Options
Naturally toned 19th century gold - appearance of lighter hue higher grade original AU coins
historybuff
Posts: 69 ✭✭✭
I am studying examples of naturally toned circulated gold coins from say the 1840's versus those that may have been cleaned or dipped. I am curious about thoughts on examples of coins with lighter hues and in higher circulated grades that may or may not be original. Does anyone have thoughts or photo examples? For example are there lightly circulated examples that are original but do not have a heavy toned look? How can you tell for certain? Or is it safe to assume that any original AU circulated old gold coin from the 1800's that does not have any dirt chunks in recesses basically guarantee it was dipped at one time? Thanks!
0
Comments
Consider exploring the Heritage archives. Look for some of the threats started by a handful of members here such as RYK, Boosbri among others. Do search for dirty gold under the search forum and that should help. There have been some outstanding imagesposted here over the years
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Your question is probably more complicated than you realize. Some perfectly natural very old gold has no toning. Some previously cleaned coins have reaccumulated enough new toning that they might look “old.”
There is no “one look” that is appropriate. Really original, dirty, grimy, stuff is in favor (with many folks here at least) because truely original skin is forever lost with a cleaning or a dip. Some very carefully stored old gold might still look brand spanking new. The ultimate in originality is a coin that looks exactly as it did when minted. I look for a surface that is plausibly appropriate considering the piece’s wear, age, typical characteristics, and known history. For example, 23-D Saints have a “typical” look, etc., etc.
What I don’t like is 200 year old gold circulated with a uniform, perfectly bright, shiny surface. Many such pieces have been dipped in the often successful practice of earning a numerical upgrade at the expense of originality.
How can you tell for sure? Sometimes you can’t. Usually you get a pretty good idea once your eye is calibrated. How to do that? Look at thousands of pieces. Auction lot viewing is a good place to do this. A big coin show offers plenty of examples. Specialty gold dealers can be a great resource.
Finally, pick a few coins, form your own opinions, and then post them here. You’ll get plenty of specific feedback which will be more useful than a bunch of generic advice.
You also have to keep in mind the source of the gold. Gold from various mines will likely have differing amounts of naturally occurring copper or silver and may make the color of the resultant coin slightly different.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Exactly. Early U.S. gold had naturally occurring silver left in it, sometimes up to 4 to 5 percent. As refining techniques improved this dropped to 1% or less after 1873.
The American Eagle gold bullion coins deliberately have 3% silver alloy to give them a lighter color. Compare one to a Krugerrand to see the difference. The KR's are much redder.
Thank you all for your thoughts so far. If I want to post a photo for opinion on this for a specific coin, do you have a recommendation on what lighting to use to take a photo? seems like the lighting used for a photo also affects how a coin looks especially brightness.
Are you wanting actual toned gold examples, or just dirty old gold examples? Toned gold is extremely rare and hard to find. And most people think it is artificial, lol. I have a thing for toned gold, and can show you a lot of examples. Here are the early 1900 and earlier ones I have.
Jwitten, thanks and examples are helpful like these. I am really just trying to learn and may solicit thoughts on a few of my pieces to help me learn also. What is difficult for me is differentiating AU pieces that are bright and clean and original from those that are bright and clean but dipped.
Interesting thread.
My YouTube Channel
You are pursuing an interesting area of coins.... and, unfortunately, there is no quick 'injection' that will bring you to 'expert' level. As noted above, there are many different contributors that affect the appearance of gold coins....So, this forum, coin shows, websites, and consultation with gold collectors will all be part of your training... Have fun... Cheers, RickO
Partner with a good gold dealer like Doug Winter, start by buying CAC only pieces as the best chance at unmessed with coins.
Some of the coins in this thread I would not hold up as the standard representative for unmessed with gold.
Each mint and in some cases specific years will have different typical coloration which one must learn. 1840’s Dahlonega Gold looks different from 1850’s gold from the same mint due to local vs California sourcing. Certain 1840’s issues can have a blue hue from a deposit of iridium which was in the gold vein but typical early coloration is green gold vs later which is more reddish gold owing to the higher silver coins concenteation in local gold vs higher copper in California gold.
Just an example to begin your thinking in how to study.
Latin American Collection
A mint state coin and circulated coin, each with some toning.
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/gold/liberty-head-2-1-gold-major-sets/liberty-head-2-1-gold-basic-set-circulation-strikes-1840-1907-cac/alltimeset/268163
Thank you all for the good advise!
A major problem with assessing coin color is that nearly all available coin photos are made without regard to standard color balance and 18% gray background reference. Therefore, almost all photos will be personal interpretations by the photographer or coin owner/seller, and not objective images. Much the same applies to museum displays, although most museums will have photo metadata that might allow color corrections to be made.
If you will look at a copy of Pattern and Experimental Pieces of WW-II you'll see images that were made under controlled, standard conditions, along with color swatches based on objective measurement of specimens. This took a lot of work and careful attention to detail -- and nearly got me "killed" by the printer after a multitude of press adjustments had to be made. Many of the pieces illustrated are nothing like the colors shown for these pieces in auction catalogs or mentioned in descriptions.
Great advice!!!
I've been collecting old gold for a couple of years now and I still don't have a clue...I think if you really want to become an expert that you have to go to some big national shows and look at a lot of coins in hand...I need to do the same...
@RogerB makes a good point about color references. It has been said that the specific photography technique affects the appearance (and especially perceived color) of gold more than copper, silver, or nickel. Also, the above posts remind me that there is a distinction between toning and patina. The copper and other alloys can tone (gold itself doesn’t). Some gold will show rather impressive copper spots from imperfections in the alloy. Many collectors don’t like these spots and find them distracting. Others see them as a badge of originality and part of the fabric of the coin. Patina can include toning but also layers of anything the coin has picked up in its journeys. Oils, grime, dirt, leather pouch tannins, and other odds & ends can give a depth of character that recently dipped coins don’t have.
These two circulated Classic Head coins show an important contrast. The quarter eagle shows grunge in the denticles, darker areas in the parts of the fields protected by the devices and a little lighter coloration in areas more subject to handling and circulation. To me, this is a nice look and is appropriate for the degree of wear and age of the coin. There are layers of depth to the acquired patina.
The half eagle is graded higher, but in my view is not as desirable. The coin lacks the soul of the quarter eagle. The denticles are clean. The coloration is more-or-less uniform, and there's a good chance the coin was dipped and stripped of any layers it had acquired.
This double eagle is entirely different. There isn't any grime or dirt and there shouldn't be since it's an uncirculated coin. The coin doesn't really have dark toning, but there is a certain richness to the color and character of the surface which to my eye is appealing and appropriate for a 100 year old coin. Can we be certain that it was never dipped? No, but to my eye it has plausibly original surfaces.
How about this one? It's in an old holder so we know it hasn't been messed with for a couple of decades anyhow. There are copper spots visible in "AMERICA". The surface is otherwise pretty clean. There are bagmarks yes, but nothing that screams dipped or "boinked". The depth of luster, more than anything else, to me says "nice coin."
RogerB and BryceM - to your point of how different lighting affects a gold coin visually, below are photos of the same coin under different lighting conditions. it is an 1854 $10 PCGS AU53 CAC.
These don’t look like the same coin even though they are, and they’re both professionally imaged.
@historybuff said: "I am studying examples of naturally toned circulated gold coins from say the 1840's versus those that may have been cleaned or dipped. I am curious about thoughts on examples of coins with lighter hues and in higher circulated grades that may or may not be original. Does anyone have thoughts or photo examples? For example are there lightly circulated examples that are original but do not have a heavy toned look? How can you tell for certain? Or is it safe to assume that any original AU circulated old gold coin from the 1800's that does not have any dirt chunks in recesses basically guarantee it was dipped at one time? Thanks!"
Before you dive in with both feet here is something to consider. Put this in one eye and out the other There is a big difference between a light, natural, beautiful "skin" of color on gold and what many love and refer to as "dirty gold" thinking it is attractive and "proves" the coin is original. Many of us find these coins BUTT UGLY. The last I heard (before they became "pushed" by some dealers as original) these things were the bulk of the gold sent to NCS for conservation as they did not bring the value of "bright" specimens.
We all have likes and dislikes so go with whatever you like. Follow the members advice who say to only buy certified coins at first. Toning hides a lot of problems. There is one good thing I can say about dark, splotchy, "toned" gold. They can be easily restored to normal.
BTW, most older gold has been cleaned. Before you go after the pretty colors, I suggest you examine gold graded MS-65 and above to learn what original surfaces and luster looks like.
Perfectly valid points. There are many “looks” that are loved, many that are almost universally despised, and a whole ton in the middle. That’s a good thing that allows for some variability in taste.
The original color of gold coins was affected by alloy, production environment including the type of fuel used to melt and anneal metal, and the whitening process chemicals. For any single year/mint you will need to understand all of these before any quantitative statement of color can be made.
Early - pre-1850 - gold was lighter and more like 0.999 fine gold in color. This was intentional, although the mint never achieved complete consistency. European gold of this era might be a better guide than US - it is available in larger quantity and overall better condition. Later gold - due to improved refining technology - was intended to be somewhat orange-gold color much like the British sovereign token. This color was accepted internationally and you will find nearly all coin of that era conform.
However, there is considerable range among the above and much effort will be required just to establish any meaningful 'standard' for gold coin color.
BryceM - the 1838 $5 you posted is a great example of my original post question. Say for instance that this particular coin was kept as "bullion" and stored in a protected environment much of its life and only ever briefly / lightly circulated. Could this not be an entirely original surface being that different environmental conditions have different results over many years? To my eye, there seems to be a natural looking depth to the tone though slighter than say another heavier circulated coin. The advise to look at them in person will be best for me at a show.
Hmmmm. Well, this coin did circulate, enough so that the majority of the mint luster is gone. A very lightly circulated coin (AU58) should have an entirely different look with more lively surfaces and better detail. Can you see the protected areas around the stars and devices that still show a little luster?
Could this low-end AU coin have original surfaces? Yeah, I suppose so, but it seems that enough circulation and wear to remove this much detail would have left some patina. Unless we know its entire history it is of course impossible to know with certainty.
VF.jpg)
EF
AU
Latin American Collection