<< <i>newmismatist is one of the few around here to approach the question correctly. stop speculating otherwise. >>
Thanks - based on over 50 years of collecting coins, I'm sure there is a scientifc explanation to this and I'd sure like to find the answer - I just hope I don't ruin too many coins in this quest -
This is like being in HS chemistry all over again - except in 1960 I had an unlimited amount of silver pocket change that I could screw up and then spend, I also remember heating coins in the bunson burner and watching the rainbows appear. I learned that acid dipped and stripped pennies are highly reactive and an ugly pink and virtually never look the same even after they re-tone - but there was no MS70 in 1960 so never got to screw around with that stuff in HS.
What I do know from many years of collecting coins - cleaning coins is very dangerous and morte coins are ruined by cleaning then are helped and if someone has anythoing of value - the surest way to devalue it is to start messing with it when you don't know what you're doing.
Collecting eye-appealing Proof and MS Indian Head Cents, 1858 Flying Eagle and IHC patterns and beautiful toned coins.
“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
Mark, I believe that the information and results posted in the thread I linked in my first post to this one, at least, are certainly other than "speculating". Perhaps you weren't referring to that information, but just in case.
<< <i>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. >>
Agreed!!!
The problem, as I see it, Julian, is many nice original coins will be ruined in search of "additional profit". If the marketplace is going to take care of "that", or anything related to "that", it better hurry up... IMO.
If a substance is applied to a coin and/or something else is done to it and the coin appears to change color, I believe the burden of proof should be on those claiming that pre-existing color is simply being revealed, rather than on those who believe the color has been changed/added.
Of course if one is not concerned about whether the color is "artificial" or not, there is no need to worry about or try to prove anything.
<< <i>If a substance is applied to a coin and/or something else is done to it and the coin appears to change color, I believe the burden of proof should be on those claiming that pre-existing color is simply being revealed, rather than on those who believe the color has been changed/added.
Of course if one is not concerned about whether the color is "artificial" or not, there is no need to worry about or try to prove anything. >>
Why should one party be shouldered with more of a burden than the other? I think the burden is on the numismatic professional and collecting community to get to the RIGHT answer (or as close as possible to the right answer) by gathering as much information as possible, and to try to objectively draw conclusions from such information.
That being said, I think Bushmaster's post brings to light additional information which, if expanded upon, could provide valuable insight on the topic of "imparting" color on copper coins.
<< <i>I don't understand how it could be considered anything other than AT. Can someone 'splain that to me? >>
He's on vacation! >>
In fairness to Rick Snow, he was discussing/explaining a seemingly different situation. In those instances, he indicated he had removed old time lacquer with acetone, and that already-existing colors which were muted/hidden by the lacquer, were revealed. That sounds different than treating a coin with MS70 and apparently (please note I said "apparently") changing the coin to colors that were not present previously.
Edited to add:
<< If a substance is applied to a coin and/or something else is done to it and the coin appears to change color, I believe the burden of proof should be on those claiming that pre-existing color is simply being revealed, rather than on those who believe the color has been changed/added.
Of course if one is not concerned about whether the color is "artificial" or not, there is no need to worry about or try to prove anything. >>
<<Why should one party be shouldered with more of a burden than the other? I I think the burden is on the numismatic professional and collecting community to get to the RIGHT answer (or as close as possible to the right answer) by gathering as much information as possible, and to try to objectively draw conclusions from such information.>>
Because the appearance of the coin changed after something was done to it. Since it looks different, those who claim it's not, should bear some burden to explain why something which appears noticeably different, really isn't. AND, those that claim that they haven't changed/added color are often the very ones who are trying to profit financially (in many cases, significantly) by convincing people that what they did was perfectly fine.
I certainly agree that the best solution is to get the "right" answer, or as close to it as possible.
Standards and people's opinions change -- that is the only constant.
What might be acceptable today might not be acceptable tomorrow.
What might not be acceptable today, might be acceptable tomorrow.
If there wasn't a market for toned coins, NT or AT, people wouldn't tone coins.
However, some people like them EVEN IF they know they're AT (I'm not one, but I know a number who are). Although, they could truly care less because they like the coin. One could collect whatever one likes, WITHOUT big brother telling them what's right or wrong to collect.
Why the posses to thwart something that some don't like while others like? If you don't like coins that have questionable color, don't buy them. If you don't like people who purportedly create such coins, don't do business with them. If you are on a some kind of evangelical mission to rid the world of AT coins, good luck with that. Some act as though they are righteous by trying to protect the innocent -- some of them don't want to be protected. And in their pursuit of "uncovering mass plots to undermine numismatics", these posses (more often than not) go -- ready, shoot, aim.
Some don't like coins that have been physically altered, yet it's perfectly acceptable to collect hobo buff's. Some don't like coins that are defaced, yet it's perfectly acceptable to collect enamel coins. If people want to make and collect AT coins, that's their preference. It is what it is, and move on.
MDG.
Disclaimer: I prefer coins with natural toning, but that's my preference. If I'm not sure, I just don't buy it. I don't even take a TPG's word for it. I see plenty of coins in TPG slabs that I find questionable and don't buy....Kind of simple, huh?
PS. I know I'm going to get roasted now, so back to work I go. Just remember before you put the white hot torch to me, I like NT coins over AT
AND, those that claim that they haven't changed/added color are often the very ones who are trying to profit financially (in many cases, significantly) by convincing people that what they did was perfectly fine.
By jove, I think he's got it!!!
Nail, head, hammer!
It's also about disclosure IMO. But that was discussed in another thread with the same result of someone trying to convince people that what they did was perfectly fine. It didn't smell good then and it still doesn't smell good now.
first hypothesis: "MS70 turns copper blue". Seems to be only partially true as shown by the lack of results (for now) from newmismatist.
second hypothesis: "MS70 turns some copper blue" seems to be a true statement, but doesn't address causality.
third hypothesis: "MS70 is uncovering an existing toning layer previously covered in grime". unproven, but also not disproven, at this point just as valid as saying that it is changing the surface layer.
So my question would be: Since it has been previously shown that the color of toning is more associated with the thickness of the oxidation and less associated with the composition of such, why would it only produce blue and not other colors depending upon the thickness of the surface layers? When tonecoin2003 makes a toner, he/she doesn't just get one color.
<< <i>here's my take: I try to approach this logically.
first hypothesis: "MS70 turns copper blue". Seems to be only partially true as shown by the lack of results (for now) from newmismatist.
second hypothesis: "MS70 turns some copper blue" seems to be a true statement, but doesn't address causality.
third hypothesis: "MS70 is uncovering an existing toning layer previously covered in grime". unproven, but also not disproven, at this point just as valid as saying that it is changing the surface layer.
So my question would be: Since it has been previously shown that the color of toning is more associated with the thickness of the oxidation and less associated with the composition of such, why would it only produce blue and not other colors depending upon the thickness of the surface layers? When tonecoin2003 makes a toner, he/she doesn't just get one color. >>
Mark, it is my impression - and I certainly might be mistaken - that the application of MS70 (and, if applicable, whatever else is being done) does sometimes result in shades/colors other than blue. I have seen many of these coins in hand, and a number of them displayed hues other than just blue.
The top photo is taken from the Heritage archives. The bottom 2 photos were taken about 1 month later after it had been "treated" and resubmitted back to NGC. One set was taken straight on and one showing mirrors.
In Cohdoks example, the areas that appear to be most closely resembling the original color of the coin ( the least oxidized areas ), are the very same areas that turned the "bluest".
That tells me a chemical reaction has likely taken place that caused the blue.
"Wars are really ugly! They're dirty and they're cold. I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole." Mary
funny how it seems in your set of photos, that the coin seemed to turn blue on the areas of the coin that seemed to have less dirt and/or grime on them.
Am I seeing that right??
edit..Bushmaster apparently sees the same thing I do
funny how it seems in your set of photos, that the coin seemed to turn blue on the areas of the coin that seemed to have less dirt and/or grime on them.
Am I seeing that right??
edit..Bushmaster apparently sees the same thing I do >>
Not funny, but I see it the same way, as I have on some of the other coins being discussed. And I repeat, I have seen some of them in person and in images, both "before and after".
This from the Federal EPA Air Quality Emergency Broadcast System:
"Air quality rated poor today nationwide. For the past 48 hours, pollution experts have been baffled by the sudden rise in the CVI
(Chemical Vapor Index). Unconfirmed rumours raise the spectre that millions of coin collectors may be responsible."
This from the Dow Jones Index:
"Stock rose sharply today in the chemical manufacturing sector. The parent companies of the manufacturer of "Blue Robbon Coin Preservative and Darkener" and "MS70"are showing triple digit gains.
This from the National Organization of Retail Metal Liquids (NORML):
"An unexplained and unprecedented demand for "MS70" has emptied store shelves nationwide..."
We now return to our regular scheduled broadcast.Beep...beep...beep...beep...
"Wars are really ugly! They're dirty and they're cold. I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole." Mary
This from the Federal EPA Air Quality Emergency Broadcast System:
"Air quality rated poor today nationwide. For the past 48 hours, pollution experts have been baffled by the sudden rise in the CVI
(Chemical Vapor Index). Unconfirmed rumours raise the spectre that millions of coin collectors may be responsible."
This from the Dow Jones Index:
"Stock rose sharply today in the chemical manufacturing sector. The parent companies of the manufacturer of "Blue Robbon Coin Preservative and Darkener" and "MS70"are showing triple digit gains.
This from the National Organization of Retail Metal Liquids (NORML):
"An unexplained and unprecedented demand for "MS70" has emptied store shelves nationwide..."
We now return to our regular scheduled broadcast.Beep...beep...beep...beep... >>
Levity and a good sense of humor are appreciated and welcomed in the midst of this unpleasant topic. Thanks.
<<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 also tried MS70 on two IHCs. They were not proofs they were both 1881 that had a lot of wear and oxidation. The result was clean looking coins without a hint of blue anywhere - they just looked like circulated coins that had been cleaned.
It's possible that MS70 has changed the formulation since people discovered it was turning copper blue. I believe truthteller? from across the street did his experiments eight years ago. So maybe some one complained and the formula was altered to prevent that from happening. Just a thought.
Who is General Failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
<< <i>....It's possible that MS70 has changed the formulation since people discovered it was turning copper blue. I believe truthteller? from across the street did his experiments eight years ago. So maybe some one complained and the formula was altered to prevent that from happening. Just a thought. >>
Steve, I believe that someone on the NGC forum might be able to explain what's being done "wrong". He has indictated that he has RECENTLY been using MS70, and that in some cases, at least, attractive blue and/or other colors result, one way or another. The coins I have seen in person and before and after images of, were Proof Indian and Matte Proof Lincoln Cents. I have also seen a few Proof Two Cent Pieces which I believe have been "conserved" in a similar, if not identical fashion.
<< <i>Coinguy1...I didn't mean it as haha funny..
Maybe I should've used the word 'peculiar'
edit..And I don't find this thread amusing at all, disturbing is more like it, as I'm sure a great number of people do. >>
Rob, don't sweat it. I knew that and sorry I didn't use a double
Regardless of your personal opinion on this and other closely related topics, I think the post below by TomB (thanks for writing it Tom) is excellent, and then some. It's very long, extremely well written and, in my opinion, at least, worthy of your time:
<<This topic has taken me quite some time to think through in order to formulate a response that reflects my numismatic belief system. Combining the PCGS and NGC threads leaves us with myriad coins, accusations, purported explanations and theories however; I do not know that they really answer the underlying questions. Specifically, what level of numismatic manipulation or conservation is acceptable to the individual, the TPG and the market, and whose responsibility is it to make those decisions?
This lengthy post will likely satisfy few, if any, who take the time to read it. It is not extreme in nature and it finds valid points brought to light by each school of thought. It is also posted much later in the fray than many would have liked, given the avalanche of phone calls, emails and private messages that I have received this week querying my absence in the disputes. In truth, it takes me time and effort to write a post that attempts to retain some scientific accuracy while addressing scientific points in a lay manner, and that also tries to address what this might mean in the numismatic arena. Additionally, as is the case with all of us, there are simply some weeks that are better than others with regard to time and the ability to participate in more than a cursory manner.
The current PCGS thread regarding Rick Snow and his proof IHCs is over 400 replies, of which I have read only 280, and the similar NGC thread regarding Greg and his copper is over 100 replies, of which I have read only 100. Each site has also spawned a number of tangential threads, which appear to be dominating board discussion, but I do not get the sense that many of the participants are actually engaging in dialogue. In my opinion, we have two cases here that are independent of one another even though they center on the identical coinage metal, series and implied appearance. I must state that I have examined none of these coins in-hand, and do not know the accuracy of images from the three sources of provided images. I have had dinner with Rick at larger shows, but have never met Greg. I have sold a single coin to Greg and own two coins purchased from Rick. Neither with Rick nor Greg, however, have I exchanged more than sporadic private messages. Additionally, I am a toned coin enthusiast, I have written often about toning and I am a practicing scientist with a PhD in chemistry and biology, but I am not a physicist. Lastly, I have very little to gain or lose in the arena of blue-toned copper because I own only one intensely toned violet and blue matte proof Lincoln cent, one proof IHC with mossy blue and violet highlights and one glossy brown and blue proof IHC. To complete the disclosure, all the toned coins in my collection (MS and PF, type and series) constitute only a small percentage of the value of my collection.
Rick Snow appears to have purchased his IHCs in question from a recent Stacks sale of the Northern Bay Collection. What I find interesting with these coins is the transparency of ownership. The ownership trail, as told by Rick in the initial PCGS thread, is one of Stacks to Rick to the walk-through service at PCGS and then back to Rick who subsequently offered them on his web site. Therefore, if the entirety of the Stacks winnings was listed on Rick’s site, he is not hiding his involvement with these coins via consignment. The coins, sold at public auction, were available for inspection to all interested parties. Rick claims the coins were in a coat of lacquer, others have not disputed this assertion, and that with the removal of the lacquer the appearance of the coins changed dramatically. Rick also claims to have removed the lacquer coat with acetone and that this process revealed surfaces with exceptional beauty. In truth, I have never removed lacquer from a coin, and from the information provided, I do not even know what solution, resin or compound was actually on the coins. Lacquer, as a term, encompasses a wide range of distinct compounds, whose usage patterns have changed over time, and whose stability and rate of oxidation differ. Currently, Rick has stated that an analytical examination of some of the remaining non-certified coins, to look for trace contaminants, will be performed and the results published in the ANA Journal of Advanced Studies in Numismatics. The parameters of that study, which will determine the validity of its conclusions, should be interesting to read.
An early post by Sunnywood, on the PCGS boards, was accurate and to recall this post is to recall the truth. Briefly, the points include that acetone is a solvent that removes many organic compounds including PVC and lacquer, that removal of PVC or lacquer should not cause a secondary toning reaction and that toning on metals occurs because of the formation of oxides and primarily sulfides that, in general, are refractory to organic solvents. In addition, clear lacquer coatings may oxidize over time and this oxidation generally darkens the coating, and that proof IHCs are one of the "hot" coins in the AT market, partly for their popularity and partly for the difficulty to spot them vs an NT coin.
The debate regarding thin-film interference is odd in that this property of physics and optics is well known and well characterized for decades. You may read the article, which needs some polishing and reworking, on thin-film interference on my web site or may choose to read the primary literature, or physics and optics books, to come to your own conclusions. In one sentence, thin-film interference in numismatics is the formation of a very thin layer of metallic sulfides over time, through oxidation of the underlying metal, which causes light rays impinging on the coin's surface to refract back to the viewer an array of colors. This is exactly what toning is; the optical experience of the physics of perturbed light rays after contacting the chemistry of metallic sulfides.
The statement that oxidation is oxidation, regardless of whether it took 100 years or three minutes to produce does not necessarily reflect science. It is true that the oxidation of a single molecule may be identical, regardless of if the reaction proceeded quickly or in an attenuated manner. However, reaction kinetics are extraordinarily important in describing gross phenomena such as toning. I will list two examples for illustrative purposes, and I hope that all realize this is an approximation of scientific theory and is not completely accurate.
For example, we are all familiar with natural diamond and graphite, and many of us likely realize that natural diamond and graphite are both pure carbon and nothing else. The amazing differences between natural diamond and graphite are primarily due to how each forms. Natural diamond forms slowly, with the carbon atoms making contact with each other in such a way as to build a face-centered cubic structure that is internally sturdy and that has many strong interactions with neighboring carbon atoms. Graphite forms with the carbon atoms making hexagonal contact with each other in such a way as to build sheets that may slide against one another. This sheet-like interaction allows carbon atoms that lie in the same plane to be strongly attached to their neighbors while allowing atoms that are in adjacent sheets, such as sheets of a textbook, to be loosely bound to one another. Both natural diamond and graphite are pure carbon, just as both AT and NT coins may be metallic sulfides, but the reaction kinetics help to shape the properties of the final product. This does not mean that I have a reaction kinetics-based method for determining AT vs NT, but it does mean that stating that oxidation is oxidation, regardless of how it occurred, does not necessarily reflect science fact. However, I can embrace the notion that a very good AT job may be nearly impossible to determine in comparison to an NT coin.
A second way to look at this is to realize that all reactions have a starting material (reactant) and a final material (product) and that in order for the reactant to form the product there must be a transition state, and an amount of energy called the transition state energy, that must be overcome. Additionally, a single reactant may have several choices of transition states that lead to various products. This may be thought of as a central valley that is surrounded by a mountain range. The folks in the valley (the reactants) must travel over any peak in the mountain range (transition states) in order to reach the neighboring valleys (products). It should be obvious to most that if the goal is to hike from the central valley to any one of the neighboring valleys while expending the least amount of energy that the inhabitants of the central valley will almost always choose the easiest path and will gather into a single valley (product). This is also part of the general paradigm of reaction kinetics in that the reactants will become products while passing through the lowest transition state available and while requiring the least amount of energy possible. However, if the inhabitants of the central valley are given the option of using more energy for their travels, in the form of a railroad car or plane, then these inhabitants will travel over moderately sized peaks by train to get to new valleys (new products) and will travel over very large peaks by plane to get to even more valleys (even more new products). The same happens in chemistry if you put more energy into the system, via added heat or chemicals that make the apparent transition states easier to cross, and you will now obtain products that would not have been prepared had the system not been perturbed.
Why do I write all of this? Well, I believe there is a good deal of unintentional misquoting or misunderstanding, on multiple levels, within these threads. My opinion is that the most likely scenario to have occurred is that put forth by Rick Snow. Others corroborate the statement that many of the proof IHCs had lacquer or PVC on them, treatment of lacquer with acetone will remove the coating, lacquer will oxidize and darken over time to obscure the underlying surfaces and the coins may have previously soaked in Coin Care or Blue Ribbon, which were very common several decades ago. In addition, the chain of ownership of these coins is compelling. Rick is a high profile specialist dealer who has a large following, yet he openly sells them on his own site, realizing that both the Stacks auction images and his own images would be online and open to examination. In my opinion, someone who is out to deceive via vividly toning IHCs is not likely to share ownership so openly when images are freely available, and might be more evasive when answering questions as to the chain of ownership. I also believe that Mark Feld made a very good proposal when he suggested to coat with lacquer a vividly toned, dark blue IHC and observe the colors, which should now be muted according to Rick's explanations, and then remove the lacquer coat with acetone, which should again reveal the vivid blue toning. That seems to be the most reasonable and scientific course of action if the goal is to prove the explanation. However, additional experimentation should also be performed and this would require an outlay of coinage that one may not want to jeopardize.
Lastly, with respect to the Snow thread, and somewhat off-topic, I was thoroughly amazed that a high profile dealer would state that PCGS should be the last line of defense in the culling out of AT coins. To me, the last line of defense should be the buyer, regardless of whether or not the buyer is a dealer intent on flipping the coin for a profit or if the buyer is a collector who intends to keep the piece for the long term.
The NGC thread regarding Greg and his copper is slightly different, in my opinion, from the PCGS thread regarding Rick. Greg has acknowledged before and after ownership of only one coin, the 1914 matte proof Lincoln cent, while others have claimed his ownership involvement extends to a number of proof IHCs, some of which were apparently consigned to other individuals.
Greg has also consistently stated that his only treatment of these copper pieces has been to swab with MS70 to remove grime, which is similar to Rick’s assertion that he had only treated his proof cents with acetone in order to remove lacquer. MS70, like acetone, olive oil or Jeweluster, is an industry-accepted product, the use of these products on coinage is industry-accepted and the industry in general does not consider these actions to be within most members’ definition of coin doctoring. However, I believe there is more anecdotal evidence that MS70 will dramatically change the appearance of copper than there is evidence for this action with acetone. This is something that Greg and others heartily agree with, though it should also be kept in mind that many users state that the consequence of such usage cannot be predicted. Greg’s off-the-cuff usage of the term “improper storage” when first discussing these coins is just that, off-the-cuff. There has been a long and somewhat cantankerous history to the discussion of toning on both the NGC and PCGS boards and those of us who have been on these boards for an extended length of time would immediately recognize the sarcasm in those words.
While I do not agree with the stance that the before and after ownership status of other coins has no bearing on the discussion, I agree very much with the conclusion that there might be folks who now own these pieces, who would not be happy to know that their coins were previously in a holder with a lower certified grade. This statement is not limited to those pieces that are blue-toned copper, but is all encompassing for other metals and series. My opinion is that the certification history of a coin should not matter as long as the coin was not doctored in the intervening period. I also agree heartily with the assertion that the eye appeal of a coin is in conflict with the time given to grade the piece, and that the greater the initial eye appeal the more likely that the coin will receive a higher, and perhaps more accurate, grade. This idea is nothing new, and in my opinion, is one of the major flaws of the current TPG paradigm. Again, in my opinion, there is pressure to grade a coin in less time and this leads to less accurate grading and to grading that relies more on initial flash than on careful study. This is not Greg’s fault, he is merely adapting to the currently perceived grading environment.
However, I believe that proceeding with surface manipulation in the absence of a compelling reason such as to avoid additional surface injury, be it called cleaning or conservation, is quite tricky when there is the realistic chance that the surface properties of the underlying metal might change. In my opinion, the resulting coin that was treated not in an attempt to avoid future injury but rather in an attempt to improve its eye appeal, and that has had its surface features changed, is an example of artificial toning or of a doctored coin. A WYNTK thread on original surfaces is already in place and might be something some of our members would be interested in. Please note that I include the very popular practice of dipping to remove non-harmful toning in this category. This is an unpopular position to hold, and flies counter to long-accepted industry and hobby standards, but it is what I believe. It is also a position that does not allow me to scrutinize coins closely with conveniently obtained and used metrics, but must be applied on a coin-to-coin basis and relies on experience and logic. Therefore, if one accepts that the use of MS70 on copper might result in a brightly colored blue or pink coin where that color was not originally hiding, and then that color appears on said coin, it is my opinion based upon my personal preferences and definitions that the resulting coin is an example of artificial toning. The extension of this is that a great many blast white Morgan dollars and the majority of blast white Seated Liberty and Barber coinage has been doctored through dipping to alter the surfaces of the coins. Does this mean that NCS will doctor coins on-demand when the request is simply to remove undesired, but non-harmful toning? Yes, in my opinion this is a reasonable statement if these parameters are used. The end result is that I would categorize the 1914 matte proof Lincoln as an artificially toned coin, based upon my personal preferences and definitions.
SilverEagles95 asked how a coin with attractive color could receive a grading boost, especially of two points, and this has been discussed for many years on these boards and on the bourse floor. If you read my WYNTK thread about the toning premium, you may come to grasp more about this volatile niche market. Of course, the premium and grade boost provide a strong impetus for manipulation and they are currently the hot topic of the coin boards, which is exactly what Greg has previously stated. Not only do I agree with Greg’s statement that the toning conundrum is the driving force behind many current posts, I agree that this topic will again recede into the background, as it has on many occasions on the coin boards, and that it will be replaced by another impassioned debate or argument only to resurface in the future.
Finally, I strongly believe it is the responsibility of each individual to determine what is acceptable to his or herself. Is dipping to produce the elusive blast white Seated Liberty half okay? How about the production of blue-toned copper from an otherwise RB example? Should the introduction of a small amount of putty onto the surface of a gold coin be viewed as favorable? May PVC be safely removed with acetone? What about those coins stored in cardboard albums, where do they fit in this discussion? These are things that must be answered by the individual and that should be reflected in their purchases. Additionally, what is the role of the TPG and its relationship with the dealer and collector? Who is the final arbiter of what is artificial toning? Does a person who produces an artificially toned coin, by one’s definition, automatically become a coin doctor? What is an acceptable level of cleaning or evidence thereof? Whose opinion as to grade is more valid or valuable? I hold strongly that knowledge is king, and that before one spends disposable income on numismatics that one should be well equipped to make complex decisions under a tight timeframe.
This is a long thread and I do not believe there is anyone who is reading it that agrees with everything that I have written. I also realize that I am not thoroughly versed in reaction kinetics, metallurgy or physics and that my descriptions and illustrations have in some cases been simplified in order to provide a helpful visual learning tool. I would hope that any discussion that goes on in this thread is truly discussion and is not allegation, recrimination, hyperbole or smokescreen. Truly, this may turn out to be the least satisfying thread on the boards for anyone to read. I apologize for this in advance, but thought that the number of requests for opinion received merited a thought-out post.>>
On the nickels I experimentally AT'd, the color change went predictably from pale yellow to gold to orange to reddish-purple to bluish-purple to blue to light blue to grey. In the book Coin Chemistry, the author quantified the thickness of toning films on silver and found that light golden was thinner than reddish which was thinner than blue. Silver toning progresses to black when the toning continues to thicken, my nickels proceeded to grey. Perhaps copper that is brown is similar to a grey nickel (75% copper) or a black silver coin.
If the oxide layer could somehow be "thinned" perhaps the colors of a thinner film could become visible. If the film was thickened over time by sulfides (or by some gunk or laquer or oily blue ribbon stuff) it could appear like a thicker film (in which case it might be black on a silver coin, grey on a nickel or brown on copper). Then if the film became thinner by dissolving the outer gunk or oil layer, or by removing part of a sulfide layer, it might become the right thickness to make colors visible that are representative of a thinner film.
If this is possible, I think it could happen either intentionally or by accident. Someone attempting to curate a coin with laquer or PVC on it might end up with a similar result to someone who thins a layer on purpose with a surfactant. I don't really know though if a thin interference film can be reproducably made thinner in a controlled manner. Also, I never did any AT experiments on anything other than modern business strike pocket change.
I do know that you can take a coin with toning on it and make color changes to it by making a film grow thicker on it. It is quite predictable with just basic techniques.
If a copper coin is covered for a century in an airtight layer of grime or lacquer or whatever, and then that layer is completely removed with a perfectly inert solvent, could the sudden exposure to oxygen create an almost immediate color change?
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
If the humidity and air pollution levels are at the right levels, then yes, a film could form quickly that could result in a color change. Dipping a coin or stripping all or part of it with a surfactant can do this because it exposes a pure fresh unstable surface. Pure metals are reactive, if you remove a skin where the metal had reacted with other things you have a surface that will react easily with whatever is present.
Here is a quote from Intercept Shield's Patent Patent #6593007 "Metals in nature always assume their most stable state, which in most cases are sulfides, chlorides, oxides, or other salts. As a result, metals begin corroding as soon as they are exposed to the environment. In addition, the most sensitive time for a metal is when it is pristine. In storage, shipment, or manufacture, metals are pristine, and are targets for corrosive gas attack. This corrosion or tarnishing is a particular problem for consumers purchasing fine silver, valuable coins, and so forth. "
Pure metals are reactive, if you remove a skin where the metal had reacted with other things you have a surface that will react easily with whatever is present.
So an unstable coin covered for many years with a layer of grime or lacquer would be the most likely to change colors when cleaned? Sounds like the theory that the blue was there all along is getting tougher to believe.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I tend to think that a film could be made thicker or thinner and get a color change with the color corresponding to the thickness of the end film (i.e. blue can be thinned to reddish-purple or golden-yellow, and MAYBE brown, black, or grey can be sometimes be thinned to blue or a thinner color). I think it would be easier to strip the coins skin completely and grow the film to the desired thickness than it would be to controllably make the film thinner though, but I don't think it is impossible to make the film thinner. Making the film thinner would probably be more unpredictable, whereas making it thicker and stopping the reaction at whatever color you want is easy (as is demonstrated by the Nickels on this NT vs. AT display I made a while back).
Tom's lengthy post reinforced my view based on the information presented to date:
1. The Snow coins were dipped in acetone to remove a lacquer or lacquer-like substance, but the acetone most likely did not impart color on the coins. Consistent with Tom's comments, I would scratch my head if someone like Rick Snow branched out into coin doctoring.
2. The Margulies coin (1914 Matte Proof) was dipped in acetone and MAY have had color imparted on it. However, Tom did not seem to really explain how the coin changed color, but just presumed so based on observation (as Mark F. did). Bushmaster's discussion on reaction of copper ions and salts with the MS-70 leaves me open to the possibility that MS-70 imparts color on the coin, but is not conclusive IMO. One thing that is clear to me is that MS-70 does strip skin off the coin, revealing the layers under what was stripped.
As regards NCS, I have a question:
If one sent an very grimey MS or PF IHC for conservation, what would they recommend, and/or what would be done to the coin? If the coin turns blue will they put it in an NCS holder and label it AT? If anyone has actually had grimey MS or PF IHCs conserved by NCS, I would be interested in what the experience was.
Comments
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
Joe.
<< <i>If I was a member of the jury: AT.
Joe. >>
This is why highly technical matters are typically decided by a judge and not a jury.
To me, this is AT along with some other practices.
Anyone can define AT as they want. Whether or not it will continue to be Market acceptable is probably the real question.
Joe.
<< <i>newmismatist is one of the few around here to approach the question correctly. stop speculating otherwise. >>
Thanks - based on over 50 years of collecting coins, I'm sure there is a scientifc explanation to this and I'd sure like to find the answer - I just hope I don't ruin too many coins in this quest -
This is like being in HS chemistry all over again - except in 1960 I had an unlimited amount of silver pocket change that I could screw up and then spend, I also remember heating coins in the bunson burner and watching the rainbows appear. I learned that acid dipped and stripped pennies are highly reactive and an ugly pink and virtually never look the same even after they re-tone - but there was no MS70 in 1960 so never got to screw around with that stuff in HS.
What I do know from many years of collecting coins - cleaning coins is very dangerous and morte coins are ruined by cleaning then are helped and if someone has anythoing of value - the surest way to devalue it is to start messing with it when you don't know what you're doing.
“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
as per the above you hit the nail on the head julian
Mark, I believe that the information and results posted in the thread I linked in my first post to this one, at least, are certainly other than "speculating". Perhaps you weren't referring to that information, but just in case.
<< <i>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. >>
Agreed!!!
The problem, as I see it, Julian, is many nice original coins will be ruined in search of "additional profit". If the marketplace is going to take care of "that", or anything related to "that", it better hurry up... IMO.
Of course if one is not concerned about whether the color is "artificial" or not, there is no need to worry about or try to prove anything.
<< <i>I don't understand how it could be considered anything other than AT. Can someone 'splain that to me? >>
He's on vacation!
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
Joe.
<< <i>If a substance is applied to a coin and/or something else is done to it and the coin appears to change color, I believe the burden of proof should be on those claiming that pre-existing color is simply being revealed, rather than on those who believe the color has been changed/added.
Of course if one is not concerned about whether the color is "artificial" or not, there is no need to worry about or try to prove anything. >>
Why should one party be shouldered with more of a burden than the other? I think the burden is on the numismatic professional and collecting community to get to the RIGHT answer (or as close as possible to the right answer) by gathering as much information as possible, and to try to objectively draw conclusions from such information.
That being said, I think Bushmaster's post brings to light additional information which, if expanded upon, could provide valuable insight on the topic of "imparting" color on copper coins.
Always a "story." Heh
On a side note, when a woman says she's "confused" same thing..... RUN!!
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't understand how it could be considered anything other than AT. Can someone 'splain that to me? >>
He's on vacation!
In fairness to Rick Snow, he was discussing/explaining a seemingly different situation. In those instances, he indicated he had removed old time lacquer with acetone, and that already-existing colors which were muted/hidden by the lacquer, were revealed. That sounds different than treating a coin with MS70 and apparently (please note I said "apparently") changing the coin to colors that were not present previously.
Edited to add:
<< If a substance is applied to a coin and/or something else is done to it and the coin appears to change color, I believe the burden of proof should be on those claiming that pre-existing color is simply being revealed, rather than on those who believe the color has been changed/added.
Of course if one is not concerned about whether the color is "artificial" or not, there is no need to worry about or try to prove anything. >>
<<Why should one party be shouldered with more of a burden than the other? I I think the burden is on the numismatic professional and collecting community to get to the RIGHT answer (or as close as possible to the right answer) by gathering as much information as possible, and to try to objectively draw conclusions from such information.>>
Because the appearance of the coin changed after something was done to it. Since it looks different, those who claim it's not, should bear some burden to explain why something which appears noticeably different, really isn't. AND, those that claim that they haven't changed/added color are often the very ones who are trying to profit financially (in many cases, significantly) by convincing people that what they did was perfectly fine.
I certainly agree that the best solution is to get the "right" answer, or as close to it as possible.
Standards and people's opinions change -- that is the only constant.
What might be acceptable today might not be acceptable tomorrow.
What might not be acceptable today, might be acceptable tomorrow.
If there wasn't a market for toned coins, NT or AT, people wouldn't tone coins.
However, some people like them EVEN IF they know they're AT (I'm not one, but I know a number who are). Although, they could truly care less because they like the coin. One could collect whatever one likes, WITHOUT big brother telling them what's right or wrong to collect.
Why the posses to thwart something that some don't like while others like? If you don't like coins that have questionable color, don't buy them. If you don't like people who purportedly create such coins, don't do business with them. If you are on a some kind of evangelical mission to rid the world of AT coins, good luck with that. Some act as though they are righteous by trying to protect the innocent -- some of them don't want to be protected. And in their pursuit of "uncovering mass plots to undermine numismatics", these posses (more often than not) go -- ready, shoot, aim.
Some don't like coins that have been physically altered, yet it's perfectly acceptable to collect hobo buff's. Some don't like coins that are defaced, yet it's perfectly acceptable to collect enamel coins. If people want to make and collect AT coins, that's their preference. It is what it is, and move on.
MDG.
Disclaimer: I prefer coins with natural toning, but that's my preference. If I'm not sure, I just don't buy it. I don't even take a TPG's word for it. I see plenty of coins in TPG slabs that I find questionable and don't buy....Kind of simple, huh?
PS. I know I'm going to get roasted now, so back to work I go. Just remember before you put the white hot torch to me, I like NT coins over AT
just thought i'd toss that in before you get "roasted".........
By jove, I think he's got it!!!
Nail, head, hammer!
It's also about disclosure IMO. But that was discussed in another thread with the same result of someone trying to convince people that what they did was perfectly fine. It didn't smell good then and it still doesn't smell good now.
Joe.
first hypothesis: "MS70 turns copper blue". Seems to be only partially true as shown by the lack of results (for now) from newmismatist.
second hypothesis: "MS70 turns some copper blue" seems to be a true statement, but doesn't address causality.
third hypothesis: "MS70 is uncovering an existing toning layer previously covered in grime". unproven, but also not disproven, at this point just as valid as saying that it is changing the surface layer.
So my question would be: Since it has been previously shown that the color of toning is more associated with the thickness of the oxidation and less associated with the composition of such, why would it only produce blue and not other colors depending upon the thickness of the surface layers? When tonecoin2003 makes a toner, he/she doesn't just get one color.
<< <i>here's my take: I try to approach this logically.
first hypothesis: "MS70 turns copper blue". Seems to be only partially true as shown by the lack of results (for now) from newmismatist.
second hypothesis: "MS70 turns some copper blue" seems to be a true statement, but doesn't address causality.
third hypothesis: "MS70 is uncovering an existing toning layer previously covered in grime". unproven, but also not disproven, at this point just as valid as saying that it is changing the surface layer.
So my question would be: Since it has been previously shown that the color of toning is more associated with the thickness of the oxidation and less associated with the composition of such, why would it only produce blue and not other colors depending upon the thickness of the surface layers? When tonecoin2003 makes a toner, he/she doesn't just get one color. >>
Mark, it is my impression - and I certainly might be mistaken - that the application of MS70 (and, if applicable, whatever else is being done) does sometimes result in shades/colors other than blue. I have seen many of these coins in hand, and a number of them displayed hues other than just blue.
Was there blue "hidden" underneath?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
That tells me a chemical reaction has likely taken place that caused the blue.
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
funny how it seems in your set of photos, that the coin seemed to turn blue on the areas of the coin that seemed to have less dirt and/or grime on them.
Am I seeing that right??
edit..Bushmaster apparently sees the same thing I do
Lincoln set Colorless Set
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I don't understand how it could be considered anything other than AT. Can someone 'splain that to me? >>
He's on vacation!
In fairness to Rick Snow, he was discussing/explaining a seemingly different situation. >>
You are right CG1. It was a cheap shot. I saw an easy laugh and I couldn't pass it up.
And it violates the premise of your introductory comments to this thread. My bad.
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
<< <i>cohodk, what did the coin grade in its original condition in the first picture? >>
Anacs PF 63 RB
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>Cohodk,
funny how it seems in your set of photos, that the coin seemed to turn blue on the areas of the coin that seemed to have less dirt and/or grime on them.
Am I seeing that right??
edit..Bushmaster apparently sees the same thing I do >>
Not funny
Just in breaking news...
This from the Federal EPA Air Quality Emergency Broadcast System:
"Air quality rated poor today nationwide. For the past 48 hours, pollution experts have been baffled by the sudden rise in the CVI
(Chemical Vapor Index). Unconfirmed rumours raise the spectre that millions of coin collectors may be responsible."
This from the Dow Jones Index:
"Stock rose sharply today in the chemical manufacturing sector. The parent companies of the manufacturer of "Blue Robbon Coin Preservative and Darkener" and "MS70"are showing triple digit gains.
This from the National Organization of Retail Metal Liquids (NORML):
"An unexplained and unprecedented demand for "MS70" has emptied store shelves nationwide..."
We now return to our regular scheduled broadcast.Beep...beep...beep...beep...
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
<< <i>Beep...beep...beep...beep...
Just in breaking news...
This from the Federal EPA Air Quality Emergency Broadcast System:
"Air quality rated poor today nationwide. For the past 48 hours, pollution experts have been baffled by the sudden rise in the CVI
(Chemical Vapor Index). Unconfirmed rumours raise the spectre that millions of coin collectors may be responsible."
This from the Dow Jones Index:
"Stock rose sharply today in the chemical manufacturing sector. The parent companies of the manufacturer of "Blue Robbon Coin Preservative and Darkener" and "MS70"are showing triple digit gains.
This from the National Organization of Retail Metal Liquids (NORML):
"An unexplained and unprecedented demand for "MS70" has emptied store shelves nationwide..."
We now return to our regular scheduled broadcast.Beep...beep...beep...beep... >>
Levity and a good sense of humor are appreciated and welcomed in the midst of this unpleasant topic. Thanks.
Maybe I should've used the word 'peculiar'
edit..And I don't find this thread amusing at all, disturbing is more like it, as I'm sure a great number of people do.
Lincoln set Colorless Set
I also tried MS70 on two IHCs. They were not proofs they were both 1881 that had a lot of wear and oxidation. The result was clean looking coins without a hint of blue anywhere - they just looked like circulated coins that had been cleaned.
It's possible that MS70 has changed the formulation since people discovered it was turning copper blue. I believe truthteller? from across the street did his experiments eight years ago. So maybe some one complained and the formula was altered to prevent that from happening. Just a thought.
<< <i>....It's possible that MS70 has changed the formulation since people discovered it was turning copper blue. I believe truthteller? from across the street did his experiments eight years ago. So maybe some one complained and the formula was altered to prevent that from happening. Just a thought. >>
Steve, I believe that someone on the NGC forum might be able to explain what's being done "wrong".
<< <i>Coinguy1...I didn't mean it as haha funny..
Maybe I should've used the word 'peculiar'
edit..And I don't find this thread amusing at all, disturbing is more like it, as I'm sure a great number of people do. >>
Rob, don't sweat it. I knew that and sorry I didn't use a double
<<This topic has taken me quite some time to think through in order to formulate a response that reflects my numismatic belief system. Combining the PCGS and NGC threads leaves us with myriad coins, accusations, purported explanations and theories however; I do not know that they really answer the underlying questions. Specifically, what level of numismatic manipulation or conservation is acceptable to the individual, the TPG and the market, and whose responsibility is it to make those decisions?
This lengthy post will likely satisfy few, if any, who take the time to read it. It is not extreme in nature and it finds valid points brought to light by each school of thought. It is also posted much later in the fray than many would have liked, given the avalanche of phone calls, emails and private messages that I have received this week querying my absence in the disputes. In truth, it takes me time and effort to write a post that attempts to retain some scientific accuracy while addressing scientific points in a lay manner, and that also tries to address what this might mean in the numismatic arena. Additionally, as is the case with all of us, there are simply some weeks that are better than others with regard to time and the ability to participate in more than a cursory manner.
The current PCGS thread regarding Rick Snow and his proof IHCs is over 400 replies, of which I have read only 280, and the similar NGC thread regarding Greg and his copper is over 100 replies, of which I have read only 100. Each site has also spawned a number of tangential threads, which appear to be dominating board discussion, but I do not get the sense that many of the participants are actually engaging in dialogue. In my opinion, we have two cases here that are independent of one another even though they center on the identical coinage metal, series and implied appearance. I must state that I have examined none of these coins in-hand, and do not know the accuracy of images from the three sources of provided images. I have had dinner with Rick at larger shows, but have never met Greg. I have sold a single coin to Greg and own two coins purchased from Rick. Neither with Rick nor Greg, however, have I exchanged more than sporadic private messages. Additionally, I am a toned coin enthusiast, I have written often about toning and I am a practicing scientist with a PhD in chemistry and biology, but I am not a physicist. Lastly, I have very little to gain or lose in the arena of blue-toned copper because I own only one intensely toned violet and blue matte proof Lincoln cent, one proof IHC with mossy blue and violet highlights and one glossy brown and blue proof IHC. To complete the disclosure, all the toned coins in my collection (MS and PF, type and series) constitute only a small percentage of the value of my collection.
Rick Snow appears to have purchased his IHCs in question from a recent Stacks sale of the Northern Bay Collection. What I find interesting with these coins is the transparency of ownership. The ownership trail, as told by Rick in the initial PCGS thread, is one of Stacks to Rick to the walk-through service at PCGS and then back to Rick who subsequently offered them on his web site. Therefore, if the entirety of the Stacks winnings was listed on Rick’s site, he is not hiding his involvement with these coins via consignment. The coins, sold at public auction, were available for inspection to all interested parties. Rick claims the coins were in a coat of lacquer, others have not disputed this assertion, and that with the removal of the lacquer the appearance of the coins changed dramatically. Rick also claims to have removed the lacquer coat with acetone and that this process revealed surfaces with exceptional beauty. In truth, I have never removed lacquer from a coin, and from the information provided, I do not even know what solution, resin or compound was actually on the coins. Lacquer, as a term, encompasses a wide range of distinct compounds, whose usage patterns have changed over time, and whose stability and rate of oxidation differ. Currently, Rick has stated that an analytical examination of some of the remaining non-certified coins, to look for trace contaminants, will be performed and the results published in the ANA Journal of Advanced Studies in Numismatics. The parameters of that study, which will determine the validity of its conclusions, should be interesting to read.
An early post by Sunnywood, on the PCGS boards, was accurate and to recall this post is to recall the truth. Briefly, the points include that acetone is a solvent that removes many organic compounds including PVC and lacquer, that removal of PVC or lacquer should not cause a secondary toning reaction and that toning on metals occurs because of the formation of oxides and primarily sulfides that, in general, are refractory to organic solvents. In addition, clear lacquer coatings may oxidize over time and this oxidation generally darkens the coating, and that proof IHCs are one of the "hot" coins in the AT market, partly for their popularity and partly for the difficulty to spot them vs an NT coin.
The debate regarding thin-film interference is odd in that this property of physics and optics is well known and well characterized for decades. You may read the article, which needs some polishing and reworking, on thin-film interference on my web site or may choose to read the primary literature, or physics and optics books, to come to your own conclusions. In one sentence, thin-film interference in numismatics is the formation of a very thin layer of metallic sulfides over time, through oxidation of the underlying metal, which causes light rays impinging on the coin's surface to refract back to the viewer an array of colors. This is exactly what toning is; the optical experience of the physics of perturbed light rays after contacting the chemistry of metallic sulfides.
The statement that oxidation is oxidation, regardless of whether it took 100 years or three minutes to produce does not necessarily reflect science. It is true that the oxidation of a single molecule may be identical, regardless of if the reaction proceeded quickly or in an attenuated manner. However, reaction kinetics are extraordinarily important in describing gross phenomena such as toning. I will list two examples for illustrative purposes, and I hope that all realize this is an approximation of scientific theory and is not completely accurate.
For example, we are all familiar with natural diamond and graphite, and many of us likely realize that natural diamond and graphite are both pure carbon and nothing else. The amazing differences between natural diamond and graphite are primarily due to how each forms. Natural diamond forms slowly, with the carbon atoms making contact with each other in such a way as to build a face-centered cubic structure that is internally sturdy and that has many strong interactions with neighboring carbon atoms. Graphite forms with the carbon atoms making hexagonal contact with each other in such a way as to build sheets that may slide against one another. This sheet-like interaction allows carbon atoms that lie in the same plane to be strongly attached to their neighbors while allowing atoms that are in adjacent sheets, such as sheets of a textbook, to be loosely bound to one another. Both natural diamond and graphite are pure carbon, just as both AT and NT coins may be metallic sulfides, but the reaction kinetics help to shape the properties of the final product. This does not mean that I have a reaction kinetics-based method for determining AT vs NT, but it does mean that stating that oxidation is oxidation, regardless of how it occurred, does not necessarily reflect science fact. However, I can embrace the notion that a very good AT job may be nearly impossible to determine in comparison to an NT coin.
A second way to look at this is to realize that all reactions have a starting material (reactant) and a final material (product) and that in order for the reactant to form the product there must be a transition state, and an amount of energy called the transition state energy, that must be overcome. Additionally, a single reactant may have several choices of transition states that lead to various products. This may be thought of as a central valley that is surrounded by a mountain range. The folks in the valley (the reactants) must travel over any peak in the mountain range (transition states) in order to reach the neighboring valleys (products). It should be obvious to most that if the goal is to hike from the central valley to any one of the neighboring valleys while expending the least amount of energy that the inhabitants of the central valley will almost always choose the easiest path and will gather into a single valley (product). This is also part of the general paradigm of reaction kinetics in that the reactants will become products while passing through the lowest transition state available and while requiring the least amount of energy possible. However, if the inhabitants of the central valley are given the option of using more energy for their travels, in the form of a railroad car or plane, then these inhabitants will travel over moderately sized peaks by train to get to new valleys (new products) and will travel over very large peaks by plane to get to even more valleys (even more new products). The same happens in chemistry if you put more energy into the system, via added heat or chemicals that make the apparent transition states easier to cross, and you will now obtain products that would not have been prepared had the system not been perturbed.
Why do I write all of this? Well, I believe there is a good deal of unintentional misquoting or misunderstanding, on multiple levels, within these threads. My opinion is that the most likely scenario to have occurred is that put forth by Rick Snow. Others corroborate the statement that many of the proof IHCs had lacquer or PVC on them, treatment of lacquer with acetone will remove the coating, lacquer will oxidize and darken over time to obscure the underlying surfaces and the coins may have previously soaked in Coin Care or Blue Ribbon, which were very common several decades ago. In addition, the chain of ownership of these coins is compelling. Rick is a high profile specialist dealer who has a large following, yet he openly sells them on his own site, realizing that both the Stacks auction images and his own images would be online and open to examination. In my opinion, someone who is out to deceive via vividly toning IHCs is not likely to share ownership so openly when images are freely available, and might be more evasive when answering questions as to the chain of ownership. I also believe that Mark Feld made a very good proposal when he suggested to coat with lacquer a vividly toned, dark blue IHC and observe the colors, which should now be muted according to Rick's explanations, and then remove the lacquer coat with acetone, which should again reveal the vivid blue toning. That seems to be the most reasonable and scientific course of action if the goal is to prove the explanation. However, additional experimentation should also be performed and this would require an outlay of coinage that one may not want to jeopardize.
Lastly, with respect to the Snow thread, and somewhat off-topic, I was thoroughly amazed that a high profile dealer would state that PCGS should be the last line of defense in the culling out of AT coins. To me, the last line of defense should be the buyer, regardless of whether or not the buyer is a dealer intent on flipping the coin for a profit or if the buyer is a collector who intends to keep the piece for the long term.
The NGC thread regarding Greg and his copper is slightly different, in my opinion, from the PCGS thread regarding Rick. Greg has acknowledged before and after ownership of only one coin, the 1914 matte proof Lincoln cent, while others have claimed his ownership involvement extends to a number of proof IHCs, some of which were apparently consigned to other individuals.
Greg has also consistently stated that his only treatment of these copper pieces has been to swab with MS70 to remove grime, which is similar to Rick’s assertion that he had only treated his proof cents with acetone in order to remove lacquer. MS70, like acetone, olive oil or Jeweluster, is an industry-accepted product, the use of these products on coinage is industry-accepted and the industry in general does not consider these actions to be within most members’ definition of coin doctoring. However, I believe there is more anecdotal evidence that MS70 will dramatically change the appearance of copper than there is evidence for this action with acetone. This is something that Greg and others heartily agree with, though it should also be kept in mind that many users state that the consequence of such usage cannot be predicted. Greg’s off-the-cuff usage of the term “improper storage” when first discussing these coins is just that, off-the-cuff. There has been a long and somewhat cantankerous history to the discussion of toning on both the NGC and PCGS boards and those of us who have been on these boards for an extended length of time would immediately recognize the sarcasm in those words.
While I do not agree with the stance that the before and after ownership status of other coins has no bearing on the discussion, I agree very much with the conclusion that there might be folks who now own these pieces, who would not be happy to know that their coins were previously in a holder with a lower certified grade. This statement is not limited to those pieces that are blue-toned copper, but is all encompassing for other metals and series. My opinion is that the certification history of a coin should not matter as long as the coin was not doctored in the intervening period. I also agree heartily with the assertion that the eye appeal of a coin is in conflict with the time given to grade the piece, and that the greater the initial eye appeal the more likely that the coin will receive a higher, and perhaps more accurate, grade. This idea is nothing new, and in my opinion, is one of the major flaws of the current TPG paradigm. Again, in my opinion, there is pressure to grade a coin in less time and this leads to less accurate grading and to grading that relies more on initial flash than on careful study. This is not Greg’s fault, he is merely adapting to the currently perceived grading environment.
However, I believe that proceeding with surface manipulation in the absence of a compelling reason such as to avoid additional surface injury, be it called cleaning or conservation, is quite tricky when there is the realistic chance that the surface properties of the underlying metal might change. In my opinion, the resulting coin that was treated not in an attempt to avoid future injury but rather in an attempt to improve its eye appeal, and that has had its surface features changed, is an example of artificial toning or of a doctored coin. A WYNTK thread on original surfaces is already in place and might be something some of our members would be interested in. Please note that I include the very popular practice of dipping to remove non-harmful toning in this category. This is an unpopular position to hold, and flies counter to long-accepted industry and hobby standards, but it is what I believe. It is also a position that does not allow me to scrutinize coins closely with conveniently obtained and used metrics, but must be applied on a coin-to-coin basis and relies on experience and logic. Therefore, if one accepts that the use of MS70 on copper might result in a brightly colored blue or pink coin where that color was not originally hiding, and then that color appears on said coin, it is my opinion based upon my personal preferences and definitions that the resulting coin is an example of artificial toning. The extension of this is that a great many blast white Morgan dollars and the majority of blast white Seated Liberty and Barber coinage has been doctored through dipping to alter the surfaces of the coins. Does this mean that NCS will doctor coins on-demand when the request is simply to remove undesired, but non-harmful toning? Yes, in my opinion this is a reasonable statement if these parameters are used. The end result is that I would categorize the 1914 matte proof Lincoln as an artificially toned coin, based upon my personal preferences and definitions.
SilverEagles95 asked how a coin with attractive color could receive a grading boost, especially of two points, and this has been discussed for many years on these boards and on the bourse floor. If you read my WYNTK thread about the toning premium, you may come to grasp more about this volatile niche market. Of course, the premium and grade boost provide a strong impetus for manipulation and they are currently the hot topic of the coin boards, which is exactly what Greg has previously stated. Not only do I agree with Greg’s statement that the toning conundrum is the driving force behind many current posts, I agree that this topic will again recede into the background, as it has on many occasions on the coin boards, and that it will be replaced by another impassioned debate or argument only to resurface in the future.
Finally, I strongly believe it is the responsibility of each individual to determine what is acceptable to his or herself. Is dipping to produce the elusive blast white Seated Liberty half okay? How about the production of blue-toned copper from an otherwise RB example? Should the introduction of a small amount of putty onto the surface of a gold coin be viewed as favorable? May PVC be safely removed with acetone? What about those coins stored in cardboard albums, where do they fit in this discussion? These are things that must be answered by the individual and that should be reflected in their purchases. Additionally, what is the role of the TPG and its relationship with the dealer and collector? Who is the final arbiter of what is artificial toning? Does a person who produces an artificially toned coin, by one’s definition, automatically become a coin doctor? What is an acceptable level of cleaning or evidence thereof? Whose opinion as to grade is more valid or valuable? I hold strongly that knowledge is king, and that before one spends disposable income on numismatics that one should be well equipped to make complex decisions under a tight timeframe.
This is a long thread and I do not believe there is anyone who is reading it that agrees with everything that I have written. I also realize that I am not thoroughly versed in reaction kinetics, metallurgy or physics and that my descriptions and illustrations have in some cases been simplified in order to provide a helpful visual learning tool. I would hope that any discussion that goes on in this thread is truly discussion and is not allegation, recrimination, hyperbole or smokescreen. Truly, this may turn out to be the least satisfying thread on the boards for anyone to read. I apologize for this in advance, but thought that the number of requests for opinion received merited a thought-out post.>>
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
If the oxide layer could somehow be "thinned" perhaps the colors of a thinner film could become visible. If the film was thickened over time by sulfides (or by some gunk or laquer or oily blue ribbon stuff) it could appear like a thicker film (in which case it might be black on a silver coin, grey on a nickel or brown on copper). Then if the film became thinner by dissolving the outer gunk or oil layer, or by removing part of a sulfide layer, it might become the right thickness to make colors visible that are representative of a thinner film.
If this is possible, I think it could happen either intentionally or by accident. Someone attempting to curate a coin with laquer or PVC on it might end up with a similar result to someone who thins a layer on purpose with a surfactant. I don't really know though if a thin interference film can be reproducably made thinner in a controlled manner. Also, I never did any AT experiments on anything other than modern business strike pocket change.
I do know that you can take a coin with toning on it and make color changes to it by making a film grow thicker on it. It is quite predictable with just basic techniques.
If a copper coin is covered for a century in an airtight layer of grime or lacquer or whatever, and then that layer is completely removed with a perfectly inert solvent, could the sudden exposure to oxygen create an almost immediate color change?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Here is a quote from Intercept Shield's Patent Patent #6593007 "Metals in nature always assume their most stable state, which in most cases are sulfides, chlorides, oxides, or other salts. As a result, metals begin corroding as soon as they are exposed to the environment. In addition, the most sensitive time for a metal is when it is pristine. In storage, shipment, or manufacture, metals are pristine, and are targets for corrosive gas attack. This corrosion or tarnishing is a particular problem for consumers purchasing fine silver, valuable coins, and so forth. "
So an unstable coin covered for many years with a layer of grime or lacquer would be the most likely to change colors when cleaned? Sounds like the theory that the blue was there all along is getting tougher to believe.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
1. The Snow coins were dipped in acetone to remove a lacquer or lacquer-like substance, but the acetone most likely did not impart color on the coins. Consistent with Tom's comments, I would scratch my head if someone like Rick Snow branched out into coin doctoring.
2. The Margulies coin (1914 Matte Proof) was dipped in acetone and MAY have had color imparted on it. However, Tom did not seem to really explain how the coin changed color, but just presumed so based on observation (as Mark F. did). Bushmaster's discussion on reaction of copper ions and salts with the MS-70 leaves me open to the possibility that MS-70 imparts color on the coin, but is not conclusive IMO. One thing that is clear to me is that MS-70 does strip skin off the coin, revealing the layers under what was stripped.
As regards NCS, I have a question:
If one sent an very grimey MS or PF IHC for conservation, what would they recommend, and/or what would be done to the coin? If the coin turns blue will they put it in an NCS holder and label it AT? If anyone has actually had grimey MS or PF IHCs conserved by NCS, I would be interested in what the experience was.