@You said:
So to quote Rick, "Now, by now we all should know the true answer as to why the copper coins are blue is that the chemical didn't produce it – the chemical uncovered what was already there." Then why doesn't this happen if acetone is used? It's only for MS70, but acetone also reveals what is underneath the surface. And why is it that the blue tone from MS70 usage can easily be removed with a variety of methods? It's obviously produced by the MS70 and not just being uncovered. That spot of nonsense makes me lose faith in the rest of Rick's post.
You all keep mentioning the "scientific process." The thing is, it is much more difficult to prove that something exists than that it doesn't exist. I can't prove that natural blue business strike (by which I mean not proof or made from proof-like dies or with mirror fields, just plain old circulation coinage) copper cannot exist, but it is possible to prove that it does. I have not been presented with any evidence that it does exist, but have seen hundreds of examples of blue circulation strike copper on the market that have clearly been MS70ed. Therefore I will continue to believe that it doesn't exist.
Acetone does not strip off the patina like MS70 does, acetone is much milder chemical and acts as a solvent to dissolve mostly organic material and it can soften and dislodge larger debris. Patina is typically made up of alot more stuff than organics that acetone does not remover when MS70 typically will.
"Therefore I will continue to believe that it doesn't exist." 'You' can believe what you want of course, like I said numismatic myths die hard. Why don't you do some experiments? I have, I will report them here when I get the time in a separate thread.
'I have not been presented with any evidence that it does exist, but have seen hundreds of examples of blue circulation strike copper on the market that have clearly been MS70ed.'
That may or may not be NT or it could be MS70 reacting with something on the surface of the copper but not the copper itself. Cu as a metal, will not react with a strong basic detergent. MS70 may react with something else on the Cu surface. So sure there are lots of cents out there with the MS70 look - that greasy luster and complete removal of patina and sometimes blue, but that is a separate issue of whether that piece of copper has natural blue-red,-green-purple toning. The MS70 look is a uniform tepid blue, different from the natural toned look on copper with blue and other colors.
@OldIndianNutKase said:
I found a circulated roll of IHC's that I have owned for over 60 years. I searched that roll for any coins that have any blue or green coloration and found the following examples:
The 1897 (lower left) seemed to be the best candidate for an MS70 trial which consisted of application 20-30 seconds followed by a warm soap water bath. Before MS70 the obverse:
And after the MS70 dip and soap water bath it looked like this:
I find this demonstrates that clue/green toning can exist on the coin before the dip and that after that dip the color just becomes more visible. From this I conclude that MS70 did not create the color, but it did remove some of the dingy brown color that lies over the top of the color toning.
I appologize for the phone pictures, but I was anxious to test the theory rather than showcase my photographic skills.
OINK
All of those coins look like they have environmental damage. That color doesn't look like any sort of toning, artificial or not, but more like PVC or something.
Yes MS70 removed some stuff and clearly left the blue gunk/toning/whatever you wanna call it, there so it could be better observed...........
Each coin has a unique environmental history. Each coin thus could react differently to MS70 given the kinds of compounds on the surface. But, it, does, not, react, with, Cu, metal. Period.
@spacehayduke posted: "That may or may not be NT or it could be MS70 reacting with something on the surface of the copper but not the copper itself. Cu as a metal, will not react with a strong basic detergent. MS70 may react with something else on the Cu surface. So sure there are lots of cents out there with the MS70 look - that greasy luster and complete removal of patina and sometimes blue, but that is a separate issue of whether that piece of copper has natural blue-red,-green-purple toning. The MS70 look is a uniform tepid blue, different from the natural toned look on copper with blue and other colors."
So who has the money to put this subject to rest with actual tests on the coins? It has to be very simple with the right machines. It will not be a TPGS. However, If we all keep the heat on, someone will publish a paper with a spectrographic analysis. I'll give it a year before it is done.
BruceS.: Copper oxidizes green/ aqua for the most part, look at the statue of liberty, which is/was the world's largest copper statue. What color does it look like? It [is definitely] not brown.
My understanding is that copper is red after being refined, then turns brown via exposure to oxygen, and later green. Other colors may come from a variety of sources and chemical reactions.
Generally, the topics in this thread have already been covered, in more depth, in other threads, especially the thread about "The Sun and the Blue-toned Rooster" and a later discussion spawned by the 'Rooster' thread. There were some specific points in the Rooster thread that are very much pertinent to this thread, however, which I wish to raise anew.
Keets in the Rooster therad: There are more ingredients in MS70 besides lye ...
7Jaguars in the Rooster therad: There are other variables involved ,,, that may function as oxidants ... Clearly [a coin in "MS-70" solution does not lead to the] simple reaction that we would like, and so obviously difficult to replicate except under strictly controlled circumstances.
CameoNut, in the thread that inspired the Rooster thread, said: I'm still looking for better resources, but in ancient times lye (KOH) and Copper(II) sulfate were used to produce Cu(OH)2 as a blue dye. We have copper, lye, and sulfur.
If so, combinations of lye, copper and copper sulphate were known long ago to generate "blue dye"! Could any one, two or three of several other substances become involved, besides copper sulphate, and generate blue color as well?
CameoNut2011 in the Rooster thread: Here is an excerpt from a journal article suggesting that copper can catalyze a reaction with acetone to form acetic acid which then in turn reacts with elemental copper to produce blue crystals. ... I think the issue is far more complicated than any of us believe it is.
This post, which is thought-provoking, is consistent with an earlier statement of mine in that thread: Whether on the coin, in the atmosphere, in the container used, or coming from the person performing such procedures, other variables play a role besides copper, zinc, tin, and lye or acetone. Some coin doctors introduce such variables deliberately. In other situations, there may be items that react with lye or acetone entering the immersion process unbeknownst to the person conducting the procedure.
In the scientific article introduced by CameoNut, a particular statement is extremely pertinent.: This reaction does not occur in the absence of light. This suggests that copper acts as a photocatalyst for the reaction between acetone and water vapor.
So, a scientific article cited By CameoNut in the Rooster thread suggests that it is plausible that a certain variety of light and acetone together may be key factors in a process that brings about blue color on copper coins. Am I the only one who is intrigued by this notion? The surprisingly large number of chemists among us may wish to theorize about the additional variables that may be keys to generating blue color on copper.
@Insider2 said: @spacehayduke posted: "That may or may not be NT or it could be MS70 reacting with something on the surface of the copper but not the copper itself. Cu as a metal, will not react with a strong basic detergent. MS70 may react with something else on the Cu surface. So sure there are lots of cents out there with the MS70 look - that greasy luster and complete removal of patina and sometimes blue, but that is a separate issue of whether that piece of copper has natural blue-red,-green-purple toning. The MS70 look is a uniform tepid blue, different from the natural toned look on copper with blue and other colors."
So who has the money to put this subject to rest with actual tests on the coins? It has to be very simple with the right machines. It will not be a TPGS. However, If we all keep the heat on, someone will publish a paper with a spectrographic analysis. I'll give it a year before it is done.
It is not only having the money - $1-2K in analytical costs would likely do it, but also having the time and also having the right range in copper specimens to cover all possible outcomes. Doing this right is a couple weeks of analytical work spread across a few months - before, after, etc., with lots of interpretation of the results and then working out the chemical reactions afterwards. Would be a great study. Would be a great MS thesis dissertation, but probably not a practical one leading to sure employment for the student. It could be scaled down in scope, but without a systematic approach, I doubt if anyone would be convinced of the results....... We would all just continue to disagree.
I have submitted to PCGS many toned proof IHC's and they have all straight graded. I have submitted an equal number of IHC proofs that are RD and they have ALL been graded code .91 Questionable Color. Although I did submit one mint state IHC that I have owned over 60 years and it graded MS65RD.
I think it is much more common practice with coin doctors to make brown coins RD that it is to make them BN(blue). NT toned copper is the norm. RD copper that is over 100 years old is very rare. Most of the RD IHC's have been dipped, and some are MA and some are .91. Perhaps I should store my .91's iin a safety box in Panama in an old bank without air conditioning until they tone. Wonder how many years that might take? Can anyone suggest a better way? Other than MS70 which will not turn RD coins MS or PR blue.
.
.
Thought this was interesting in the MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET linked by cameonut2011:
SECTION VI - REACTIVITY DATA
INCOMPATIBILITY: ...Avoid contact with aluminum, tin, zinc, and alloys containing these metals...
I wonder how this was determined and what the effects are. Not sure if it has relevance to toning on cents or not. Though almost all small cents since 1864 have tin, zinc or both in their alloy.
.
.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
@WinLoseWin said: "Originally I posted this in the Blue Rooster thread. Interesting because that incompatibility note comes from the makers of MS70 themselves. INCOMPATIBILITY: ...Avoid contact with aluminum, tin, zinc, and alloys containing these metals..."
"I wonder how this was determined and what the effects are. Not sure if it has relevance to toning on cents or not. Though almost all small cents since 1864 have tin, zinc or both in their alloy."
Answer: testing on Tin and Zinc alloys I'll bet.
@OldIndianNutKase said: "I have submitted to PCGS many toned proof IHC's and they have all straight graded. I have submitted an equal number of IHC proofs that are RD and they have ALL been graded code .91 Questionable Color. Although I did submit one mint state IHC that I have owned over 60 years and it graded MS65RD.
I think it is much more common practice with coin doctors to make brown coins RD that it is to make them BN(blue). NT toned copper is the norm. RD copper that is over 100 years old is very rare. Most of the RD IHC's have been dipped, and some are MA and some are .91. Perhaps I should store my .91's iin a safety box in Panama in an old bank without air conditioning until they tone. Wonder how many years that might take? Can anyone suggest a better way? Other than MS70 which will not turn RD coins MS or PR blue."
OINK, most of what you say is true. There is a technique used to make copper appear "red" and original that has been around since the 1980's. These coins are in TPGS slabs. I have named the process "micro whizzing" which is not actually whizzing as under a microscope, no metal is raised at the edges of a coin's relief. Nevertheless, the surface is not original.
What I don't understand is in spite of several of us writing otherwise, you do not believe that MS-70 along with other things cannot change the color of a coin!
@spacehayduke said: "That may or may not be NT or it could be MS70 reacting with something on the surface of the copper but not the copper itself. Cu as a metal, will not react with a strong basic detergent. MS70 may react with something else on the Cu surface."
It is not only having the money - $1-2K in analytical costs would likely do it, but also having the time and also having the right range in copper specimens to cover all possible outcomes. Doing this right is a couple weeks of analytical work spread across a few months - before, after, etc., with lots of interpretation of the results and then working out the chemical reactions afterwards. Would be a great study. Would be a great MS thesis dissertation, but probably not a practical one leading to sure employment for the student. It could be scaled down in scope, but without a systematic approach, I doubt if anyone would be convinced of the results....... We would all just continue to disagree."
I disagree with both the time and the money. I've had many coins analyzed in the past. The labs were happy to do it and in two cases the technicians were coin collectors! $150 was the most I ever paid. That was decades ago and prices must have increased a little but not (?) what you say. I no longer have contacts since moving. All it takes is ONE coin that turns blue.
@Analyst posted: "In the scientific article introduced by CameoNut, a particular statement is extremely pertinent.: This reaction does not occur in the absence of light. This suggests that copper acts as a photocatalyst for the reaction between acetone and water vapor.
So, a scientific article cited By CameoNut in the Rooster thread suggests that it is plausible that a certain variety of light and acetone together may be key factors in a process that brings about blue color on copper coins. Am I the only one who is intrigued by this notion? The surprisingly large number of chemists among us may wish to theorize about the additional variables that may be keys to generating blue color on copper.
The Specter of Coin Doctoring and The Survival of Great Coins."
Depending on what kinds of contamination are on a brown copper coin in close to MS condition, a combination of acetone, soap, distilled water, and MS-70, can turn certain coins iridescent blue. Seen it and done it.
There is a technique used to make copper appear "red" and original that has been around since the 1980's. These coins are in TPGS slabs. I have named the process "micro whizzing" which is not actually whizzing as under a microscope, no metal is raised at the edges of a coin's relief. Nevertheless, the surface is not original.
Please go into more detail on how micro whizzing works. What is done to copper coins to make them appear more red?
Some refer to overgraded slabs as Coffins. I like to think of them as Happy Coins.
There is a technique used to make copper appear "red" and original that has been around since the 1980's. These coins are in TPGS slabs. I have named the process "micro whizzing" which is not actually whizzing as under a microscope, no metal is raised at the edges of a coin's relief. Nevertheless, the surface is not original.
Please go into more detail on how micro whizzing works. What is done to copper coins to make them appear more red?
I have no idea how it is done so this is what I can say for sure except for the laser part.
I look at coins using a stereo microscope. For that reason, I can see the surface of coins BETTER THAN anyone who does not use one. I have been doing this for a long time. I have learned what the surfaces of coins look like under high magnification and know what an original surface looks like. Sometime around the early 1980's, we began to see red Indian and Lincoln cents that were not original. They were mechanically altered and while characteristics of the alteration simulated frosty original luster to the eye, the magnified surface under the scope showed otherwise. Here is a crude example so you'll understand better if I was not clear:
There are degrees of whizzed coins. The really well-done ones look great to the eye - smooth, frosty w/no deep swirls, lines, or "halos." Once you learn what a whizzed coin looks like, you can spot them a mile away (even the deceptive ones) with your naked eye.
Back to micro-whizzing. The one characteristic we determined that differentiated a whizzed coin from a heavily buffed coin was a thin raised "lip" at the edge of the relief. The new alteration to copper cents had a SIMILAR (not identical) and easily detected (naked eye when you know what it looks like) sheen to the surface as a whizzed coin yet the alteration did not raise a "lip" - even under the scope. The process may have been the beginnings of laser alterations but remember this was being done decades ago, so who knows.
Anyway, for a long time, these coins were slabbed as mint state red. I have only seen one of these coins in the last year and it was raw. I should think that coins altered in this way would be detected these days at one of the four major TPGS. I still need a slabbed example for my collection of fake and altered coins but full, frosty, cherry-red Unc Indians and early mint marked Lincolns do not come cheap in a slab. The Holy Grail would be a 66 with a gold bean! That's NEVER going to happen.
PS There is no point posting an image (I'm sure I have a few somewhere) as the coin will look normal even blown-up. Your best defense is to examine full red, graded MS-65 and higher copper coins. If one that is altered turns up in a slab, you will see that it looks different. You will not know why, just that it looks different.
WinLoseWin on the producer's warning regarding the "MS70" product: 'SECTION VI - REACTIVITY DATA / INCOMPATIBILITY: ...Avoid contact with aluminum, tin, zinc, and alloys containing these metals' ... /... I wonder how this was determined and what the effects are. Not sure if it has relevance to toning on cents or not. Though almost all small cents since 1864 have tin, zinc or both in their alloy.
As Insider2 implies, in regard to items with tin or zinc, this revelation demonstrates that the manufacturer of the "MS70" product has a strong reason to conclude that "MS70" can change the color of the items immersed and/or significantly harms them. Generally, the manufacturers of products do not wish to discourage consumers from using their respective products. It is thus likely that there is an especially strong reason for such a warning.
OldIndianNutKase: I have submitted an equal number of IHC proofs that are RD and they have ALL been graded code .91 Questionable Color.
What were the sources for these? Were they certified when OldIndianNutKase purchased them?
OldIndianNutKase: I think it is much more common practice with coin doctors to make brown coins RD that it is to make them BN(blue). NT toned copper is the norm.
This is certainly true of business strike Indians and Lincolns. 70% to 99% red, pre-1850 Large Cents and Half Cents are subject to far more scrutiny. The graders at PCGS are more likely to be deceived by AT blue than by artificial full RED, in regard to pre-1850 copper. Also, as I have said in other threads, artificial blue may often be a byproduct of treatments for corrosion or of other conservation practices, rather than deliberate AT, again in regard to pre-1850 copper.
Insider2: There is a technique used to make copper appear "red" and original that has been around since the 1980's.
There are multiple techniques. Over the last quarter-century, I have been aware of several pro coin doctors who have turned brown coins with the intention of seeking full red designations from grading services. Indeed, I have met a few of them. Even so, I thank Insider2 for providing a fascinating explanation regarding one such technique.
@spacehayduke said: "That may or may not be NT or it could be MS70 reacting with something on the surface of the copper but not the copper itself. Cu as a metal, will not react with a strong basic detergent. MS70 may react with something else on the Cu surface."
It is not only having the money - $1-2K in analytical costs would likely do it, but also having the time and also having the right range in copper specimens to cover all possible outcomes. Doing this right is a couple weeks of analytical work spread across a few months - before, after, etc., with lots of interpretation of the results and then working out the chemical reactions afterwards. Would be a great study. Would be a great MS thesis dissertation, but probably not a practical one leading to sure employment for the student. It could be scaled down in scope, but without a systematic approach, I doubt if anyone would be convinced of the results....... We would all just continue to disagree."
I disagree with both the time and the money. I've had many coins analyzed in the past. The labs were happy to do it and in two cases the technicians were coin collectors! $150 was the most I ever paid. That was decades ago and prices must have increased a little but not (?) what you say. I no longer have contacts since moving. All it takes is ONE coin that turns blue.
You will disagree because that is what you do - okay then take the time and spend your money, it takes more than ONE coin that turns blue - it takes understanding WHY, IT, TURNS, BLUE, AND, WHY, OTHER COPPER, PIECES, DON'T. Haven't you got that yet? You still don't understand the scientific method? Never mind.
Wow. I've read through this "chemistry" discussion, and can't resist making a few polite comments.
Copper is found in nature both in its elemental metallic form and in a number of common minerals or salts.
Many, but not all, copper salts are blue to blue green in color. These include common copper salts such as the carbonate, sulfate, hydroxide, nitrate, and both chlorides.
Copper is a reactive element, and can form a protective blue - green patina with outdoor exposure. The exact composition can vary, but consists of a mixture of salts including copper carbonate, copper chloride, and copper sulfate.
Common brown patina of copper coins is due to a mixture of copper oxides which are actually either red or black. Such oxides are very stable, and generally preclude formation of other copper salts in the absence of chemical exposure.
Exposure to other substances such as moisture, sweat, air, etc. can result in formation of other copper salts which will alter coin appearance either positively or negatively. Formation of blue / green compounds is very common with copper.
MS70 contain sodium hydroxide (NaOH). This is a strong base that will react with some metals, but not metallic copper. Ammonium hydroxide is a different story. MS70 really acts as a cleaning agent for coins.
Coin collectors in general didn't do well in chemistry class in school. There are exceptions though.
"The vaccines work,” Trump said, adding that the people who “get very sick and go to the hospital” are unvaccinated.
“Look, the results of the vaccine are very good, and if you do get it, it’s a very minor form,” Trump continued. “People aren’t dying when they take the vaccine.”
Do your part, America 💉😷
You do not need any training in chemistry or metallurgy to clean coins properly. A really good (knowledgeable/experienced) teacher that may or may not know anything about chemistry is all that's needed as with experience he/she knows what works and what does not.
Yeah, yeah, if he/she knew chemistry, he/she may have learned their skills quicker and not gone down some dead end experimentation.
PS Even the very best "coin doctors" and professional conservators screw up on occasion.
@spacehayduke wrote: "You will disagree because that is what you do - okay then take the time and spend your money, it takes more than ONE coin that turns blue - it takes understanding WHY, IT, TURNS, BLUE, AND, WHY, OTHER COPPER, PIECES, DON'T. Haven't you got that yet? You still don't understand the scientific method? Never mind."
I disagree whenever something I know a little about does not compute. I also change my opinion when it can be demonstrated that I'm misinformed. As to this thread, we are on the same side silly and closer to agreement than it may seem.
IMO, all it takes is one coin (turned blue by chemicals) to see what is on the surface of the coin that caused the color. That will go a long way to discovering the "Why." It is a simple combination of acetone, MS-70, and one other thing (known by coin doctors) that I will not divulge needed to make proofs turn blue.
IMO, there is some contamination product on the surface of a particular brown coin (the ones that turn) that we also need to discover. It's the "before" and usually I cannot detect these UNTIL I clean them and they turn. It will possibly take more coins to detect the unstable ones that turn blue.
I took a nice uncirculated Indian with RB characteristics. Scrubbed it with MS70 and it turned blue. Later I dipped it and it turned that bright no color copper color that used to get the RED designation. The next day I MS70 it again and...........it turned blue. Case closed in my mind.
@EagleEye said:
So, following the diagram above, the OP's experiment failed because not all the coins changed color.
The answer to the question "Does MS70 turn copper blue" is therefore no.
When we ask "Under what conditions do copper coins turn blue with MS70" then we get to the truth. The only group of coins that turn blue are coins with some kind of coating on them prior to the treatment. This is a subset of all coins with coatings. Coating are dirt, debris, lacquer, shellac, etc.
Next question is "why do they turn blue". Here there is no straighforward answer because there are a multitude of coins with vastly different histories. I know that there were hoards of Proof Indian and Lincoln cents from 1878-1916 that are blue-toned. They came on the market in the late 1930's. These got blue toned by sitting in envelopes for over 50 years. Eliasberg had some in his collection.
The simple answer is that the toning was always there, but hidden by surface coatings. If you want to disagree, use the chart above and prove it. Just saying you saw the sun rise when the rooster crows isn't proof.
Curious. Why aren't you following the same chart?
Why should others be required to "prove it" but not you?
Because of a hoard of blue IHCs and the Eliasberg coins?
They prove nothing with respect to coins outside that group -- and even within the group it's hardly as proven as one might conclude from your response.
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
"I have not been presented with any evidence that it does exist, but have seen hundreds of examples of blue circulation strike copper on the market that have clearly been MS70ed. Therefore I will continue to believe that it DOESEN'T exist."
It's simple. Here's a comparative example: an atheist does not believe in a god because he has not been presented with any evidence that a god exists. The burden of proof lies on the person who says that "x" exists, whether it be a god or natural blue toning. There is no reason to believe something exists if there is no evidence that it exists.
Oh, All you needed to say was you do not believe a copper coin can turn shades of blue naturally! Sorry you believe that as you are uninformed. Perhaps one day you will have a chance to find one for yourself. An easy way is to store some AU copper Lincolns in various locations in contact with different materials. Do you have an attic, cedar chest, window sill? Leave a dozen or so around with 2-3 (in contact with different material) in the same location. Wait a few years...LOL.
Just because copper can turn blue naturally doesn't mean it occurred naturally on the coins in question -- which is the crux of Rick's (faulty, IMO) argument.
Or, to use the same analogy, just because Zeus exists doesn't mean Thor does.
And why be coy? Tell us all just how you think copper tones blue naturally, as apparently you believe it's just a matter of sitting a dozen coins out in different environments and waiting. Because I've been collecting and storing copper in many different locations for many decades -- and not a single one of them has toned blue naturally. The only way I can duplicate the blue color is using a coin with some skin and then dipping it in a base (like MS-70, but there are plenty of others, including simply laundry detergent, that do the same thing)...but perhaps I'm not doing it right.
Please, enlighten me.
Thanks...Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
@Wabbit2313 said: "I took a nice uncirculated Indian with RB characteristics. Scrubbed it with MS70 and it turned blue. Later I dipped it and it turned that bright no color copper color that used to get the RED designation. The next day I MS70 it again and...........it turned blue. Case closed in my mind."
Wow, now that is something I have NEVER heard of or seen done. Do you mind dipping the coin pink again and posting an image? Then turning it blue and posting an image? All I can write is wow!!
@MikeInFL said: "Just because copper can turn blue naturally doesn't mean it occurred naturally on the coins in question -- which is the crux of Rick's (faulty, IMO) argument."
I AGREE! I disagree with much of Rick's opinion.
@MikeInFL asked: "And why be coy? Tell us all just how you think copper tones blue naturally, as apparently you believe it's just a matter of sitting a dozen coins out in different environments and waiting. Because I've been collecting and storing copper in many different locations for many decades -- and not a single one of them has toned blue naturally. The only way I can duplicate the blue color is using a coin with some skin and then dipping it in a base (like MS-70, but there are plenty of others, including simply laundry detergent, that do the same thing)...but perhaps I'm not doing it right. Please, enlighten me."
Again I agree! Except that I have seen blue copper come out of cotton pouches from old collections that the folks who owned the coins did not touch! I don't have any idea about the history of the coins I look at anywhere UNLESS I'm the one who turned it blue myself while cleaning it. IMO, most blue copper has been MADE WITH THE HAND OF MAN.
I don't know why I need to repeat that IMO:
Copper coins can tone blue naturally.
Copper coins can be altered in several ways to make them blue.
I don't care, yet I wish I knew which brown coins I clean will turn blue and WHY! What causes which chemical to accelerate the change.
It is up to TPGS, dealers, and collectors to care. They must decide AT or NT.
PS @Wabbit2313 has done an experiment that has thrown a monkey wrench into the equation. Nevertheless, I'll guarantee there is something in the literature that will explain how to turn bright red copper iridescent blue CHEMICALLY.
I'm sorry you had to repeat yourself, and thank you for the clarification. However, (and with respect) Wabbit didn't do anything that hasn't been done and posted on this forum in the past. That history may be unfamiliar to you -- I don't recognize your name among those who were around when this came up in the past (it was quite a few years ago) -- but this topic is an old one.
All that said, I find myself agreeing with virtually everything you've said and I do appreciate the response....Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
On the topic of artificially toned copper, can anyone explain the obverse of this penny? https://www.pcgs.com/cert/81023000
Now this coin has OBVIOUSLY been artificially colored but I have never seen a silver-colored copper coin like this. It's not quite visible in the PCGS photo, where it just appears white, but I had this in hand today and it actually looks like silver - even though it's not of course. The rim is the only part that looks remotely coppery in color. What method of artificial toning could possibly cause that?
A VERY ugly coin, IMHO, I will take MS70 blue every day over this abortion. And PCGS graded it 69RB with all kinds of spots, even showing on the TrueView. That is not market acceptable toning.
@OldIndianNutKase said:
A VERY ugly coin, IMHO, I will take MS70 blue every day over this abortion. And PCGS graded it 69RB with all kinds of spots, even showing on the TrueView. That is not market acceptable toning.
OINK
Frankly PCGS doesn't give a damn about artificial toning on modern coins
I recently had the chance to think about this issue on a long drive home as it is boring driving across Indiana and southern Ohio. I will admit to not reading every single entry in this thread, nor every reference to other threads, etc. as I wanted to look at this from a different angle with a fresh set of eyes.
My current hypothesis is that perhaps the blue color comes from another element in the copper alloy. Most posts deal with the behavior of elemental copper, but the planchets are not pure copper. According to my old Red Book, small cents prior to the "1982 Zincolns" were made of 95% copper and 5% tin and zinc. No breakdown between the tin and zinc and I suppose that it is possible that the ratio between Sn and Zn has changed over time. In any event, I was now examining an an alloy with more than one element in play. I am not a metallurgist, but having worked in a foundry for 3 years, I know that interesting things happen with metal alloys and they can be quite complex.
If the planchet is homogenous (it may not be because it is possible that alloying elements can migrate to a surface during cooling), there is somewhere between 1% and 5% tin atoms on the surface. Viewed another way, up to one in twenty atoms are tin.
The literature indicates that there is in fact a stable tin oxide (SnO) compound that is blue-black in color and is formed in the presence of a strong alkali like NaOH or KOH. (present in MS70) I am encouraged by this but I have no way to test this hypothesis. Further, the blue coins I have seen tend to have a blue color that is transparent (or a "thin" layer) which suggests it is only on the surface and not "caked" on the surface.
This has been an interesting thread, I look forward to further commentary on my thoughts.
The original Cameonut.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
ADG: MS70 contain sodium hydroxide (NaOH). This is a strong base that will react with some metals, but not metallic copper.
CameoNut: My current hypothesis is that perhaps the blue color comes from another element in the copper alloy. Most posts deal with the behavior of elemental copper, but the planchets are not pure copper.
Did ADG and "the original CameoNut" read the posts by WinLoseWin and myself just a little earlier in this thread?
Again, WinLoseWin on the producer's warning regarding the "MS70" product: 'SECTION VI - REACTIVITY DATA / INCOMPATIBILITY: ... Avoid contact with aluminum, tin, zinc, and alloys containing these metals' ... /... I wonder how this was determined and what the effects are. Not sure if it has relevance to toning on cents or not. Though almost all small cents since 1864 have tin, zinc or both in their alloy.
As Insider2 implies, in regard to items with tin or zinc, this revelation, which was reported by WinLoseWin, demonstrates that the manufacturer of the "MS70" product has a strong reason to conclude that "MS70" can change the color of the items immersed and/or significantly harm them. Generally, the manufacturers of products do not wish to discourage consumers from using their respective products. It is thus likely that there is an especially strong reason for such a warning.
Maybe those who are knowledgeable about chemistry may expound further upon the issue of interactions between the ingredients in the "MS70" product and tin and/or zinc.
A few of us, in multiple threads, have now pointed out that there are additional variables, not just the ingredients in "MS70" and copper. Additional variables include, but are not limited to, humidity, particles in the air, soap, impurities in water, and varieties of light. It seems that other factors can play a role in unintentional coloration of copper coins during the use of the "MS70" brand product. Of course, intentionally adding color is a different topic. Is this thread about unintentional blue color?
There is an "elephant" in the room that many of us know about that is very helpful to produce the blue color on copper. I have not revealed it and I should hope the others who know what it is won't either. That includes some defenders of blue copper in this thread who I shall not name. BTW, I had another coin (AU-58 1835 1/2c) go blue on me when (due to inattention) my MS-70 was.... I turned it back to brown. LOL.
"I have not been presented with any evidence that it does exist, but have seen hundreds of examples of blue circulation strike copper on the market that have clearly been MS70ed. Therefore I will continue to believe that it DOESEN'T exist."
It's simple. Here's a comparative example: an atheist does not believe in a god because he has not been presented with any evidence that a god exists. The burden of proof lies on the person who says that "x" exists, whether it be a god or natural blue toning. There is no reason to believe something exists if there is no evidence that it exists.
Oh, All you needed to say was you do not believe a copper coin can turn shades of blue naturally! Sorry you believe that as you are uninformed. Perhaps one day you will have a chance to find one for yourself. An easy way is to store some AU copper Lincolns in various locations in contact with different materials. Do you have an attic, cedar chest, window sill? Leave a dozen or so around with 2-3 (in contact with different material) in the same location. Wait a few years...LOL.
Just because copper can turn blue naturally doesn't mean it occurred naturally on the coins in question -- which is the crux of Rick's (faulty, IMO) argument.
Or, to use the same analogy, just because Zeus exists doesn't mean Thor does.
And why be coy? Tell us all just how you think copper tones blue naturally, as apparently you believe it's just a matter of sitting a dozen coins out in different environments and waiting. Because I've been collecting and storing copper in many different locations for many decades -- and not a single one of them has toned blue naturally. The only way I can duplicate the blue color is using a coin with some skin and then dipping it in a base (like MS-70, but there are plenty of others, including simply laundry detergent, that do the same thing)...but perhaps I'm not doing it right.
Please, enlighten me.
Thanks...Mike
I posted the "Scientific Flow Chart" for a reason. It is because I followed the chart and it showed that the "IMO" arguments were bogus - just opinions. Hence the "IMO" caveat. I challenge anyone to prove their case using the scientific method.
This is settled fact from over ten years ago. I did the study, posted and published my findings and it is accepted by all those who know what I am talking about. The "IMO" crowd will always be there. They don't seem to want to read the articles, investigate the scientific analysis that went into it and tend to post theories and opinions. I call them flat-earthers.
I hope I don't come across as mean-spirited, but I do not like having a serious published and peer-accepted study questioned with opinion and alternate theories that don't hold up to scientific study.
Well, well, I sure would like to get some sodium pentothal into you as I'm 100% sure you know how the coin doctors turn Proof Indians blue. As an Indian Cent Expert and top dealer in these coins you must know in order to detect the natural "blue" from the "made-to-order "blue" I've seen. Not that you or I would alter anything on purpose.
PS It appears that when you saw a brown PR-65 Indian turned into a gem "blue" PR-66 as I have, you would still deny what you just saw happen. There is a lot of money in 'blue" copper. Perhaps we all should let this thread burn out and drop the subject.
@Insider2 said:
PS It appears that when you saw a brown PR-65 Indian turned into a gem "blue" PR-66 as I have, you would still deny what you just saw happen. There is a lot of money in 'blue" copper. Perhaps we all should let this thread burn out and drop the subject.
Like when the rooster crows, making the sun rise.
So far no one has been able to disprove my conclusions. I have been straight-forward with my study and have published my conclusions. It is on you to prove me wrong, which you can't.
PS It appears that when you saw a brown PR-65 Indian turned into a gem "blue" PR-66 as I have, you would still deny what you just saw happen.
Insider, please read and understand what you write. The brown PR65 IHC was blue under the brown. The "dip" just removed the upper toning layer without removing the underlying blue toning. As the OP's experiment indicates, as well as my own, you cannot turn a RD coin blue with MS 70. This is reasonably conclusive evidence that MS70 is not chemically reactive with copper. On the other hand NH3 vapor and SO2 va will turn copper blue (and green), but the result will not be very pretty, at least for me. But it might be better in a vacuum deposition chamber (vacuum.... meaning absent oxygen and nitrogen) but I do not have one.
You are correct saying that there are substances that will turn copper blue, but the commonly thought MS70 does not create the blue color, it only exposes the blue color.
"I have not been presented with any evidence that it does exist, but have seen hundreds of examples of blue circulation strike copper on the market that have clearly been MS70ed. Therefore I will continue to believe that it DOESEN'T exist."
It's simple. Here's a comparative example: an atheist does not believe in a god because he has not been presented with any evidence that a god exists. The burden of proof lies on the person who says that "x" exists, whether it be a god or natural blue toning. There is no reason to believe something exists if there is no evidence that it exists.
Oh, All you needed to say was you do not believe a copper coin can turn shades of blue naturally! Sorry you believe that as you are uninformed. Perhaps one day you will have a chance to find one for yourself. An easy way is to store some AU copper Lincolns in various locations in contact with different materials. Do you have an attic, cedar chest, window sill? Leave a dozen or so around with 2-3 (in contact with different material) in the same location. Wait a few years...LOL.
Just because copper can turn blue naturally doesn't mean it occurred naturally on the coins in question -- which is the crux of Rick's (faulty, IMO) argument.
Or, to use the same analogy, just because Zeus exists doesn't mean Thor does.
And why be coy? Tell us all just how you think copper tones blue naturally, as apparently you believe it's just a matter of sitting a dozen coins out in different environments and waiting. Because I've been collecting and storing copper in many different locations for many decades -- and not a single one of them has toned blue naturally. The only way I can duplicate the blue color is using a coin with some skin and then dipping it in a base (like MS-70, but there are plenty of others, including simply laundry detergent, that do the same thing)...but perhaps I'm not doing it right.
Please, enlighten me.
Thanks...Mike
I posted the "Scientific Flow Chart" for a reason. It is because I followed the chart and it showed that the "IMO" arguments were bogus - just opinions. Hence the "IMO" caveat. I challenge anyone to prove their case using the scientific method.
This is settled fact from over ten years ago. I did the study, posted and published my findings and it is accepted by all those who know what I am talking about. The "IMO" crowd will always be there. They don't seem to want to read the articles, investigate the scientific analysis that went into it and tend to post theories and opinions. I call them flat-earthers.
I hope I don't come across as mean-spirited, but I do not like having a serious published and peer-accepted study questioned with opinion and alternate theories that don't hold up to scientific study.
I was around 10 years ago, Rick, I don't recall any such study, but perhaps I missed it.
And I posted no "alternate theories" -- I just don't believe yours. I believe what I see with my own two eyes. I quit taking people's word for things long ago -- particularly dealers who make markets in these coins.
So, please post your "serious published and peer-accepted study" so we can all read it and decide if it is a "settled fact".
And please do me the favor of not inferring I don't know what I'm talking about or liken me to a flat earther because I disagree with your opinion.
Thanks...Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
PS It appears that when you saw a brown PR-65 Indian turned into a gem "blue" PR-66 as I have, you would still deny what you just saw happen.
Insider, please read and understand what you write. The brown PR65 IHC was blue under the brown. The "dip" just removed the upper toning layer without removing the underlying blue toning. As the OP's experiment indicates, as well as my own, you cannot turn a RD coin blue with MS 70. This is reasonably conclusive evidence that MS70 is not chemically reactive with copper. On the other hand NH3 vapor and SO2 va will turn copper blue (and green), but the result will not be very pretty, at least for me. But it might be better in a vacuum deposition chamber (vacuum.... meaning absent oxygen and nitrogen) but I do not have one.
You are correct saying that there are substances that will turn copper blue, but the commonly thought MS70 does not create the blue color, it only exposes the blue color.
OINK
Or, it removes all but a thin film that refracts light blue.
Why a thin film instead of a blue color? Because you put a thin film of translucent oil on the coin and the blue goes away.
And it's worth noting this blue color almost never occurs naturally, and when it does it's rarely if ever monochromatic blue like the MS-70ed coins come out.
So, while it is unproven as far as I know, I do tend to agree that whatever is causing the toning was already on the coin. However, to suggest it is natural toning is where we differ.
By way of example, let's say the toning on a copper coin is between 100 and 200nm thick, and the MS-70 removes all but the last 10nm, exposing a thin film that refracts light into the blue spectrum. While it is technically correct to say that whatever is causing the toning was already there, it is a stretch to call it natural toning. It's a coin that's been dipped in a base, no different from any other dipped coin except that the dipping left a thin film behind.
Nor is it different from any freshly dipped silver coin -- nobody is suggesting those freshly dipped coins are natural, so why is this any different?
It's also worth noting that nobody to my knowledge selling these coins is advertising they were dipped in MS-70 -- even though some are well aware of how these coins got this way -- which says quite a bit to me.
And if you want to call that market acceptable and like the coins (or even make a market in them), then more power to you. But it's not natural, in my opinion, any more than a freshly dipped silver coin is.
And that's the crux of the issue, for me at least.....Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
OK, MikeinFL, its OK to call them not "natural". I would say the same thing for many MS copper coins with blue toning. Copper coins normally have something on their surface, especially if they have been handled. Most times it is skin oils. It has the effect of turning the copper from red to brown. Most RB and BN copper got that way from light handling. We normally see these coins with the oils intact and still on the surface. It is not normal to see the copper with the oils removed. When the oils are removed there may be toning that emerges. What that toning looks like depends on the way it was stored and handled over the years.
Case in point: I bought a 1914-D Lincoln, MS65BN PCGS in an auction which was blue-toned. I know that most MS Lincoln cents are not found with blue toning. I understood from looking at it that someone put MS70 on the coin and sent it in. It sold cheap enough where it made sense to break the coin out and apply a light coating of Blue Ribbon coin preserver to it. The blue toning went away and a gorgeous chocolate brown tone was the result. I resubmitted it and it graded MS66BN.
If you understand that the toning is only there only because there is no coating of whatever, then you can understand what you are seeing. Otherwise, you are thinking like a Flat-earther and I can't help you with that.
If Insider2 wants to learn the truth, he should take my ANA Summer Seminar course: "Secrets of Flying Eagle and Indian Cents".
Thank you for acknowledging my opinion on these unnatural coins. I'm quite capable of understanding what I'm seeing. Again, I would appreciate it if you would not infer I (or others) don't know we're talking about or liken us to a flat earthers because we have a difference in opinion. Those type of comments are completely unnecessary and only distract from the free exchange of ideas.
Moving past that, if it were only oil on these coins (and we're not talking about coins like your MS-70ed 14-d), then acetone (or other solvents) would remove it -- but they don't. It's more than just oil -- it requires a base to remove all but the the thin film that refracts the blue color.
Furthermore, the number of proof IHCs and Lincolns that exhibit this type of monochromatic toning -- coins which presumably weren't handled and circulated the same way that business struck coins were -- suggests this theory isn't plausible across the entire spectrum of MS-70ed coins.
But really those are details.... So, more to the point of my response: Is it safe to say that you will not share the "serious published and peer-accepted study" so we can all read it and decide if it is a "settled fact"? Where was it published and peer reviewed? I would very much like to read it (and the peer reviews) myself. Or is your ANA Summer Seminar the only place we can acquire this information?
Thanks again...Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
Could the "blue" toning be caused by an interaction of chemical in the tab water and the MS70?
I believe there is a solid reason why one should use distilled water.
Perhaps I am wrong?
@Insider2 said:
PS It appears that when you saw a brown PR-65 Indian turned into a gem "blue" PR-66 as I have, you would still deny what you just saw happen. There is a lot of money in 'blue" copper. Perhaps we all should let this thread burn out and drop the subject.
Like when the rooster crows, making the sun rise.
So far no one has been able to disprove my conclusions. I have been straight-forward with my study and have published my conclusions. It is on you to prove me wrong, which you can't.
LOL, not interested. While I'm 100% sure you know how to do it, I sent you and Mr. OINK a PM anyway with easy directions to turn a brown Proof "blue." Since I don't have any "skin" in the coin market, it's for your eyes only as I don't wish to hurt the market.
Furthermore, I'm only interested in what the chemical reaction is out of curiosity. If I never learn, I don't care.
Now lift your pants legs up for the rest:
PS Although we have been fussing, I really enjoy your posts, and applaud your knowledge, numismatic contributions, and the sharing you do with all of us. I predict that one day you will be awarded the "Numismatist of the Year" if you have not been already! Best Regards, me.
PPS While I'd love to take your course Rick, I have been banned from ANA Summer Seminars due to the father of a whinny YN who thought his MS-62 BN slabbed Indian cent was actually Mint State and free from an AU-58 amount of friction wear and change of color on its relief! LOL. Now I get two extra weeks at the FL beaches.
One can say that the blue toning is the result of application of MS70 to a coin. However, that does not mean that the MS70 is the cause of the blue toning. Blue toning may be natural or it may be artificial, but it is not caused by MS70.
Sounds, good. The application of MS-70 may turn some brown copper coins blue. And, with one additional thing which shall remain a mystery, it happens more often. LOL.
@OldIndianNutKase said:
Blue toning may be natural or it may be artificial, but it is not caused by MS70.
I tend to agree, however how can you say that authoritatively?
If MS70 could turn a coin blue, then you could turn a red coin blue with MS70........and there does not exist any evidence that MS70 will turn a RD coin blue.......only a BN or RB coin that has an underlying tarnish layer. And many times that layer exists in colors other than blue.
@MikeInFL said: "Again, why be coy? Please tell us. Alternatively, you can PM me if you don't want to say it publicly. Obviously, I will hold the information in confidence if you so wish."
Sorry Mike, I respect your knowledge and I'm on your side in this discussion but...
Not coy, I just don't wish to "school" any more coin doctors. I know Rick personally and OINK collects Indians. IMO, they both know more "tricks-of-the-copper-trade" than my ol' grand pappy "Blue."
@OldIndianNutKase said:
Blue toning may be natural or it may be artificial, but it is not caused by MS70.
I tend to agree, however how can you say that authoritatively?
If MS70 could turn a coin blue, then you could turn a red coin blue with MS70........and there does not exist any evidence that MS70 will turn a RD coin blue.......only a BN or RB coin that has an underlying tarnish layer. And many times that layer exists in colors other than blue.
I agree, MS70 does nothing to red coins -- or at least it never has in any of my experiments.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid your logic has a bit of a hole in it... Specifically, you have neglected to account for the possibility that MS70 is reacting with the "tarnish layer" leaving a thin film that generally shows as the typical MS70 blue.
It could be, as many suspect, that MS70 removes all but a thin layer. But it also could be that it reacts with whatever is left of the tarnish to form the thin layer.
So, please explain how it can be one but must not be the other -- because the lack of a blue refractive layer on an MS70ed red coin doesn't prove anything with respect to MS70ed coins that were tarnished but now appear blue.
Thanks...Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
Hey Mike, he took his marbles and left the game. Seems that you two have discussed this subject many times in the past.
Rick added a lot to this thread for new members (me) even though he was probably sick of defending "blue" copper. Hopefully OINK, will stay around if you and I can play nice. You both are making great points.
You see, he doesn't respond well to people who know better, and (since we're taking the gloves off) much prefers the noobs he's been burying in those coins for decades.
Where's that "serious published and peer-accepted study" again, Rick?
You know, the one you can't even convince your friend and table-mate is the truth.
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
Comments
Acetone does not strip off the patina like MS70 does, acetone is much milder chemical and acts as a solvent to dissolve mostly organic material and it can soften and dislodge larger debris. Patina is typically made up of alot more stuff than organics that acetone does not remover when MS70 typically will.
"Therefore I will continue to believe that it doesn't exist." 'You' can believe what you want of course, like I said numismatic myths die hard. Why don't you do some experiments? I have, I will report them here when I get the time in a separate thread.
'I have not been presented with any evidence that it does exist, but have seen hundreds of examples of blue circulation strike copper on the market that have clearly been MS70ed.'
That may or may not be NT or it could be MS70 reacting with something on the surface of the copper but not the copper itself. Cu as a metal, will not react with a strong basic detergent. MS70 may react with something else on the Cu surface. So sure there are lots of cents out there with the MS70 look - that greasy luster and complete removal of patina and sometimes blue, but that is a separate issue of whether that piece of copper has natural blue-red,-green-purple toning. The MS70 look is a uniform tepid blue, different from the natural toned look on copper with blue and other colors.
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
Yes MS70 removed some stuff and clearly left the blue gunk/toning/whatever you wanna call it, there so it could be better observed...........
Each coin has a unique environmental history. Each coin thus could react differently to MS70 given the kinds of compounds on the surface. But, it, does, not, react, with, Cu, metal. Period.
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
Yes, it is patina............
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
@spacehayduke posted: "That may or may not be NT or it could be MS70 reacting with something on the surface of the copper but not the copper itself. Cu as a metal, will not react with a strong basic detergent. MS70 may react with something else on the Cu surface. So sure there are lots of cents out there with the MS70 look - that greasy luster and complete removal of patina and sometimes blue, but that is a separate issue of whether that piece of copper has natural blue-red,-green-purple toning. The MS70 look is a uniform tepid blue, different from the natural toned look on copper with blue and other colors."
So who has the money to put this subject to rest with actual tests on the coins? It has to be very simple with the right machines. It will not be a TPGS. However, If we all keep the heat on, someone will publish a paper with a spectrographic analysis. I'll give it a year before it is done.
BruceS.:
My understanding is that copper is red after being refined, then turns brown via exposure to oxygen, and later green. Other colors may come from a variety of sources and chemical reactions.
Generally, the topics in this thread have already been covered, in more depth, in other threads, especially the thread about "The Sun and the Blue-toned Rooster" and a later discussion spawned by the 'Rooster' thread. There were some specific points in the Rooster thread that are very much pertinent to this thread, however, which I wish to raise anew.
Keets in the Rooster therad:
7Jaguars in the Rooster therad:
CameoNut, in the thread that inspired the Rooster thread, said:
If so, combinations of lye, copper and copper sulphate were known long ago to generate "blue dye"! Could any one, two or three of several other substances become involved, besides copper sulphate, and generate blue color as well?
CameoNut2011 in the Rooster thread:
This post, which is thought-provoking, is consistent with an earlier statement of mine in that thread: Whether on the coin, in the atmosphere, in the container used, or coming from the person performing such procedures, other variables play a role besides copper, zinc, tin, and lye or acetone. Some coin doctors introduce such variables deliberately. In other situations, there may be items that react with lye or acetone entering the immersion process unbeknownst to the person conducting the procedure.
In the scientific article introduced by CameoNut, a particular statement is extremely pertinent.:
So, a scientific article cited By CameoNut in the Rooster thread suggests that it is plausible that a certain variety of light and acetone together may be key factors in a process that brings about blue color on copper coins. Am I the only one who is intrigued by this notion? The surprisingly large number of chemists among us may wish to theorize about the additional variables that may be keys to generating blue color on copper.
The Specter of Coin Doctoring and The Survival of Great Coins
It is not only having the money - $1-2K in analytical costs would likely do it, but also having the time and also having the right range in copper specimens to cover all possible outcomes. Doing this right is a couple weeks of analytical work spread across a few months - before, after, etc., with lots of interpretation of the results and then working out the chemical reactions afterwards. Would be a great study. Would be a great MS thesis dissertation, but probably not a practical one leading to sure employment for the student. It could be scaled down in scope, but without a systematic approach, I doubt if anyone would be convinced of the results....... We would all just continue to disagree.
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
I have submitted to PCGS many toned proof IHC's and they have all straight graded. I have submitted an equal number of IHC proofs that are RD and they have ALL been graded code .91 Questionable Color. Although I did submit one mint state IHC that I have owned over 60 years and it graded MS65RD.
I think it is much more common practice with coin doctors to make brown coins RD that it is to make them BN(blue). NT toned copper is the norm. RD copper that is over 100 years old is very rare. Most of the RD IHC's have been dipped, and some are MA and some are .91. Perhaps I should store my .91's iin a safety box in Panama in an old bank without air conditioning until they tone. Wonder how many years that might take? Can anyone suggest a better way? Other than MS70 which will not turn RD coins MS or PR blue.
OINK
Good Morning! I'll have something to add to the last 3 posts when I have a free hour or two this weekend.
Originally I posted this in the Blue Rooster thread.
Interesting because that incompatibility note comes from the makers of MS70 themselves.
.
.
.
.
Thought this was interesting in the MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET linked by cameonut2011:
SECTION VI - REACTIVITY DATA
INCOMPATIBILITY: ...Avoid contact with aluminum, tin, zinc, and alloys containing these metals...
I wonder how this was determined and what the effects are. Not sure if it has relevance to toning on cents or not. Though almost all small cents since 1864 have tin, zinc or both in their alloy.
.
.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
@WinLoseWin said: "Originally I posted this in the Blue Rooster thread. Interesting because that incompatibility note comes from the makers of MS70 themselves. INCOMPATIBILITY: ...Avoid contact with aluminum, tin, zinc, and alloys containing these metals..."
"I wonder how this was determined and what the effects are. Not sure if it has relevance to toning on cents or not. Though almost all small cents since 1864 have tin, zinc or both in their alloy."
Answer: testing on Tin and Zinc alloys I'll bet.
@OldIndianNutKase said: "I have submitted to PCGS many toned proof IHC's and they have all straight graded. I have submitted an equal number of IHC proofs that are RD and they have ALL been graded code .91 Questionable Color. Although I did submit one mint state IHC that I have owned over 60 years and it graded MS65RD.
I think it is much more common practice with coin doctors to make brown coins RD that it is to make them BN(blue). NT toned copper is the norm. RD copper that is over 100 years old is very rare. Most of the RD IHC's have been dipped, and some are MA and some are .91. Perhaps I should store my .91's iin a safety box in Panama in an old bank without air conditioning until they tone. Wonder how many years that might take? Can anyone suggest a better way? Other than MS70 which will not turn RD coins MS or PR blue."
OINK, most of what you say is true. There is a technique used to make copper appear "red" and original that has been around since the 1980's. These coins are in TPGS slabs. I have named the process "micro whizzing" which is not actually whizzing as under a microscope, no metal is raised at the edges of a coin's relief. Nevertheless, the surface is not original.
What I don't understand is in spite of several of us writing otherwise, you do not believe that MS-70 along with other things cannot change the color of a coin!
@spacehayduke said: "That may or may not be NT or it could be MS70 reacting with something on the surface of the copper but not the copper itself. Cu as a metal, will not react with a strong basic detergent. MS70 may react with something else on the Cu surface."
It is not only having the money - $1-2K in analytical costs would likely do it, but also having the time and also having the right range in copper specimens to cover all possible outcomes. Doing this right is a couple weeks of analytical work spread across a few months - before, after, etc., with lots of interpretation of the results and then working out the chemical reactions afterwards. Would be a great study. Would be a great MS thesis dissertation, but probably not a practical one leading to sure employment for the student. It could be scaled down in scope, but without a systematic approach, I doubt if anyone would be convinced of the results....... We would all just continue to disagree."
I disagree with both the time and the money. I've had many coins analyzed in the past. The labs were happy to do it and in two cases the technicians were coin collectors! $150 was the most I ever paid. That was decades ago and prices must have increased a little but not (?) what you say. I no longer have contacts since moving. All it takes is ONE coin that turns blue.
@Analyst posted: "In the scientific article introduced by CameoNut, a particular statement is extremely pertinent.: This reaction does not occur in the absence of light. This suggests that copper acts as a photocatalyst for the reaction between acetone and water vapor.
So, a scientific article cited By CameoNut in the Rooster thread suggests that it is plausible that a certain variety of light and acetone together may be key factors in a process that brings about blue color on copper coins. Am I the only one who is intrigued by this notion? The surprisingly large number of chemists among us may wish to theorize about the additional variables that may be keys to generating blue color on copper.
The Specter of Coin Doctoring and The Survival of Great Coins."
Depending on what kinds of contamination are on a brown copper coin in close to MS condition, a combination of acetone, soap, distilled water, and MS-70, can turn certain coins iridescent blue. Seen it and done it.
There is a technique used to make copper appear "red" and original that has been around since the 1980's. These coins are in TPGS slabs. I have named the process "micro whizzing" which is not actually whizzing as under a microscope, no metal is raised at the edges of a coin's relief. Nevertheless, the surface is not original.
Please go into more detail on how micro whizzing works. What is done to copper coins to make them appear more red?
I have no idea how it is done so this is what I can say for sure except for the laser part.
I look at coins using a stereo microscope. For that reason, I can see the surface of coins BETTER THAN anyone who does not use one. I have been doing this for a long time. I have learned what the surfaces of coins look like under high magnification and know what an original surface looks like. Sometime around the early 1980's, we began to see red Indian and Lincoln cents that were not original. They were mechanically altered and while characteristics of the alteration simulated frosty original luster to the eye, the magnified surface under the scope showed otherwise. Here is a crude example so you'll understand better if I was not clear:
There are degrees of whizzed coins. The really well-done ones look great to the eye - smooth, frosty w/no deep swirls, lines, or "halos." Once you learn what a whizzed coin looks like, you can spot them a mile away (even the deceptive ones) with your naked eye.
Back to micro-whizzing. The one characteristic we determined that differentiated a whizzed coin from a heavily buffed coin was a thin raised "lip" at the edge of the relief. The new alteration to copper cents had a SIMILAR (not identical) and easily detected (naked eye when you know what it looks like) sheen to the surface as a whizzed coin yet the alteration did not raise a "lip" - even under the scope. The process may have been the beginnings of laser alterations but remember this was being done decades ago, so who knows.
Anyway, for a long time, these coins were slabbed as mint state red. I have only seen one of these coins in the last year and it was raw. I should think that coins altered in this way would be detected these days at one of the four major TPGS. I still need a slabbed example for my collection of fake and altered coins but full, frosty, cherry-red Unc Indians and early mint marked Lincolns do not come cheap in a slab. The Holy Grail would be a 66 with a gold bean! That's NEVER going to happen.
PS There is no point posting an image (I'm sure I have a few somewhere) as the coin will look normal even blown-up. Your best defense is to examine full red, graded MS-65 and higher copper coins. If one that is altered turns up in a slab, you will see that it looks different. You will not know why, just that it looks different.
WinLoseWin on the producer's warning regarding the "MS70" product:
As Insider2 implies, in regard to items with tin or zinc, this revelation demonstrates that the manufacturer of the "MS70" product has a strong reason to conclude that "MS70" can change the color of the items immersed and/or significantly harms them. Generally, the manufacturers of products do not wish to discourage consumers from using their respective products. It is thus likely that there is an especially strong reason for such a warning.
OldIndianNutKase:
What were the sources for these? Were they certified when OldIndianNutKase purchased them?
OldIndianNutKase:
This is certainly true of business strike Indians and Lincolns. 70% to 99% red, pre-1850 Large Cents and Half Cents are subject to far more scrutiny. The graders at PCGS are more likely to be deceived by AT blue than by artificial full RED, in regard to pre-1850 copper. Also, as I have said in other threads, artificial blue may often be a byproduct of treatments for corrosion or of other conservation practices, rather than deliberate AT, again in regard to pre-1850 copper.
Insider2:
There are multiple techniques. Over the last quarter-century, I have been aware of several pro coin doctors who have turned brown coins with the intention of seeking full red designations from grading services. Indeed, I have met a few of them. Even so, I thank Insider2 for providing a fascinating explanation regarding one such technique.
The Specter of Coin Doctoring and The Survival of Great Coins
You will disagree because that is what you do - okay then take the time and spend your money, it takes more than ONE coin that turns blue - it takes understanding WHY, IT, TURNS, BLUE, AND, WHY, OTHER COPPER, PIECES, DON'T. Haven't you got that yet? You still don't understand the scientific method? Never mind.
Successful transactions with-Boosibri,lkeigwin,TomB,Broadstruck,coinsarefun,Type2,jom,ProfLiz, UltraHighRelief,Barndog,EXOJUNKIE,ldhair,fivecents,paesan,Crusty...
Wow. I've read through this "chemistry" discussion, and can't resist making a few polite comments.
Copper is found in nature both in its elemental metallic form and in a number of common minerals or salts.
Many, but not all, copper salts are blue to blue green in color. These include common copper salts such as the carbonate, sulfate, hydroxide, nitrate, and both chlorides.
Copper is a reactive element, and can form a protective blue - green patina with outdoor exposure. The exact composition can vary, but consists of a mixture of salts including copper carbonate, copper chloride, and copper sulfate.
Common brown patina of copper coins is due to a mixture of copper oxides which are actually either red or black. Such oxides are very stable, and generally preclude formation of other copper salts in the absence of chemical exposure.
Exposure to other substances such as moisture, sweat, air, etc. can result in formation of other copper salts which will alter coin appearance either positively or negatively. Formation of blue / green compounds is very common with copper.
MS70 contain sodium hydroxide (NaOH). This is a strong base that will react with some metals, but not metallic copper. Ammonium hydroxide is a different story. MS70 really acts as a cleaning agent for coins.
Coin collectors in general didn't do well in chemistry class in school. There are exceptions though.
"The vaccines work,” Trump said, adding that the people who “get very sick and go to the hospital” are unvaccinated.
“Look, the results of the vaccine are very good, and if you do get it, it’s a very minor form,” Trump continued. “People aren’t dying when they take the vaccine.”
Do your part, America 💉😷
You do not need any training in chemistry or metallurgy to clean coins properly. A really good (knowledgeable/experienced) teacher that may or may not know anything about chemistry is all that's needed as with experience he/she knows what works and what does not.
Yeah, yeah, if he/she knew chemistry, he/she may have learned their skills quicker and not gone down some dead end experimentation.
PS Even the very best "coin doctors" and professional conservators screw up on occasion.
@spacehayduke wrote: "You will disagree because that is what you do - okay then take the time and spend your money, it takes more than ONE coin that turns blue - it takes understanding WHY, IT, TURNS, BLUE, AND, WHY, OTHER COPPER, PIECES, DON'T. Haven't you got that yet? You still don't understand the scientific method? Never mind."
I disagree whenever something I know a little about does not compute. I also change my opinion when it can be demonstrated that I'm misinformed. As to this thread, we are on the same side silly and closer to agreement than it may seem.
IMO, all it takes is one coin (turned blue by chemicals) to see what is on the surface of the coin that caused the color. That will go a long way to discovering the "Why." It is a simple combination of acetone, MS-70, and one other thing (known by coin doctors) that I will not divulge needed to make proofs turn blue.
IMO, there is some contamination product on the surface of a particular brown coin (the ones that turn) that we also need to discover. It's the "before" and usually I cannot detect these UNTIL I clean them and they turn. It will possibly take more coins to detect the unstable ones that turn blue.
I took a nice uncirculated Indian with RB characteristics. Scrubbed it with MS70 and it turned blue. Later I dipped it and it turned that bright no color copper color that used to get the RED designation. The next day I MS70 it again and...........it turned blue. Case closed in my mind.
Curious. Why aren't you following the same chart?
Why should others be required to "prove it" but not you?
Because of a hoard of blue IHCs and the Eliasberg coins?
They prove nothing with respect to coins outside that group -- and even within the group it's hardly as proven as one might conclude from your response.
Just because copper can turn blue naturally doesn't mean it occurred naturally on the coins in question -- which is the crux of Rick's (faulty, IMO) argument.
Or, to use the same analogy, just because Zeus exists doesn't mean Thor does.
And why be coy? Tell us all just how you think copper tones blue naturally, as apparently you believe it's just a matter of sitting a dozen coins out in different environments and waiting. Because I've been collecting and storing copper in many different locations for many decades -- and not a single one of them has toned blue naturally. The only way I can duplicate the blue color is using a coin with some skin and then dipping it in a base (like MS-70, but there are plenty of others, including simply laundry detergent, that do the same thing)...but perhaps I'm not doing it right.
Please, enlighten me.
Thanks...Mike
@Wabbit2313 said: "I took a nice uncirculated Indian with RB characteristics. Scrubbed it with MS70 and it turned blue. Later I dipped it and it turned that bright no color copper color that used to get the RED designation. The next day I MS70 it again and...........it turned blue. Case closed in my mind."
Wow, now that is something I have NEVER heard of or seen done. Do you mind dipping the coin pink again and posting an image? Then turning it blue and posting an image? All I can write is wow!!
@MikeInFL said: "Just because copper can turn blue naturally doesn't mean it occurred naturally on the coins in question -- which is the crux of Rick's (faulty, IMO) argument."
I AGREE! I disagree with much of Rick's opinion.
@MikeInFL asked: "And why be coy? Tell us all just how you think copper tones blue naturally, as apparently you believe it's just a matter of sitting a dozen coins out in different environments and waiting. Because I've been collecting and storing copper in many different locations for many decades -- and not a single one of them has toned blue naturally. The only way I can duplicate the blue color is using a coin with some skin and then dipping it in a base (like MS-70, but there are plenty of others, including simply laundry detergent, that do the same thing)...but perhaps I'm not doing it right. Please, enlighten me."
Again I agree! Except that I have seen blue copper come out of cotton pouches from old collections that the folks who owned the coins did not touch! I don't have any idea about the history of the coins I look at anywhere UNLESS I'm the one who turned it blue myself while cleaning it. IMO, most blue copper has been MADE WITH THE HAND OF MAN.
I don't know why I need to repeat that IMO:
PS @Wabbit2313 has done an experiment that has thrown a monkey wrench into the equation. Nevertheless, I'll guarantee there is something in the literature that will explain how to turn bright red copper iridescent blue CHEMICALLY.
I'm sorry you had to repeat yourself, and thank you for the clarification. However, (and with respect) Wabbit didn't do anything that hasn't been done and posted on this forum in the past. That history may be unfamiliar to you -- I don't recognize your name among those who were around when this came up in the past (it was quite a few years ago) -- but this topic is an old one.
All that said, I find myself agreeing with virtually everything you've said and I do appreciate the response....Mike
Sometime, when I have nothing at all to do, I can do it again, but believe me, what I said above is what happened to that Indian.
Now this is a good read
On the topic of artificially toned copper, can anyone explain the obverse of this penny? https://www.pcgs.com/cert/81023000
Now this coin has OBVIOUSLY been artificially colored but I have never seen a silver-colored copper coin like this. It's not quite visible in the PCGS photo, where it just appears white, but I had this in hand today and it actually looks like silver - even though it's not of course. The rim is the only part that looks remotely coppery in color. What method of artificial toning could possibly cause that?
A VERY ugly coin, IMHO, I will take MS70 blue every day over this abortion. And PCGS graded it 69RB with all kinds of spots, even showing on the TrueView. That is not market acceptable toning.
OINK
Frankly PCGS doesn't give a damn about artificial toning on modern coins
I recently had the chance to think about this issue on a long drive home as it is boring driving across Indiana and southern Ohio. I will admit to not reading every single entry in this thread, nor every reference to other threads, etc. as I wanted to look at this from a different angle with a fresh set of eyes.
My current hypothesis is that perhaps the blue color comes from another element in the copper alloy. Most posts deal with the behavior of elemental copper, but the planchets are not pure copper. According to my old Red Book, small cents prior to the "1982 Zincolns" were made of 95% copper and 5% tin and zinc. No breakdown between the tin and zinc and I suppose that it is possible that the ratio between Sn and Zn has changed over time. In any event, I was now examining an an alloy with more than one element in play. I am not a metallurgist, but having worked in a foundry for 3 years, I know that interesting things happen with metal alloys and they can be quite complex.
If the planchet is homogenous (it may not be because it is possible that alloying elements can migrate to a surface during cooling), there is somewhere between 1% and 5% tin atoms on the surface. Viewed another way, up to one in twenty atoms are tin.
The literature indicates that there is in fact a stable tin oxide (SnO) compound that is blue-black in color and is formed in the presence of a strong alkali like NaOH or KOH. (present in MS70) I am encouraged by this but I have no way to test this hypothesis. Further, the blue coins I have seen tend to have a blue color that is transparent (or a "thin" layer) which suggests it is only on the surface and not "caked" on the surface.
This has been an interesting thread, I look forward to further commentary on my thoughts.
The original Cameonut.
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
ADG:
CameoNut:
Did ADG and "the original CameoNut" read the posts by WinLoseWin and myself just a little earlier in this thread?
Again, WinLoseWin on the producer's warning regarding the "MS70" product:
As Insider2 implies, in regard to items with tin or zinc, this revelation, which was reported by WinLoseWin, demonstrates that the manufacturer of the "MS70" product has a strong reason to conclude that "MS70" can change the color of the items immersed and/or significantly harm them. Generally, the manufacturers of products do not wish to discourage consumers from using their respective products. It is thus likely that there is an especially strong reason for such a warning.
Maybe those who are knowledgeable about chemistry may expound further upon the issue of interactions between the ingredients in the "MS70" product and tin and/or zinc.
A few of us, in multiple threads, have now pointed out that there are additional variables, not just the ingredients in "MS70" and copper. Additional variables include, but are not limited to, humidity, particles in the air, soap, impurities in water, and varieties of light. It seems that other factors can play a role in unintentional coloration of copper coins during the use of the "MS70" brand product. Of course, intentionally adding color is a different topic. Is this thread about unintentional blue color?
How will Coin Collectors Interpret Certified Coin Grades in the Future?
Insightful10@gmail.com
There is an "elephant" in the room that many of us know about that is very helpful to produce the blue color on copper. I have not revealed it and I should hope the others who know what it is won't either. That includes some defenders of blue copper in this thread who I shall not name. BTW, I had another coin (AU-58 1835 1/2c) go blue on me when (due to inattention) my MS-70 was.... I turned it back to brown. LOL.
I posted the "Scientific Flow Chart" for a reason. It is because I followed the chart and it showed that the "IMO" arguments were bogus - just opinions. Hence the "IMO" caveat. I challenge anyone to prove their case using the scientific method.
This is settled fact from over ten years ago. I did the study, posted and published my findings and it is accepted by all those who know what I am talking about. The "IMO" crowd will always be there. They don't seem to want to read the articles, investigate the scientific analysis that went into it and tend to post theories and opinions. I call them flat-earthers.
I hope I don't come across as mean-spirited, but I do not like having a serious published and peer-accepted study questioned with opinion and alternate theories that don't hold up to scientific study.
Well, well, I sure would like to get some sodium pentothal into you as I'm 100% sure you know how the coin doctors turn Proof Indians blue. As an Indian Cent Expert and top dealer in these coins you must know in order to detect the natural "blue" from the "made-to-order "blue" I've seen. Not that you or I would alter anything on purpose.
PS It appears that when you saw a brown PR-65 Indian turned into a gem "blue" PR-66 as I have, you would still deny what you just saw happen. There is a lot of money in 'blue" copper. Perhaps we all should let this thread burn out and drop the subject.
Like when the rooster crows, making the sun rise.
So far no one has been able to disprove my conclusions. I have been straight-forward with my study and have published my conclusions. It is on you to prove me wrong, which you can't.
Insider, please read and understand what you write. The brown PR65 IHC was blue under the brown. The "dip" just removed the upper toning layer without removing the underlying blue toning. As the OP's experiment indicates, as well as my own, you cannot turn a RD coin blue with MS 70. This is reasonably conclusive evidence that MS70 is not chemically reactive with copper. On the other hand NH3 vapor and SO2 va will turn copper blue (and green), but the result will not be very pretty, at least for me. But it might be better in a vacuum deposition chamber (vacuum.... meaning absent oxygen and nitrogen) but I do not have one.
You are correct saying that there are substances that will turn copper blue, but the commonly thought MS70 does not create the blue color, it only exposes the blue color.
OINK
I was around 10 years ago, Rick, I don't recall any such study, but perhaps I missed it.
And I posted no "alternate theories" -- I just don't believe yours. I believe what I see with my own two eyes. I quit taking people's word for things long ago -- particularly dealers who make markets in these coins.
So, please post your "serious published and peer-accepted study" so we can all read it and decide if it is a "settled fact".
And please do me the favor of not inferring I don't know what I'm talking about or liken me to a flat earther because I disagree with your opinion.
Thanks...Mike
Or, it removes all but a thin film that refracts light blue.
Why a thin film instead of a blue color? Because you put a thin film of translucent oil on the coin and the blue goes away.
And it's worth noting this blue color almost never occurs naturally, and when it does it's rarely if ever monochromatic blue like the MS-70ed coins come out.
So, while it is unproven as far as I know, I do tend to agree that whatever is causing the toning was already on the coin. However, to suggest it is natural toning is where we differ.
By way of example, let's say the toning on a copper coin is between 100 and 200nm thick, and the MS-70 removes all but the last 10nm, exposing a thin film that refracts light into the blue spectrum. While it is technically correct to say that whatever is causing the toning was already there, it is a stretch to call it natural toning. It's a coin that's been dipped in a base, no different from any other dipped coin except that the dipping left a thin film behind.
Nor is it different from any freshly dipped silver coin -- nobody is suggesting those freshly dipped coins are natural, so why is this any different?
It's also worth noting that nobody to my knowledge selling these coins is advertising they were dipped in MS-70 -- even though some are well aware of how these coins got this way -- which says quite a bit to me.
And if you want to call that market acceptable and like the coins (or even make a market in them), then more power to you. But it's not natural, in my opinion, any more than a freshly dipped silver coin is.
And that's the crux of the issue, for me at least.....Mike
OK, MikeinFL, its OK to call them not "natural". I would say the same thing for many MS copper coins with blue toning. Copper coins normally have something on their surface, especially if they have been handled. Most times it is skin oils. It has the effect of turning the copper from red to brown. Most RB and BN copper got that way from light handling. We normally see these coins with the oils intact and still on the surface. It is not normal to see the copper with the oils removed. When the oils are removed there may be toning that emerges. What that toning looks like depends on the way it was stored and handled over the years.
Case in point: I bought a 1914-D Lincoln, MS65BN PCGS in an auction which was blue-toned. I know that most MS Lincoln cents are not found with blue toning. I understood from looking at it that someone put MS70 on the coin and sent it in. It sold cheap enough where it made sense to break the coin out and apply a light coating of Blue Ribbon coin preserver to it. The blue toning went away and a gorgeous chocolate brown tone was the result. I resubmitted it and it graded MS66BN.
If you understand that the toning is only there only because there is no coating of whatever, then you can understand what you are seeing. Otherwise, you are thinking like a Flat-earther and I can't help you with that.
If Insider2 wants to learn the truth, he should take my ANA Summer Seminar course: "Secrets of Flying Eagle and Indian Cents".
Rick,
Thank you for acknowledging my opinion on these unnatural coins. I'm quite capable of understanding what I'm seeing. Again, I would appreciate it if you would not infer I (or others) don't know we're talking about or liken us to a flat earthers because we have a difference in opinion. Those type of comments are completely unnecessary and only distract from the free exchange of ideas.
Moving past that, if it were only oil on these coins (and we're not talking about coins like your MS-70ed 14-d), then acetone (or other solvents) would remove it -- but they don't. It's more than just oil -- it requires a base to remove all but the the thin film that refracts the blue color.
Furthermore, the number of proof IHCs and Lincolns that exhibit this type of monochromatic toning -- coins which presumably weren't handled and circulated the same way that business struck coins were -- suggests this theory isn't plausible across the entire spectrum of MS-70ed coins.
But really those are details.... So, more to the point of my response: Is it safe to say that you will not share the "serious published and peer-accepted study" so we can all read it and decide if it is a "settled fact"? Where was it published and peer reviewed? I would very much like to read it (and the peer reviews) myself. Or is your ANA Summer Seminar the only place we can acquire this information?
Thanks again...Mike
Could the "blue" toning be caused by an interaction of chemical in the tab water and the MS70?
I believe there is a solid reason why one should use distilled water.
Perhaps I am wrong?
LOL, not interested. While I'm 100% sure you know how to do it, I sent you and Mr. OINK a PM anyway with easy directions to turn a brown Proof "blue." Since I don't have any "skin" in the coin market, it's for your eyes only as I don't wish to hurt the market.
Furthermore, I'm only interested in what the chemical reaction is out of curiosity. If I never learn, I don't care.
Now lift your pants legs up for the rest:
PS Although we have been fussing, I really enjoy your posts, and applaud your knowledge, numismatic contributions, and the sharing you do with all of us. I predict that one day you will be awarded the "Numismatist of the Year" if you have not been already! Best Regards, me.
PPS While I'd love to take your course Rick, I have been banned from ANA Summer Seminars due to the father of a whinny YN who thought his MS-62 BN slabbed Indian cent was actually Mint State and free from an AU-58 amount of friction wear and change of color on its relief! LOL. Now I get two extra weeks at the FL beaches.
One can say that the blue toning is the result of application of MS70 to a coin. However, that does not mean that the MS70 is the cause of the blue toning. Blue toning may be natural or it may be artificial, but it is not caused by MS70.
Sounds, good. The application of MS-70 may turn some brown copper coins blue. And, with one additional thing which shall remain a mystery, it happens more often. LOL.
I tend to agree, however how can you say that authoritatively?
Again, why be coy? Please tell us.
Alternatively, you can PM me if you don't want to say it publicly. Obviously, I will hold the information in confidence if you so wish.
Thanks...Mike
If MS70 could turn a coin blue, then you could turn a red coin blue with MS70........and there does not exist any evidence that MS70 will turn a RD coin blue.......only a BN or RB coin that has an underlying tarnish layer. And many times that layer exists in colors other than blue.
@MikeInFL said: "Again, why be coy? Please tell us. Alternatively, you can PM me if you don't want to say it publicly. Obviously, I will hold the information in confidence if you so wish."
Sorry Mike, I respect your knowledge and I'm on your side in this discussion but...
Not coy, I just don't wish to "school" any more coin doctors. I know Rick personally and OINK collects Indians. IMO, they both know more "tricks-of-the-copper-trade" than my ol' grand pappy "Blue."
I agree, MS70 does nothing to red coins -- or at least it never has in any of my experiments.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid your logic has a bit of a hole in it... Specifically, you have neglected to account for the possibility that MS70 is reacting with the "tarnish layer" leaving a thin film that generally shows as the typical MS70 blue.
It could be, as many suspect, that MS70 removes all but a thin layer. But it also could be that it reacts with whatever is left of the tarnish to form the thin layer.
So, please explain how it can be one but must not be the other -- because the lack of a blue refractive layer on an MS70ed red coin doesn't prove anything with respect to MS70ed coins that were tarnished but now appear blue.
Thanks...Mike
MikeinFL was a troll in 2006. MikeinFL is a troll in 2017. MikeinFL will be a Troll tomorrow.
Ignore trolls.
Hey Mike, he took his marbles and left the game. Seems that you two have discussed this subject many times in the past.
Rick added a lot to this thread for new members (me) even though he was probably sick of defending "blue" copper. Hopefully OINK, will stay around if you and I can play nice. You both are making great points.
Of course he did. What did you expect?
You see, he doesn't respond well to people who know better, and (since we're taking the gloves off) much prefers the noobs he's been burying in those coins for decades.
Where's that "serious published and peer-accepted study" again, Rick?
You know, the one you can't even convince your friend and table-mate is the truth.