Matt, That's a great example of a coin with "skin", and precisely what I was referring to in my prior posts. You see the very same look on the 1898 IHC that's part of the set posted above. While I can't discount the possibility that this skin is artificially produced, it certainly appears much more like the NT coins you see in these sets and I would feel much more confident in suggesting the coin is NT. Respectfully...Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
<< <i>Acetone may be inert, but it can react with copper to cause the copper to turn a number of different colors, including colors in the blue family. >>
I have not seen this in my experiments with acetone, MEK, or xylene. Not saying it's untrue, but just that I've not been able to reproduce such an effect....Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
<< <i>Acetone may be inert, but it can react with copper >>
No offense is intended Duane, but when one says that Acetone is inert (implication that it is inert to copper and bronze, which it is), then reaction with any copper or bronze coin is, by definition of the word 'inert', not possible. I have personally never seen a change in toning, even to the slightest degree, when I have used acetone to remove contaminants from bronzes, but I will admit that I have never viewed the results at greater than 10X magnification, so I leave open the possibility that it may have affected what has been referred to in this thread as 'skin'. I assume any such alteration would be microscopic in effect, and thus not noticeable at 10X magnification. If by "skin", one means luster, then I also can testify that I have never noted a change in luster that could not be attributed to removal of the contaminants that prompted me to use acetone in the first place.
<< <i>From what I've heard, acetone IS inert with respect to uncontaminated copper, but God forbid there's any PVC residue, which can react to acetone, and often leads to "wild" toning that just looks unnatural. >>
Again, I mean no offense to renomedphys. However, where I have used acetone to remove PVC contamination (whether light, moderate or heavy), I have never noted any toning. The reason for using acetone to remove PVC residue is due to the fact that it essentially 'melts' any plastic, thereby making it easier to get the residue off without (further) damaging the copper or bronze (or cupronickel) coin. If the residue is heavy, then it is quite likely that noticeable pitting will be observed after removal, but that pitting was there to start with - the previous PVC residue simply masked it. Now if one is not careful to remove all PVC residue, then when the acetone evaporates, it will re-adhere to the coin, and perhaps that could cause the wild "toning" that renomedphys may have observed, but I submit that isn't toning as much as remaining PVC residue, which is now more uniform, and which would tend to do what plastics do to light, i.e. simultaneously reflecting and diffusing, producing a host of possible 'rainbow' colors. There may also be (light) interference patterns, much like the interference pattern seen when a thin layer of oil floats on water. But if you are careful to ensure removal of all PVC residue, then you will not see any 'toning' whatsoever.
In the words of the song, "I could be wrong now, but I don't think so".
That was a great post! And based on my limited metallurgical experience, absolutely accurate. I also take issue with the word "inert" preferring "non-reactive with respect to" but my patience is often taxed when writing posts, and I seldom find all the words to express ideas eloquently, as you have.
<< <i>Acetone may be inert, but it can react with copper >>
No offense is intended Duane, but when one says that Acetone is inert (implication that it is inert to copper and bronze, which it is), then reaction with any copper or bronze coin is, by definition of the word 'inert', not possible. I have personally never seen a change in toning, even to the slightest degree, when I have used acetone to remove contaminants from bronzes, but I will admit that I have never viewed the results at greater than 10X magnification, so I leave open the possibility that it may have affected what has been referred to in this thread as 'skin'. I assume any such alteration would be microscopic in effect, and thus not noticeable at 10X magnification. If by "skin", one means luster, then I also can testify that I have never noted a change in luster that could not be attributed to removal of the contaminants that prompted me to use acetone in the first place.
<< <i>From what I've heard, acetone IS inert with respect to uncontaminated copper, but God forbid there's any PVC residue, which can react to acetone, and often leads to "wild" toning that just looks unnatural. >>
Again, I mean no offense to renomedphys. However, where I have used acetone to remove PVC contamination (whether light, moderate or heavy), I have never noted any toning. The reason for using acetone to remove PVC residue is due to the fact that it essentially 'melts' any plastic, thereby making it easier to get the residue off without (further) damaging the copper or bronze (or cupronickel) coin. If the residue is heavy, then it is quite likely that noticeable pitting will be observed after removal, but that pitting was there to start with - the previous PVC residue simply masked it. Now if one is not careful to remove all PVC residue, then when the acetone evaporates, it will re-adhere to the coin, and perhaps that could cause the wild "toning" that renomedphys may have observed, but I submit that isn't toning as much as remaining PVC residue, which is now more uniform, and which would tend to do what plastics do to light, i.e. simultaneously reflecting and diffusing, producing a host of possible 'rainbow' colors. There may also be (light) interference patterns, much like the interference pattern seen when a thin layer of oil floats on water. But if you are careful to ensure removal of all PVC residue, then you will not see any 'toning' whatsoever.
In the words of the song, "I could be wrong now, but I don't think so". >>
FWIW, I agree 100% with the above post. Well said, sir....Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
Rich, I'm sorry your feel good , light hearted thread got hijacked into another AT/NT debate. You don't deserve that unless you asked for it, which I don't think was your motivation for starting the thread. It started as a thread to showcase one of your prized MPL's and compare it's appearance with another member's prize. But certain member/s thought it necessary to railroad the whole atmosphere of the thread into their agenda. Here is a man who spent many thousands of dollars on these coins only to someone come in and systematically point AT on virtually every one of them. I don't recall Richard asking for this diagnosis. If you want a thread on the AT/NT debate, start one. This thread wasn't asking.
Rich is a great (If you don't believe me, check these out) and passionate collector. He is very proud of his MPL's and he should be. An attack on his coins was not deserved, nor was it requested.
With due respect, I have to weigh in and say that I have to disagree with 75% of what MikeInFla has posted as being true.
Without seeing the coins in hand, it is difficult to pass judgement.
Also the fact is that some of the toned copper out there may have been curated to reveal their toning. These coins hid their original toning under 50-100 years on accumulated gunk. This gunk of the ages will hide the luster/toning and make the coin a "crusty" brown with no life. Remove it with acetone/lacquer thinner/MS70/Verdigone or anything else that takes gunk off (goo gone?) and it will expose the hidden toning and hidden luster. I am not condoning curation, just stating facts.
From what I have seen in 35 years in this hobby, this type of toning with iridescent toning over deep brown patina cannot be manufactured at will. It came from over 25 years sitting in tissue paper from the mint sales office. Some copper patterns have it, many Proof Indian and Lincolns, some early copper too.
There is an acetone effect which can make red copper and some MS coins turn colors, but this is not what we are talking about here. These Matte Proofs have a deep, deep patina that is not manufactured.
Now, say what you believe, but please read the chapter in my 2nd edition of A Guide Book of Flying Eagle and Indian Cents, p.248. Toned Proof Indians and Matte Proof Lincolns are all detailed in a whole chapter there. But, you have to buy it and read it there, I won't republish it here. I think this chapter alone is the entire reason for rebuying the 2nd edition.
I too have to give kudos to my friend Richard on not only his world class coin collection, but for being truly one one the kindest gentlemen I've been lucky enough to know. I do think Rich intended to share some of these remarkable coins with a very open generous spirit at the beginning of this thread, and this conversation turned into a wholly negative post, despite some best efforts to turn it around. The way I see it, again, is if someone truly enjoys what they are collecting, irrespective as to what other people may think (even on an experienced level and even if they are right, "think: is still the operative word), I do believe that kind words and education tempered with decency and compassion are required. No matter what level of numismatics any of us are at, we all started at the same place, and I think that we all would benefit to remember that. Rich, I hope that you understand that the people who are your friends in this community could care less about your coins and care more about you, even though we all appreciate what you have put into your collection and its deep meaning to you.
Bob, you are such a total class act. I appreciate the main thrust of your post which I take to be that trashing other people's coins is at best not very nice, insensitive and inconsiderate, and at worst hurtful, and your point about the post being "hijacked" in its intent also has some validity.
However, I'm a big boy and my mother always used to tell me that "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me." Calling my coins AT is even one step further removed from calling ME names. Moreover, I'm a big believer in freedom of speech and I'm comfortable letting the post go wherever it goes. I subscribe to what Art Carney, playing Ed Norton, told Jackie Gleason, playing Ralph Kramden, in the Honeymooners. Ed Norton said something like, "Ralphie boy, we have a saying down in the sewers [Norton was a sewer worker; note all of the watery allusions]: When the tide of life turns against you, and you feel you can't bridge the moat, don't waste your tears on what might have been, just lay on your back and float."
This argument reminds me of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" In my view as the country industrialized during the 19th century the atmosphere became polluted with corrosive chemicals. Continuing economic growth put many chemicals like ammonia in people's homes, offices and factories, and they would use them for different things, like cleaning glass cabinets, and the fumes would sometimes react with contents, as might other materials (such as ink and paper and burlap sacks) that came in close physical proximity or touched the contents, often over a long period of time. And sometimes "the contents" happened to be coins.
So what exactly is the difference between applying a chemical, say ammonia, to a glass cabinet over a period of 20-50 years and having the fumes react with the contents as opposed to doing it all at once? That's hard to say, it may look exactly the same or it may look very different because of the different methods of application. But what difference does it make if you find a chemical in nature, or if a chemical reaction is an unintended byproduct of human activity, or if the chemical is knowingly and intentionally applied? What is the difference between ascorbic acid and vitamin C? Answer: nothing. There is no difference. So what's the difference between getting your vitamin C from eating an orange and eating a pill? Answer: nothing, except for the other stuff that's in the orange and the other stuff that's in the pill.
In my view what's key in MikeInFL's gracious response to my quiz is that he really isn't claiming to be 100% sure about even one coin! How could he be? He hasn’t even held the coins in hand. And his pointing to the absence of spots is easily explained by the coins being 67's and very high end 66's. I posted a total of 11 coins. Four were 67's, six were 66's and only the VDB is a 65, where a sharp eye will notice a spot near the tip of the right wheat stalk. Maybe that's what served to suggest to MikeInFL that it's likely NT, but it's also what stands between it and a 66 holder. And how and why was the artificial toning chemical applied to the obverse of the 1914 but not the reverse? And why is the center of the obverse different than the periphery of the obverse? How might that have been done artificially?
I like to carry reasoning to its logical conclusion, whether regarding dancing angels or toned coins. I don’t know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and concerning the 11 coins I posted photos of, MikeInFL doesn’t know and doesn’t even claim to know whether they are AT or NT. He thinks so, but he does not know so. He cannot measure it, is unable to prove it and does not even claim to be 100% sure that he is right. He is entitled to his opinion but I think he overstates it by calling it "the truth (as I see it)". More accurate, in my view, would be to simply say that it is his opinion, it is what he strongly suspects is true, and it is what he sincerely believes. The actual fact of the matter is that MikeInFL doesn’t really know if his opinion about these coins is the truth or not.
Edited for correction: I did post 11 coin photos of which four are PR67s, but there are five PR66s and the VDB and Matt's blue 1912 are both PR65s.
I am not kidding,
G99G I collect 20-slab, blue plastic PCGS coin boxes. To me, every empty box is like a beating heart NOT.
People come up sometimes, and ask me, G99G, are you kidding? And I answer them no, I am NOT KIDDING.
<< <i>Rich, I'm sorry your feel good , light hearted thread got hijacked into another AT/NT debate. You don't deserve that unless you asked for it, which I don't think was your motivation for starting the thread. It started as a thread to showcase one of your prized MPL's and compare it's appearance with another member's prize. But certain member/s thought it necessary to railroad the whole atmosphere of the thread into their agenda. Here is a man who spent many thousands of dollars on these coins only to someone come in and systematically point AT on virtually every one of them. I don't recall Richard asking for this diagnosis. If you want a thread on the AT/NT debate, start one. This thread wasn't asking.
Rich is a great (If you don't believe me, check these out) and passionate collector. He is very proud of his MPL's and he should be. An attack on his coins was not deserved, nor was it requested. >>
Bob,
Clearly the title to this thread is a question. To me, questions are posed as requests for answers/opinions. Perhaps you feel that Rich's title was rhetorical, but that was not the way I interpreted it.
Also, I didn't attack anyone or anybody's coins. I simply stated my honest opinion. If you view that as an attack, I'm not sure what to say other than I'm sorry you feel that way.
Regardless, it seems clear that you would prefer nothing but happy talk. However, if I were in your shoes, I would like to know the honest opinions of those reading the thread -- even the ones that had something "bad" to say about my coins -- but I can also understand just how difficult of a pill to swallow what I'm saying is. It was difficult for me as well when someone told me for the first time, and even more difficult when I reproduced the effects myself and figured out what's really going on with these coins.
But in the end each of us have to arrive at our own "truth", and I truly hope that your journey is an enjoyable one, despite our butting heads in this thread.
Take care...Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
<< <i>With due respect, I have to weigh in and say that I have to disagree with 75% of what MikeInFla has posted as being true. >>
Hi Rick, As probably the single largest purveyor of these coins, it doesn't surprise me that you would disagree with much of what I said, however what 75% do you disagree with? If I'm wrong, I would certainly appreciate to know where, and I'm sure the rest of those reading the thread would also welcome knowing what to believe and what not to believe.
<< <i>Also the fact is that some of the toned copper out there may have been curated to reveal their toning. These coins hid their original toning under 50-100 years on accumulated gunk. This gunk of the ages will hide the luster/toning and make the coin a "crusty" brown with no life. Remove it with acetone/lacquer thinner/MS70/Verdigone or anything else that takes gunk off (goo gone?) and it will expose the hidden toning and hidden luster. I am not condoning curation, just stating facts. >>
If this were to be true, and given that toning on coins is a thin layer, then the toning would have had to be there before the 50-100 years of "gunk" had accumulated. How do you explain this apparent paradox?
<< <i>From what I have seen in 35 years in this hobby, this type of toning with iridescent toning over deep brown patina cannot be manufactured at will. It came from over 25 years sitting in tissue paper from the mint sales office. Some copper patterns have it, many Proof Indian and Lincolns, some early copper too. >>
OK, so how many of the coins posted in this thread have a "deep brown patina" and YOU believe are NT? Where are pictures of all these copper patterns, proof IHCs and MPLs toned, and why are none of the original sets that I've seen toned this way?
Listen, I truly am only seeking the truth here. I have stated my case and provided pictures and justifications for my position. If I am wrong, I want to know and will be the first admit it. Please show me where I am mistaken.
Respectfully...Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
I'm sorry I must have missed the part in the question where it was asked if it were AT, NT, messed with or the use of MS70. To me the question asked was if they were stored in the same place or stored under similar conditions. I must just be narrow minded thinking that stored under similar conditions is the same as apply MS70 under similar conditions. The point isn't that I want to read happy threads, it was my interpretation of the title of the thread that it wasn't seeking an answer to the AT/NT debate. If I'm wrong I apologize. I've read my share of those debates, the spirit of this thread just didn't seem to be asking for that answer.
<< <i>I'm sorry I must have missed the part in the question where it was asked if it were AT, NT, messed with or the use of MS70. To me the question asked was if they were stored in the same place or stored under similar conditions. I must just be narrow minded thinking that stored under similar conditions is the same as apply MS70 under similar conditions. The point isn't that I want to read happy threads, it was my interpretation of the title of the thread that it wasn't seeking an answer to the AT/NT debate. If I'm wrong I apologize. I've read my share of those debates, the spirit of this thread just didn't seem to be asking for that answer. >>
Bob, There is no need to patronize me. Regardless, I see what you mean now. The question was posed as: Is (a) or (b) true, and I answered (c). I'm sorry if (c) got your feathers ruffled and took the thread in a direction that the OP didn't intend and you didn't like. I am sorry and I apologize....Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
Mike, I apologize to you as well as the board. I have no horses in this race, I don't think, but then maybe I do. We'll never be 100% positive. It wasn't necessary for me to lose my cool and attack Mike for his opinions, it really serves no purpose other than to waste everyone's time. How about a nice
Bob, I believe that many were angered by the first reply posted by MikeInFl, and I could see why, but I re-read that post and noted that he stated that he suspected... Which is practically the same as saying, in my opinion. Now granted, he was blunt and (I believe) much harsher in the way he expressed his opinion than I would think appropriate, but I also believe he clearly presented a compelling case, one to consider, though one I am not prepared to completely accept, for whatever reasons. Okay so his post did grate against a nerve or two, he wasn't obnoxious, and he presented some really good examples for consideration. I don't know Gobrechts99Grapevine, but I certainly get the distinct impression he is the gentleman that you assert, and I really don't like to see someone like him get abused through an public forum thread, but I would also hope that he doesn't feel like he is being abused by me, when I see the other poster's points and cede that he has presented his case well.
Now as to "hijacking" the thread, forum threads mirror general conversations in their character, and as such, the conversation often drifts off point, without anyone who was participating intending to "hijack" the conversation. It just happens, and it is more likely to happen when a conversation is "good", as people tend to simply walk away if it is mediocre, and especially so if it boring or simplistic. The use of the word "hijack" is laden with strong negative connotations, and it isn't the same as saying the thread "has drifted off topic", not the same at all. So similar to the original post to which you objected, in which the poster clearly could have made his point with less confrontational wording, you also could have used less confrontational wording, do you not agree?
I apologize for my own contributions to this thread drifting off topic. I was torn between posting an apology (which in itself continues the drift) and simply letting it go. So I have decided to leave off further posting after this response. I am also greatly appreciative of the original poster's sharing stunning images of his personal collection. I still love blue copper.
Finally, a bit of irony... The original poster's coins, which have been the subject of some (perhap rancorous) debate, are graded by PCGS, but the Centavo, which I still love for it's beauty (to me) was just posted online by PCGS to be "Genuine 92 Cleaned". PCGS Link But do you think that will now cause me to sell it? Not a chance!
I hope the final resolution of this thread leaves everyone willing to accept that the others are all honorable gentlemen as well. Again I apologize for my contribution to the subject drifting off topic.
<< <i> So similar to the original post to which you objected, in which the poster clearly could have made his point with less confrontational wording, you also could have used less confrontational wording, do you not agree? >>
I suppose that you have me there. Again I apologize for my confrontational attitude towards Mike. BTW, I still love Blue copper too.
I must say that the direction this thread has gone has been quite the eye-opening experience for me, but I don’t regret it one bit. MikeInFL was blunt and perhaps somewhat insensitive in the way he expressed his concerns, but coin doctoring is a real problem and a perfectly legitimate issue – though it may be irrelevant regarding ANY of the coins the pictures of which I’ve posted in this thread, despite what MikeInFL thinks.
Today I received an email from a friend of mine (who wishes to remain anonymous) which I’ve copied, pasted, and transformed into my final two paragraphs below. To the extent that he doesn’t describe himself, let me just say that this person specializes in early copper, silver and nickel “type” coins and copper coins in general. He has a rather large and valuable coin collection of his own, and he is highly suspicious of (and death on) even the slightest hint of artificial toning – what he calls the doctoring – of coins. He is widely regarded as a Lincoln expert as well as being, as I can personally attest, a man of the highest integrity.
My friend has held both my “brown” and “blue” 1915 PR67BNs in his hand and told me that he’s "99% sure" (because, he says, nothing is 100% sure)” that BOTH coins are NATURALLY toned. Referring specifically to the blue 1915 he wrote in an email, “I believe the toning is completely natural. Obviously, PCGS agrees.” Although MikeInFL has since deleted the post, as I recall he wrote that he was "95% sure" the blue one was ARTIFICIALLY toned and "85% sure" the brown one was also AT (MikeInFL never having held either coin in hand). There is no doubt in my mind as to whose experience and which opinion I give the greater weight.
As an total aside, last year this same friend told me that the brown 1915 was “the most beautiful toned Lincoln I have ever seen,” but now that he’s seen the blue one he says he likes the blue 1915 better! He does still concede that the brown one has “the more dramatic, interesting toning.”
The following two paragraphs comprise all of his email of earlier today to me:
“I have been collecting and dealing in coins since the early to mid 1970's, well before the slabbing companies came into existence. Decades ago MPLs were not popular at all, and except for the 1909 VDB MPL, they could be had quite inexpensively. I saw many blue-toned brown MPLs, and I know MS-70 wasn't available at that time. Toned coins weren't particularly popular, and most collectors opted for red examples. I can't say that nobody experimented with chemicals to see their effects on coins, but unlike today, most wanted their silver coins blast white and copper coins red or, in a pinch, they would accept RBs.
Not only that, I have never seen a high grade brown uncirculated Lincoln cent with the blue toning the MPLs seem to manifest. I believe they can tone naturally that way in varied environments and I believe the microscopic hills and valleys on the MPLs matte surfaces contributes to the rather unique toning seen on many such matte proof Lincolns. That's part of their charm. In fact, I have never seen a doctored Lincoln cent or Indian head cent that, once re-colored to red, ever held that color for longer than a year without irregular, tell-tale blotches appearing. I have seen large cents that had been cleaned and then re-colored to brown or RB, but that treatment becomes obvious after about two years.”
I am not kidding,
G99G I collect 20-slab, blue plastic PCGS coin boxes. To me, every empty box is like a beating heart NOT.
People come up sometimes, and ask me, G99G, are you kidding? And I answer them no, I am NOT KIDDING.
As someone who has collected toned coins for many years, believe me when I say that for every single attractively toned coin, there is at least one person who will confidently declare it as being AT. As was pointed out earlier in the thread, the whole point of attempts at artificial toning is to (fraudulently) duplicate the beautiful handiwork of Nature, upon which many of us justifiedly place a high value. This often leads some observers to forget the plain fact that many of the very best toners are in fact naturally toned. On the other hand, it is also extremely difficult to find coins that haven't been messed with somewhere along the line ... these are just conditions of the hobby that we must accept.
I chose to collect toned Morgan dollars because of their unique history of decades of storage in sealed Mint bags, which in turn produced spectacular and undeniably natural toning. While it is true that attempts are always being made to duplicate such toning for financial gain, the fact remains that thousands of colorful naturally toned Morgan dollars do exist.
Similarly, for other type coins, it is a simple fact that unintentional, natural, and often (but not always) attractive toning occurred from storage in envelopes, coin rolls, cabinets, and most notably coin boards and albums. Yes, there are greedy criminals and fraudsters who work in their little labs, defacing our coins with their chemical brews. But that doesn't change the fact that toning is quite often entirely legitimate.
Remember - untoned "brilliant" "white" coins are just as often the result of artifice and tampering. Some even call it "conservation," and make a business out of it. So who's to say what a 100 year old coin should actually look like? We can only look at lots of coins, educate ourselves, and make our choices accordingly from the offerings that are out there.
<< <i>The following two paragraphs comprise all of his email of earlier today to me:
“I have been collecting and dealing in coins since the early to mid 1970's, well before the slabbing companies came into existence. Decades ago MPLs were not popular at all, and except for the 1909 VDB MPL, they could be had quite inexpensively. I saw many blue-toned brown MPLs, and I know MS-70 wasn't available at that time. Toned coins weren't particularly popular, and most collectors opted for red examples. I can't say that nobody experimented with chemicals to see their effects on coins, but unlike today, most wanted their silver coins blast white and copper coins red or, in a pinch, they would accept RBs.
Not only that, I have never seen a high grade brown uncirculated Lincoln cent with the blue toning the MPLs seem to manifest. I believe they can tone naturally that way in varied environments and I believe the microscopic hills and valleys on the MPLs matte surfaces contributes to the rather unique toning seen on many such matte proof Lincolns. That's part of their charm. In fact, I have never seen a doctored Lincoln cent or Indian head cent that, once re-colored to red, ever held that color for longer than a year without irregular, tell-tale blotches appearing. I have seen large cents that had been cleaned and then re-colored to brown or RB, but that treatment becomes obvious after about two years.” >>
Do you still believe the veracity of this individual?
I will ask the same question I asked earlier in this thread -- where are the pictures of these blue indians/MPLs from years gone by? Where are the auction descriptions? The ones I've seen (to include the new chapter in Rick's book) indicate "iridescent" coloration with multiple colors, yet many of these coins are monochromatically blue/purple.
Where's the basic physics that says that thin films occur in a constant thickness (and therefore constant color)? Sunnywood, I'd appreciate your perspective on this.
Or is the most straightforward answer the right one -- that something added to the coin (like a soap) is causing the coloration we're seeing, and those that are either invested in these coins or are dealing in them are simply denying the obvious (and painful) answer?
You tell me....Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
I have auction catalogs from the late 70s/early 80's and they do describe many MPLs and proof IHCs to be violet or a derivation of in color. However, I do believe there are more now than 30 years ago.
As I mentioned that I would do earlier in the post, and being a curious collector by nature, I bought two bottles of substances to experiment with on inexpensive bronze cents, as you invited me to do: One bottle of MS70 and one bottle of JAX green patina formula. Here is what I found from putting both substances on pre-1940 Lincoln Cents after both cleaning the pennies with soap and water and applying the substances on the cents as I found them. The cents were all in very nice condition with some mint red showing in every case upon purchase, and I did not experiment with valuable coins. I only experimented on a small number of Lincoln Cents out of my high regard and respect for both coin collecting and my fellow collectors. Ethically, I did not want to take perfectly good cents and alter them needlessly.
MS70: Cleaned the dirt off of pennies that had been soaked in water, and not been soaked in water. The substance was applied with a Q-Tip and did (eventually) cause a light blue patina on the coins. By 'eventually' I mean a dozen applications and over a period of many days. But the blue color did not form immediately and it was more of a light blue cast then a true thick "BLUE" that I have seen on the very deep blue-patina MPLs shown in this thread. It just did NOT look like that. It looked 'fake'. I will have photos to attach after my vacation (at the end of August).
JAX: In all cases, the JAX substance, added with a Q-Tip and allowed to sit overnight as directed, created a thick "blue-green" crust of oxidized verdigris that was both unsightly and ruined the surface of the few coins I tried. It could be removed with a silver thiouria dip sold at the local pharmacy, but the pennies never looked 'right' again. In no case was the patina attractive.
As an aside, I have found *acetone* used as a copper cleaner to be reactive with copper and very unpredictable to how it will behave on copper surfaces (much against the common thinking that acetone on copper is inert).
That's what I found. Maybe there are methods that someone could use to create the blues that we see in the coins in this thread, but it was not as simple as just applying the substances to the surface of the coin, from my experience. And in no cases did the coins look like the high level proofs from this thread. In fact, I found the opposite to be true. The pennies lost all eye appeal and were dark and ugly.
Of course your experience or experiments were/are different, so I invite you to explain as I have how one can get that heavy blue look we see, as I could not replicate. But I'm convinced it is not by using MS70 or JAX by any of the methods that I tried.
Sincerely, Duane
Edited to add: Just to be exact, the MS70 DID tone copper (it toned the copper a more natural copper color as opposed to the unnatural 'pink' of newly cleaned or dipped copper), but did NOT tone any of the tested coins deep blue. Duane
Mike, I thought you were going to buy my book AND READ IT!
(2nd ed. Whitman series)
There is a whole chapter that answers most of your questions.
(For example Louis Elaisberg's cents which were purchased in the 1930's have vivid blue toning, with the exception of the coins that were in the Clapp collection 1893 onward, I believe).
Actually what I did was cut the auction descriptions from the catalogs so unfortunately I do not have reference to the exact auction in every case. I do have the cut-outs and can show you the next time we meet. In any case, you will just have to accept that what follows is the word for word description.....
Lot 1813..1919 Choice Matte Proof-65. Chestnut and purple natural toning. A few microscopic flects are visible under magnification. One of the nicest matte Proofs of this date to come on the market in recent time. Sold for $400.
Bowers and Ruddy Sept 1982 Lot 994....1911 matte Proof-60. Purple and gold, dull, streaked surfaces. thinck raised rims and squared borders, no one will ever doubt this one. Sold for $165.
Bowers and Ruddy Sept 1982. lot 277. Choice Matte Proof-65. violet and gold oning. With thick squared rims and borders. carce and still greatly undervalued. Sold for $425.
1915 Matte Proof-65..Iridescent brown.
1910 Matte Proof-60. Very attractive mauve toning.
Bowers and Ruddy June 1981. Lot 2769. 1914 Choice Matte proof-65. With virtually full original mint color at the centers, toning toward sthe borders. Extraordinary with so much original color, for when Matte Proofs were released by the Mint they were wrappped in tissue which contained sulfur and which tarnished them varying degrees of brown and purple. A prize item. Sold for $700.
NERC Nov 1981 Lot 986. 1916 Matte proof-65, superb iridescent toning on obverse, red and brown reverse. Sold for $600
1910 Matte proof 63, satiny surfaces with superb, sharp strike. Reverse mostly brilliant fading to brown at the edges. Obverse mostly brown with a hint of blue and gold toning from Libert'ys face down into the fields.
Bowers and Ruddy Jan 1982 Lot 1322. 1913. Iridescent green and rose toned Matte proof-60. Sold for $190
1913 matte proof-63. toned a deep brown with blue-green iridescent highlights. Sold for $180
1910 Choice matte proof-65. Brown surfaces with claret and sea-green toning. Beautiful.
1911 Choice Matte proof-65. Brown surfaces with iridescent toning, predominately sea green. A few microscopic flecks.
Bowers and Ruddy March 1982 Lot 1187. 1909 Lincoln. Select matte Proof-63, rich sunset to violet tones, and not far from the gem category. Sold for $550.
Many descriptions simply said "toned" so I have no idea what that really means.
Now I didnt set out to save any auction descriptions on the IHC, but since IHCs are usually listed near--on opposite or same page as Lincolns, I do have a few auction descriptions on them.
1879 MS-63 Select uncirculated with purple rose tones. 1883 Purple toned proof-60 1885 Select proof-63 brilliant obverse, iridescent on the reverse. 1909 Indian, proof-60 violet and sunset colors. 1888 Choice proof-65 light brown and rich blue toning. 1906 Choice proof-65, irregular violet and blue tones.
1913 Choice Matte Proof-65. A few flecks on the obverse. The obverse is a gold and magenta color. The reverse is light brown and sea green.
Comments
<< <i>Acetone may be inert, but it can react with copper to cause the copper to turn a number of different colors, including colors in the blue family. >>
I have not seen this in my experiments with acetone, MEK, or xylene. Not saying it's untrue, but just that I've not been able to reproduce such an effect....Mike
<< <i>Acetone may be inert, but it can react with copper >>
No offense is intended Duane, but when one says that Acetone is inert (implication that it is inert to copper and bronze, which it is), then reaction with any copper or bronze coin is, by definition of the word 'inert', not possible. I have personally never seen a change in toning, even to the slightest degree, when I have used acetone to remove contaminants from bronzes, but I will admit that I have never viewed the results at greater than 10X magnification, so I leave open the possibility that it may have affected what has been referred to in this thread as 'skin'. I assume any such alteration would be microscopic in effect, and thus not noticeable at 10X magnification. If by "skin", one means luster, then I also can testify that I have never noted a change in luster that could not be attributed to removal of the contaminants that prompted me to use acetone in the first place.
<< <i>From what I've heard, acetone IS inert with respect to uncontaminated copper, but God forbid there's any PVC residue, which can react to acetone, and often leads to "wild" toning that just looks unnatural. >>
Again, I mean no offense to renomedphys. However, where I have used acetone to remove PVC contamination (whether light, moderate or heavy), I have never noted any toning. The reason for using acetone to remove PVC residue is due to the fact that it essentially 'melts' any plastic, thereby making it easier to get the residue off without (further) damaging the copper or bronze (or cupronickel) coin. If the residue is heavy, then it is quite likely that noticeable pitting will be observed after removal, but that pitting was there to start with - the previous PVC residue simply masked it. Now if one is not careful to remove all PVC residue, then when the acetone evaporates, it will re-adhere to the coin, and perhaps that could cause the wild "toning" that renomedphys may have observed, but I submit that isn't toning as much as remaining PVC residue, which is now more uniform, and which would tend to do what plastics do to light, i.e. simultaneously reflecting and diffusing, producing a host of possible 'rainbow' colors. There may also be (light) interference patterns, much like the interference pattern seen when a thin layer of oil floats on water. But if you are careful to ensure removal of all PVC residue, then you will not see any 'toning' whatsoever.
In the words of the song, "I could be wrong now, but I don't think so".
That was a great post! And based on my limited metallurgical experience, absolutely accurate. I also take issue with the word "inert" preferring "non-reactive with respect to" but my patience is often taxed when writing posts, and I seldom find all the words to express ideas eloquently, as you have.
Empty Nest Collection
Matt’s Mattes
<< <i>
<< <i>Acetone may be inert, but it can react with copper >>
No offense is intended Duane, but when one says that Acetone is inert (implication that it is inert to copper and bronze, which it is), then reaction with any copper or bronze coin is, by definition of the word 'inert', not possible. I have personally never seen a change in toning, even to the slightest degree, when I have used acetone to remove contaminants from bronzes, but I will admit that I have never viewed the results at greater than 10X magnification, so I leave open the possibility that it may have affected what has been referred to in this thread as 'skin'. I assume any such alteration would be microscopic in effect, and thus not noticeable at 10X magnification. If by "skin", one means luster, then I also can testify that I have never noted a change in luster that could not be attributed to removal of the contaminants that prompted me to use acetone in the first place.
<< <i>From what I've heard, acetone IS inert with respect to uncontaminated copper, but God forbid there's any PVC residue, which can react to acetone, and often leads to "wild" toning that just looks unnatural. >>
Again, I mean no offense to renomedphys. However, where I have used acetone to remove PVC contamination (whether light, moderate or heavy), I have never noted any toning. The reason for using acetone to remove PVC residue is due to the fact that it essentially 'melts' any plastic, thereby making it easier to get the residue off without (further) damaging the copper or bronze (or cupronickel) coin. If the residue is heavy, then it is quite likely that noticeable pitting will be observed after removal, but that pitting was there to start with - the previous PVC residue simply masked it. Now if one is not careful to remove all PVC residue, then when the acetone evaporates, it will re-adhere to the coin, and perhaps that could cause the wild "toning" that renomedphys may have observed, but I submit that isn't toning as much as remaining PVC residue, which is now more uniform, and which would tend to do what plastics do to light, i.e. simultaneously reflecting and diffusing, producing a host of possible 'rainbow' colors. There may also be (light) interference patterns, much like the interference pattern seen when a thin layer of oil floats on water. But if you are careful to ensure removal of all PVC residue, then you will not see any 'toning' whatsoever.
In the words of the song, "I could be wrong now, but I don't think so". >>
FWIW, I agree 100% with the above post. Well said, sir....Mike
Rich is a great (If you don't believe me, check these out) and passionate collector. He is very proud of his MPL's and he should be. An attack on his coins was not deserved, nor was it requested.
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
Holy Carp!!!!!! What a tremendous collection!!!! Congrats on what must be a lifetimes effort.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Without seeing the coins in hand, it is difficult to pass judgement.
Also the fact is that some of the toned copper out there may have been curated to reveal their toning. These coins hid their original toning under 50-100 years on accumulated gunk. This gunk of the ages will hide the luster/toning and make the coin a "crusty" brown with no life. Remove it with acetone/lacquer thinner/MS70/Verdigone or anything else that takes gunk off (goo gone?) and it will expose the hidden toning and hidden luster. I am not condoning curation, just stating facts.
From what I have seen in 35 years in this hobby, this type of toning with iridescent toning over deep brown patina cannot be manufactured at will. It came from over 25 years sitting in tissue paper from the mint sales office. Some copper patterns have it, many Proof Indian and Lincolns, some early copper too.
There is an acetone effect which can make red copper and some MS coins turn colors, but this is not what we are talking about here. These Matte Proofs have a deep, deep patina that is not manufactured.
Now, say what you believe, but please read the chapter in my 2nd edition of A Guide Book of Flying Eagle and Indian Cents, p.248. Toned Proof Indians and Matte Proof Lincolns are all detailed in a whole chapter there. But, you have to buy it and read it there, I won't republish it here. I think this chapter alone is the entire reason for rebuying the 2nd edition.
2nd Edition FE&I Book by Snow $19.95
edited to add italics
Sincerely,
Duane
However, I'm a big boy and my mother always used to tell me that "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me." Calling my coins AT is even one step further removed from calling ME names. Moreover, I'm a big believer in freedom of speech and I'm comfortable letting the post go wherever it goes. I subscribe to what Art Carney, playing Ed Norton, told Jackie Gleason, playing Ralph Kramden, in the Honeymooners. Ed Norton said something like, "Ralphie boy, we have a saying down in the sewers [Norton was a sewer worker; note all of the watery allusions]: When the tide of life turns against you, and you feel you can't bridge the moat, don't waste your tears on what might have been, just lay on your back and float."
This argument reminds me of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" In my view as the country industrialized during the 19th century the atmosphere became polluted with corrosive chemicals. Continuing economic growth put many chemicals like ammonia in people's homes, offices and factories, and they would use them for different things, like cleaning glass cabinets, and the fumes would sometimes react with contents, as might other materials (such as ink and paper and burlap sacks) that came in close physical proximity or touched the contents, often over a long period of time. And sometimes "the contents" happened to be coins.
So what exactly is the difference between applying a chemical, say ammonia, to a glass cabinet over a period of 20-50 years and having the fumes react with the contents as opposed to doing it all at once? That's hard to say, it may look exactly the same or it may look very different because of the different methods of application. But what difference does it make if you find a chemical in nature, or if a chemical reaction is an unintended byproduct of human activity, or if the chemical is knowingly and intentionally applied? What is the difference between ascorbic acid and vitamin C? Answer: nothing. There is no difference. So what's the difference between getting your vitamin C from eating an orange and eating a pill? Answer: nothing, except for the other stuff that's in the orange and the other stuff that's in the pill.
In my view what's key in MikeInFL's gracious response to my quiz is that he really isn't claiming to be 100% sure about even one coin! How could he be? He hasn’t even held the coins in hand. And his pointing to the absence of spots is easily explained by the coins being 67's and very high end 66's. I posted a total of 11 coins. Four were 67's, six were 66's and only the VDB is a 65, where a sharp eye will notice a spot near the tip of the right wheat stalk. Maybe that's what served to suggest to MikeInFL that it's likely NT, but it's also what stands between it and a 66 holder. And how and why was the artificial toning chemical applied to the obverse of the 1914 but not the reverse? And why is the center of the obverse different than the periphery of the obverse? How might that have been done artificially?
I like to carry reasoning to its logical conclusion, whether regarding dancing angels or toned coins. I don’t know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and concerning the 11 coins I posted photos of, MikeInFL doesn’t know and doesn’t even claim to know whether they are AT or NT. He thinks so, but he does not know so. He cannot measure it, is unable to prove it and does not even claim to be 100% sure that he is right. He is entitled to his opinion but I think he overstates it by calling it "the truth (as I see it)". More accurate, in my view, would be to simply say that it is his opinion, it is what he strongly suspects is true, and it is what he sincerely believes. The actual fact of the matter is that MikeInFL doesn’t really know if his opinion about these coins is the truth or not.
Edited for correction: I did post 11 coin photos of which four are PR67s, but there are five PR66s and the VDB and Matt's blue 1912 are both PR65s.
I am not kidding,
G99G
I collect 20-slab, blue plastic PCGS coin boxes. To me, every empty box is like a beating heart
People come up sometimes, and ask me, G99G, are you kidding? And I answer them no, I am NOT KIDDING.
Every empty box?
C'mon!
<< <i>Rich, I'm sorry your feel good , light hearted thread got hijacked into another AT/NT debate. You don't deserve that unless you asked for it, which I don't think was your motivation for starting the thread. It started as a thread to showcase one of your prized MPL's and compare it's appearance with another member's prize. But certain member/s thought it necessary to railroad the whole atmosphere of the thread into their agenda. Here is a man who spent many thousands of dollars on these coins only to someone come in and systematically point AT on virtually every one of them. I don't recall Richard asking for this diagnosis. If you want a thread on the AT/NT debate, start one. This thread wasn't asking.
Rich is a great (If you don't believe me, check these out) and passionate collector. He is very proud of his MPL's and he should be. An attack on his coins was not deserved, nor was it requested. >>
Bob,
Clearly the title to this thread is a question. To me, questions are posed as requests for answers/opinions. Perhaps you feel that Rich's title was rhetorical, but that was not the way I interpreted it.
Also, I didn't attack anyone or anybody's coins. I simply stated my honest opinion. If you view that as an attack, I'm not sure what to say other than I'm sorry you feel that way.
Regardless, it seems clear that you would prefer nothing but happy talk. However, if I were in your shoes, I would like to know the honest opinions of those reading the thread -- even the ones that had something "bad" to say about my coins -- but I can also understand just how difficult of a pill to swallow what I'm saying is. It was difficult for me as well when someone told me for the first time, and even more difficult when I reproduced the effects myself and figured out what's really going on with these coins.
But in the end each of us have to arrive at our own "truth", and I truly hope that your journey is an enjoyable one, despite our butting heads in this thread.
Take care...Mike
<< <i>With due respect, I have to weigh in and say that I have to disagree with 75% of what MikeInFla has posted as being true. >>
Hi Rick, As probably the single largest purveyor of these coins, it doesn't surprise me that you would disagree with much of what I said, however what 75% do you disagree with? If I'm wrong, I would certainly appreciate to know where, and I'm sure the rest of those reading the thread would also welcome knowing what to believe and what not to believe.
<< <i>Also the fact is that some of the toned copper out there may have been curated to reveal their toning. These coins hid their original toning under 50-100 years on accumulated gunk. This gunk of the ages will hide the luster/toning and make the coin a "crusty" brown with no life. Remove it with acetone/lacquer thinner/MS70/Verdigone or anything else that takes gunk off (goo gone?) and it will expose the hidden toning and hidden luster. I am not condoning curation, just stating facts. >>
If this were to be true, and given that toning on coins is a thin layer, then the toning would have had to be there before the 50-100 years of "gunk" had accumulated. How do you explain this apparent paradox?
<< <i>From what I have seen in 35 years in this hobby, this type of toning with iridescent toning over deep brown patina cannot be manufactured at will. It came from over 25 years sitting in tissue paper from the mint sales office. Some copper patterns have it, many Proof Indian and Lincolns, some early copper too. >>
OK, so how many of the coins posted in this thread have a "deep brown patina" and YOU believe are NT? Where are pictures of all these copper patterns, proof IHCs and MPLs toned, and why are none of the original sets that I've seen toned this way?
Listen, I truly am only seeking the truth here. I have stated my case and provided pictures and justifications for my position. If I am wrong, I want to know and will be the first admit it. Please show me where I am mistaken.
Respectfully...Mike
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
<< <i>I'm sorry I must have missed the part in the question where it was asked if it were AT, NT, messed with or the use of MS70. To me the question asked was if they were stored in the same place or stored under similar conditions. I must just be narrow minded thinking that stored under similar conditions is the same as apply MS70 under similar conditions. The point isn't that I want to read happy threads, it was my interpretation of the title of the thread that it wasn't seeking an answer to the AT/NT debate. If I'm wrong I apologize. I've read my share of those debates, the spirit of this thread just didn't seem to be asking for that answer. >>
Bob, There is no need to patronize me. Regardless, I see what you mean now. The question was posed as: Is (a) or (b) true, and I answered (c). I'm sorry if (c) got your feathers ruffled and took the thread in a direction that the OP didn't intend and you didn't like. I am sorry and I apologize....Mike
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
Now as to "hijacking" the thread, forum threads mirror general conversations in their character, and as such, the conversation often drifts off point, without anyone who was participating intending to "hijack" the conversation. It just happens, and it is more likely to happen when a conversation is "good", as people tend to simply walk away if it is mediocre, and especially so if it boring or simplistic. The use of the word "hijack" is laden with strong negative connotations, and it isn't the same as saying the thread "has drifted off topic", not the same at all. So similar to the original post to which you objected, in which the poster clearly could have made his point with less confrontational wording, you also could have used less confrontational wording, do you not agree?
I apologize for my own contributions to this thread drifting off topic. I was torn between posting an apology (which in itself continues the drift) and simply letting it go. So I have decided to leave off further posting after this response. I am also greatly appreciative of the original poster's sharing stunning images of his personal collection. I still love blue copper.
Finally, a bit of irony... The original poster's coins, which have been the subject of some (perhap rancorous) debate, are graded by PCGS, but the Centavo, which I still love for it's beauty (to me) was just posted online by PCGS to be "Genuine 92 Cleaned".
I hope the final resolution of this thread leaves everyone willing to accept that the others are all honorable gentlemen as well. Again I apologize for my contribution to the subject drifting off topic.
<< <i> So similar to the original post to which you objected, in which the poster clearly could have made his point with less confrontational wording, you also could have used less confrontational wording, do you not agree?
>>
I suppose that you have me there. Again I apologize for my confrontational attitude towards Mike. BTW, I still love Blue copper too.
- Bob -
MPL's - Lincolns of Color
Central Valley Roosevelts
In a sense I brought it on myself... I was sure that someone was going to react badly to my words, so I can't really get mad when it happens.
Enjoy the long weekend, I'll catch up with you all in a few days...Mike
Today I received an email from a friend of mine (who wishes to remain anonymous) which I’ve copied, pasted, and transformed into my final two paragraphs below. To the extent that he doesn’t describe himself, let me just say that this person specializes in early copper, silver and nickel “type” coins and copper coins in general. He has a rather large and valuable coin collection of his own, and he is highly suspicious of (and death on) even the slightest hint of artificial toning – what he calls the doctoring – of coins. He is widely regarded as a Lincoln expert as well as being, as I can personally attest, a man of the highest integrity.
My friend has held both my “brown” and “blue” 1915 PR67BNs in his hand and told me that he’s "99% sure" (because, he says, nothing is 100% sure)” that BOTH coins are NATURALLY toned. Referring specifically to the blue 1915 he wrote in an email, “I believe the toning is completely natural. Obviously, PCGS agrees.” Although MikeInFL has since deleted the post, as I recall he wrote that he was "95% sure" the blue one was ARTIFICIALLY toned and "85% sure" the brown one was also AT (MikeInFL never having held either coin in hand). There is no doubt in my mind as to whose experience and which opinion I give the greater weight.
As an total aside, last year this same friend told me that the brown 1915 was “the most beautiful toned Lincoln I have ever seen,” but now that he’s seen the blue one he says he likes the blue 1915 better! He does still concede that the brown one has “the more dramatic, interesting toning.”
The following two paragraphs comprise all of his email of earlier today to me:
“I have been collecting and dealing in coins since the early to mid 1970's, well before the slabbing companies came into existence. Decades ago MPLs were not popular at all, and except for the 1909 VDB MPL, they could be had quite inexpensively. I saw many blue-toned brown MPLs, and I know MS-70 wasn't available at that time. Toned coins weren't particularly popular, and most collectors opted for red examples. I can't say that nobody experimented with chemicals to see their effects on coins, but unlike today, most wanted their silver coins blast white and copper coins red or, in a pinch, they would accept RBs.
Not only that, I have never seen a high grade brown uncirculated Lincoln cent with the blue toning the MPLs seem to manifest. I believe they can tone naturally that way in varied environments and I believe the microscopic hills and valleys on the MPLs matte surfaces contributes to the rather unique toning seen on many such matte proof Lincolns. That's part of their charm. In fact, I have never seen a doctored Lincoln cent or Indian head cent that, once re-colored to red, ever held that color for longer than a year without irregular, tell-tale blotches appearing. I have seen large cents that had been cleaned and then re-colored to brown or RB, but that treatment becomes obvious after about two years.”
I am not kidding,
G99G
I collect 20-slab, blue plastic PCGS coin boxes. To me, every empty box is like a beating heart
People come up sometimes, and ask me, G99G, are you kidding? And I answer them no, I am NOT KIDDING.
Every empty box?
C'mon!
Empty Nest Collection
Matt’s Mattes
That's a beautiful 1914, and totally original, IMHO!
Empty Nest Collection
Matt’s Mattes
<< <i>Lee,
That's a beautiful 1914, and totally original, IMHO! >>
Agreed!
I am not kidding,
G99G
I collect 20-slab, blue plastic PCGS coin boxes. To me, every empty box is like a beating heart
People come up sometimes, and ask me, G99G, are you kidding? And I answer them no, I am NOT KIDDING.
Every empty box?
C'mon!
<< <i>LEE, where is that 14' NOW?!?!?!?! >>
Sold it to curly in April of 2007.
<< <i>
<< <i>LEE, where is that 14' NOW?!?!?!?! >>
Sold it to curly in April of 2007. >>
CURLY?!?!? WHERE IS THIS COIN????
I chose to collect toned Morgan dollars because of their unique history of decades of storage in sealed Mint bags, which in turn produced spectacular and undeniably natural toning. While it is true that attempts are always being made to duplicate such toning for financial gain, the fact remains that thousands of colorful naturally toned Morgan dollars do exist.
Similarly, for other type coins, it is a simple fact that unintentional, natural, and often (but not always) attractive toning occurred from storage in envelopes, coin rolls, cabinets, and most notably coin boards and albums. Yes, there are greedy criminals and fraudsters who work in their little labs, defacing our coins with their chemical brews. But that doesn't change the fact that toning is quite often entirely legitimate.
Remember - untoned "brilliant" "white" coins are just as often the result of artifice and tampering. Some even call it "conservation," and make a business out of it. So who's to say what a 100 year old coin should actually look like? We can only look at lots of coins, educate ourselves, and make our choices accordingly from the offerings that are out there.
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
<< <i>The following two paragraphs comprise all of his email of earlier today to me:
“I have been collecting and dealing in coins since the early to mid 1970's, well before the slabbing companies came into existence. Decades ago MPLs were not popular at all, and except for the 1909 VDB MPL, they could be had quite inexpensively. I saw many blue-toned brown MPLs, and I know MS-70 wasn't available at that time. Toned coins weren't particularly popular, and most collectors opted for red examples. I can't say that nobody experimented with chemicals to see their effects on coins, but unlike today, most wanted their silver coins blast white and copper coins red or, in a pinch, they would accept RBs.
Not only that, I have never seen a high grade brown uncirculated Lincoln cent with the blue toning the MPLs seem to manifest. I believe they can tone naturally that way in varied environments and I believe the microscopic hills and valleys on the MPLs matte surfaces contributes to the rather unique toning seen on many such matte proof Lincolns. That's part of their charm. In fact, I have never seen a doctored Lincoln cent or Indian head cent that, once re-colored to red, ever held that color for longer than a year without irregular, tell-tale blotches appearing. I have seen large cents that had been cleaned and then re-colored to brown or RB, but that treatment becomes obvious after about two years.” >>
Do you still believe the veracity of this individual?
Before:
After:
MS 70 experiment
I will ask the same question I asked earlier in this thread -- where are the pictures of these blue indians/MPLs from years gone by? Where are the auction descriptions? The ones I've seen (to include the new chapter in Rick's book) indicate "iridescent" coloration with multiple colors, yet many of these coins are monochromatically blue/purple.
Where's the basic physics that says that thin films occur in a constant thickness (and therefore constant color)? Sunnywood, I'd appreciate your perspective on this.
Or is the most straightforward answer the right one -- that something added to the coin (like a soap) is causing the coloration we're seeing, and those that are either invested in these coins or are dealing in them are simply denying the obvious (and painful) answer?
You tell me....Mike
Mike,
I have auction catalogs from the late 70s/early 80's and they do describe many MPLs and proof IHCs to be violet or a derivation of in color. However, I do believe there are more now than 30 years ago.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
As I mentioned that I would do earlier in the post, and being a curious collector by nature, I bought two bottles of substances to experiment with on inexpensive bronze cents, as you invited me to do: One bottle of MS70 and one bottle of JAX green patina formula. Here is what I found from putting both substances on pre-1940 Lincoln Cents after both cleaning the pennies with soap and water and applying the substances on the cents as I found them. The cents were all in very nice condition with some mint red showing in every case upon purchase, and I did not experiment with valuable coins. I only experimented on a small number of Lincoln Cents out of my high regard and respect for both coin collecting and my fellow collectors. Ethically, I did not want to take perfectly good cents and alter them needlessly.
MS70: Cleaned the dirt off of pennies that had been soaked in water, and not been soaked in water. The substance was applied with a Q-Tip and did (eventually) cause a light blue patina on the coins. By 'eventually' I mean a dozen applications and over a period of many days. But the blue color did not form immediately and it was more of a light blue cast then a true thick "BLUE" that I have seen on the very deep blue-patina MPLs shown in this thread. It just did NOT look like that. It looked 'fake'. I will have photos to attach after my vacation (at the end of August).
JAX: In all cases, the JAX substance, added with a Q-Tip and allowed to sit overnight as directed, created a thick "blue-green" crust of oxidized verdigris that was both unsightly and ruined the surface of the few coins I tried. It could be removed with a silver thiouria dip sold at the local pharmacy, but the pennies never looked 'right' again. In no case was the patina attractive.
As an aside, I have found *acetone* used as a copper cleaner to be reactive with copper and very unpredictable to how it will behave on copper surfaces (much against the common thinking that acetone on copper is inert).
That's what I found. Maybe there are methods that someone could use to create the blues that we see in the coins in this thread, but it was not as simple as just applying the substances to the surface of the coin, from my experience. And in no cases did the coins look like the high level proofs from this thread. In fact, I found the opposite to be true. The pennies lost all eye appeal and were dark and ugly.
Of course your experience or experiments were/are different, so I invite you to explain as I have how one can get that heavy blue look we see, as I could not replicate. But I'm convinced it is not by using MS70 or JAX by any of the methods that I tried.
Sincerely,
Duane
Edited to add: Just to be exact, the MS70 DID tone copper (it toned the copper a more natural copper color as opposed to the unnatural 'pink' of newly cleaned or dipped copper), but did NOT tone any of the tested coins deep blue. Duane
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>LEE, where is that 14' NOW?!?!?!?! >>
Sold it to curly in April of 2007. >>
CURLY?!?!? WHERE IS THIS COIN???? >>
I traded it for a 66BN. I believe it's down in Southern CA.
(2nd ed. Whitman series)
There is a whole chapter that answers most of your questions.
(For example Louis Elaisberg's cents which were purchased in the 1930's have vivid blue toning, with the exception of the coins that were in the Clapp collection 1893 onward, I believe).
<< <i>Please post them. >>
Actually what I did was cut the auction descriptions from the catalogs so unfortunately I do not have reference to the exact auction in every case. I do have the cut-outs and can show you the next time we meet. In any case, you will just have to accept that what follows is the word for word description.....
Lot 1813..1919 Choice Matte Proof-65. Chestnut and purple natural toning. A few microscopic flects are visible under magnification. One of the nicest matte Proofs of this date to come on the market in recent time. Sold for $400.
Bowers and Ruddy Sept 1982 Lot 994....1911 matte Proof-60. Purple and gold, dull, streaked surfaces. thinck raised rims and squared borders, no one will ever doubt this one. Sold for $165.
Bowers and Ruddy Sept 1982. lot 277. Choice Matte Proof-65. violet and gold oning. With thick squared rims and borders. carce and still greatly undervalued. Sold for $425.
1915 Matte Proof-65..Iridescent brown.
1910 Matte Proof-60. Very attractive mauve toning.
Bowers and Ruddy June 1981. Lot 2769. 1914 Choice Matte proof-65. With virtually full original mint color at the centers, toning toward sthe borders. Extraordinary with so much original color, for when Matte Proofs were released by the Mint they were wrappped in tissue which contained sulfur and which tarnished them varying degrees of brown and purple. A prize item. Sold for $700.
NERC Nov 1981 Lot 986. 1916 Matte proof-65, superb iridescent toning on obverse, red and brown reverse. Sold for $600
1910 Matte proof 63, satiny surfaces with superb, sharp strike. Reverse mostly brilliant fading to brown at the edges. Obverse mostly brown with a hint of blue and gold toning from Libert'ys face down into the fields.
Bowers and Ruddy Jan 1982 Lot 1322. 1913. Iridescent green and rose toned Matte proof-60. Sold for $190
1913 matte proof-63. toned a deep brown with blue-green iridescent highlights. Sold for $180
1910 Choice matte proof-65. Brown surfaces with claret and sea-green toning. Beautiful.
1911 Choice Matte proof-65. Brown surfaces with iridescent toning, predominately sea green. A few microscopic flecks.
Bowers and Ruddy March 1982 Lot 1187. 1909 Lincoln. Select matte Proof-63, rich sunset to violet tones, and not far from the gem category. Sold for $550.
Many descriptions simply said "toned" so I have no idea what that really means.
Now I didnt set out to save any auction descriptions on the IHC, but since IHCs are usually listed near--on opposite or same page as Lincolns, I do have a few auction descriptions on them.
1879 MS-63 Select uncirculated with purple rose tones.
1883 Purple toned proof-60
1885 Select proof-63 brilliant obverse, iridescent on the reverse.
1909 Indian, proof-60 violet and sunset colors.
1888 Choice proof-65 light brown and rich blue toning.
1906 Choice proof-65, irregular violet and blue tones.
1913 Choice Matte Proof-65. A few flecks on the obverse. The obverse is a gold and magenta color. The reverse is light brown and sea green.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>LEE, where is that 14' NOW?!?!?!?! >>
Sold it to curly in April of 2007. >>
CURLY?!?!? WHERE IS THIS COIN???? >>
I traded it for a 66BN. I believe it's down in Southern CA. >>
That baby needs to come up to northern CA!