When did the practice of using "Lacquer" to protect coins/medals fall out of favor??
keets
Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
I have seen medals dating from the mid-1930's which had been lacquered but nothing after that. What is the experience from the older collectors/dealers or guys a little deeper in the trenches than me??
Thanks in advance.
Al H.
0
Comments
John Jay Pittman had numerous early proof sets that he or someone else lacquered. Those were later than the mid-1930s. I'm not sure when he stopped.
This article is 2017!!!
https://coinworld.com/news/precious-metals/conservator-advises-against-lacquering-coins.html
By the way, didn't the Canadian Mint come up with a coating to prevent milk spots? Isn't that similar to lacquering? Discuss.
Excellent question. I have no idea.
My uneducated guess would be circa WW2. I have nothing to back that up.
when folk realized that the lead in paint was leading to poor coin buying decisions
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
I know it was out of favor when I started collecting in the early 1960s. At that sellers were supposed to mention it when they offered items for sale.
I'll agree with Bill. While I was not active until 1965, based on what I saw then, the practice was frowned upon and as soon as we started "calling-out" lacquered coins in the 70's the only pieces I encountered were older tokens and metals. Lacquer was rarely seen on a Large cents anymore.
Lacquered items are still around. Some are so well done (professionally per the link above?) that it is hard to detect. I will say that I have never seen a coin that was damaged from lacquer EXCEPT when areas were not coated and that part of the piece oxidized. Some coatings are very difficult to remove.
here's what I need to remove lacquer from, it's large and heavy at 102mm and seems easily over a pound. I had considered doing it myself but after it arrived I decided to let the "pro's" at NCS do it. judging by the color the medal must have been lacquered shortly after it was acquired at the Exposition, but not soon enough to prevent what was probably a few stray water droplets coming into contact and forming the dark areas. there's also what looks like an eyelash in the field in front of the obverse portrait.
Wow....nice medal.... I can see why you wanted it conserved.....Cheers, RickO
"Wow" is right! That is some spectacular engraving.
Wouldn't acetone be effective on that?
Edit to add: It looks like there's a tiny ship on the horizon in the sun.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
During the years I was with Coin World (1973-78) I remember testing a product somebody wanted to advertise. It was a form of spray lacquer but I cannot remember now what the chemical was. Lay the item on a sheet of newspaper and spray one side. After it dries turn it over and do the other side.
It was the earliest form of slabbing, LOL....
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Last year I bought a 48 & 49 mint set (double sets in cardboard). All the coins in each set were generously lacquered.
It sounds like the answer to the O/Ps question might be around the early 1950s.
It seems like the 70s based on what I've seen. Lacquering (read:polymer coatings) are still one of the best ways to preserve coins for the long term, especially if you have a base metal like iron or zinc.
The author in the coin world article cautioned against it because there are ways to do it incorrectly. That doesn't mean there aren't correct ways of doing it that are perfectly safe.
IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
"Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me
Damn...that medal is dope @keets
Nice looking medal. Lots of detail. Why is the last C of the two dates backwards?
It looks like it has been well preserved all these years. Are you sure you want to remove that protective skin?
@keets that is the most beautiful so detailed medal I've in a long time! Good medium to prevent oxidation IMHO
Many MEDALS, not coins, were given a coat of lacquer as a part of the original production process. This was especially true of large medals. This may still be true today for some companies. The practice may have fallen out of favor when the Franklin Mint came on the scene as I don't believe they lacquered many, if any, of their products.
Applying lacquer to COINS was out of favor by the time I started collecting in 1961. I don't think the practice was ever particularly widespread.
Why is the last C of the two dates backwards?
I have wondered that myself but since everyone involved from the Artist to the Manufacturer is Italian I am willing to presume it isn't a mistake of some kind, it must have a reason.
I never noticed that. The very comprehensive Wikipedia article on Roman Numerals has one usage of a backwards C, but in a context totally inappropriate to the usage here. I can only guess that it was artistic license.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals