Extremely important info.? A viable explanation for some of the colorful copper coins discussed here
coinguy1
Posts: 13,484 ✭✭✭
Please note, to my knowledge, this is NOT about coins with old lacquer which is removed with acetone, as discussed by Rick Snow. He is going on a well deserved vacation, so please, let's keep him out of this thread
The thread below was started by a very knowledgeable and informed dealer who, among other things, often provides excellent information regarding the goings on in the coin business. I don't know him well, but have known him for several years and have always known him to tell it like it is.
you decide for yourselves whether the color resulting from applying "MS70" to copper coins should be considered "natural" or "artificial"
The thread below was started by a very knowledgeable and informed dealer who, among other things, often provides excellent information regarding the goings on in the coin business. I don't know him well, but have known him for several years and have always known him to tell it like it is.
you decide for yourselves whether the color resulting from applying "MS70" to copper coins should be considered "natural" or "artificial"
0
Comments
interesting stuff.
Russ, NCNE
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i> Is it because someone is making a profit on the MS70'd coins? >>
A quick profit,yes...but people are making big profits from coins left in "paper" for decades...
<< <i>Interesting. Of course it doesn't answer the obvious next question: Why should we automatically favor the toning caused by the chemicals in paper over the toning caused by the chemicals in MS70? Is it because someone is making a profit on the MS70'd coins? >>
Andy, there were at least a few other "obvious next questions" which occurred to me. But I'm tired and think I MIGHT just sit back and read, rather than write, for a bit.
<< <i>Andy, there were at least a few other "obvious next questions" which occurred to me. But I'm tired and think I MIGHT just sit back and read, rather than write, for a bit.
I don't anticipate that happening
<< <i>Interesting. Of course it doesn't answer the obvious next question: Why should we automatically favor the toning caused by the chemicals in paper over the toning caused by the chemicals in MS70? Is it because someone is making a profit on the MS70'd coins? >>
No, but at least we got the first question out of the way so that we can address the second. Don't discount the progress.
No, that's not it. Even if MS 70 blue is every bit as stable as "natural" brown, there IS a reason to prefer the brown. It is all in the mind. When you look at a "natural" brown coin, it evokes an image of a coin sitting unmolested in a paper envelope for the past century. That mental image provides a strong link to a bygone era. On the other hand, the blue coin evokes a different mental image, that of recent conservation, molestation, or worse. Since coins are all about how they make us feel, the brown coin trumps the blue coin every time. Even if blue is prettier.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Why should we automatically favor the toning caused by the chemicals in paper over the toning caused by the chemicals in MS70? Is it because someone is making a profit on the MS70'd coins? >>
Since its all the same really, I suggest that people who are good at applying this MS70 and generating attractive colors should set up at shows, have customers bring them in their Indian Head Cents and just do them up right there at the table for, say, $2,500 a piece.
CCU - Isn't $2500 a coin is below your current average for handling a coin? Why should we work for any less than you do?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Why should we automatically favor the toning caused by the chemicals in paper over the toning caused by the chemicals in MS70? Is it because someone is making a profit on the MS70'd coins?
No, that's not it. Even if MS 70 blue is every bit as stable as "natural" brown, there IS a reason to prefer the brown. It is all in the mind. When you look at a "natural" brown coin, it evokes an image of a coin sitting unmolested in a paper envelope for the past century. That mental image provides a strong link to a bygone era. On the other hand, the blue coin evokes a different mental image, that of recent conservation, molestation, or worse. Since coins are all about how they make us feel, the brown coin trumps the blue coin every time. Even if blue is prettier. >>
I totally agree with what Mr. Eureka just said.
-Amanda
I'm a YN working on a type set!
My Buffalo Nickel Website Home of the Quirky Buffaloes Collection!
Proud member of the CUFYNA
<< <i>People should just start toning their own coins. Why pay through the nose for smoebody elses AT job? Be a do it yourselfer. >>
Mine still look like that crud on eBay.
Perhaps there will be a new label on the slab ?
We can ask for disclosure such as dipped,wrapped in mint issued paper,in a Wayte Raymond board for 25 years,ms 70'd
PCGS has gotten so big and powerful that David Hall should be asked the question.Does PCGS grade coins that have been ms 70'd ?
Does anyone ,such as truthteller know how long a coin that has been ms 70'd will last without deteriorating ?
Stewart
First, I have to learn how to grade. Next, I have to learn how to photograph coins. Now, you are telling me I have to learn to tone my own coins. This hobby is beginning to seem a lot like work!
<< <i>Since its all the same really, I suggest that people who are good at applying this MS70 and generating attractive colors should set up at shows, have customers bring them in their Indian Head Cents and just do them up right there at the table for, say, $2,500 a piece.
CCU - Isn't $2500 a coin is below your current average for handling a coin? Why should we work for any less than you do? >>
I just figured these things seem to sell for about $3,000 after they dry - isn't that about right for a common date blue NGC PF66*?
Mr.Eureka - You are missing the beef. A Blue Proof Indian cent will always grade a point higher at PCGS (because it is pretty).The other fact is a Blue/Brown Proof Indian cent will always bring 5x to 10x what a brown Proof will bring in auction.
On my right hand I totally agree with you that a brown Proof will always trump a Blue proof.
Stewart
Stewart - Not in the least. I'm glad to be a vegetarian.
And as for the premiums people pay for blue copper, well, too bad for them.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
This took all of 30 seconds....
<< <i>Interesting. Of course it doesn't answer the obvious next question: Why should we automatically favor the toning caused by the chemicals in paper over the toning caused by the chemicals in MS70?... >>
Andy, you are taking us down a very slippery slope with your question. It is clear to me that open acceptance of instant or rapidly accelerated toning by top tier TPGs will create a lot of pain in the marketplace. Many tone-head collectors have to be getting very nervous as these little coloring secrets become public. And based upon the fact that one dealer here with a strong vested interest in toners went way overboard in defending blue copper, it is evident the dealers are getting nervous too. I now believe the single MS copper piece I have is suspect and will be trying to get the selling dealer to buy it back. I may be the first in a long line collectors dumping blue copper.
MS70 is a detergent as opposed to the sulfuric acid in dip, so I would say MS70 is more "natural" than dip.
Detergent molecules have long tails that foreign surface particles attach to, and then are washed away with the detergent – just like any laundry or body soap.
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
No, I don't really wonder as some folks just gotta have "pretty" and don't care how it got there or why. So folks will keep "Making" these for y'all.
And the grading company's and lot's of dealers WILL spin it and provide these things. Thanks CU for educating me! Heh
Next series???????? Hahaha
Being pretty familiar with how 18th century copper (bronze) medals looks after years and having almost never seen one with blue on it, I asked the first question that came to mind -- "what did you do, MS-70 this thing?"
The answer was a yes, of course. My experiences handling mostly copper coins and medals matches Truthtellers. My reaction echoed Andy's -- a grimy medal instead of a pretty blue one reminds me more of the period it represents. The medal now, well, looked like a proof Indian cent.
I think the artificial vs. real toning debate relies on really poor terminology -- the chemistry is pretty much always the same, just the speed changes. I'd rather it be called enhanced or accelerated toning than artificial.
Betts medals, colonial coins, US Mint medals, foreign coins found in early America, and other numismatic Americana
Have a Great Day!
Louis
<< <i>I can hear all of the doctors reciting: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with BS".
Have a Great Day!
Louis >>
<< <i>
<< <i>I can hear all of the doctors reciting: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with BS".
Have a Great Day!
Louis >>
Steve,you always say what you think.That is an admirable quality,whether folks agree with you or not.
<< <i>Funny this thread should be up tonight. I just got back from dinner at another numismatist's house, where he showed me a large handsome copper medal -- a brown unc with some lovely pastel blue color.
Being pretty familiar with how 18th century copper (bronze) medals looks after years and having almost never seen one with blue on it, I asked the first question that came to mind -- "what did you do, MS-70 this thing?"
The answer was a yes, of course. My experiences handling mostly copper coins and medals matches Truthtellers. My reaction echoed Andy's -- a grimy medal instead of a pretty blue one reminds me more of the period it represents. The medal now, well, looked like a proof Indian cent.
I think the artificial vs. real toning debate relies on really poor terminology -- the chemistry is pretty much always the same, just the speed changes. I'd rather it be called enhanced or accelerated toning than artificial. >>
That's very interesting because about an hour ago I cleaned a nice 19th century Proof Bronze Swiss Medal with MS70 hoping to hit the I am "BLUE" Jackpot - (I also cleaned about 30 Lincoln cents - most of which I plucked from circulation and most of which where oxidized (toned) in varying degrees) - here's my disappointing results on the medal:
7. I next got a 19th century Medal (about the size of a Morgan dollar) It was a dark chocolate brown proof - according to the flip it was in I paid $35 for it and it had been stored in a soft flip. After having read Truths comments in this [NGC] post earlier tonight, I was sure I would get a blue coin - A chocolate brown coin is heavily oxidized - that's why it's brown - there was no red on this medal at all. It took more than 10 Q-Tips to clean this coin. The Q-Tips turned very black. I kept swabbing the coin until they were no longer turning black and rinsed (and rinsed and rinsed) the medal until there was no more slick feeling on the medal - The medal did NOT turn blue - no hint of blue not even bluish highlights when rotated in the light - the coin is now a lighter chocolate brown, much brighter - the Proof surfaces are much more reflective and overall the coin looks cleaner and it has much more "POP" than it did before the cleaning.
Here's the link to the thread accross the street where you can see all the results of my MS70 cleaning experiment:
Linky
I really think we can all learn a lot from this, so I'm going to persist with this experiment and as soon as I can figure out how to make about 100 of the blue coins, I'm going to have them slabbed like the give-away ones - (with a snappy name like "I Felt Blue when I no-graded") and give them away as a public service.
EDITED TO ADD: Can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong? According to all these threads, I ought to have 30 neon blue Lincolns, 1 Neon Blue Proof penny and one neon blue Proof 19th Century Medal. Is there a different recipe? Anybody got a roll of heavily oxidized (toned)common date Lincolns that they want MS70'd?
I'm going to repeat this experiment at ANA so If anyone wants to donate (sacrifice) some oxidized copper, We can do a hands-on demonstration. I have a meeting room for Friday at 2:30 to 3:30 for a TCCS meeting and when I get to ANA, I'll purchase several bottles of MS70 and we can toss whatever people want to "clean" in a bowl and see what happens. I'm dead serious about this - I'm going to try and find some inexpensive medals and see if I can make some of those $10,000 neon blue babies.
If anyone can find that heavily tooled and re-colored MS65RD IHC that I wrote about after the FUN show (the one in the PCGS holder that sold for a LOT of money at auction) we can toss that in too - I bet this MS70 stuff will take off everything that's hiding what was done to that puppy (the tooling, spot removal and the several other mechanical things that were expertly done) and everyone will see WHY some coins are messed with and what is trying to be hid. But we will need David Hall present, because after the cleaning I don't think PCGS would re-slab it at all, much less at a higher grade (unless it turns Blue!
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
<< <i>Steve,you always say what you think.That is an admirable quality,whether folks agree with you or not. >>
Lloyd, truthfully, I say very little of what I actually do think.
Even with Truthteller's experiment, I am not convinced that MS-70 does anything more than strip layers of "skin" off the coin, even in the case of BN IHCs supposedly "turning" blue. If the result is a coin which is no different than a NT "blue" IHC, I am not seeing how this is any different than "improving" hazed modern cameo proofs, dipping fugly toned Morgans white, "dip and strip" upgrades of MS seated coins, or NCS "conserving" hazed 19th century proof gold.
I am certainly not a proponent of coin doctoring or artificial toning. But it seems here that a conservation technique considered acceptable for most coins is being criticized as not acceptable only when it results in stripping a layer of skin off BN IHCs, resulting in a more attractive toned coin. I am failing to see how this is much different than everyday activity performed on coins at NCS.
John, I agree with you, at least in part. But, how would you define and what would you consider "enhanced"?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>I posted this across the street, but I will repeat it here:
Even with Truthteller's experiment, I am not convinced that MS-70 does anything more than strip layers of "skin" off the coin, even in the case of BN IHCs supposedly "turning" blue. If the result is a coin which is no different than a NT "blue" IHC, I am not seeing how this is any different than "improving" hazed modern cameo proofs, dipping fugly toned Morgans white, "dip and strip" upgrades of MS seated coins, or NCS "conserving" hazed 19th century proof gold.
I am certainly not a proponent of coin doctoring or artificial toning. But it seems here that a conservation technique considered acceptable for most coins is being criticized as not acceptable only when it results in stripping a layer of skin off BN IHCs, resulting in a more attractive toned coin. I am failing to see how this is much different than everyday activity performed on coins at NCS. >>
Connecticoin, it sounds as if new/different colors, which were not present previously, are sometimes added through the process. If you don't consider that type of color to be "artificial", how would you feel about heat and/or chemicals being used to impart new colors to a coin?
I'm frequently opposed to dipping coins, but I see a big difference between removing a haze or toning which was not present when the coin was struck, vs. a process which adds colors (which were not previously present) to a coin.
Where are those guys when we need them?
<< <i>Connecticoin, it sounds as if new/different colors, which were not present previously, are sometimes added through the process. If you don't consider that type of color to be "artificial", how would you feel about heat and/or chemicals being used to impart new colors to a coin?
I'm frequently opposed to dipping coins, but I see a big difference between removing a haze or toning which was not present when the coin was struck, vs. a process which adds colors (which were not previously present) to a coin. >>
I do not think enough information has been presented to date to determine whether new colors are imparted on the coin or if colors underneath the brown surface are being revealed. To assume MS-70 imparts color on a brown coin merely because its appearance changed is pure speculation at this point.
One thing we do know is that MS-70 does strip skin off the coin, so until additional information comes to light I am inclined to believe that is all that is happening with BN IHCs. If that is indeed the case, then it should be included in the "dip and strip" debate (i.e. should the TPGs holder or upgrade dipped coins), and not the AT/NT debate.
The mineral oil is the one ingredient that mimicks the machine oils used for so many years going back to the 19th century to the present to help lubricate the minting equipment and to keep the dies from rusting, etc.
Many (business strke only) coins are born with these machine oils present on them and so this ingredient is their birthing solution.
Olive oil CAN TURN RANCID and is not a completely proper substitute but could be used for low value copper coins.
<< <i>
<< <i>Connecticoin, it sounds as if new/different colors, which were not present previously, are sometimes added through the process. If you don't consider that type of color to be "artificial", how would you feel about heat and/or chemicals being used to impart new colors to a coin?
I'm frequently opposed to dipping coins, but I see a big difference between removing a haze or toning which was not present when the coin was struck, vs. a process which adds colors (which were not previously present) to a coin. >>
I do not think enough information has been presented to date to determine whether new colors are imparted on the coin or if colors underneath the brown surface are being revealed. To assume MS-70 imparts color on a brown coin merely because its appearance changed is pure speculation at this point.
One thing we do know is that MS-70 does strip skin off the coin, so until additional information comes to light I am inclined to believe that is all that is happening with BN IHCs. If that is indeed the case, then it should be included in the "dip and strip" debate (i.e. should the TPGs holder or upgrade dipped coins), and not the AT/NT debate. >>
From what I have read and been told very recently by some who have used it, I have no meaningful doubt that MS70 sometimes adds/changes, rather than reveals color. I will re-post my comments below, concerning one particular coin which I saw in person "before and after" and invite anyone who cares to, to explain how colors might have simply been revealed, rather than imparted to the coin:
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>How about this one:
Before:
After:
Gmarguli claims all he did was swab some MS-70 on it to remove "grime". If this coin were really "cooked", I would think the splotchy toning pattern on the reverse would have been covered up. >>
The question at hand is whether or not the MS70 is causing the blue coloration or simply bringing out what's already there. If it's the cause, then this is AT. >>
I think it is bringing out what is already there. If you look at the reverse, the dark spotches are exact the pattern of the blue toning which was allegedly revealed by removing the grime with MS-70. >>
I viewed that particular coin before its color was changed, when it sold as lot #700 in Heritage's April 2006 sale. I remember how beautiful the obverse was and how disappointed I was when I turned it over and saw the reverse. It was pedigreed to the Walter H. Child's collection, and if I recall correctly, many of those coins were purchased directly from the mint.
I firmly believe that the coin, which started out life as a "RD" example, turned/mellowed to "RB" over a period of many years, before being treated and turning to the vivid colors it is now. On the other hand, I don't believe that it started off as "RD", next turned to the vivid colors it is now, THEN somehow changed to the "RB" color seen in the Heritage sale, THEN turning back to its current vivid colors that it exhibited previously.That scenario/series of events simply doesn't add up to me, and can't be explained without some very special creativity. I don't think that pre-existing colors were simply brought out, but rather, that new/different colors resulted from the use of whatever substance was applied. Certain substances turn coins colors, and not necessarily colors that the coins exhibited previously.
The Heritage description follows below:
1914 1C PR65 Red and Brown NGC. Ex: Childs. The intricately struck rose, orange, and apple-green surfaces are unspotted and void of marks. Walter Childs died in 1906, but his heirs continued to add to the collection, including the finest known 1804 dollar, purchased in 1945.
Ex: Walter H. Childs Collection (Bowers and Merena, 8/99), lot 81.(Registry values: N991)
Lincoln set Colorless Set
No coin was really the same. Some displayed blue only on the devices, some didn't show any blue at all. Also I found applying the MS70 with a Q-tip was less likely to produce any bluing at all. The best method for achieving blue for me, was to soak the coin in acetone for about 10 minutes. Remove it, let it air dry, then use a dropper to apply the MS70 to the coin until the whole surface was submereged. This result seemed to grant more blue on any of the coins I tried.
I still believe that this needs to be done.
It is probably just paying an enormous premium for the color that is the problem.
Numismatics is a hobby. Collectors need to enjoy their hobby. If they enjoy blue coins, then they can pay a premium for those coins that they enjoy.
If this is a game to produce profits, then that should probably be condemned. However, I believe that the marketplace will take care of that on its own.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
<< <i>That scenario/series of events simply doesn't add up to me, and can't be explained without some very special creativity. I don't think that pre-existing colors were simply brought out, but rather, that new/different colors resulted from the use of whatever substance was applied. Certain substances turn coins colors, and not necessarily colors that the coins exhibited previously. >>
IMO this is still speculation at this point, and not enough to roast someone until more information emerges.
<< <i>
<< <i>That scenario/series of events simply doesn't add up to me, and can't be explained without some very special creativity. I don't think that pre-existing colors were simply brought out, but rather, that new/different colors resulted from the use of whatever substance was applied. Certain substances turn coins colors, and not necessarily colors that the coins exhibited previously. >>
IMO this is still speculation at this point, and not enough to roast someone until more information emerges. >>
Fair point, though I'd much prefer to stew, rather than roast someone, anyway
Extremely important info.? A viable explanation for some of the colorful copper coins discussed here recently
And I thought you were going to say it was because of global warming, with all the added humidity/moisture in the air
Julian - Profitable games have long been among my favorites. Am I a bad person for this?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
A few questions to Truth:
What were the dates of the coins you used? The coins I used were from 1961 to 1975 - I didn't think they changed the metallic compostion of Lincolns pennies until the early 80's.
I guess we need someone with a current Redbook who can post the metallic composition of Lincolns and the dates that covered when those metal compositions were used.
Having had college chemistry and Physics thru my junior year in College, I understand the scientific method - and with experiments, you have to have results that can be replicated to prove the premise and conclusion.
So please post the dates and denominations (and probably the conditions as I think use and wear may or could affect the experiment) of the coins that you successfully turned blue - Hopefully we will have some common date coins as I can't afford to try this on 09-S VDBs or 1877 IHCs, unless Bill Gates is willing to fund this.
My medal was a bronze Uncirculated Medal with very PL surfaces. It that appears to be a mid to late 19th Medal - I collect medals and have about 75, most of which are bronze and this is consistet with other 19th Centruy Medals that I own. I will bring that medal to the Denver ANA - I have about 20 Napolionic Medals which I know date between 1820 and 1870 by the markings on the edge and they also indicate the composition - I could swab one of the inexpensive ones to see what happens to it.
Your post does NOT list the dates nor types of coins you used. THEREFORE I could not possibly duplicate it w/o that infomation. But I will certainly try - My goal is to hit the Blue Lottery jackpot, then duplicate the results and give those Blue babies away to collectors.
Update;
The Coins look the same this AM - about 10 hours after I swapped them with MS70. A couple of observations:
1. The Q-Tips dried out over night - the charcoal black ones are now Grey black, the ones that were less black (the ones used to CONTINUE to get the grime or whatever was on the surfaces and which turned less black with the swabbing) dried with a Green color - which leads me to believe that some copper ions were removed and are on the swabs.
2 A second mini experiment that require time: I dipped a 1975 penny so it had NO oxides on the surface - I then dumped it in Hydrogen Peroxide - which has an extra Oxigyn atom (H2-O2) and left it overnight - sure enough the coin had acquired a layer of copper oxide on the coin as it was a puky dark brown color. I swapped this coin with MS70 a few minutes ago and most of the puky dark brown color came off, still no Blue - BUT the Q-Tip turned green, not black so something else must be going on when copper oxide is "removed" by the MS70. I don'tknow what - Maybe TomB - who I know has a great back-ground and much more chemical scientific knowledge than I can tell us what happened here.
When Truth posts the list of coin that he used, then I'll try and find the same dates or at least same era and re-do the experiment. One caveat to Truths comments to me. HIS experiment can never be EXACTLY duplicated by him or anyone else. That's because he did NOT do an EXACT chemical analysis of what was on the surface of those coins BEFORE he MS70'd them. So we don't know what was on them - were there only copper Oxides? Was there copper sulfide on the coins, was there copper chloride on the coins, was there other chemical variations of the many copper elements that copper reacts with on the coins he used? Did any have PVC on the surface? what other contaminents were on the surface?
To do a controlled scientific experiment, those facts MUST be known or any later experiments will be dealing with a different empirical model. The best we (or anyone) can do is try and use the same types of coins for this on-going experiment.
The one thing I can say for sure is that I have NO BLUE toned coins (Yet).
If we have a chemistry professor on board maybe we can get this done by a large group of students with a variety of different coins and post the results - or maybe everyone here could do the same - but the problem is w/o a controlled environment, we could NOT accurately quantify the results - there would be too many variables.
--------------------
Newmismatist
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist
<< <i>I think both MS70 and dip give copper a "too good to be true" look.
MS70 is a detergent as opposed to the sulfuric acid in dip, so I would say MS70 is more "natural" than dip.
Detergent molecules have long tails that foreign surface particles attach to, and then are washed away with the detergent – just like any laundry or body soap. >>
If I am not mistaken, MS70 is not a detergent, but rather, it is an anionic surfactant. The difference may be important to this discussion, because anions chemically react with metals.
Detergents, unlike anionic surfactants, are "cationic", meaning that when combined with water, they have a strong positive electrical charge on one end of the detergent molecule. Same thing goes for soaps: cationic. Cationic cleaners are relatively unreactive with metals.
Anionic surfactants, on the other hand, have the opposite electrical charge. Unlike detergents they have a strong negative charge on one end of the surfactant molecule.
Now, coin metals, especially copper, have a strong positive charge on them when ionized. Free copper ions have a "++" double charge on them. Copper ions are very reactive. That is why copper is so quickly toned, especially in our modern polluted atmosphere.
The copper ions quickly bond to certain negatively charged ions they encounter: chloride, sulfites, sulfates, carbonates, etc. are all negatively charged (anions). The resulting compounds that form when the Cu+ cations bond with the negative anions are called copper salts and these salts are what we see as "toning", the thin film diffraction phenomenon.
Surfactants have the property of "lifting" surface contaminants from surfaces. But, anytime you start mixing powerful anions with otherwise stable salts (like copper carbonate, copper sulfate, copper chloride) that had formed on a copper coins surface, chemical changes are likely to occur that can and often will effect the color percieved by the eye/brain.
Also, Relayer, the acid present in dips like Jeweluster, only serves as a buffer, preventing the reaction between the thiourea ( the real active ingedient in dip) from progressing too far and damaging the object being dipped.
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
<< <i>I didn't think they changed the metallic compostion of Lincolns pennies until the early 80's. >>
It was modified - slightly - in the early 1960's. The 5% that was a zinc tin mix went to straight zinc.
Russ, NCNE
Bushmaster8: Quick question - would the slight diffeerence in metal compostion between the the copper coins I used which were 95% copper and 5% Zinc and those that the other fellow (Truth) used which he says were " 95% copper and 5% zinc and tin" make any difference?
Here's the metal compositions that were provided to me across the street by Chinook:
From coinresource.com------- 1909-1942, 1947-1962 Diameter: 19 millimeters Weight: 3.11 grams Composition: .950 copper, .050 zinc and tin Edge: Plain
1943 Diameter: 19 millimeters Weight: 2.70 grams Composition: Zinc-coated steel Edge: Plain
1944-1946, 1962-1982 Diameter: 19 millimeters Weight: 3.11 grams Composition: .950 copper, .050 zinc Edge: Plain
“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” Mark Twain
Newmismatist