That gold certainly is unusual.....I have read that many years ago, cyanide was used treat large cents (and half cents I suppose) to brighten them. Over the years they would slowly reoxidize, but not to a truly original color. This kinda, sorta looks like it could be the case here, sans gold spots maybe. It does not look like the typical acid dip and treated with Deller's Darkener. To add - I do not think you could do much to positively alter the coin.....maybe keep it exposed to warm air for a long period of time to let it continue to oxidize?
Other than the aforementioned acetone, I don't know what can be done to the gold color.
Have the stars been tooled?
HH
Need the following OBW rolls to complete my 46-64 Roosevelt roll set: 1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S. Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
<< <i>If it wasn't a coin I would say paint remover. >>
Isn't acetone a primary component of paint remover?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>Looks like it may have been poorly plated to pass as a $5 Gold piece >>
Very unlikely since $5 represented a lot of money back then and gold coins received a lot of scrutiny due to the prevalence of real counterfeits in circulation at the time.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
my only thought is that the yellow only seems to take place where any remaining luster would be.... thus it was probably improper storage over a long period of time?
<< <i>If it wasn't a coin I would say paint remover. >>
Isn't acetone a primary component of paint remover? >>
I didn't have any Zip Strip around right now so I did some checking and yes, acetone is the main ingredient. I use Zip Strip on antique iron to get old paint off, that coin has the exact same look as a hitching post that has been stripped.
<< <i>If it wasn't a coin I would say paint remover. >>
Isn't acetone a primary component of paint remover? >>
I didn't have any Zip Strip around right now so I did some checking and yes, acetone is the main ingredient. I use Zip Strip on antique iron to get old paint off, that coin has the exact same look as a hitching post that has been stripped. >>
just a cautionary note.... I couldn't help but notice methyl ethyl ketone as an ingredient in some paint thinners. This organic solvent is quite powerful, volatile, and will melt plastics. Wear gloves if posible and definitely use this stuf in a well ventilated space! MEK is about the strongest organic solvent I've ever used.
Leo
Collecting: Dansco 7070; Middle Date Large Cents (VF-AU); Box of 20;
Coinpictures, Your photos have awesome saturation. Is this gold tone exaggerated? In hand does it look much milder? I've seen similar toning on many near unc large cents and wouldn't totally rule out NT. More likely, it is just something on the surface. The oil and brush technique that EACers use should do it. --Jerry
Many of these were surprisingly brassy in color when new due to alloy variances. Possibly, it's original color because it's all in protected areas with mint luster. If it were plated, there would be gold in the denticles.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
<< <i>Coinpictures, Your photos have awesome saturation. Is this gold tone exaggerated? In hand does it look much milder? I've seen similar toning on many near unc large cents and wouldn't totally rule out NT. More likely, it is just something on the surface. The oil and brush technique that EACers use should do it. --Jerry >>
Hi Jerry,
I do my best not to overaccentuate color in my photos. The gold/yellow in hand is as it appears in the pictures. The only potential difference is that the coin overall is darker in hand unless you're under direct lighting; not uncommon when photographing copper - showcasing the coin in a brighter light so as to expose more detail.
But as for color, it's on the money.
Right now I'm struggling with whether or not to keep the coin or return it. It clearly has issues, but it also has character. I'm into the coin for a C-note. What do you think?
Not a bad coin for the price paid - maybe a little high given that it's not original. Yes, it has issues, and would not slab, but it is not unattractive. An original, choice AU would run maybe around ~$175 or so. If it bothers you, or you are a purist, return it, and pay more and get the real deal. These coins are not hard to locate.
it's possible that it was cleaned/dipped and then re-colored with something like Deller"s Darkener or some other paste and the lighter color at recessed areas and around the devices is the result of a poor job.
I'm at work now and can't see the photos. If I were you I would probably keep it and try to conserve it, more for fun than anything else. If you aren't interested in conserving it then I would make the decision based on eye appeal in hand.
I see one respected forum member thinks it may be tooled so I would check that out too.
<< <i>I believe that this coin has been boinked severely and is also tooled. Have this one checked. >>
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the technical term "boinked". Also, what details do you believe to be tooled? >>
Hey CP, First off, this is not a series I have specialized in, but with that said after I looked at the date on this piece my eye went straight to the thirteenth star. It just did not look right. I then looked at stars one and two and they also do not look right. Most of these pieces that I recall seeing have generally poor star detail to begin with, this one looks like someone tried to possible enhance the stars. As for the term boinked. It is a kind of catch-all word meaning that the coin has been worked on. I believe that this one might have had some detail smoothed in some way. But please have this checked by a copper guy.
I guess I'm missing the tooling diagnostics. When I compare the star details to that on the closeup images for this MS66 at Heritage, the stars look almost identical.
I can't see the photos now but stars vary a lot. They get full of "grease" which is really gunk. Or the strike can affect the stars. It is not unusual at all to have stars vary a lot on a coin. So it could be that the lower stars are good and the other stars are poor.
Comments
the other half is what happened to the rest of the coin.
IMHO nice for type, and a shame.
Can't hurt to try!
<< <i>Looks like it may have been poorly plated to pass as a $5 Gold piece
That was my first thought - gold plating.
To support LordM's European Trip, click here!
To add - I do not think you could do much to positively alter the coin.....maybe keep it exposed to warm air for a long period of time to let it continue to oxidize?
Have the stars been tooled?
HH
1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S.
Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
<< <i>If it wasn't a coin I would say paint remover.
Isn't acetone a primary component of paint remover?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>Looks like it may have been poorly plated to pass as a $5 Gold piece
Very unlikely since $5 represented a lot of money back then and gold coins received a lot of scrutiny due to the prevalence of real counterfeits in circulation at the time.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
remaining luster would be.... thus it was probably improper storage
over a long period of time?
I'm not sure anything needs to be done.
I like pieces like this makes you think.
<< <i>
<< <i>If it wasn't a coin I would say paint remover.
Isn't acetone a primary component of paint remover? >>
Sometimes.
<< <i>
<< <i>If it wasn't a coin I would say paint remover.
Isn't acetone a primary component of paint remover? >>
I didn't have any Zip Strip around right now so I did some checking and yes, acetone is the main ingredient. I use Zip Strip on antique iron to get old paint off, that coin has the exact same look as a hitching post that has been stripped.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If it wasn't a coin I would say paint remover.
Isn't acetone a primary component of paint remover? >>
I didn't have any Zip Strip around right now so I did some checking and yes, acetone is the main ingredient. I use Zip Strip on antique iron to get old paint off, that coin has the exact same look as a hitching post that has been stripped. >>
Other ingredients in different paint thinners:
# Acetone
# Mineral turpentine
# True turpentine
# Naphtha
# Toluene
# White spirit
# Xylene
# Methyl ethyl ketone
just a cautionary note.... I couldn't help but notice methyl ethyl ketone as an ingredient in some paint thinners. This organic solvent is quite powerful, volatile, and will melt plastics. Wear gloves if posible and definitely use this stuf in a well ventilated space! MEK is about the strongest organic solvent I've ever used.
Leo
Successful BST transactions with: SilverEagles92; Ahrensdad; Smitty; GregHansen; Lablade; Mercury10c; copperflopper; whatsup; KISHU1; scrapman1077, crispy, canadanz, smallchange, robkool, Mission16, ranshdow, ibzman350, Fallguy, Collectorcoins, SurfinxHI, jwitten, Walkerguy21D, dsessom.
Bob
Lordmarcovan, WTCG, YogiBerraFan, Phoenin21, LindeDad, Coll3ctor, blue594, robkoll, Mike Dixon, BloodMan, Flakthat and others.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
<< <i>Coinpictures, Your photos have awesome saturation. Is this gold tone exaggerated? In hand does it look much milder? I've seen similar toning on many near unc large cents and wouldn't totally rule out NT. More likely, it is just something on the surface. The oil and brush technique that EACers use should do it. --Jerry >>
Hi Jerry,
I do my best not to overaccentuate color in my photos. The gold/yellow in hand is as it appears in the pictures. The only potential difference is that the coin overall is darker in hand unless you're under direct lighting; not uncommon when photographing copper - showcasing the coin in a brighter light so as to expose more detail.
But as for color, it's on the money.
Right now I'm struggling with whether or not to keep the coin or return it. It clearly has issues, but it also has character. I'm into the coin for a C-note. What do you think?
1/2 Cents
U.S. Revenue Stamps
Have this one checked.
I see one respected forum member thinks it may be tooled so I would check that out too.
--Jerry
<< <i>I believe that this coin has been boinked severely and is also tooled.
Have this one checked. >>
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the technical term "boinked". Also, what details do you believe to be tooled?
1/2 Cents
U.S. Revenue Stamps
<< <i>
<< <i>I believe that this coin has been boinked severely and is also tooled.
Have this one checked. >>
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the technical term "boinked". Also, what details do you believe to be tooled? >>
Hey CP,
First off, this is not a series I have specialized in, but with that said after I looked at the
date on this piece my eye went straight to the thirteenth star. It just did not look right. I
then looked at stars one and two and they also do not look right. Most of these pieces that
I recall seeing have generally poor star detail to begin with, this one looks like someone tried to possible
enhance the stars.
As for the term boinked. It is a kind of catch-all word meaning that the coin has been worked on. I believe that this one
might have had some detail smoothed in some way. But please have this checked by a copper guy.
1/2 Cents
U.S. Revenue Stamps
--Jerry