Experimental Rinse Dollars - What was the verdict?

Zoins

The Experimental Rinse Sacagawea dollars are very interesting to me.

Great information is available on SmallDollars.com by @MWallace. Also, @FredWeinberg has examined these, and the first discovered coins were acquired by @Byers.

In reading about these, the following comes to mind:

Were use of the rinses ever confirmed by the US Mint?

Did the Mint end up selecting such a rinse for production (non-experimental) purposes?

http://www.smalldollars.com/dollar/add002.html

Here's one with slab photos by crowntokens:

https://www.pcgs.com/cert/39034345

ricko

I purchased three of rolls of Sacs when they were first issued... I have opened two, a few years ago, and all look normal. I have not opened the third roll - so it has been sitting for twenty years. Maybe I will check it out.... maybe. Cheers, RickO

JBK

The label says "Anti-Tarnishing Agent" but the coin looks pretty tarnished to me.

Also, I never really understood the purpose. Once the coins enter circulation they naturally tarnish. It is inevitable. If the mint didn't want tarnish they should have used a different alloy or plated them with a metal that does not tarnish. The anti-tarnishing agent is a temporary solution.

I wonder if the real purpose was to apply a "protective patina" to the coins to help avoid the corrosion that can occur when new copper-based coins get only slight wear. In those cases, the oils and acids in the skin can cause corrosion. Once a coin develops a layer of tarnish the surface is much better protected.

Lastly, I never understood how these special finishes are authenticated.

Zoins

@JBK said:
The label says "Anti-Tarnishing Agent" but the coin looks pretty tarnished to me.

Also, I never really understood the purpose. Once the coins enter circulation they naturally tarnish. It is inevitable. If the mint didn't want tarnish they should have used a different alloy or plated them with a metal that does not tarnish. The anti-tarnishing agent is a temporary solution.

I wonder if the real purpose was to apply a "protective patina" to the coins to help avoid the corrosion that can occur when new copper-based coins get only slight wear. In those cases, the oils and acids in the skin can cause corrosion. Once a coin develops a layer of tarnish the surface is much better protected.

Lastly, I never understood how these special finishes are authenticated.

Very good questions!

I agree it looks tarnished, almost like a tarnish enhancer and accelerant.

Regarding the authentication, hopefully @FredWeinberg can chime in. PCGS has authenticated 2000-P, 2001-P and 2006-D dollars with Experimental Rinse.

ɹoʇɔǝlloɔ

@JBK said:
The label says "Anti-Tarnishing Agent" but the coin looks pretty tarnished to me.

thats why it was experimental 😄

Lastly, I never understood how these special finishes are authenticated.

would also love to understand this better

maybe the mint can go all out and start issuing rhodium plated circulating coinage 😂

Zoins

@ɹoʇɔǝlloɔ said:

@JBK said:
The label says "Anti-Tarnishing Agent" but the coin looks pretty tarnished to me.

thats why it was experimental 😄

Or "Failed Rinse"

JBK

I have some rolls of 2000 or 2001 Sacs that I got some years later when the mint decided to sell off some prior year coins it still had in inventory.

A few of the coins from the rolls I opened had a layer of greenish goop on them. I assumed it was grease and verdigris, but the next time I open one of the rolls and find one I'll post pics.

FredWeinberg

I just checked, and cannot find, my file on the US Mint Experimental Rinses
for the Sacagawea Dollars.

Coin World wrote at least two articles on this process, but I can't find them.

The Mint confirmed they used a special rinse to try to protect the normal
'golden' Sac dollars from tarnishing. The Rinse looks like one type of
mis-annealed planchets; as mentioned, most are dated 2000, and a few
2001 - and a few other dates, probably from left-over planchets.

Maybe someone can access CW files from 20 years ago --

Have you checked the Mike Wallace small dollars website for info ?

eCoinquest

Here is one of the Coin World articles reproduced by Mike Byers:
https://mikebyers.com/cwarticle062501.html

These experimental rinses seem to be quite rare. I have heard the following estimates:

2000 P - approximately 10 known (I have personally seen 5 different coins)
2001 P - several hundred or more (most common date)
2006 D - two examples (both are MS65)

I still need to get a TrueView done but this is the 2006 discovery coin:

MWallace

@FredWeinberg said:

The Mint confirmed they used a special rinse to try to protect the normal
'golden' Sac dollars from tarnishing. The Rinse looks like one type of
mis-annealed planchets; as mentioned, most are dated 2000, and a few
2001 - and a few other dates, probably from left-over planchets.

For accuracy, you got that backwards. Most are dated 2001 and a few 2000. I saved virtually every article during the first few years of the Sac$. I'll see what I can find.

Onastone

@eCoinquest said:
Here is one of the Coin World articles reproduced by Mike Byers:
https://mikebyers.com/cwarticle062501.html

These experimental rinses seem to be quite rare. I have heard the following estimates:

2000 P - approximately 10 known (I have personally seen 5 different coins)
2001 P - several hundred or more (most common date)
2006 D - two examples (both are MS65)

I still need to get a TrueView done but this is the 2006 discovery coin:

Maybe they could have used a smaller font to put in the actual word RINSE. Wouldn't this count for a rare double error?? An Experimental Rise?

Namvet69

I've got a 2001-P Experimental rinse Sac in a MS68 Global slab that looks great. It's got a unique brown color. See attached pics. Peace Roy

Zoins

How is the experimental rinse authenticated? Is it just visual or is there a chemical analysis done?

Does anyone know what the rinse is composed of?

Are the rinses for 2000, 2001 and 2006 chemically the same or different?

FredWeinberg

Mornin' Mike -

Yes, I mixed up the two years, my apology.

These coins have a very distinctive 'olive brown' sheen
to them - they have great luster, in most cases, which
the environmentally damaged ones do not have.

Also, the edge of the coin would show less of the sheen,
as the ejection of the coin after it is struck takes off a
bit of the Rinse that was on the edge of the unstuck planchet.

Easy to tell once you've seen a few of them.

Also, as far as mintages, there are well over 2,000 of the
2001 dated pieces, and for 2000, more than the 10 listed
above in another post.

Zoins

Wow! I was searching for these and just ran across this one from @SullivanNumismatics !

Never knew these were done for Ike dollars too!

Here's the description:

NGC $1 40% Silver Eisenhower Dollar Experimental Rinse "TR" Planchet UNC

NGC Eisenhower dollar 40% silver type-2 planchet and with an experimental rinse, and with the letters "TR" carved into the planchet. This was something the Mint placed on the coin, and was part of some experiments the Mint was doing. Unique for what it is, although other experimental 40% silver planchets of other types are known.

Two questions:

1. Were any experimental rinse Eisenhower dollars struck?
2. Are there unstruck experimental Sacagawea planchets known?

I've updated the title to be more generic

FredWeinberg

Those Ike's above are from a deal I bought directly from the
son of San Francisco Mint employee, about 7-8 years ago.

A different rinse, and they were all San Francisco blanks
and planchets.

Some had letters or #'s written on the planchets -

There were about 60-65 pcs.of these in the deal, as I recall.

Zoins

@FredWeinberg said:
Those Ike's above are from a deal I bought directly from the
son of San Francisco Mint employee, about 7-8 years ago.

A different rinse, and they were all San Francisco blanks
and planchets.

Some had letters or #'s written on the planchets -

There were about 60-65 pcs.of these in the deal, as I recall.

Very interesting

Now I'm wondering if the Sacagawea and Ike dollars / planchets should be assigned Judd pattern numbers?

I don't see any of the Sacagawea dollars here. Not sure where the Ike planchets would go.

https://uspatterns.stores.yahoo.net/pat18todat.html

Pinging @MrEureka

FredWeinberg

I do not consider these 'rinses' to be patterns,
as the coin itself is the normal circulation strike
using regular dies.

Zoins

@FredWeinberg said:
I do not consider these 'rinses' to be patterns,
as the coin itself is the normal circulation strike
using regular dies.

Patterns cover items struck with regular dies but experimental compositions. Many patterns have been struck with regular dies but different compositions.

These seem to be official Mint experiments with different planchets preparation before striking.

FredWeinberg

The planchets and metal composition are of the normal
Sacagawea dollar - so it's not like a regular dies coin was
struck on a $1 size copper planchet, or other full size planchet
of another metal.

Namvet69

I didn't know the rinse was done before striking. That is very interesting info. Really enjoying this thread. Peace Roy

Zoins

@FredWeinberg said:
The planchets and metal composition are of the normal
Sacagawea dollar - so it's not like a regular dies coin was
struck on a $1 size copper planchet, or other full size planchet
of another metal.

My view is that if they are an official US Mint experiment, which they seem to be, they should be recognized as such, and a pattern designation seems to be the typical way to do this.

In my mind, they shouldn't be disqualified because the Mint experiment is a rinse, vs. metal composition, but I'd love to hear from the pattern experts.

FredWeinberg

Zoins, I agree - I'm not a Pattern guy, so I'd like to know
what they would say about it........

Zoins

@FredWeinberg said:
I just checked, and cannot find, my file on the US Mint Experimental Rinses
for the Sacagawea Dollars.

Coin World wrote at least two articles on this process, but I can't find them.

The Mint confirmed they used a special rinse to try to protect the normal
'golden' Sac dollars from tarnishing. The Rinse looks like one type of
mis-annealed planchets; as mentioned, most are dated 2000, and a few
2001 - and a few other dates, probably from left-over planchets.

Maybe someone can access CW files from 20 years ago --

It would be great to see these articles and who from the Mint confirmed it.

Have you checked the Mike Wallace small dollars website for info ?

I did and I had a link in the OP. MIke's website site has great info including mention of David Hendrickson of Silver Towne who purchased the original Sacagawea set and Russ Flournoy who discovered the 2006-D coin. However, it doesn't include some information we've been discussing here such as the rinse composition which still seems unknown.

Zoins

@Namvet69 said:
I didn't know the rinse was done before striking. That is very interesting info. Really enjoying this thread. Peace Roy

Agree. These forums are an awesome source of knowledge! Thanks to everyone for posting, especially @FredWeinberg here

Zoins

@eCoinquest said:
Here is one of the Coin World articles reproduced by Mike Byers:
https://mikebyers.com/cwarticle062501.html

Just looked at the article. Some great info there! Thanks to @Byers for posting it.

Randy Camper wrote for Coin World on June 25, 2001:

Mint officials refuse to comment on 'experimental rinse'
[...]
One particular attempt involved baking citric acid onto the dollar planchets at 150° F.
[...]
When Coin World contacted the Mint regarding these coins labeled "Experimental Rinse," a representative responded via e-mail that the Mint "would decline further comment at this time."

JBK

And I still want to know who decided to call a rinse thar that darkened the coins an "anti-tarnishing rinse."

Their view of anti-tarnish is very different than mine. Maybe @Ricko needs to be hired on at the mint to explain to them what tarnish looks like.

MrEureka

@Zoins said:

@FredWeinberg said:
The planchets and metal composition are of the normal
Sacagawea dollar - so it's not like a regular dies coin was
struck on a $1 size copper planchet, or other full size planchet
of another metal.

My view is that if they are an official US Mint experiment, which they seem to be, they should be recognized as such, and a pattern designation seems to be the typical way to do this.

In my mind, they shouldn't be disqualified because the Mint experiment is a rinse, vs. metal composition, but I'd love to hear from the pattern experts.

I agree. An experimental piece is an experimental piece, whatever the nature of the experiment. That said, I would hesitate to list the various rinse variations unless I can be convinced that they can be positively identified.

FredWeinberg

Thanks Andy your opinion means a lot

Zoins

@MrEureka said:

@Zoins said:

@FredWeinberg said:
The planchets and metal composition are of the normal
Sacagawea dollar - so it's not like a regular dies coin was
struck on a $1 size copper planchet, or other full size planchet
of another metal.

My view is that if they are an official US Mint experiment, which they seem to be, they should be recognized as such, and a pattern designation seems to be the typical way to do this.

In my mind, they shouldn't be disqualified because the Mint experiment is a rinse, vs. metal composition, but I'd love to hear from the pattern experts.

I agree. An experimental piece is an experimental piece, whatever the nature of the experiment. That said, I would hesitate to list the various rinse variations unless I can be convinced that they can be positively identified.

That makes sense.

What steps could be taken to determined if they can be positively identified, or not?

Hydrant

Interesting story but the results were not very pleasing in my opinion.

Kurisu

@ricko said:
I purchased three of rolls of Sacs when they were first issued... I have opened two, a few years ago, and all look normal. I have not opened the third roll - so it has been sitting for twenty years. Maybe I will check it out.... maybe. Cheers, RickO

I have 3 of my original 5 left to open...Nothing yet except a potential MS69!

As a wonderful side note, I emailed @FredWeinberg with a couple questions when I started opening them and he must've been looking at his email lol! Because Fred replied in about a minute for me. I truly appreciated that!

I'm Mule hunting (and rinse hunting) and yes, I'm often accused of being overly positive about things But that's been working out ok for me for about 51 years knock on wood!

I can not overstate how helpful all you folks above are!!!

MrEureka

@Zoins said:

@MrEureka said:

@Zoins said:

@FredWeinberg said:
The planchets and metal composition are of the normal
Sacagawea dollar - so it's not like a regular dies coin was
struck on a $1 size copper planchet, or other full size planchet
of another metal.

My view is that if they are an official US Mint experiment, which they seem to be, they should be recognized as such, and a pattern designation seems to be the typical way to do this.

In my mind, they shouldn't be disqualified because the Mint experiment is a rinse, vs. metal composition, but I'd love to hear from the pattern experts.

I agree. An experimental piece is an experimental piece, whatever the nature of the experiment. That said, I would hesitate to list the various rinse variations unless I can be convinced that they can be positively identified.

That makes sense.

What steps could be taken to determined if they can be positively identified, or not?

Maybe Mint records to indicate what could exist, for a start. Maybe samples of each type documented by the Mint, if such things exist? Maybe surface analysis for trace elements? Or something else, or some combination of factors. And whatever the authentication process is, it will have to be conclusive enough to prove that the pieces were not altered outside of the Mint.

Bottom line is that I don't know. I've never paid attention to these pieces. Maybe somebody else already has the answers.

FredWeinberg

Andy, I believe I, and others, can easily tell
genuine ER's from alterations........
.....original luster, and an edge that doesn't have the same obv./rev. 'luster rinse' or surface.

As to the actual chemical composition of the rinse, I have no idea.

Namvet69

I can't believe that we shouldn't be able to get an answer under the FOIA. They may have repeatedly called it an experimental rinse but I'll bet they created a chemical compound and scientists recorded it cause they used it during many mintages over several years. IMO. Peace Roy

braddick

I just now took a photo of two golden dollars out of my collection.
You can definitely see the difference between the "rinse" coin vs the golden
the appearance of the other.

I am curious: Why does PCGS refer to these as a Mint Error? I ask because I believe the Mint
performed these experiments on purpose.

jesbroken

Here is an article from SmallDollars.com that says the process was to reduce the chance of spotting. If already mentioned I missed it.
Jim
http://www.smalldollars.com/dollar/add002.html

DCW

@braddick said:

I am curious: Why does PCGS refer to these as a Mint Error? I ask because I believe the Mint

performed these experiments on purpose.

Maybe the "error" was the Mint accelerating the very tarnish they were trying to prevent?

Namvet69

I'm thinking they didn't have confidence in what they were doing and were dissatisfied with the results. It is subjective, don't cha know! Peace Roy

jesbroken

I found this in change a while back but didn't think much about it as I thought only 2001 Sacs were "rinsed", but after reading the article by smalldollars.com, I found that 2000 Sacs were involved in the "rinsing" also. Don't know if this even qualifies but it sure is dark.
Jim

Zoins

@jesbroken said:
I found this in change a while back but didn't think much about it as I thought only 2001 Sacs were "rinsed", but after reading the article by smalldollars.com, I found that 2000 Sacs were involved in the "rinsing" also. Don't know if this even qualifies but it sure is dark.
Jim

Given what @FredWeinberg posted above, it would be useful to see the edge. 2000-P would be much more rare than 2001-P!

Kurisu

@jesbroken said:
I found this in change a while back but didn't think much about it as I thought only 2001 Sacs were "rinsed", but after reading the article by smalldollars.com, I found that 2000 Sacs were involved in the "rinsing" also. Don't know if this even qualifies but it sure is dark.
Jim

I've come across a few like this in my bank roll searches... I think the Olive color description from Fred is pretty telling.
I decided they were strange and even had the look on the faces but not the edge...and none ever had a color approaching green or olive tones.

jesbroken

@Zoins said:

@jesbroken said:
I found this in change a while back but didn't think much about it as I thought only 2001 Sacs were "rinsed", but after reading the article by smalldollars.com, I found that 2000 Sacs were involved in the "rinsing" also. Don't know if this even qualifies but it sure is dark.
Jim

Given what @FredWeinberg posted above, it would be useful to see the edge. 2000-P would be much more rare than 2001-P!

I have no idea what to look for on the edge other than color. Here are some pics of the edge.
Jim

DCW

@jesbroken That looks like nothing more than a circulated coin.
I think that is the problem with these things. The difference, while distinguishable from the eye of experts, is very close to environmental damage and/or toning from circulation.
For that reason, they don't fill me with a lot of interest and wonder. They were rinsed at the Mint? Big deal! I would never consider them "patterns" because of that. In my opinion, and I am by no means an expert like some others on this thread, it would take a little more to earn that distinction (ie. design change, off metal strike, etc.)

Namvet69

@jesbroken Boy, it sure has the same brown finish as mine. Hit up Fred, he's been great on this topic. Peace Roy

FredWeinberg

Jesbroken, that's not a Ex. Rinse Sac.....

sorry.......

jesbroken

@FredWeinberg said:

Jesbroken, that's not a Ex. Rinse Sac.....

sorry.......

I'm not sorry at all. Just found in change, still worth about $.47 last I heard. What are the identifiers other than color?
Jim>

FredWeinberg

Luster is the best one - it's very distinctive,
and look at my earlier post for more.

Zoins

@eCoinquest said:
These experimental rinses seem to be quite rare. I have heard the following estimates:

2000 P - approximately 10 known (I have personally seen 5 different coins)
2001 P - several hundred or more (most common date)
2006 D - two examples (both are MS65)

I still need to get a TrueView done but this is the 2006 discovery coin:

Wow! I just took in the rarity of the 2000-P and 2006-D that you mentioned. So the coin in the OP is one of only approximately 10 coins! That's rare!

Do you specialize in these coins? I was wondering because you've know these numbers, have a discovery coin, and have seen so many of the 2000-P coins.

Zoins

@eCoinquest said:
Here is one of the Coin World articles reproduced by Mike Byers:
https://mikebyers.com/cwarticle062501.html

This is a great article from CoinWorld with a quote from Mike and Fred!

@Byers said:
I was excited about the possibility that these [coins] were something new and different. After examining a few pieces, I bought the lot from SilverTowne.

And:

@FredWeinberg said:
Of course only the Mint knows exactly what processes were used with these coins. I wasn't there during their production, but SEGS's attribution of these coins as having an 'Experimental Rinse' seems to be accurate from all appearances.

Here's the article from Jun 25, 2001:

Zoins

@braddick said:
I just now took a photo of two golden dollars out of my collection.
You can definitely see the difference between the "rinse" coin vs the golden the appearance of the other.

I am curious: Why does PCGS refer to these as a Mint Error? I ask because I believe the Mint performed these experiments on purpose.

That's actually a very good question!

@FredWeinberg Why would an experimental rinse that the U.S. Mint did on purpose be considered a "Mint Error" by PCGS?