@Insider2 said: @jmlanzaf said: "Either way, my only point is that there is no chemical difference between an AT an an NT coin."
Anyone disagree? I don't.
That's news to me, and my Ph.D. is in inorganic chemistry. There are many ways to (electro)chemically impart colors on coinage metals that have nothing to do with how they might tone naturally.
Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
@Sonorandesertrat said: "...There are many ways to (electro)chemically impart colors on coinage metals that have nothing to do with how they might tone naturally."
Does that mean you disagree with this statement: "@jmlanzaf said: "Either way, my only point is that there is no chemical difference between an AT an an NT coin."
In some cases, yes. Think about what iodine vapor does, or a treatment with chlorine bleach or other chemicals. If all that is done is accelerate an oxidation using heat (perhaps with some added water vapor), then there won't be any difference. What about sulfur-containing materials, like rubber bands, most paper products (including old coin albums), some shampoos, certain darkeners favored by coin docs? Look up the ingredients in MS70 too, and you will develop a better appreciation for controversies associated with MS70-treated copper coinage, some of which appeared in old threads here.
There absolutely is a way to decide what might have been done to AT a coin, but it is expensive and somewhat destructive--photoelectron spectroscopy. This gives the elemental composition of what is on the surface of a solid. Another alternative is a really good infrared spectrometer, set up for surface measurements (and this is not destructive, but somewhat less revealing).
Just using one's eyes doesn't necessarily reveal much. That said, sometimes strange colors (coppers very uniformly dark on both sides or gold with a Cheetos color, for example) can be very telling. So can colors imparted by electrolytic oxidation (see coins on ebay by Cowbyup, for example)--these tend to be very hard to control so that the results rarely look NT.
Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
@Insider2 said: @jmlanzaf said: "Either way, my only point is that there is no chemical difference between an AT an an NT coin."
Anyone disagree? I don't.
That's news to me, and my Ph.D. is in inorganic chemistry. There are many ways to (electro)chemically impart colors on coinage metals that have nothing to do with how they might tone naturally.
I suppose your PhD in inorganic chemistry may trump my PhD in physical chemistry, but what is possible to do has nothing to do with what is normally done. The most frequent way to "AT" coins is by exposure to sulfur. That is also how albums "NT" coins. The fact that there are thousands of other ways to create surface coloration, including outright coating with foreign substances is somewhat irrelevant.
Can you quote me any reference or any chemical analysis that shows a chemical difference in AT vs. NT? I'll wait...
@Sonorandesertrat said:
In some cases, yes. Think about what iodine vapor does, or a treatment with chlorine bleach or other chemicals. If all that is done is accelerate an oxidation using heat (perhaps with some added water vapor), then there won't be any difference. What about sulfur-containing materials, like rubber bands, most paper products (including old coin albums), some shampoos, certain darkeners favored by coin docs? Look up the ingredients in MS70 too, and you will develop a better appreciation for controversies associated with MS70-treated copper coinage, some of which appeared in old threads here.
There absolutely is a way to decide what might have been done to AT a coin, but it is expensive and somewhat destructive--photoelectron spectroscopy. This gives the elemental composition of what is on the surface of a solid. Another alternative is a really good infrared spectrometer, set up for surface measurements (and this is not destructive, but somewhat less revealing).
Just using one's eyes doesn't necessarily reveal much. That said, sometimes strange colors (coppers very uniformly dark on both sides or gold with a Cheetos color, for example) can be very telling. So can colors imparted by electrolytic oxidation (see coins on ebay by Cowbyup, for example)--these tend to be very hard to control so that the results rarely look NT.
photoelectron spectroscopy is nondestructive in any kind of reasonable microscopic sense. Why are you calling it destructive???
Not sure if these qualify as "rainbow" as being discussed here, but I've across this sequence of Peace dollars recently: PCGS: 37810806 - 37810821. A few select coins are below.
Something about the appearance of intense rainbow toning reminds me, we lived in Marin Co. In the 70's during a 3 year drought. I mean no water period. Yet some people watered their lawns at night when no one was watching, in violation of the law. Everything withered and died except....the cheaters. Peace Roy
@jmlanzaf said: "Can you quote me any reference or any chemical analysis that shows a chemical difference in AT vs. NT? I'll wait...
Not for long. A common substance is often used to "imitate" the color of natural "skin" on gold. The chemical analysis will be different from AT and NT. Of course you'll weasel out and say GOLD DOES NOT TONE. I guess the same goes when a different substance is applies to silver. So try this...Dip reside turns brown on silver and when properly applied CAN resemble toning. I should think that NT and AT would be different if analysed.
@Namvet69 said:
Something about the appearance of intense rainbow toning reminds me, we lived in Marin Co. In the 70's during a 3 year drought. I mean no water period. Yet some people watered their lawns at night when no one was watching, in violation of the law. Everything withered and died except....the cheaters. Peace Roy
I lived next door to a cheater in FL. They also watered at night (early AM) and had a beautiful lawn. The gutters next to their yard were still wet in the morning.
The doctors will be along any method now to reveal their sources and methods..........
I guess I'll wait too. To my eye, the coins that @Zoins posted above are attractive, but likely AT. When it comes to Peace dollars, my bias falls a to the famous statement David Hall made and a conversation I had with Wayne Miller. Sure, toning might have progressed over the years, but Morgans came out of the bags pretty. Peace dollars didn't. Yet, now we have quite a few...... Some probably toned nicely in albums, but there's no way to really know.
@Insider2 said: @jmlanzaf said: "Can you quote me any reference or any chemical analysis that shows a chemical difference in AT vs. NT? I'll wait...
Not for long. A common substance is often used to "imitate" the color of natural "skin" on gold. The chemical analysis will be different from AT and NT. Of course you'll weasel out and say GOLD DOES NOT TONE. I guess the same goes when a different substance is applies to silver. So try this...Dip reside turns brown on silver and when properly applied CAN resemble toning. I should think that NT and AT would be different if analysed.
Does "dip residue turn brown" on silver or does dip residue promote oxidation of the silver resulting in a silver oxide skin?
Any substance that promotes oxidation or sulfurization of the surface will result in silver oxides and silver sulfides that will be the SAME as the naturally occurring kind, at least in composition. Now the microscopic morphology MAY be different, but that is a much more complicated analysis and purely speculative. Silver oxide is silver oxide. Silver sulfide is silver sulfide. If you run XRF, XPS, ESCA or any other surface analytical technique, you should observe no difference.
Now, if you are telling me (do you know or your just speculating) that coin doctors are using iodine, then you would find iodine in the chemical analysis. I have never known a coin doctor to use iodine, they all seem to use some form of sulfur.
PCGS could easily buy an XRF or XPS set-up. They may already have one. If there was such an obvious chemical difference (iodine residue) then we wouldn't have "questionable color", we'd have definitive "artificially enhanced".
Even if you use a foreign chemical agent to promote oxidation of the surface, if the coin is properly rinsed, you should only have the oxide layer left.
I'm still waiting for someone to show me the actual chemical analysis of AT vs. NT
@jmlanzaf asked: said: "Any substance that promotes oxidation or sulfurization of the surface will result in silver oxides and silver sulfides that will be the SAME as the naturally occurring kind, at least in composition."
\ For now, without a chemical analysis of brown dip residue toning I'll reject your universal statement.
"Now the microscopic morphology MAY be different, but that is a much more complicated analysis and purely speculative. Silver oxide is silver oxide. Silver sulfide is silver sulfide. If you run XRF, XPS, ESCA or any other surface analytical technique, you should observe no difference."
I'll wait...
@jmlanzaf continued: "Now, if you are telling me (do you know or your just speculating) that coin doctors are using iodine, then you would find iodine in the chemical analysis. I have never known a coin doctor to use iodine, they all seem to use some form of sulfur."
Oops, I thought you might know something when I read: "Sloppy doctors MIGHT use iodine, no good ones do."
_PS Thanks for the link. Jason is a relatively newcomer to the hobby. He is a teacher and in a very short time has learned a lot. He gathered a bunch of past teachings all together into a book about grading. I have Jason's book and highly recommend it. At FUN this year, I convinced him to apply for an educational seminar at the next FUN show.
Over the years, the science of toning has also been published in quite a few places. The link above is a simplified version. I have assembled a folder on the science of toning on metals including that link. However, I don't claim to be a chemist and as I wrote many times over the years; none of this interests me or is important to me enough to keep in my head. The ONLY important thing to me is to be informed enough by toning experiments and actual examination to be able to have a "reasonably valid opinion" regarding AT and NT on a coin.
I'll look forward to reading more from you and the other chemist posting in this discussion.
@Insider2 said: @jmlanzaf asked: said: "Any substance that promotes oxidation or sulfurization of the surface will result in silver oxides and silver sulfides that will be the SAME as the naturally occurring kind, at least in composition."
\ For now, without a chemical analysis of brown dip residue toning I'll reject your universal statement.
"Now the microscopic morphology MAY be different, but that is a much more complicated analysis and purely speculative. Silver oxide is silver oxide. Silver sulfide is silver sulfide. If you run XRF, XPS, ESCA or any other surface analytical technique, you should observe no difference."
I'll wait...
@jmlanzaf continued: "Now, if you are telling me (do you know or your just speculating) that coin doctors are using iodine, then you would find iodine in the chemical analysis. I have never known a coin doctor to use iodine, they all seem to use some form of sulfur."
Oops, I thought you might know something when I read: "Sloppy doctors MIGHT use iodine, no good ones do."
I think the burden of proof should be on YOU not me. You are claiming that there is a measurable chemical difference between AT and NT yet NO ONE has ever detected one that I can find.
@Zoins said:
Not sure if these qualify as "rainbow" as being discussed here, but I've across this sequence of Peace dollars recently: PCGS: 37810806 - 37810821. A few select coins are below.
@Zoins said:
Not sure if these qualify as "rainbow" as being discussed here, but I've across this sequence of Peace dollars recently: PCGS: 37810806 - 37810821. A few select coins are below.
@jmlanzaf said: "I think the burden of proof should be on YOU not me. You are claiming that there is a measurable chemical difference between AT and NT yet NO ONE has ever detected one that I can find."
The difference between US is that I have nothing to prove to anyone.
Additionally, I claimed nothing EXCEPT the fact that there are substances applied to coins that SHOULD NOT have the chemical characteristics of the oxidation products seen on AT and NT.
@Zoins said:
Not sure if these qualify as "rainbow" as being discussed here, but I've across this sequence of Peace dollars recently: PCGS: 37810806 - 37810821. A few select coins are below.
Those are AT in my book.
Would you consider them MA?
3 of them are straight-graded so they have been deemed market-acceptable.
@Zoins said:
Not sure if these qualify as "rainbow" as being discussed here, but I've across this sequence of Peace dollars recently: PCGS: 37810806 - 37810821. A few select coins are below.
Those are AT in my book.
Would you consider them MA?
3 of them are straight-graded so they have been deemed market-acceptable.
Yes, by our hosts. However, I was asking specifically for @jerseycat101 's opinion.
@Zoins said:
Not sure if these qualify as "rainbow" as being discussed here, but I've across this sequence of Peace dollars recently: PCGS: 37810806 - 37810821. A few select coins are below.
@Insider2 said: @jmlanzaf said: "I think the burden of proof should be on YOU not me. You are claiming that there is a measurable chemical difference between AT and NT yet NO ONE has ever detected one that I can find."
The difference between US is that I have nothing to prove to anyone.
Additionally, I claimed nothing EXCEPT the fact that there are substances applied to coins that SHOULD NOT have the chemical characteristics of the oxidation products seen on AT and NT.
The substance applied is different than the resulting surface oxidation.
If I place an oxidant on the coin, I should get oxidation. [By definition.] That need not leave any residual chemical signature since all I've done is promote the formation of silver oxide. If I place a sulfur compound, again I'm promoting the formation of silver sulfide. Properly rinsed, the residue of the original chemical compound will no longer be present.
Consider the reverse process. If I dip a coin and then properly rinse the dip, will I find any "residue"? Answer. No. The dip stripped the surface oxide/sulfide and was then itself removed by rinsing. The same thing happens if you add a substance that creates a surface oxide/sulfide: you are left with just the oxide or sulfide and no trace of the substance that promoted its formation.
For example, hydrogen sulfide is a gas. Hydrogen sulfide will quickly create a silver sulfide layer on a coin. The hydrogen sulfide is A GAS - there is no residue of it left after the chemical reaction is complete.
@Zoins said:
Not sure if these qualify as "rainbow" as being discussed here, but I've across this sequence of Peace dollars recently: PCGS: 37810806 - 37810821. A few select coins are below.
Those are AT in my book.
Would you consider them MA?
3 of them are straight-graded so they have been deemed market-acceptable.
Yes, by our hosts. However, I was asking specifically for @jerseycat101 's opinion.
Regardless of whom it is, asking one person's opinion is not the way to determine if something is "market acceptable".
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Zoins said:
Not sure if these qualify as "rainbow" as being discussed here, but I've across this sequence of Peace dollars recently: PCGS: 37810806 - 37810821. A few select coins are below.
Those are AT in my book.
Would you consider them MA?
3 of them are straight-graded so they have been deemed market-acceptable.
Yes, by our hosts. However, I was asking specifically for @jerseycat101 's opinion.
Regardless of whom it is, asking one person's opinion is not the way to determine if something is "market acceptable".
To me, each market participant has a part to play in determining if something is “market acceptable”.
The best way to determine MA to me would be to ask everyone in the market and aggregate the responses. Of course, this may not be practical at the moment but I think market acceptability is determined by individual market participants in aggregate, so ways to approximate or validate this are valid. This approach leads me to believe individual market participant views are relevant.
@Zoins said:
Not sure if these qualify as "rainbow" as being discussed here, but I've across this sequence of Peace dollars recently: PCGS: 37810806 - 37810821. A few select coins are below.
Those are AT in my book.
Would you consider them MA?
3 of them are straight-graded so they have been deemed market-acceptable.
Yes, by our hosts. However, I was asking specifically for @jerseycat101 's opinion.
Regardless of whom it is, asking one person's opinion is not the way to determine if something is "market acceptable".
To me, each market participant has a part to play in determining if something is “market acceptable”.
The best way to determine MA to me would be to ask everyone in the market and aggregate the responses. Of course, this may not be practical at the moment but I think market acceptability is determined by individual market participants in aggregate, so ways to approximate or validate this are valid. This approach leads me to believe individual market participant views are relevant.
What approach would you recommend?
A poll or solicitation of multiple opinions in a less formal manner.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Zoins said:
Not sure if these qualify as "rainbow" as being discussed here, but I've across this sequence of Peace dollars recently: PCGS: 37810806 - 37810821. A few select coins are below.
Those are AT in my book.
Would you consider them MA?
3 of them are straight-graded so they have been deemed market-acceptable.
Yes, by our hosts. However, I was asking specifically for @jerseycat101 's opinion.
Regardless of whom it is, asking one person's opinion is not the way to determine if something is "market acceptable".
To me, each market participant has a part to play in determining if something is “market acceptable”.
The best way to determine MA to me would be to ask everyone in the market and aggregate the responses. Of course, this may not be practical at the moment but I think market acceptability is determined by individual market participants in aggregate, so ways to approximate or validate this are valid. This approach leads me to believe individual market participant views are relevant.
What approach would you recommend?
A poll or solicitation of multiple opinions in a less formal manner.
I agree but I’m not ready to do poll just yet. In the absence of that, consider this a poll of one
Eventually, I think a mobile app or website with coins may be needed with people swiping left or right. Then the left and right photos could be grouped by similarity and displayed to show what the market considers acceptable. I’m sure anyone would have enough of a financial incentive to do this but it would be interesting.
@jmlanzaf said: "For example, hydrogen sulfide is a gas. Hydrogen sulfide will quickly create a silver sulfide layer on a coin. The hydrogen sulfide is A GAS - there is no residue of it left after the chemical reaction is complete."
Great example - makes sense.
"The substance applied is different than the resulting surface oxidation. If I place an oxidant on the coin, I should get oxidation. [By definition.] That need not leave any residual chemical signature since all I've done is promote the formation of silver oxide. If I place a sulfur compound, again I'm promoting the formation of silver sulfide. Properly rinsed, the residue of the original chemical compound will no longer be present."
"Consider the reverse process. If I dip a coin and then properly rinse the dip, will I find any "residue"? Answer. No. The dip stripped the surface oxide/sulfide and was then itself removed by rinsing."
What happens if the coin is NOT PROPERLY neutralized?
The same thing happens if you add a substance that creates a surface oxide/sulfide: you are left with just the oxide or sulfide and no trace of the substance that promoted its formation."
Was it popular to use lucite or plastic holders for Peace Dollars, or more commonly cardboard?
I suppose if you dip a coin with toning, you could detect the compounds in the solution.
@Collect4fun said:
Was it popular to use lucite or plastic holders for Peace Dollars, or more commonly cardboard?
I suppose if you dip a coin with toning, you could detect the compounds in the solution.
WHAT compounds? And, again, if you have silver sulfide, whether AT or NT, you are going to detect silver ions and sulfide ions in the solution which won't distinguish the source at all. IF you are looking at, for example, silver sulfide vs. silver iodide, I don't need to dissolve it to detect the remnants. XRF, ESCA, XPS, possibly SERS are all capable of doing the detection on the surface itself.
Is it possible for other kinds of atoms (besides O and S) to bind to the surface of a 90% silver coin?
Do any other elements bind to the 10% copper atoms? Is it possible that there are other metals besides Ag and Cu in the coin alloy, and might these trace elements vary year to year?
Is it possible for microscopic amounts organic and environmental elements and compounds to be deposited on a coin's surface and adhere by simple contact, along with ionic and covalent bonds?
It seems to me that every single coin is unique at the molecular level, rather than being identical.
Any qualified lab with sufficient motivation could prove this, imo
@Zoins said: "The best way to determine MA to me would be to ask everyone in the market and aggregate the responses. Of course, this may not be practical at the moment but I think market acceptability is determined by individual market participants in aggregate, so ways to approximate or validate this are valid. This approach leads me to believe individual market participant views are relevant."
I disagree. I've been told by a moderator on a internet form that most of the members have no clue about much of what they are discussing. However, of course everyone is entitled to post and have a personal opinion.
Additionally, I know of several cases were the odd expert out was the only one who's opinion was correct!
That's why the opinion of some folks should probably carry more weight. For example, Robert Campbell does a program on toning. Based on what I've learned from his presentations (live and on tape) and what I have heard about him from coin dealers, I respect his opinion on AT
Therefore. the opinions of the masses are usually just that and often not very valuable. As I posted before, the best coin doctors would make the best judges of AT.
@Insider2 said: @Zoins said: "The best way to determine MA to me would be to ask everyone in the market and aggregate the responses. Of course, this may not be practical at the moment but I think market acceptability is determined by individual market participants in aggregate, so ways to approximate or validate this are valid. This approach leads me to believe individual market participant views are relevant."
I disagree. I've been told by a moderator on a internet form that most of the members have no clue about much of what they are discussing. However, of course everyone is entitled to post and have a personal opinion.
Additionally, I know of several cases were the odd expert out was the only one who's opinion was correct!
That's why the opinion of some folks should probably carry more weight. For example, Robert Campbell does a program on toning. Based on what I've learned from his presentations (live and on tape) and what I have heard about him from coin dealers, I respect his opinion on AT
Therefore. the opinions of the masses are usually just that and often not very valuable. As I posted before, the best coin doctors would make the best judges of AT.
But does "market acceptable" need to apply only to highly knowledgeable market participants?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Insider2 said: @Zoins said: "The best way to determine MA to me would be to ask everyone in the market and aggregate the responses. Of course, this may not be practical at the moment but I think market acceptability is determined by individual market participants in aggregate, so ways to approximate or validate this are valid. This approach leads me to believe individual market participant views are relevant."
I disagree. I've been told by a moderator on a internet form that most of the members have no clue about much of what they are discussing. However, of course everyone is entitled to post and have a personal opinion.
Additionally, I know of several cases were the odd expert out was the only one who's opinion was correct!
That's why the opinion of some folks should probably carry more weight. For example, Robert Campbell does a program on toning. Based on what I've learned from his presentations (live and on tape) and what I have heard about him from coin dealers, I respect his opinion on AT
Therefore. the opinions of the masses are usually just that and often not very valuable. As I posted before, the best coin doctors would make the best judges of AT.
But does "market acceptable" need to apply only to highly knowledgeable market participants?
ABSOLUTELY YES, if you want a better chance at being correct (in line with the powers that actually decide market acceptability).
Example: YOUR opinion of the value of a particular coin matters. My uninformed opinion does not and will rarely be as credible as yours.
@Insider2 said: @Zoins said: "The best way to determine MA to me would be to ask everyone in the market and aggregate the responses. Of course, this may not be practical at the moment but I think market acceptability is determined by individual market participants in aggregate, so ways to approximate or validate this are valid. This approach leads me to believe individual market participant views are relevant."
I disagree. I've been told by a moderator on a internet form that most of the members have no clue about much of what they are discussing. However, of course everyone is entitled to post and have a personal opinion.
Additionally, I know of several cases were the odd expert out was the only one who's opinion was correct!
That's why the opinion of some folks should probably carry more weight. For example, Robert Campbell does a program on toning. Based on what I've learned from his presentations (live and on tape) and what I have heard about him from coin dealers, I respect his opinion on AT
Therefore. the opinions of the masses are usually just that and often not very valuable. As I posted before, the best coin doctors would make the best judges of AT.
But does "market acceptable" need to apply only to highly knowledgeable market participants?
ABSOLUTELY YES, if you want a better chance at being correct (in line with the powers that actually decide market acceptability).
Example: YOUR opinion of the value of a particular coin matters. My uninformed opinion does not and will rarely be as credible as yours.
Only on extremely rare occasions, do you post something with which I (largely) agree. That was one such occasion!
Actually, that was tongue-in-cheek and on a more serious note, thank you for the entirety of that post.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@jmski52 said: it just seems illogical to me that new colors would suddenly appear naturally on coins.
I don't remember ever seeing a toned silver dollar in the '60s or '70s. I think that the first ones I saw were in the mid-eighties.
I saw a few. No one wanted to buy them---collectors only wanted white coins. I also repeatedly saw some dealers dip silver coins while the customer waited (in the '70s).
Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
@Baley said:
Is it possible for other kinds of atoms (besides O and S) to bind to the surface of a 90% silver coin?
YES but not usually how they induce toning.
Do any other elements bind to the 10% copper atoms? Is it possible that there are other metals besides Ag and Cu in the coin alloy, and might these trace elements vary year to year?
This is far more complex. There are probably dozens of trace metals. But the distribution in the alloy would not be uniform.
Is it possible for microscopic amounts organic and environmental elements and compounds to be deposited on a coin's surface and adhere by simple contact, along with ionic and covalent bonds?
This is called "dirt", so yes. It also easily washes off.
It seems to me that every single coin is unique at the molecular level, rather than being identical.
Any qualified lab with sufficient motivation could prove this, imo
First of all, expensive. Second of all, what are we proving? That all coins are unique. Supposed it is so. All we've learned is to never look at them again.
@jmski52 said: it just seems illogical to me that new colors would suddenly appear naturally on coins.
I don't remember ever seeing a toned silver dollar in the '60s or '70s. I think that the first ones I saw were in the mid-eighties.
I saw a few. No one wanted to buy them---collectors only wanted white coins. I also repeatedly saw some dealers dip silver coins while the customer waited (in the '70s).
It also makes no sense that Morgans are capable of toning and not peace dollars. In 1921, the planchets were likely identical. If the storage was different, what happens if you dumped your Peace dollars in the same canvas bag as your Morgan?
If there is a difference in older Morgan's, then the likely difference is planchet cleaning having changed over time or some other pre- or post-strike treatment of the coins. If that's so, should we call all toned Morgan's AT?
@jmski52 said: it just seems illogical to me that new colors would suddenly appear naturally on coins.
I don't remember ever seeing a toned silver dollar in the '60s or '70s. I think that the first ones I saw were in the mid-eighties.
I saw a few. No one wanted to buy them---collectors only wanted white coins. I also repeatedly saw some dealers dip silver coins while the customer waited (in the '70s).
It also makes no sense that Morgans are capable of toning and not peace dollars. In 1921, the planchets were likely identical. If the storage was different, what happens if you dumped your Peace dollars in the same canvas bag as your Morgan?
If there is a difference in older Morgan's, then the likely difference is planchet cleaning having changed over time or some other pre- or post-strike treatment of the coins. If that's so, should we call all toned Morgan's AT?
I wish you'd get over this recent obsession of trying to redefine the widely-accepted meaning of AT. It's really not useful or helpful (or valid) in any sense.
@jmlanzaf said: "It also makes no sense that Morgans are capable of toning and not peace dollars. In 1921, the planchets were likely identical. If the storage was different, what happens if you dumped your Peace dollars in the same canvas bag as your Morgan? If there is a difference in older Morgan's, then the likely difference is planchet cleaning having changed over time or some other pre- or post-strike treatment of the coins. If that's so, should we call all toned Morgan's AT?"
Good point. So, the planchets were the same and 1921 (anyone know where all the high relief rainbow 1921 Peace $ are) Morgan;s and 1922 Peace $ MIGHT have been kept in the same conditions in the vaults... Where are the rainbow 21 Morgans too? Not worth toning artificially?
I heard a big dealer years ago say who cares if its AT if it’s pretty and you like it buy it. I don’t recommend that statement. Funny when toned peace dollars come up for discussion, all of a sudden they “come out “
I know the folks on here say you have to prove AT or intent. Well, my wallet doesn’t need to prove anything. The alarm goes off and the wallet shuts.
Please... Save The Stories, Just Answer My Questions, And Tell Me How Much!!!!!
@stman said:
I heard a big dealer years ago say who cares if its AT if it’s pretty and you like it buy it. I don’t recommend that statement. Funny when toned peace dollars come up for discussion, all of a sudden they “come out “
I know the folks on here say you have to prove AT or intent. Well, my wallet doesn’t need to prove anything. The alarm goes off and the wallet shuts.
Perhaps a photographer's light meter could be modified with the addition of a rat trap and an automatic wallet shutter could be built.
Comments
Outside of my circle of competence, so they an easy pass unless there is some provenance.
I will throw a few dollars at some Roosie set... who AT's dimes?
While walking away, silently say a prayer to the Silver Dollar gods for removing more and more otherwise midling coins from the market.
BST: KindaNewish (3/21/21), WQuarterFreddie (3/30/21), Meltdown (4/6/21), DBSTrader2 (5/5/21) AKA- unclemonkey on Blow Out
In answer to your question. - coin doctors. Roosevelt dimes are by no means, immune from doctoring.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
That's news to me, and my Ph.D. is in inorganic chemistry. There are many ways to (electro)chemically impart colors on coinage metals that have nothing to do with how they might tone naturally.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
@Sonorandesertrat said: "...There are many ways to (electro)chemically impart colors on coinage metals that have nothing to do with how they might tone naturally."
Does that mean you disagree with this statement: "@jmlanzaf said: "Either way, my only point is that there is no chemical difference between an AT an an NT coin."
Yes. Sometimes there is no difference, other times there is a world of difference.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
When it is a huge difference, does that indicate a poor job of toning alteration?
In some cases, yes. Think about what iodine vapor does, or a treatment with chlorine bleach or other chemicals. If all that is done is accelerate an oxidation using heat (perhaps with some added water vapor), then there won't be any difference. What about sulfur-containing materials, like rubber bands, most paper products (including old coin albums), some shampoos, certain darkeners favored by coin docs? Look up the ingredients in MS70 too, and you will develop a better appreciation for controversies associated with MS70-treated copper coinage, some of which appeared in old threads here.
There absolutely is a way to decide what might have been done to AT a coin, but it is expensive and somewhat destructive--photoelectron spectroscopy. This gives the elemental composition of what is on the surface of a solid. Another alternative is a really good infrared spectrometer, set up for surface measurements (and this is not destructive, but somewhat less revealing).
Just using one's eyes doesn't necessarily reveal much. That said, sometimes strange colors (coppers very uniformly dark on both sides or gold with a Cheetos color, for example) can be very telling. So can colors imparted by electrolytic oxidation (see coins on ebay by Cowbyup, for example)--these tend to be very hard to control so that the results rarely look NT.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
I suppose your PhD in inorganic chemistry may trump my PhD in physical chemistry, but what is possible to do has nothing to do with what is normally done. The most frequent way to "AT" coins is by exposure to sulfur. That is also how albums "NT" coins. The fact that there are thousands of other ways to create surface coloration, including outright coating with foreign substances is somewhat irrelevant.
Can you quote me any reference or any chemical analysis that shows a chemical difference in AT vs. NT? I'll wait...
photoelectron spectroscopy is nondestructive in any kind of reasonable microscopic sense. Why are you calling it destructive???
This is largely theoretical and not realistic. Sloppy doctors might use iodine, no good ones do.
I'll amend my statement: 99.5% of AT is chemically indistinguishable from NT.
Not sure if these qualify as "rainbow" as being discussed here, but I've across this sequence of Peace dollars recently: PCGS: 37810806 - 37810821. A few select coins are below.
1923 PCGS AU58: https://www.pcgs.com/cert/37810811
1923 PCGS AU55: https://www.pcgs.com/cert/37810812
1923 PCGS Cleaned: https://www.pcgs.com/cert/37810813
1923 PCGS AU58: https://www.pcgs.com/cert/37810815
Something about the appearance of intense rainbow toning reminds me, we lived in Marin Co. In the 70's during a 3 year drought. I mean no water period. Yet some people watered their lawns at night when no one was watching, in violation of the law. Everything withered and died except....the cheaters. Peace Roy
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW
@jmlanzaf said: "Can you quote me any reference or any chemical analysis that shows a chemical difference in AT vs. NT? I'll wait...
Not for long. A common substance is often used to "imitate" the color of natural "skin" on gold. The chemical analysis will be different from AT and NT. Of course you'll weasel out and say GOLD DOES NOT TONE. I guess the same goes when a different substance is applies to silver. So try this...Dip reside turns brown on silver and when properly applied CAN resemble toning. I should think that NT and AT would be different if analysed.
@jmlanzaf said: "This is largely theoretical and not realistic. Sloppy doctors might use iodine, no good ones do.
LOL, what makes you so sure? Do you know something we don't know? What do you know about iodine? Have you ever used it?
I"LL WAIT.
I lived next door to a cheater in FL. They also watered at night (early AM) and had a beautiful lawn. The gutters next to their yard were still wet in the morning.
The doctors will be along any method now to reveal their sources and methods..........
I guess I'll wait too. To my eye, the coins that @Zoins posted above are attractive, but likely AT. When it comes to Peace dollars, my bias falls a to the famous statement David Hall made and a conversation I had with Wayne Miller. Sure, toning might have progressed over the years, but Morgans came out of the bags pretty. Peace dollars didn't. Yet, now we have quite a few...... Some probably toned nicely in albums, but there's no way to really know.
Does "dip residue turn brown" on silver or does dip residue promote oxidation of the silver resulting in a silver oxide skin?
Any substance that promotes oxidation or sulfurization of the surface will result in silver oxides and silver sulfides that will be the SAME as the naturally occurring kind, at least in composition. Now the microscopic morphology MAY be different, but that is a much more complicated analysis and purely speculative. Silver oxide is silver oxide. Silver sulfide is silver sulfide. If you run XRF, XPS, ESCA or any other surface analytical technique, you should observe no difference.
Now, if you are telling me (do you know or your just speculating) that coin doctors are using iodine, then you would find iodine in the chemical analysis. I have never known a coin doctor to use iodine, they all seem to use some form of sulfur.
PCGS could easily buy an XRF or XPS set-up. They may already have one. If there was such an obvious chemical difference (iodine residue) then we wouldn't have "questionable color", we'd have definitive "artificially enhanced".
Even if you use a foreign chemical agent to promote oxidation of the surface, if the coin is properly rinsed, you should only have the oxide layer left.
I'm still waiting for someone to show me the actual chemical analysis of AT vs. NT
{crickets}
https://cointalk.com/threads/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-science-of-toning.84670/
1881o.com/assets/hello-yellow.pdf
@jmlanzaf asked: said: "Any substance that promotes oxidation or sulfurization of the surface will result in silver oxides and silver sulfides that will be the SAME as the naturally occurring kind, at least in composition."
\
For now, without a chemical analysis of brown dip residue toning I'll reject your universal statement.
"Now the microscopic morphology MAY be different, but that is a much more complicated analysis and purely speculative. Silver oxide is silver oxide. Silver sulfide is silver sulfide. If you run XRF, XPS, ESCA or any other surface analytical technique, you should observe no difference."
I'll wait...
@jmlanzaf continued: "Now, if you are telling me (do you know or your just speculating) that coin doctors are using iodine, then you would find iodine in the chemical analysis. I have never known a coin doctor to use iodine, they all seem to use some form of sulfur."
Oops, I thought you might know something when I read: "Sloppy doctors MIGHT use iodine, no good ones do."
_PS Thanks for the link. Jason is a relatively newcomer to the hobby. He is a teacher and in a very short time has learned a lot. He gathered a bunch of past teachings all together into a book about grading. I have Jason's book and highly recommend it. At FUN this year, I convinced him to apply for an educational seminar at the next FUN show.
Over the years, the science of toning has also been published in quite a few places. The link above is a simplified version. I have assembled a folder on the science of toning on metals including that link. However, I don't claim to be a chemist and as I wrote many times over the years; none of this interests me or is important to me enough to keep in my head. The ONLY important thing to me is to be informed enough by toning experiments
and actual examination to be able to have a "reasonably valid opinion" regarding AT and NT on a coin.
I'll look forward to reading more from you and the other chemist posting in this discussion.
I think the burden of proof should be on YOU not me. You are claiming that there is a measurable chemical difference between AT and NT yet NO ONE has ever detected one that I can find.
Those are AT in my book.
Would you consider them MA?
@jmlanzaf said: "I think the burden of proof should be on YOU not me. You are claiming that there is a measurable chemical difference between AT and NT yet NO ONE has ever detected one that I can find."
The difference between US is that I have nothing to prove to anyone.
Additionally, I claimed nothing EXCEPT the fact that there are substances applied to coins that SHOULD NOT have the chemical characteristics of the oxidation products seen on AT and NT.
3 of them are straight-graded so they have been deemed market-acceptable.
Yes, by our hosts. However, I was asking specifically for @jerseycat101 's opinion.
No, I dont. Unfortunately, many people will. Blue and brown toners should be avoided at all costs.
The substance applied is different than the resulting surface oxidation.
If I place an oxidant on the coin, I should get oxidation. [By definition.] That need not leave any residual chemical signature since all I've done is promote the formation of silver oxide. If I place a sulfur compound, again I'm promoting the formation of silver sulfide. Properly rinsed, the residue of the original chemical compound will no longer be present.
Consider the reverse process. If I dip a coin and then properly rinse the dip, will I find any "residue"? Answer. No. The dip stripped the surface oxide/sulfide and was then itself removed by rinsing. The same thing happens if you add a substance that creates a surface oxide/sulfide: you are left with just the oxide or sulfide and no trace of the substance that promoted its formation.
For example, hydrogen sulfide is a gas. Hydrogen sulfide will quickly create a silver sulfide layer on a coin. The hydrogen sulfide is A GAS - there is no residue of it left after the chemical reaction is complete.
Regardless of whom it is, asking one person's opinion is not the way to determine if something is "market acceptable".
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
To me, each market participant has a part to play in determining if something is “market acceptable”.
The best way to determine MA to me would be to ask everyone in the market and aggregate the responses. Of course, this may not be practical at the moment but I think market acceptability is determined by individual market participants in aggregate, so ways to approximate or validate this are valid. This approach leads me to believe individual market participant views are relevant.
What approach would you recommend?
A poll or solicitation of multiple opinions in a less formal manner.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I agree but I’m not ready to do poll just yet. In the absence of that, consider this a poll of one
Eventually, I think a mobile app or website with coins may be needed with people swiping left or right. Then the left and right photos could be grouped by similarity and displayed to show what the market considers acceptable. I’m sure anyone would have enough of a financial incentive to do this but it would be interesting.
@jmlanzaf said: "For example, hydrogen sulfide is a gas. Hydrogen sulfide will quickly create a silver sulfide layer on a coin. The hydrogen sulfide is A GAS - there is no residue of it left after the chemical reaction is complete."
Great example - makes sense.
"The substance applied is different than the resulting surface oxidation. If I place an oxidant on the coin, I should get oxidation. [By definition.] That need not leave any residual chemical signature since all I've done is promote the formation of silver oxide. If I place a sulfur compound, again I'm promoting the formation of silver sulfide. Properly rinsed, the residue of the original chemical compound will no longer be present."
"Consider the reverse process. If I dip a coin and then properly rinse the dip, will I find any "residue"? Answer. No. The dip stripped the surface oxide/sulfide and was then itself removed by rinsing."
What happens if the coin is NOT PROPERLY neutralized?
The same thing happens if you add a substance that creates a surface oxide/sulfide: you are left with just the oxide or sulfide and no trace of the substance that promoted its formation."
This ALSO makes sense.
Was it popular to use lucite or plastic holders for Peace Dollars, or more commonly cardboard?
I suppose if you dip a coin with toning, you could detect the compounds in the solution.
WHAT compounds? And, again, if you have silver sulfide, whether AT or NT, you are going to detect silver ions and sulfide ions in the solution which won't distinguish the source at all. IF you are looking at, for example, silver sulfide vs. silver iodide, I don't need to dissolve it to detect the remnants. XRF, ESCA, XPS, possibly SERS are all capable of doing the detection on the surface itself.
Is it possible for other kinds of atoms (besides O and S) to bind to the surface of a 90% silver coin?
Do any other elements bind to the 10% copper atoms? Is it possible that there are other metals besides Ag and Cu in the coin alloy, and might these trace elements vary year to year?
Is it possible for microscopic amounts organic and environmental elements and compounds to be deposited on a coin's surface and adhere by simple contact, along with ionic and covalent bonds?
It seems to me that every single coin is unique at the molecular level, rather than being identical.
Any qualified lab with sufficient motivation could prove this, imo
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
@Zoins said: "The best way to determine MA to me would be to ask everyone in the market and aggregate the responses. Of course, this may not be practical at the moment but I think market acceptability is determined by individual market participants in aggregate, so ways to approximate or validate this are valid. This approach leads me to believe individual market participant views are relevant."
I disagree. I've been told by a moderator on a internet form that most of the members have no clue about much of what they are discussing. However, of course everyone is entitled to post and have a personal opinion.
Additionally, I know of several cases were the odd expert out was the only one who's opinion was correct!
That's why the opinion of some folks should probably carry more weight. For example, Robert Campbell does a program on toning. Based on what I've learned from his presentations (live and on tape) and what I have heard about him from coin dealers, I respect his opinion on AT
Therefore. the opinions of the masses are usually just that and often not very valuable. As I posted before, the best coin doctors would make the best judges of AT.
But does "market acceptable" need to apply only to highly knowledgeable market participants?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
ABSOLUTELY YES, if you want a better chance at being correct (in line with the powers that actually decide market acceptability).
Example: YOUR opinion of the value of a particular coin matters. My uninformed opinion does not and will rarely be as credible as yours.
Only on extremely rare occasions, do you post something with which I (largely) agree. That was one such occasion!
Actually, that was tongue-in-cheek and on a more serious note, thank you for the entirety of that post.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@jmlanzaf said:
I many cases, it won't be (e.g., an oxide layer on a metal surface). What if the layer is organic? Sometimes XPS can cause decomposition on a surface.
Regardless, the real problem here is cost per analysis.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
I saw a few. No one wanted to buy them---collectors only wanted white coins. I also repeatedly saw some dealers dip silver coins while the customer waited (in the '70s).
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
YES but not usually how they induce toning.
This is far more complex. There are probably dozens of trace metals. But the distribution in the alloy would not be uniform.
This is called "dirt", so yes. It also easily washes off.
First of all, expensive. Second of all, what are we proving? That all coins are unique. Supposed it is so. All we've learned is to never look at them again.
It also makes no sense that Morgans are capable of toning and not peace dollars. In 1921, the planchets were likely identical. If the storage was different, what happens if you dumped your Peace dollars in the same canvas bag as your Morgan?
If there is a difference in older Morgan's, then the likely difference is planchet cleaning having changed over time or some other pre- or post-strike treatment of the coins. If that's so, should we call all toned Morgan's AT?
I wish you'd get over this recent obsession of trying to redefine the widely-accepted meaning of AT. It's really not useful or helpful (or valid) in any sense.
@jmlanzaf said: "It also makes no sense that Morgans are capable of toning and not peace dollars. In 1921, the planchets were likely identical. If the storage was different, what happens if you dumped your Peace dollars in the same canvas bag as your Morgan? If there is a difference in older Morgan's, then the likely difference is planchet cleaning having changed over time or some other pre- or post-strike treatment of the coins. If that's so, should we call all toned Morgan's AT?"
Good point. So, the planchets were the same and 1921 (anyone know where all the high relief rainbow 1921 Peace $ are) Morgan;s and 1922 Peace $ MIGHT have been kept in the same conditions in the vaults... Where are the rainbow 21 Morgans too? Not worth toning artificially?
Post your rainbow 1921 dollars! Let's see them.
Not rainbow but some slight toning
Third one from top looks rainbow toned
https://www.pcgs.com/coinfacts/coin/1921-1-high-relief-peace/7356
Dip em white and be happy.
I heard a big dealer years ago say who cares if its AT if it’s pretty and you like it buy it. I don’t recommend that statement. Funny when toned peace dollars come up for discussion, all of a sudden they “come out “
I know the folks on here say you have to prove AT or intent. Well, my wallet doesn’t need to prove anything. The alarm goes off and the wallet shuts.
Perhaps a photographer's light meter could be modified with the addition of a rat trap and an automatic wallet shutter could be built.