Iwog has one of his chemistry books open and as we speak is trying to postulate the appearance of silver ions - not from the coins surface. This would appear to be something linked to Area 51. Does Haley's comet have silver ions in its tail? It's been a few years since the comet's last last visit but I'm willing to give this theory a shot.
Hi Matteproof- I too apperciate your comments!! I guess that I must be confused about your statement of NGC and PCGS guarantee of origionality? I have never heard of that, if that is true I guess that about 1/3rd of my collection should have been bodybagged!! It would be great if all the slabbed coins would be origional, that would sure save me alot of headacks but it is just not going to happen. I think we as collectors have to train our eyes to look for those origional coins and pass on those that are processed.!! It seems like I am passing more these days than buying, and thats too bad.!!
Hey Reece. Thank you for the follow up comments. I hear you Reece. Being the true numismatists that we are, we love our coins whether they are "played with" or not. Thanks again for the input Reece. matteproof
roadrunner, yes you're deceiving yourself. Your explanations of crust, skin, and other non-numismatic terms to described a screwed up coin are amazing. I think you're collecting some type of alien life, not coins.
You people crack me up. You don't know enough about chemistry to directly challenge what I'm saying, yet you feel compelled to insult anyway. (EVP and Roadrunner speaking from pure ignorance) If you're simply going to outright LIE to everyone about the chemistry of silver coinage, then you should put a disclaimer on every post.
A silver ion is an oxidized silver atom that only appears after the coin is toned. "yeah but it's silver anyway right?" WRONG! For example sodium metal is an extremely dangerous reactive element that spontaneously catches fire in air and will kill you if you eat it. Sodium ions are in table salt and you sprinkle them on your eggs in the morning and are harmless. Anyway, I was answering a smartass comment from Jom so if you're having trouble following what we talked about, go to a previous page.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
<< <i>roadrunner, yes you're deceiving yourself. Your explanations of crust, skin, and other non-numismatic terms to described a screwed up coin are amazing. I think you're collecting some type of alien life, not coins.
You people crack me up. You don't know enough about chemistry to directly challenge what I'm saying, yet you feel compelled to insult anyway. (EVP and Roadrunner speaking from pure ignorance) If you're simply going to outright LIE to everyone about the chemistry of silver coinage, then you should put a disclaimer on every post.
A silver ion is an oxidized silver atom that only appears after the coin is toned. "yeah but it's silver anyway right?" WRONG! For example sodium metal is an extremely dangerous reactive element that spontaneously catches fire in air and will kill you if you eat it. Sodium ions are in table salt and you sprinkle them on your eggs in the morning and are harmless. Anyway, I was answering a smartass comment from Jom so if you're having trouble following what we talked about, go to a previous page. >>
OK - being as I'm bored, I'll be stupid and enter this flame war. First of all - if silver ions are not and did not orinate from silver, WTH are they called silver ions? I suppose the great god of science textbooks decided that it would be fun to call them that. Furthermore, if they did not come from the coin, where did they come from? As I'm sure your chemistry books will tell you, matter cannot be created or destroyed - it can only change it's form. Hence, there are two options: A: The silver ions came from the coin B: The silver ions came from the atmosphere Since elemental particles don't just drift randomly around the atmosphere and land on coins, I'll have to assume that they were once part of the coin and have since undergone chemical reactions that transformed them into tarnish. Also, sodium ions in salt will kill you if you eat them, although indirectly. Sodium chloride, also known as table salt, is a leading cause of high blood pressure, which in turn leads to heart disease, which studies have shown can be fatal. (Heavy sarcasm). Continuing on yours posts from the previous pages, you absolutely cannot tell whether or not a coin has luster from a picture. This is a fact - I can take a picture that makes a coin look to be full of luster just as easily as I can take one that makes it appear dull and lifeless. Also, Heritage's pictures are about as useless as JPEGs to Hellen Keller!(Thank you Weird Al). This has been discussed numerous times on this messageboard. Dipping a coin does indeed remove metal from its surface - are you suggesting that hundreds of numismatic texts are wrong? There is no other explanation for the lifeless appearance of an overdipped coin. Flame me if you wish - I've got my fire extinguisher ready.
You guys are wasting your time if you think that, even collectively, you know as much as Iwog or that you can convince him of such. His is obviously the real world and everyone else is delusional on this toning/dipping/luster stuff.
Give it up, start listening to him and quit arguing with him, already - this is clearly one of those times when one person is right and the rest of the world is wrong.
I think everyone on both sides of this argument are doing a great job of wasting brain cells. Just buy what you like to look at and forget about all this other stuff. BTW, no grading service is going to guarentee originality, if one means by that term that the coin has never been dipped in jewel luster or a like substance. And define "original look". One cannot do so because even among the same coin series, so called experts have trouble agreeing just what an "original look" really is. If you like the way a coin looks then buy it, if not dont buy it. But forget about trying to make someone else buy the coin because you like it or because you think it is original, or you think it is pretty and shiny looking and blast white. All of this is a terrible waste of time.
In an insane society, a sane person will appear to be insane.
Sorry to pull this up after it's been dead for an hour, but these six pages are hilarious! I've never seen a more thorough, shameless thread hijacking in my 3 years on this board.
RYK, your a saint for your patience. I wish I had something relevant to add but I'm sorry to say I followed this whole thing strictly for the "Jerry Springer effect" it had on me.
mojo
"I am the wilderness that is lost in man." -Jim Morrison- Mr. Mojorizn
<< <i>But forget about trying to make someone else buy the coin because you like it or because you think it is original, or you think it is pretty and shiny looking and blast white. All of this is a terrible waste of time. >>
Well said. There are plenty of people looking for original *and* plenty of people looking for bright, white and shiny coins. The market isn't going to ignore either sector. And as long as there are plenty of people who put a premium on originality, it will place a check on many folks who would dip everything; it makes it more necessary to look at the coin objectively and ask whether or not the "original color" is relatively attractive or if it looks horrid to 95% of the people who look at it.
I just wanted to let everyone know that I am a drunk arrogant elitist that doesnt know what real originality is on a coin. I also dont know anything about chemistry, ions or science in general.
Just as a side note, I also practice poor hygene, beat my wife, and have a scorching case of herpes!!
Jom, I answer every question you put to me. No exceptions. I'm beginning to think that answers need to be in the rather simple yes/no format for you however since you keep protesting so much.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Thanks RYK for your patience. And thanks Mark for showing us the light. IWOG is right, silver comes from the sky. I give in. Now that was easy enough. And this doesn't help my thread count one bit.
RYK, your a saint for your patience. I wish I had something relevant to add but I'm sorry to say I followed this whole thing strictly for the "Jerry Springer effect" it had on me.
Saint? Not at all. Between the insults, there were some interesting points and perspectives, and I learned a few things, as well. Originality obviously means different things to different people, and many collectors have very passionate beliefs and opinions on the subject.
<< Then where did the silver ions come from if they weren't on the coin from the minting process? >>
Okay....VERY simply so Jom can understand this. Silver metal doesn't contain silver ions. You would need to add sulphur and coins are not minted with any sulphur content. I've said as much three times but then Jom would have to waste all that time reading.........
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Iwog, don't leave us mere cretins in suspense any longer. We understand that silver ions do not come from a silver coin full of silver molecules or whatever.
So where do the silver ions come from if not from the coin? I can link you to a Mapquest so you can pinpoint the location of those silver ions to the nearest 100 meters. I hope it's not a silver depository somewhere.
I know what Jom ment to ask, but I answered his question accurately. It's not my fault he gets all tangled up in chemistry.
Silver metal + hydrogen sulfide = silver ions. I hope you're taking notes. If you fix Jom's question to read "are the same silver atoms on the coin when it was minted removed when the coin is dipped?" then the answer is yes although they are altered.
Silver metal is destroyed when a coin tones and replaced by something resembling dull black soot. In small amounts, this gunk is called toning. In large amounts it's called corrosion. Dipping a coin removes it and takes the ionized silver atoms with it. The reason you polite folks are arguing this point is you want to think that silver is being removed from the coin therefore dipping a coin is BAD. While technically true, the silver atoms lost ALL the characteristics of silver metal when they were oxidized in the first place.
Yeah, that's right. Toning takes metallic silver, converts it to a metallic salt, and leaves tiny pits where the silver used to be. That's how luster is destroyed and that's why toning on a coin in large amounts is BAD. That's also why I don't consider heavily oxidized coins as original as brilliant lusterous coins irregardless of its dipping history because dipped or not, a coin with luster left is less damaged than a coin without luster left. Toned OR white.
Hey tradedollarnut, tell everyone what a cosmic ray is.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
For those who don't want to read Iwog's 4 paragraph explanation he basically said:
1. silver ions ultimately originate from the silver coin 2. implied that dipping a coin with no toning will not degrade luster further. Only toned coins lose silver ions.
We all knew that #1 was true, just took a lot of posts to get there. #2 takes us back to square one again. Iwog send me one of your blast white blazer commems so we can leave it in dip overnight. It won't change because there are no silver ions to react.
OK, I want all of us to go play nice and read the Numismatist from June 1993 before proceeding......
This article basically supports point #2. The author dipped blast white coins, and measured their weights to the microgram before and after dipping. There was essentially no change in weight and no observed change in luster.
I am not advocating trying this on expensive coins, I am just reporting what is in the literature
I guess my Icon Barber quarter has to much "crud" on it from toning ?
Stuart, did you really buy that 1901 Barberhalf at au 58 money from Jeremy ? Beautiful !!!
Les
The President claims he didn't lie about taxes for those earning less then $250,000 a year with public mandated health insurance yet his own justice department has said they will use the right of the government to tax when the states appeals go to court.
To me there are two types of "original" as applied to preserved coins.
"As struck" are the blast white coins or red copper cents that by miracle of preservation never needed dipping or conservation.
"Original" are the coins that might be white or toned or in between but that have NEVER been dipped or played with. It is true that it is not always possible to tell if the coin is truly original.
Then we have offshoots of these two terms:
One is "original as struck" Another is "original toned"
Now if this isn't confusing to many collectors then I must salute them! I simply try to remember the first two terms as they are the best definitions that work fo me.
A coin that has been dipped to achieve the "as struck" look may be quite successful the first time if done properly. However, it is not "as struck." It may look "as struck" and may hold up in retaining the "as stuck" look as well or better than the coin that came right out of the mint hopper. Then again, maybe not. Only time will tell.
IWOG prefers the "as struck" look which may be "original" or maybe not. Coins that have the "as struck" look are also usually "original" if minted within the last 50 years plus or minus.
I have also noticed that the grading services have emphasized pretty toning and color on commems and while they have not downgraded the importance of luster have seemed to get much more excited about the color and toning than the luster itself.
IWOG: Perhaps if you look in other series such as merc dimes and walkers you will see that PCGS and to a lesser extent NGC MS-67 and 68 clearly needs incredible luster to achieve those grades with some exceptions.
Oreville, uhh ohh. You're bringing the troll back to life......
Hey, TDN, can I dance with you on nuclear engineering? How about waste engineering? Man, those 2 just don't mix. Speaking of chemistry, we had a Chemistry Major with a Masters from the UTexas in our class, and he didn't fare so well, even in the chemistry section of our course. Maybe you should try dancing with Iwog in chemistry too? A match made in the "silver" ionosphere!
Yeah, WW of course. No one else has written on this topic.
The dip here was thiourea - CH4N2S, which dissolves sliver sulfides quite effectively. It does not say what the concentration of the solution was (presumably it was not pure thiourea).
The question I would have is what thiourea does to pure silver (or more precisely, to coin silver which has copper and many other trace elements as well). Weimar says "nothing" in his article, but I'm still not willing to leave my valuable silver coins in dip overnight, though I might try some cheap ones just to see what happens.
Sometimes people become more interested in "winning" an arguement than in understanding all sides of an issue. IWOG makes some good points even there some of you don't seem to like him.
Dipping is not good for all coins just like surgery is not good for all people but when the corrosion starts to build, I'll dip mine before I let it eat the coin, even if it loses its "originality"
<< <i>I think what Jom meant to ask was: where did the silver in silver ion come from if not from the coin? >>
I guess I failed to ask the question perfectly so as to get the answer I was looking for. Iwog was the one getting balled up with the chemistry. I was just asking a question....
As to the dipping not hurting a non-toned coin. That is a pretty funny statement but I'm sure we just misunderstood Iwog....
EVP, I tutored university level chemistry when I was at UC Davis. I'm only mentioning it because you're an idiot.
Hey Jom, reprint the sentence/paragraph where I told you that dipping doesn't hurt a coin since you seem so sure it's there.
Coinosaurus, roadrunner has said on numerous occasions that the acid in Jeweluster (dilute sulfuric acid) eats away the surface of the coin. He's obviously wrong but I have no doubt he'll keep repeating the lie and these "discussions" will keep coming up. The problem with leaving a coin in solution overnight is that the sulfides that are removed from the coin are still floating around in the liquid and will keep reacting with the silver although very slowly. A coin dipped for 8 hours (overnight) will dull the surface and remove most of the luster. It's the 8 hour dip which is responsible for all the wrong information since people don't seem to comprehend that chemicals on a coin for 8 hours and chemicals on a coin for .3 seconds isn't the same reaction.
Oreville, not sure about your terminology but I consider a darkly toned oxidized coin to be far less original and far more "messed" with than a brilliant blast white coin that has been dipped once but still retains all its original luster. Once again I cannot comprehend how a coin that has all the original luster literally eaten away by corrosion to be "original" while a coin that looks like the day it was minted is not. Obviously people have different opinions on what they want to collect, however the term original is totally abused in this circumstance. Dipping a coin is like washing a car. Allowing a coin to heavily tone is like watching the fender rust off.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Oreville, just a response to your comment on the Mercury dime series. While it's not my specialty, I'm guessing that the majority of mercury dimes are white to begin with since they were issued/stored in rolls or albums and not subject to heavy oxidation like other series. In fact, I can only find 2 coins out of almost 2000 on ebay right now in any MS grade that I would characterize as having poor luster. With such a ratio, one would expect almost all the MS67-MS68 coins to be brilliant. One is an NGC MS64 and one is an NGC MS66. The MS66 example has very poor luster and is heavily toned once again supporting my argument that luster is totally and completely ignored by the major grading services. According to old ANA standards, the MS66 would be prohibited from grading higher than MS63. Here is the link.
Commemoratives on the other hand, were generally issued in groups of 1-5 and not stored in rolls. The packaging was cardboard or leather and the coins were unprotected. In a series such as the Columbian half about 90% or more of the coins have impaired luster. IF luster was at all considered when these coins were certified, you'd expect bright lusterous coins to be more heavily weighted at the top. Since I'm a heavy buyer of this particular coin, I can tell you that the few blast white Columbian half dollars are generally holdered as MS64 while MS65 and higher coins tend to look dark with the original luster completely destroyed. Here's a typical example. Here's another. There is a single MS65 certified coin on ebay at the moment with good luster, but it's the exception and looks like it makes MS65 on strike and marks alone.
Original mint luster is totally ignored by all the major grading services.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
WOW what an interesting thread ! As just an interested observer I did learn a great deal here, and I must say that for several of you that just throw out opinions that are not based in fact, I think Iwog has run you boys to ground.
"Silver metal and ionic silver are totally different. They have nothing in common chemically, visually, or any other way. I've never understood the argument that just because the original atoms are present, (minus a few electrons of course) that the coin is unaltered. You know as well as I do that when you dip a coin you're removing some of the original material from the coin. If the toning is detectable (you can see it) any dipping that removes the toning is removing some of the original material and will effect the original luster of the coin.
"Besides, your coin is now covered with bonded sulfur atoms. How original is that?"
The difference is the silver sulfide is a matter of happenstance, the coin having been made and survived during a time period in which it acquired that toning. Sometimes the toning is attractive, sometimes it's not. I'd prefer and consider more original the attractively toning over a coin that's been intentional messed and had the surfaces intentionally altered.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
The MS66 example has very poor luster and is heavily toned once again supporting my argument that luster is totally and completely ignored by the major grading services.
As Ronnie Raygun used to say... "now, there you go again"...
I have no argument with your chemistry - it's not my field. What you say might be true, tho your explanation of what happens if you leave a coin overnight seems weak. But this statement is pure BS.
Perhaps you can explain to us what 'totally' and 'completely' mean in your field?
IWOG: Here is TomB's, a former poster (you should remember him) analysis of toning:
It is the finest explanation I have ever seen on the subject of toning and dipping. Please read and comment if you wish.
He said in his article titled 'Science of Dipping and Toning'
Please note that I have an earned PhD in chemistry and biology and have been a practicing scientist for a number of years. This article is not meant to "convert" anyone who does not like toned coinage, rather, it is here to educate those who might like to learn more about the science behind the toning. In my personal experience, I have found that most collectors and dealers who do not like toned coinage, and who prefer white or blast white coinage, are quite knowledgeable and passionate about numismatics. Unfortunately, there is a vocal minority who appear to have little training in science and who would write badly, and incorrectly, about nearly all toning. If the reader disagrees with the ideas put on these pages, can communicate the reasons why and can provide sound scientific proof as to the fault, I would be happy to receive an email describing the problem. Thank you for your time.
I’ll start this by defining what it is that dipping does to a coin, what the term rust typically means and then what toning is. Dipping simply removes the top few atomic layers of the coin's metal, the outermost "skin", "patina" or "toning" from a coin's surface. On a silver coin what is removed is the thin layer of silver sulfide that forms on the surface of the coin over time, this silver sulfide is the byproduct of oxidation. This is true whether the coin is white or toned. It is in these first few atomic layers of the coin's metal where flow lines will be present. These are the raised lines that are on the surface of the coin after minting. These lines are from the flowing of the metal during the minting (striking) process. It is the scatter of light off of these lines that give a coin its flash and that cause the cartwheel luster seen on mint state coins. By removing this surface, the coin is much more smooth and the light doesn't bounce off the same way as previously; these coins may appear dull or lifeless. Hence, coins that are improperly or repeatedly dipped lose this upper layer of metal and lose their luster-they looked "dipped out".
Rust is the oxidation product of iron in metal alloys whereas toning is the product of thin film interference caused by the oxidation of the silver alloy present in a coin. Therefore, they (toning and rust) are both oxidation products but they are not equivalent to one another. The term rust most specifically relates to the oxidation of ferrous iron to ferric iron, so, conversion of iron in a +2 oxidation state to that in a +3 oxidation state. This requires oxygen and most rapidly occurs in moist air indicating the catalytic activity of water. In its most broad sense of the term, rust may mean “any film or coating on metal caused by .............................
As for corrosion, our silver coinage is not made from 0.999 fine silver, it is an alloy of 0.900 fine silver and 0.100 copper. Copper is a strong anti-corrosive agent and is commonly used to inhibit the corrosion of a variety of metals in many applications. Other corrosion resistant metals are nickel, chromium and zinc-notice how we have used a number of these metals in our coinage alloys? In this alloyed case the corrosion of silver is kept to a minimum while the oxidation of silver is allowed. Another subtle difference between toning and corrosion is that true corrosion is the end product of the process of the destruction of the metal involved. With toning we do not see the destruction of the metal, rather, the oxidation forms a skin or patina on the metal that acts to protect the underlying surface and actually inhibits further chemical reaction. If you chose to use the terms rather expansively then you may interchange rust, toning, oxidation and corrosion, however, I believe in a more strict and proper sense these are not the same entities.
The oxidation product of silver is a physical entity, that is, it has mass. Toning, however, is not a physical entity that has mass. Let me explain this in as concise a manner as possible. The surface of the coin will develop a very thin layer of silver sulfide on it over time. This layer is so thin that a beam of light aimed at the coin, from Point A, in the figure below, splits into two parts, or phases, at Point B. One part goes through the layer of silver sulfide and strikes the surface of the coin at Point E. This is then reflected back to the viewer. The other part (phase) of the light beam reflects off of the silver sulfide layer and never penetrates it. This light is also reflected back to the viewer. However, although these two parts (phases) of this single light beam travel at the same speed and were generated at the same time (from a light source like a lamp) one part of the beam of light travels a longer distance than the other part. The part of the beam that traveled through the silver sulfide to strike the coin and was then reflected back to the viewer has actually traveled twice through the silver sulfide-once from the lamp to the surface of the silver sulfide and then to the surface of the coin and out to the viewer (A-B-E-F-G) while the other beam reflects off the surface of the silver sulfide and to the viewer (A-B-C). This total distance through the silver sulfide is on the order of nanometers (nm). The difference in the total distances that these two parts of the light beam travel is, obviously, incredibly small. However, it is precisely because they are so small that we see toning. Toning is the result of the refraction of the light beam through the silver sulfide and the resulting interference with the other portion of the beam that did not penetrate the silver sulfide-this is called thin film interference and is the exact same phenomena that causes oil on water to look like a rainbow. Because the silver sulfide is not of uniform thickness we see different colors on the coin. Once the layer of sulfide becomes a certain thickness the light no longer penetrates through to the coin's surface and the toning becomes dark or brown/black.
The complete article with pictures, etc. are shown here:
I'm not certain, but wouldn't silver - oxide be considered a 'crust'? Which might be detectable to an experienced numismatist? And might be a sign a coin has never been dipped?
Did a certain chemistry professor 'totally' or perhaps 'completely' forget to tell us about that?
At the begining of this thread, Iwog said, "Most coins in the MS67-MS68 range are dark and have very little luster left but they are assigned a high grade anyway. Luster is totally ignored by all the major grading services."
Later on he says, "I can only find 2 coins out of almost 2000 on ebay right now in any MS grade that I would characterize as having poor luster."
I'm confused. Is luster a consideration for grading MS coins or not?
Coinosaurus: This was my point. IWOG should have made it clear that his comment regarding "most coins in the MS67-MS68 range are dark and have very little luster left........" is confined strictly to classic commemoratives only.
However, there is another series in numismatics that I happen to agree with IWOG in his statement. FBL Franklins. No 1950's brilliant lustrous Franklins have ever been graded MS-67 FBL by PCGS. Perhaps Lucy can verify this?
While I disagree with 95+% of IWOG's contention, there are some areas of numismatics in which he just may have a point and needs to be put under a microscope for further examination.
>>At the begining of this thread, Iwog said, "Most coins in the MS67-MS68 range are dark and have very little luster left but they are assigned a high grade anyway. Luster is totally ignored by all the major grading services."<<
Me thinks Iwog should be given the infamous "Head up Butt" award if he believes the above.... If he thinks this coin (below) graded by PCGS as MS67 is dark and has very little luster left then he must have gottem some of his "chemistry" in his eye!
deja vu all over again from Iwog. Anyway here is my educated 2 cents, congratulations is not spelled congradulations. I apologize ahead of time for taking this thread off topic.
To get this thread back on track, I think that NGC would have to give only blast white coins with superb luster a bump for originality. Because that is what an original silver coin looks like coming out of the press and into the hopper. Does anyone here actually think that the silver coins minted back in the early 1800's really look darkly toned at the time they came off the press. Some people have unwittingly hijacked the term "original". Now the term "undipped" will surely apply, and I think this is what those who only want "original" coins mean when they use the term "original". Four items are used in establishing a grade at PCGS and at NGC. These four are "surfaces" "luster" "strike" "eye appeal". If the toning is very light, and the coin when dipped still has original superb luster, clean surfaces, good strike and good eye appeal, it will grade high at either grading service. If on the other hand the coin is darkly toned, almost black, and one dips it, it will lose almost all in not all of its original luster and will grade no higher than 63 if other wise clean. And I might add it will look like crap, which it looked like with all that dark toning on it. It cannot be helped by dipping, only made equal or worse. As for me personally, I dont want an original coin which is darkly toned and has no luster, nor do I want a coin which has no luster because it has been dipped. If however a coin is attractively toned and still has its original luster, or if it has been dipped and still has its original luster, I might buy it if I like what it looks like. I could care less if it has been dipped or not. You guys can buy what you like.
In an insane society, a sane person will appear to be insane.
Oreville- thanks for posting that written piece by TomB and the subsequent link. I learned more from that one post than this entire thread put together!
My style is impetuous, my defense is impregnable !
My point on the Mercury dimes was that as a series, there are very few coins with wrecked luster therefore one should expect that most of them regardless of grade should be brilliant including MS66-68. The fact I was only able to find two coins, one at MS64 and one at MS66, actually supports my point that luster is totally ignored.
Tom's explanation of toning has been brought up many times and I'll once again point out where he absolutely wrong. He states that dipping a coin, white or otherwise, removes the top few layers of silver atoms from the surface of the coin. The truth is that dipping a white coin might as a consequence of being in contact with an oxidizing agent remove a few atoms thickness of silver metal from the coin, HOWEVER dipping a heavily toned coin removes a HUGE amount of oxidized silver; FAR FAR more than dipping a white coin would. The chemicals in Jeweluster attack oxidized silver and disolve it, while leaving silver metal virtually untouched. Anyone who has dipped a white coin and then dipped a toned coin knows that. When a heavily toned coin is dipped, the entire room smells like sulphur because of the volume of silver sulfide removed while dipping a white coin is odorless.
Please remember that point. Silver doesn't react with anything in Jeweluster. It's immune to the acid, and the thourea doesn't touch it. The only reason leaving a coin in the dip overnight ruins it is because of an extremely slow reaction involving leftover sulphur in the dipping solution.
Claiming that silver sulfide (toning) doesn't have mass is kind of odd, not true. As I said before, dipping a toned coin makes the whole room smell like sulphur. That sulphur was on the coin before it was released, and it has very real and measurable mass. Tom's other comment:
Another subtle difference between toning and corrosion is that true corrosion is the end product of the process of the destruction of the metal involved. With toning we do not see the destruction of the metal,
Is not true either. Silver metal is destroyed when a coin tarnishes and specifically the flow lines that create luster. This is EXACTLY the reason why you cannot dip a heavily toned coin and end up with something attractive. The toning has already destroyed the luster.
I think the vested interest people have in rusted coins is causing some people to make very bad judgement calls when it comes to debating this issue.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Comments
<< <i>Then where did the silver ions come from if they weren't on the coin from the minting process? >>
You know...I thought I asked that question but it was subsequently ignored.
jom
Does Haley's comet have silver ions in its tail? It's been a few years since the comet's last last visit but I'm willing to give this theory a shot.
roadrunner
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
You people crack me up. You don't know enough about chemistry to directly challenge what I'm saying, yet you feel compelled to insult anyway. (EVP and Roadrunner speaking from pure ignorance) If you're simply going to outright LIE to everyone about the chemistry of silver coinage, then you should put a disclaimer on every post.
A silver ion is an oxidized silver atom that only appears after the coin is toned. "yeah but it's silver anyway right?" WRONG! For example sodium metal is an extremely dangerous reactive element that spontaneously catches fire in air and will kill you if you eat it. Sodium ions are in table salt and you sprinkle them on your eggs in the morning and are harmless. Anyway, I was answering a smartass comment from Jom so if you're having trouble following what we talked about, go to a previous page.
<< <i>roadrunner, yes you're deceiving yourself. Your explanations of crust, skin, and other non-numismatic terms to described a screwed up coin are amazing. I think you're collecting some type of alien life, not coins.
You people crack me up. You don't know enough about chemistry to directly challenge what I'm saying, yet you feel compelled to insult anyway. (EVP and Roadrunner speaking from pure ignorance) If you're simply going to outright LIE to everyone about the chemistry of silver coinage, then you should put a disclaimer on every post.
A silver ion is an oxidized silver atom that only appears after the coin is toned. "yeah but it's silver anyway right?" WRONG! For example sodium metal is an extremely dangerous reactive element that spontaneously catches fire in air and will kill you if you eat it. Sodium ions are in table salt and you sprinkle them on your eggs in the morning and are harmless. Anyway, I was answering a smartass comment from Jom so if you're having trouble following what we talked about, go to a previous page. >>
OK - being as I'm bored, I'll be stupid and enter this flame war. First of all - if silver ions are not and did not orinate from silver, WTH are they called silver ions? I suppose the great god of science textbooks decided that it would be fun to call them that. Furthermore, if they did not come from the coin, where did they come from? As I'm sure your chemistry books will tell you, matter cannot be created or destroyed - it can only change it's form. Hence, there are two options:
A: The silver ions came from the coin
B: The silver ions came from the atmosphere
Since elemental particles don't just drift randomly around the atmosphere and land on coins, I'll have to assume that they were once part of the coin and have since undergone chemical reactions that transformed them into tarnish. Also, sodium ions in salt will kill you if you eat them, although indirectly. Sodium chloride, also known as table salt, is a leading cause of high blood pressure, which in turn leads to heart disease, which studies have shown can be fatal. (Heavy sarcasm). Continuing on yours posts from the previous pages, you absolutely cannot tell whether or not a coin has luster from a picture. This is a fact - I can take a picture that makes a coin look to be full of luster just as easily as I can take one that makes it appear dull and lifeless. Also, Heritage's pictures are about as useless as JPEGs to Hellen Keller!(Thank you Weird Al). This has been discussed numerous times on this messageboard. Dipping a coin does indeed remove metal from its surface - are you suggesting that hundreds of numismatic texts are wrong? There is no other explanation for the lifeless appearance of an overdipped coin. Flame me if you wish - I've got my fire extinguisher ready.
Give it up, start listening to him and quit arguing with him, already - this is clearly one of those times when one person is right and the rest of the world is wrong.
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
RYK, your a saint for your patience. I wish I had something relevant to add but I'm sorry to say I followed this whole thing strictly for the "Jerry Springer effect" it had on me.
mojo
-Jim Morrison-
Mr. Mojorizn
my blog:www.numistories.com
<< <i>But forget about trying to make someone else buy the coin because you like it or because you think it is original, or you think it is pretty and shiny looking and blast white. All of this is a terrible waste of time.
Well said. There are plenty of people looking for original *and* plenty of people looking for bright, white and shiny coins. The market isn't going to ignore either sector. And as long as there are plenty of people who put a premium on originality, it will place a check on many folks who would dip everything; it makes it more necessary to look at the coin objectively and ask whether or not the "original color" is relatively attractive or if it looks horrid to 95% of the people who look at it.
Just as a side note, I also practice poor hygene, beat my wife, and have a scorching case of herpes!!
V.r,
John
siliconvalleycoins.com
jom
Now that was easy enough. And this doesn't help my thread count one bit.
roadrunner
Saint? Not at all. Between the insults, there were some interesting points and perspectives, and I learned a few things, as well. Originality obviously means different things to different people, and many collectors have very passionate beliefs and opinions on the subject.
Okay....VERY simply so Jom can understand this. Silver metal doesn't contain silver ions. You would need to add sulphur and coins are not minted with any sulphur content. I've said as much three times but then Jom would have to waste all that time reading.........
So where do the silver ions come from if not from the coin? I can link you to a Mapquest so you can pinpoint the location of those silver ions to the nearest 100 meters.
roadrunner
I think what Jom meant to ask was: where did the silver in silver ion come from if not from the coin?
If from the coin, then by dipping off the silver ion, doesn't some of the original silver leave too?
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
Silver metal + hydrogen sulfide = silver ions. I hope you're taking notes. If you fix Jom's question to read "are the same silver atoms on the coin when it was minted removed when the coin is dipped?" then the answer is yes although they are altered.
Silver metal is destroyed when a coin tones and replaced by something resembling dull black soot. In small amounts, this gunk is called toning. In large amounts it's called corrosion. Dipping a coin removes it and takes the ionized silver atoms with it. The reason you polite folks are arguing this point is you want to think that silver is being removed from the coin therefore dipping a coin is BAD. While technically true, the silver atoms lost ALL the characteristics of silver metal when they were oxidized in the first place.
Yeah, that's right. Toning takes metallic silver, converts it to a metallic salt, and leaves tiny pits where the silver used to be. That's how luster is destroyed and that's why toning on a coin in large amounts is BAD. That's also why I don't consider heavily oxidized coins as original as brilliant lusterous coins irregardless of its dipping history because dipped or not, a coin with luster left is less damaged than a coin without luster left. Toned OR white.
Hey tradedollarnut, tell everyone what a cosmic ray is.
How does it feel to be the coolest guy you know?
siliconvalleycoins.com
1. silver ions ultimately originate from the silver coin
2. implied that dipping a coin with no toning will not degrade
luster further. Only toned coins lose silver ions.
We all knew that #1 was true, just took a lot of posts to get there.
#2 takes us back to square one again. Iwog send me one of your blast white blazer commems so we can leave it in dip overnight.
It won't change because there are no silver ions to react.
roadrunner
I assure you that chemistry is NOT Iwog's field.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
This article basically supports point #2. The author dipped blast white coins, and measured their weights to the microgram before and after dipping. There was essentially no change in weight and no observed change in luster.
I am not advocating trying this on expensive coins, I am just reporting what is in the literature
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
Stuart, did you really buy that 1901 Barberhalf at au 58 money from Jeremy ? Beautiful !!!
Les
"As struck" are the blast white coins or red copper cents that by miracle of preservation never needed dipping or conservation.
"Original" are the coins that might be white or toned or in between but that have NEVER been dipped or played with. It is true that it is not always possible to tell if the coin is truly original.
Then we have offshoots of these two terms:
One is "original as struck"
Another is "original toned"
Now if this isn't confusing to many collectors then I must salute them! I simply try to remember the first two terms as they are the best definitions that work fo me.
A coin that has been dipped to achieve the "as struck" look may be quite successful the first time if done properly. However, it is not "as struck." It may look "as struck" and may hold up in retaining the "as stuck" look as well or better than the coin that came right out of the mint hopper. Then again, maybe not. Only time will tell.
IWOG prefers the "as struck" look which may be "original" or maybe not. Coins that have the "as struck" look are also usually "original" if minted within the last 50 years plus or minus.
I have also noticed that the grading services have emphasized pretty toning and color on commems and while they have not downgraded the importance of luster have seemed to get much more excited about the color and toning than the luster itself.
IWOG: Perhaps if you look in other series such as merc dimes and walkers you will see that PCGS and to a lesser extent NGC MS-67 and 68 clearly needs incredible luster to achieve those grades with some exceptions.
Hey, TDN, can I dance with you on nuclear engineering? How about
waste engineering? Man, those 2 just don't mix. Speaking of chemistry, we had a Chemistry Major with a Masters from the UTexas in our class, and he didn't fare so well, even in the chemistry section of our course. Maybe you should try dancing with Iwog in chemistry too? A match made in the "silver" ionosphere!
roadrunner
Yeah, WW of course. No one else has written on this topic.
The dip here was thiourea - CH4N2S, which dissolves sliver sulfides quite effectively. It does not say what the concentration of the solution was (presumably it was not pure thiourea).
The question I would have is what thiourea does to pure silver (or more precisely, to coin silver which has copper and many other trace elements as well). Weimar says "nothing" in his article, but I'm still not willing to leave my valuable silver coins in dip overnight, though I might try some cheap ones just to see what happens.
Dipping is not good for all coins just like surgery is not good for all people but when the corrosion starts to build, I'll dip mine before I let it eat the coin, even if it loses its "originality"
<< <i>I think what Jom meant to ask was: where did the silver in silver ion come from if not from the coin? >>
I guess I failed to ask the question perfectly so as to get the answer I was looking for. Iwog was the one getting balled up with the chemistry. I was just asking a question....
As to the dipping not hurting a non-toned coin. That is a pretty funny statement but I'm sure we just misunderstood Iwog....
jom
Hey Jom, reprint the sentence/paragraph where I told you that dipping doesn't hurt a coin since you seem so sure it's there.
Coinosaurus, roadrunner has said on numerous occasions that the acid in Jeweluster (dilute sulfuric acid) eats away the surface of the coin. He's obviously wrong but I have no doubt he'll keep repeating the lie and these "discussions" will keep coming up. The problem with leaving a coin in solution overnight is that the sulfides that are removed from the coin are still floating around in the liquid and will keep reacting with the silver although very slowly. A coin dipped for 8 hours (overnight) will dull the surface and remove most of the luster. It's the 8 hour dip which is responsible for all the wrong information since people don't seem to comprehend that chemicals on a coin for 8 hours and chemicals on a coin for .3 seconds isn't the same reaction.
Oreville, not sure about your terminology but I consider a darkly toned oxidized coin to be far less original and far more "messed" with than a brilliant blast white coin that has been dipped once but still retains all its original luster. Once again I cannot comprehend how a coin that has all the original luster literally eaten away by corrosion to be "original" while a coin that looks like the day it was minted is not. Obviously people have different opinions on what they want to collect, however the term original is totally abused in this circumstance. Dipping a coin is like washing a car. Allowing a coin to heavily tone is like watching the fender rust off.
Commemoratives on the other hand, were generally issued in groups of 1-5 and not stored in rolls. The packaging was cardboard or leather and the coins were unprotected. In a series such as the Columbian half about 90% or more of the coins have impaired luster. IF luster was at all considered when these coins were certified, you'd expect bright lusterous coins to be more heavily weighted at the top. Since I'm a heavy buyer of this particular coin, I can tell you that the few blast white Columbian half dollars are generally holdered as MS64 while MS65 and higher coins tend to look dark with the original luster completely destroyed. Here's a typical example.
Here's another. There is a single MS65 certified coin on ebay at the moment with good luster, but it's the exception and looks like it makes MS65 on strike and marks alone.
Original mint luster is totally ignored by all the major grading services.
"Silver metal and ionic silver are totally different. They have nothing in common chemically, visually, or any other way. I've never understood the argument that just because the original atoms are present, (minus a few electrons of course) that the coin is unaltered.
You know as well as I do that when you dip a coin you're removing some of the original material from the coin. If the toning is detectable (you can see it) any dipping that removes the toning is removing some of the original material and will effect the original luster of the coin.
"Besides, your coin is now covered with bonded sulfur atoms. How original is that?"
The difference is the silver sulfide is a matter of happenstance, the coin having been made and survived during a time period in which it acquired that toning. Sometimes the toning is attractive, sometimes it's not. I'd prefer and consider more original the attractively toning over a coin that's been intentional messed and had the surfaces intentionally altered.
As Ronnie Raygun used to say... "now, there you go again"...
I have no argument with your chemistry - it's not my field. What you say might be true, tho your explanation of what happens if you leave a coin overnight seems weak. But this statement is pure BS.
Perhaps you can explain to us what 'totally' and 'completely' mean in your field?
It is the finest explanation I have ever seen on the subject of toning and dipping. Please read and comment if you wish.
He said in his article titled 'Science of Dipping and Toning'
Please note that I have an earned PhD in chemistry and biology and have been a practicing scientist for a number of years. This article is not meant to "convert" anyone who does not like toned coinage, rather, it is here to educate those who might like to learn more about the science behind the toning. In my personal experience, I have found that most collectors and dealers who do not like toned coinage, and who prefer white or blast white coinage, are quite knowledgeable and passionate about numismatics. Unfortunately, there is a vocal minority who appear to have little training in science and who would write badly, and incorrectly, about nearly all toning. If the reader disagrees with the ideas put on these pages, can communicate the reasons why and can provide sound scientific proof as to the fault, I would be happy to receive an email describing the problem. Thank you for your time.
I’ll start this by defining what it is that dipping does to a coin, what the term rust typically means and then what toning is. Dipping simply removes the top few atomic layers of the coin's metal, the outermost "skin", "patina" or "toning" from a coin's surface. On a silver coin what is removed is the thin layer of silver sulfide that forms on the surface of the coin over time, this silver sulfide is the byproduct of oxidation. This is true whether the coin is white or toned. It is in these first few atomic layers of the coin's metal where flow lines will be present. These are the raised lines that are on the surface of the coin after minting. These lines are from the flowing of the metal during the minting (striking) process. It is the scatter of light off of these lines that give a coin its flash and that cause the cartwheel luster seen on mint state coins. By removing this surface, the coin is much more smooth and the light doesn't bounce off the same way as previously; these coins may appear dull or lifeless. Hence, coins that are improperly or repeatedly dipped lose this upper layer of metal and lose their luster-they looked "dipped out".
Rust is the oxidation product of iron in metal alloys whereas toning is the product of thin film interference caused by the oxidation of the silver alloy present in a coin. Therefore, they (toning and rust) are both oxidation products but they are not equivalent to one another. The term rust most specifically relates to the oxidation of ferrous iron to ferric iron, so, conversion of iron in a +2 oxidation state to that in a +3 oxidation state. This requires oxygen and most rapidly occurs in moist air indicating the catalytic activity of water. In its most broad sense of the term, rust may mean “any film or coating on metal caused by .............................
As for corrosion, our silver coinage is not made from 0.999 fine silver, it is an alloy of 0.900 fine silver and 0.100 copper. Copper is a strong anti-corrosive agent and is commonly used to inhibit the corrosion of a variety of metals in many applications. Other corrosion resistant metals are nickel, chromium and zinc-notice how we have used a number of these metals in our coinage alloys? In this alloyed case the corrosion of silver is kept to a minimum while the oxidation of silver is allowed. Another subtle difference between toning and corrosion is that true corrosion is the end product of the process of the destruction of the metal involved. With toning we do not see the destruction of the metal, rather, the oxidation forms a skin or patina on the metal that acts to protect the underlying surface and actually inhibits further chemical reaction. If you chose to use the terms rather expansively then you may interchange rust, toning, oxidation and corrosion, however, I believe in a more strict and proper sense these are not the same entities.
The oxidation product of silver is a physical entity, that is, it has mass. Toning, however, is not a physical entity that has mass. Let me explain this in as concise a manner as possible. The surface of the coin will develop a very thin layer of silver sulfide on it over time. This layer is so thin that a beam of light aimed at the coin, from Point A, in the figure below, splits into two parts, or phases, at Point B. One part goes through the layer of silver sulfide and strikes the surface of the coin at Point E. This is then reflected back to the viewer. The other part (phase) of the light beam reflects off of the silver sulfide layer and never penetrates it. This light is also reflected back to the viewer. However, although these two parts (phases) of this single light beam travel at the same speed and were generated at the same time (from a light source like a lamp) one part of the beam of light travels a longer distance than the other part. The part of the beam that traveled through the silver sulfide to strike the coin and was then reflected back to the viewer has actually traveled twice through the silver sulfide-once from the lamp to the surface of the silver sulfide and then to the surface of the coin and out to the viewer (A-B-E-F-G) while the other beam reflects off the surface of the silver sulfide and to the viewer (A-B-C). This total distance through the silver sulfide is on the order of nanometers (nm). The difference in the total distances that these two parts of the light beam travel is, obviously, incredibly small. However, it is precisely because they are so small that we see toning. Toning is the result of the refraction of the light beam through the silver sulfide and the resulting interference with the other portion of the beam that did not penetrate the silver sulfide-this is called thin film interference and is the exact same phenomena that causes oil on water to look like a rainbow. Because the silver sulfide is not of uniform thickness we see different colors on the coin. Once the layer of sulfide becomes a certain thickness the light no longer penetrates through to the coin's surface and the toning becomes dark or brown/black.
The complete article with pictures, etc. are shown here:
TomB's complete article on the Science of Dipping and Toning
By the way, Tom maintains a fine website at http://www.ivyleaguecoin.com
I'm not certain, but wouldn't silver - oxide be considered a 'crust'? Which might be detectable to an experienced numismatist? And might be a sign a coin has never been dipped?
Did a certain chemistry professor 'totally' or perhaps 'completely' forget to tell us about that?
Later on he says, "I can only find 2 coins out of almost 2000 on ebay right now in any MS grade that I would characterize as having poor luster."
I'm confused. Is luster a consideration for grading MS coins or not?
However, there is another series in numismatics that I happen to agree with IWOG in his statement. FBL Franklins. No 1950's brilliant lustrous Franklins have ever been graded MS-67 FBL by PCGS. Perhaps Lucy can verify this?
While I disagree with 95+% of IWOG's contention, there are some areas of numismatics in which he just may have a point and needs to be put under a microscope for further examination.
Me thinks Iwog should be given the infamous "Head up Butt" award if he believes the above.... If he thinks this coin (below) graded by PCGS as MS67 is dark and has very little luster left then he must have gottem some of his "chemistry" in his eye!
Big deal. I stayed at the Holiday Inn. So, I trump you, big guy!
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
Tom's explanation of toning has been brought up many times and I'll once again point out where he absolutely wrong. He states that dipping a coin, white or otherwise, removes the top few layers of silver atoms from the surface of the coin. The truth is that dipping a white coin might as a consequence of being in contact with an oxidizing agent remove a few atoms thickness of silver metal from the coin, HOWEVER dipping a heavily toned coin removes a HUGE amount of oxidized silver; FAR FAR more than dipping a white coin would. The chemicals in Jeweluster attack oxidized silver and disolve it, while leaving silver metal virtually untouched. Anyone who has dipped a white coin and then dipped a toned coin knows that. When a heavily toned coin is dipped, the entire room smells like sulphur because of the volume of silver sulfide removed while dipping a white coin is odorless.
Please remember that point. Silver doesn't react with anything in Jeweluster. It's immune to the acid, and the thourea doesn't touch it. The only reason leaving a coin in the dip overnight ruins it is because of an extremely slow reaction involving leftover sulphur in the dipping solution.
Claiming that silver sulfide (toning) doesn't have mass is kind of odd, not true. As I said before, dipping a toned coin makes the whole room smell like sulphur. That sulphur was on the coin before it was released, and it has very real and measurable mass. Tom's other comment:
Another subtle difference between toning and corrosion is that true corrosion is the end product of the process of the destruction of the metal involved. With toning we do not see the destruction of the metal,
Is not true either. Silver metal is destroyed when a coin tarnishes and specifically the flow lines that create luster. This is EXACTLY the reason why you cannot dip a heavily toned coin and end up with something attractive. The toning has already destroyed the luster.
I think the vested interest people have in rusted coins is causing some people to make very bad judgement calls when it comes to debating this issue.