!
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"
Here is a 1937 buffalo proof-64 CAMEO that will be coming up on a Heritage auction next month.
Take a look at this obverse photo of the coin. To me no better than a proof-60. Look at the disturbed surfaces.
Appears to be dip residue. What a shame as it is hard to find 1937 buffs with the CAMEO designation.
I almost think the new “lucky” owner of this coin might be better off cracking it out and dipping it again and making sure
it gets rinsed in water the right way?
I you have the time go to the Heritage website and look at this coin. Blow the image up full sized to fit your screen
-- would you want a coin like this in your set?
Who knows, if this coin dips out well without disturbing the cameo effect and the price is right (like cheap) this could work out to be a good deal, but its a big risk me thinks.
a.k.a "The BUFFINATOR"