Coin Week/Greg Reynolds: "Collecting and Appreciating Naturally Toned Coins, Part 3"
Goldbully
Posts: 17,513 ✭✭✭✭✭
This is quite an extensive article on the topic.....kudos to Greg Reynolds.
In Part 1, I frame the topic and put forth the perspectives of very accomplished collectors regarding natural toning. As I discuss in Part 2, preferring coins with natural toning is a tradition at the core of coin collecting culture in the United States
Here in Part 3, I maintain that strongly favoring naturally toned coins goes beyond collector opinions and tradition. There have always been logical reasons for determining that coins with natural toning and/or mostly original surfaces are superior.
1.) Coin collecting has been a popular and serious pastime for around 150 years in the United States, and there has always been a strong tradition of valuing, all else being equal, coins with mostly original surfaces and/or natural toning over those that have been treated with acids (including dipping), artificially toned, surgically altered or otherwise deliberately affected by chemicals.
2.) The damage this causes to the layers of a coin's surface is, to some extent, irreparable. The original state of the coin can never be restored, and will never fully return on its own. Parts of the coin are destroyed and, while some coins can largely recover, portions of the nature and history of such damaged coins are lost forever.
Please note that I am referring primarily to rare or at least scarce old coins. Usually, recently minted coins are minimally or not noticeably toned. So not much toning is destroyed when a modern coin is dipped in a standard acidic solution. For high-quality rare coins, dipping or ‘conservation’ almost always destroys toning.
Typically, a coin will be much brighter after it is dipped, and some will thus conclude that the coin’s luster is not impaired. Luster is the way that the metal flow lines on a coin reflect light. When layers are stripped via dipping, the characteristics of the flow lines are changed. The coin may end up being brighter than it was before, or even brighter than it was the moment it was minted, but destruction still occurred, however, and metal was removed.
Jeff Ambio very much agrees with statement number two. Ambio is the author of three recent books on coins and is a cataloguer for leading auction firms and coin dealers. He has analyzed and written about thousands of U.S. coins, including innumerable rarities.
“I believe that, if more collectors understood this point, it would really help to the put the coin doctors out of business,” he says.
Dipping changes the texture of a coin. Ambio and I agree that the toning that occurs after dipping--natural or not--will be different from the toning that would have occurred had the coin never been dipped.
There are subtle or sometimes blatant differences in the original finishes of coins. For example, Joe O’Connor mentions that some classic commemoratives were made with “matte textures”, while others were minted with “frosty finishes”. Still others are “semi-prooflike”.
I maintain that, in the 19th century, there were a substantial variety of differences in the finishes of coins, most of which are almost impossible to explain yet are important to examine. Dipping often takes much away from a coin.
Jeff Isaac has a different view.
“Coins with original surfaces that are dipped properly will not lose any discernible luster from the dipping bath," he says. "I completely disagree that a coin that has been properly dipped has been damaged. Furthermore, there are different dipping solutions, some of which are more gentle than others that can remove the surface toning and residue without doing practical harm to the coin’s surface. It is wrong to condemn a dipped white coin. Toned coins, when dipped properly in the right solution, can look like they just came off the minting press. I like this look, as it brings me back in time, imparting a feeling of what it was like at the time the coin was made. Additionally, a bright untoned coin will not have hidden flaws that may exist under a toned coin’s surfaces. Beautiful toning may mask flaws.”
Isaac has been handling coins professionally since 1979, having begun collecting them in 1976. In the late 1980s and early '90s, he was one of the nation’s leading wholesalers of rare coins and the successful bidder for some major rarities on the auction circuit. Additionally, Isaac was a grader at Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS) for a short term and he was twice employed as a grader by Numismatic Guaranty Corporation (NGC) for a total of about four years. He is now an independent contractor for a major coin firm.
Article continues here........http://www.coinweek.com/us-coins/collecting-appreciating-naturally-toned-coins-part-3/
Comments
Good information in this post. One point lacking, is that tarnish itself is environmental damage to the surface of the coin....damage that indeed can be visually removed, but never corrected. So, it must be understood, that 'original surfaces', with tarnish, are already damaged... the metal has chemically joined with contaminants and thus changed the molecular surface. Cheers, RickO
One thing not even opined upon is how it is that some very early copper has been found and tremendously valued in original mint red. How could this be? An untoned coin from this early period must have been dipped. I have seen three or four nearly white gem and superb gem halves that I believe might be the equivalent of red early copper. Although mostly white they have an uncanny fresh frosty surface. Of course just after toning is burning of the coins surface as evidenced by many newman silver coins stored in envelopes. So do others believe an early silver coin could be mostly white and never dipped?
Just to clarify i don't believe some of the early red copper pieces with spectacular original red were dipped, just that with early silver on extremely rare occasions also might have been preserved.
I am grateful for the attention from Goldbully, who I know disagrees with many of my viewpoints. As I indicate elsewhere on this forum, I believe that members should not take personally differences of opinion and philosophy. A great aspect of this forum is that a provides a setting for knowledgeable numismatists to debate topics and express conflicting points of view.
Ricko:
Except for coins that are kept in some kind of very sophisticated laboratory, with the intention of preventing exposure to elements, all coins are always toning. In some cases, toning is not visually apparent to human eyes, without a microscope, though toning is always occurring. One reason why it is counter-productive to say that all toning is damaging is that this would mean that all old coins in private coin collections are damaged. Every coin in an album, a PCGS holder and/or in a typical safe-deposit box has toned and is still toning, as is every coin in a home-safe. Copyright 2017 Greg Reynolds
GoBust:
Although exceptions are theoretically possible, pre-1840 silver coins cannot be entirely bright-white without having been artificially brightened at some point. Of course, such a coin could be very much white, maybe with bright centers, light to medium toning in the outer fields and darker toning about the periphery.
There have been mammals from long ago who were frozen, while alive, in ice in Northern Russia, and found by explorers centuries later. Of course, it is possible that a silver coin could have been unintentionally preserved in some incredible way after having been minted and then 'cracked out' of its 'container' decades or centuries later. In some cases, it makes sense to think about probabilities, rather than about events that are theoretically possible, but are almost impossible.
I discuss dipping in articles that were published after that series in 2009.
Understanding Classic U.S. Coins and Building Excellent Coin Collections, Part 2: Dipped Coins
GoBust:
First, many coins with full red designations have been dipped or artificially colored. There are or recently were coin doctors who specialize in turning brown or somewhat red copper coins full red and submitting them to TPGs with the idea of receiving full red designations. If GoBust is buying copper coins, he should hire an honest expert to examine them.
Second, every year, full red coins lose some red color. The loss may or may not be apparent after a decade. Richard Burdick and I are in agreement that some of the Lord St Oswald coins that were in the Walt Husak Collection had brighter and more red when we saw them in 2007 than the same exact coins have in the present. I can provide examples in another setting.
Third, in the sense that Lincolns and Indian cents are sometimes full red, there are no pre-1816 copper coins that are full red. Those that are designated as full red are deemed to be red enough. Gem quality early copper is one of my specialties. I have spent an inordinate amount of time viewing such pieces. I have written about many of them.
Is the Naftzger-Blay 1807/6 the only Gem Quality & Full Red ‘Early Date’ Large Cent?
Insightful10@gmail.com
Good reason to have your full red Indian cents Photo Sealed. I have been guaranteeing red copper Indian cents for over 20 years now and am confident that I can tell when a copper coin has been dipped. However, I must say that most all RB coins in RD holders got that way by misgrading, not by tampering. Also most full red coins that stay that way have not been tampered with. There is a look of originality that can't be faked. For anyone attempting to alter a brown or somewhat red copper coins to make it full red, I say forget it. It cannot be done without it being easily identified by me and the TPGs.
I would like to learn some of your techniques on when copper coins were dipped. I can tell when most coins were dipped but there are others that just can't get. That's one reason why I really don't collect copper red coins.
I think that being able to spot dipped coins in any metal comes with much experience and viewing of untampered with examples. One eventually learns what a coin should look like so that when viewing a tampered with specimen, it just doesn't look right.
Luster is created from the pressure of the dies and metal flowing into the recesses during striking and anything else simulating it, like dipping, doesn't create the same look, although it can be pretty close.
And silver coins can remain untoned for very long periods of time. Roman silver is sometimes found untoned and with full original luster and is pretty close to full white, without dipping, after 2000 years. It all comes down to environment, chemicals and catalysts present.
@Analyst ... While you point that coins are always tarnishing (I use the scientific term, not the politically correct term), you neglect two facts. The rate of tarnish is dependent upon the environment - i.e. if stored in a nitrogen sealed container, a silver coin would not tarnish. The second point is, whether you like it or not, it is again, scientifically accurate to say that tarnish is damage. And yes... all tarnished coins are damaged. Just because you deem it counter-productive does not change reality. I deal in facts, not marketing hyperbole.
Cheers, RickO
@ricko "tarnish" can be removed without any trace that it was there. In most cases, unless the "tarnish" has become terminal, you could never prove your point. There are many, many, coins that can be conserved (or whatever you want to call it) and even you with a 10x loupe could not tell it was there. I suppose you keep your coins in a "nitrogen sealed container"? I'm sure you have a very nice collection of white coins, but what do you do when one, or most, of them begin to be "damaged" by a regular environment? Do you just toss them out as problem coins? Id that's the case I have a whole set of State quarters in a Dansco album that I need to get rid of. I also need to write about every album and flip maker and tell them how their products are damaging to my coins and bad for the hobby. I think you're alone on this one.
If coin collecting was all just plain Jane blast white coins, I wouldn't even be in this hobby. Its the uniqueness in which the (mostly) silver coins tone from the specific conditions they are stored in. Its amazing for me to see some of the special works of art that almost seem unrealistic. How could nature turn itself into something like that. Toning is a natural process. It happens to raw silver in the wild. To call it damage is ridiculous. Especially considering you seem to be the only one on your board when it comes to this issue.
A few days ago I posted a pic of this Merc. dime I just obtained from the BST forum. You bad mouthed it, while everyone else loved it. I'm going to do a poll (if I can figure out how to do one) what the consensus is on a toned coin. Your comments every time someone posts a new toned coin get old. We know your, stance, and its a small one. I have a degree in environmental science. I studied on many subjects, including earth science and the periodic table and how those elements react with each other. No aren't teaching me anything.
So, that being said, I'm going to stop hijacking this thread and try this poll thingy out.
Cheers
I am in the camp that feels that most toned coins are superior to those restored/cleaned, even "properly." Part of the discussion is a matter of taste, though. As Ricko alludes to, the toning or tarnish is itself a form of "damage" to a coin. So leaving the coin alone with toning/tarnish results in a form of damaged coin, and dipping a coin to remove tarnish is a form of damaged coin. Seems you can't win. Some prefer white coins, others toned. I get that. What about uneven or blotchy toning that most find unsightly? I am not opposed to properly cleaned coins, but still prefer beautiful toning over white coins in most cases.
A thought came to me after reading the above great discussions and points of view. I recently had the opportunity to view the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel on a visit to the Vatican. They have painstakingly removed soot and dirt from the ceiling to make it brighter and more reflective of the original look and colors painted by Michelangelo. They did leave a patch or two of "uncleaned" work to show the difference and it is striking. I think most of us appreciate the look of the cleaned ceiling, despite whatever "damage" was done to the original artwork. From a value standpoint, the Sistine Chapel and the ceiling seem unlikely to ever be sold and I can't imagine the value of the art was damaged by the restoration.
A stable naturally toned silver coin will continue to tone at a significantly slower rate than a fresh bright white coin as the reactants can't reach the silver surface as easily. More toned coins for me!
@CommemKing - Congratulations on your degree. Now go back and review some of the things you should have learned. Tarnish is damage...just as rust on steel is damage. It is the molecular joining of metal with contaminants (i.e. sulfur is usually in the case of silver). When it is removed, some of the silver leaves with it. I do not care at all if you like it. That is your opinion. And no, I am not alone on these boards... certainly not in the majority, but there are others that prefer non-tarnished coins. As to my point, it is clearly provable... when tarnish is removed, luster (which is part of the surface metal) also leaves... not completely, but it is affected with each dipping. Eventually, dipped enough, no luster will remain. I do not like tarnish and I will state that whenever I choose to comment on tarnished coins. If that upsets you, skip my comments. Collect what you like, as I do. Have a nice day and bless your heart......Cheers, RickO
That's an amazing report on Roman silver and precisely the issue I raised. Some artifacts through history are preserved in environments almost as new. So it is possible that on rare occaisions that copper or silver clings could have a very slow oxidative process, be mostly red or white and original. Such a coin would also have blazing luster. Exactly what I am talking about. Perhaps only a one in ten thousand event.
Many many variations in natural environments occur all the time. About ten years ago, i picked up a pristine in the box 1928 keystones airplane made with 30 inch wings. These are composed of painted steel with decals. I thought it was unbelievable but bought it. It was 100% original with some very light oxidation. Was found in an abandoned toy store in Mexico. Shouldn't exist but there it was.
No one knows the complete history of all of the fabulous high condition coins the first century of our American mint. Anyone who states they do are fooling themselves.
I prefer lovely original toned coins. I am not a fan of dipped coins, but I do understand it can remove urregular or ugly toning. It's fine by me if someone likes white, flashy coins.
I was simply making the point that I have seen some incredible early silver US (a very very few) that I suspect have never been dipped, just preserved by happenstance. And their luster and just-made appearence are amazing. The coins do have a frosty, light silvery toning but are typically still called white by most, but IMHO are a different beast entirely.
EagleEye:
There are coin doctors who derive a large portion of their respective incomes from doctoring coins and then submitting them to PCGS and NGC with the idea of receiving numerical grades. Of course, they do not always receive numerical grades on coins that they have doctored. The same coin may be re-submitted many times. Nonetheless, there are many successful coin doctors and this continues to be the most serious problem in the coin community. Every day, copper coins are doctored with the intention of submitting them to TPGs for higher numerical grades or more valuable designations than were previously assigned to the same respective coins.
The Specter of Coin Doctoring and The Survival of Great Coins
In Scott Travers' Coin Collectors Survival Manual, there is an interview of a coin doctor who turns brown coins red and doctors copper coins in other ways. Privately, I have interviewed coin doctors. There are many, and I mean many, cases of brown coins being modified and then receiving full red designations from TPGs. I have seen countless examples over the last quarter-century.
Ricko:
Of course, natural toning is largely a product of the environment in which a coin resides. Above, I employed an analogy by referring to mammals that were frozen in ice, while they were alive, and were thus miraculously preserved for scientists to study centuries (or millennia?) later, and I said above:
'Except for coins that are kept in some kind of very sophisticated laboratory, with the intention of preventing exposure to elements, all coins are always toning. In some cases, toning is not visually apparent to human eyes, without a microscope, though toning is always occurring. One reason why it is counter-productive to say that all toning is damaging is that this would mean that all old coins in private coin collections are damaged. Every coin in an album, a PCGS holder and/or in a typical safe-deposit box has toned and is still toning, as is every coin in a home-safe. Copyright 2017 Greg Reynolds'
No one is disputing the point that Ricko is entitled to his philosophical views. In this forum, however, it is counter-productive to argue that all toning is damaging.
Indisputably, almost all coin collectors find some degree or kind of toning to be desirable. I have proven that the leading coin collectors of classic U.S. coins over the last century prefer toned coins to those that were artificially brightened. Please read my three part series on collecting naturally toned coins, the third of which is the topic of this thread.
Here is Part 2 (from 2009) - Links to all three should appear at the respective bottom of each.
Dr. Pete:
First, modifying art, especially art that is publicly displayed in a city with pollution, is a concept different from modifying coins. Second, there is more to the story regarding the Sistine Chapel. The supposedly unmodified sections remaining may not be indicative of the entire pre-conservation appearance and there are less-aggressive forms of cleaning than those that were employed.
I was fortunate to have known the late James Beck, long-time chairman of the department of art history at Columbia University and one of the foremost experts in the world regarding art in the region now known as Italy. Professor Beck forcefully argued that this "restoration," cited by Dr. Pete, did irreparable damage to the Sistine Chapel. He was opposed to this 'restoration" and Beck said this "restoration" was not just a matter of removing dirt; colors and texture were forever transformed. Suppose, hypothetically, (and I am not expressing an opinion nor am I drawing a conclusion) that this "restoration" did terrible damage to the Sistine Chapel, would the management of the Sistine Chapel acknowledge as much to visiting tourists?