Survey on Toning and Chemical Damage

Coinosaurus · March 28, 2003 10:27AM

Weimar White has an article in the current edition of the Gobrecht Journal describing the chemistry behind coin toning. Just curious what other folks think about this. I will ask you, if you have taken chemistry in college or higher to note this. Anyway, which of the following best describes your viewpoint on this:

a) toning does not constitute chemical damage to a coin

b) toning does constitute damage to a coin, but I like it anyway

c) toning constititutes damage to a coin, and I only collect white coins

d) I don't care if toning is "damage", I just go by whether I like the coin or not

I will personally vote for (b), and I did take chemistry in engineering school.

Iwog · March 28, 2003 7:06PM

I vote c. Once toning wrecks the luster on a coin, it's never coming back.

BigD5 · March 28, 2003 9:46PM

I'd probably also go with B. I guess it depends on how technical you want to get with the molecular breakdown of what constitutes "damage".
I think he has more of a problem with market grading by the certification companies than anything else, with this article. He can't figure out why an attractively "damaged" coin can command a higher grade from the services. Last time I checked, eye appeal was a factor taken into account to form a given grade for a coin.
His points on "chemical wear" are bologna. They may hold some basis to him or someone with a higher scientific background than I, and could actually be true, but normal collectors aren't going to take points of "chemical wear" seriously, AT ALL. Sure, a charcoal black toned example should be considered damaged, to a certain extent. The coin is not "worn", unless it's been circulated.
He actually talks about the amount of silver removed from a coin at the atomic level, for different colored toning. Again, it may all be true, depending on how deep you want to get with the coin, but in reality MOST collectors could give a hoot about the molecular structure of their coin, and whether or not it has remained in tact.
Lastly, his hot air argument concerning MINT STATE and UNCIRCULATED, that being that toned coins are not MINT STATE, they are UNCIRCULATED is getting so old, it's almost comical. He's been at that forever, probably thinking that if he keeps up the crusade, someone will listen. The fact of the matter is MOST collectors don't care about that last point, and consider it more of a play on words than an argument worth spending any legitimate time thinking about.
Go ahead and fry me if you please. I'll just keep on collecting attractively "damaged" coins, and be realistic in the fact that an attractively "damaged" coin will probably get a higher grade from a certification co., than a fictional "white" twin, because eye appeal plays a role in determining the final grade of a coin.

tgilliams · March 28, 2003 9:55PM

Aten't all toned coins AT. From my limited undertanding, toning is not a natural occurance. Whether toned from a Waite Raymond album or cooked, the chemical composition of a toned coin is caused from unnatural sources. Please correct me if I'm incorrect. I do not collect toned coins, just a question of the definition of a toned coin.

Gilbert · March 28, 2003 10:09PM

I guess if you want to get literal, one could argue that when a coin is exposed to an ordinary environment, one that follows the natural sequence of events for that area (a desk drawer, a coin non-sonically sealed holder, coin album, pocket, mint capsule, etc.) and it begins to be affected - it could conceivably be natural.

On the other hand, an environment which is controlled with the specific intent to affect the coin could be considered enhancement and thus artificial.

I really don't understand or cannot comprehend the concept that ANY toning is artificial; a vacuum sealed environment is not a natural environment for a coin

Draco · March 29, 2003 1:10AM

My vote is for C. Tone=environmental damage OR chemical damage by it's owner.

Either way, toned coins look horrible to me no matter what the pattern or color is and it's my opinion that these so-called "Monster Toned" coins should get a net grade or be bagged for altered surfaces and/or environmental damage.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

EVillageProwler · March 29, 2003 1:27AM

I guess I'm a "b" man, at least most of the time.

My problem with this survey is with the use of a non-neutral word like "damage" which carries with it a negative connotation.

It's like with the war in Iraq right now. The Arab press will use words like "invade," "occupy," and "conquer" instead of a simple "military action."

Instead of "chemical damage," I would suggest "chemical change" or "molecular change."

EVP

nwcs · March 29, 2003 1:33AM

I think the word "damaged" is a loaded term. What is the definition of damage in this case?

Toning is simply a chemical reaction. I don't see that as damage in the common understanding of the word damage. Elements from the atmosphere or liquid or gas reacted with the coin surface producing compounds that refract light differently. Quite an ordinary thing that happens to everything everywhere to different extents. But when it's attractive, it's attractive. When it's ugly, it's ugly.

That's how I see toning.

BillJones · March 29, 2003 1:43AM

Mr. White has been spouting his theories on toning for many years and has created more than little mischief in the numismatic hobby. Many noted numismatists strongly disagree with his conclusions. As a result of Mr. White’s articles, there was period in the 1980s when dealers had a hard time selling nice original coins. This resulted in the needless dipping of many attractive coins. Today the pendulum has swung back toward attractively toned coins in a big way.

The bottom line is this. Copper and silver have a natural tendency to form a layer of oxidation on the exposed surfaces. Whether not you consider this to be damage or in some cases a source of beauty is according to your tastes. Contrary to what Mr. White has written, given proper storage, coins that are not contaminated with harmful chemicals will not change very much for a long period of years. In fact moderate toning actually forms a protective covering for the coin. Mr. White’s claims that all toned coins will eventually turn as black as coal within your lifetime, given proper storage, are considerably exaggerated.

My advice is to buy the coins that suit you and not worry about Mr. White’s theories and predictions. Much of the numismatic community does not agree with him, and many of his claims are considerably exaggerated.

EVillageProwler · March 29, 2003 1:47AM

I have a better question...

Suppose Jenny McCarthy hung out at the beaches of sunny So. Cal. on a regular basis and got a nice tan. Would anyone not find her attractive because of her coppertone tan?

Suppose you find out that Jenny's tan is from a salon. Would you then not want to date her?

As for me, I'd take Jenny McCarthy in any shade of skin pigmentation...

EVP

wallstreetman · March 29, 2003 2:12AM

Hey Evillage, couldnt the word CHANGE mean non MS?

wallstreetman · March 29, 2003 2:14AM

Im somewhere between B and C, swaying more to the C side!

K6AZ · March 29, 2003 2:25AM

I strongly agree with Bill Jones. We lost a tremendous amount of nice coins due to White's ridiculous assertions in the past. In my opinion, toning is not damage. It is the natural reaction of the coin's surface when exposed to our enviroment.

Iwog · March 29, 2003 3:21AM

Hydrogen sulfide is not natural. (unless you live next to a volcano or keep rotten eggs in your house) It's a corrosive agent that is usually an industrial byproduct of food and manufacturing. Silver metal is destroyed when it is converted to silver sulfide. (toning) If destroying pure silver and turning it into a black powder isn't damage, then rust on your classic car should be considered toning as well.

Conder101 · March 29, 2003 3:40AM

I'm torn between B and D.

I haven't the latest Gobrecht but I will say this about his MintState and Uncirculated argument. Since coin metal is reactive it starts to react or tone th moment it drops from the dies, even if the layer is thin enough that it can't be seen, So by his own argument there is no such thing as "Mint State". Of course that is immaterial since Mint State can be defined as "As it came from the dies with no wear". That definition does allow a coin to be toned and still be Mint State. When the toning is heavy enough that the "chemical wear" has destroyed the microscopic flowlines that creat the luster on a Mint State coin then it can be said to have environmental damage.

I had two years of chemistry in High School, two years in college before changing majors, and then I earned an Associates Degree in Chemistry from another college for another student.

KlectorKid · March 29, 2003 3:49AM

D/B more D though.

EVillageProwler · March 29, 2003 4:00AM

We aficionados of U.S. coinage tend to utilize the concept of "mint state" loosely. In Europe, they use a term called "Fleur de Coin," which is suppose to imply a theoretically pristine condition.

Perhaps Mr. White is mixing our use of MS with the European's use of FDC?

EVP

EVillageProwler · March 29, 2003 4:03AM

Hey Evillage, couldnt the word CHANGE mean non MS?

I suppose, but it would present a problem of grammar and diction to Coin-beast... My only point is that "damage" is not a neutral term. "non MS", imo, is appropriately neutral. It just doesn't seem to fit well what Coin-beast was trying to say...

EVP

Cam40 · March 29, 2003 4:20AM

The reality is is a coin naturally isnt supposed to have any visible toning.

A coin in its natural, uncontrolled enviroment (in circulation) will not tone.

A coin in a controlled enviroment (in a collectors collection) can tone easily.
So logicaly isnt all toning not natural?

Is toning damage? Maybe on the molecular level but it sure looks pretty sometimes.
The damage is negligible.

Dog97 · March 29, 2003 4:37AM

I didn't take chemistry or read the Gobrecht Journal but I'll go with A until the coin reaches a point where it is pitted & etched and looks enviromentaly damaged. You didn't say if you meant AT or natural toning so I'm replying assuming you mean if a natural toned coin is really a damaged coin.

Coinosaurus · March 29, 2003 6:16AM

I agreed that "damage" is a loaded term. Perhaps a better wording would have been "chemical alteration", etc.

nwcs · March 29, 2003 6:25AM

>A coin in its natural, uncontrolled enviroment (in circulation) will not tone.

Cam40, what about bag toning where the coins wait to reach their uncontrolled environment? This is part of the normal distribution and is not an environment manufactured to produce a chemical reaction.

Neil

Draco · March 29, 2003 7:53AM

Ok, correction. . .

I like nice natural toning just fine. When I say natural, I mean the brown/black toning that occures when sulfer comes into contact with silver. I know there are a few others, but I don't recall off hand. This purple/rainbow crap that I see on coins indicates (to me, at least) that the coin came into contact with one or more chemical compounds. I don't deny that some of this kind of toning is pleasing to the eye (Coinosaurus' icon comes to mind), but it's a contamination that may or may not have altered the coins surface.

Having worked in the electrical field for the last 20 years, I've noticed that untouched copper will remain a nice bright red for a very, very long time but will eventually start turning brown. I prefer red, but I know the brown color I see on old copper coins is perfectly natural under normal circumstances.

Someone from this board has posted pictures of a ruby-red indian cent a few times and I'm not sure what would have caused it, but I find it extremely difficult to believe that it's natural and I have no idea why people place such a premium on these coins.

Just my four cents (inflation, ya know)

eagle7 · March 29, 2003 8:06AM

None of the above. And just for information, a naturally toned Morgan Dollar which has not progressed very far into the toning cycle will display superior luster because of the toning, not luster problems as IWOG asserts. I strongly urge someone to show him some PCGS coins with natural bag toning such as the ones from the Continental Bank hoard and he will see what I mean.

Higashiyama · March 29, 2003 9:55AM

Among the choices, I would vote for A.

Actually, I am surprised there aren't more votes in this category. If you exclude modern coins, the majority of coins show some degree of toning. Are people suggesting that most coins are damaged? (The prior points that the word "damaged" is a loaded term are fair -- you might substitute "original", but either way the discussion may get pointless quickly

)

gsaguy · March 29, 2003 10:28AM

All toned coins are damaged, especially those with the bright rainbow colors. Someone should put a stop to this scourge on our hobby!

I'll take the lead.

Please package and ship to me all your tone-damaged Morgan dollars and I'll bail you out of them because.....well because....it's the kind of guy I am.

GSAGUY

Do it.............for the children.

Edited to add: Just PM for my mailing address.

K6AZ · March 29, 2003 10:52AM

Looks like it is time to pull out the good stuff. I have actually made some converts with this coin, people who said they didn't like anything other than blast white coins changed their minds after seeing this one, especially in person. The luster shines out from under the toning, which gives it an appearance of a jewel. Yes folks, this is one seriously damaged coin.

FatMan · March 29, 2003 10:57AM

b,d if you still remember the question that started this thread. Buy the Coin, Not the Chemistry.

DoctorOfTone · March 29, 2003 2:10PM

The question is what is the natural state of an alloy consisting of silver and copper. The fact is that the natural state is tarnished and/or toned. If left in a natural state it would most likley tone black in most normal environments (the artic and antartic are not normal). Now are coins naturally sitting or in circulation? Well, obviously MS coins cannot be the latter if they are to remain uncirculated so their natural state must be seditary. Circulated coins, well if they are collected then their natural state is also seditary. A white silver coin is man made and a temporary state. If circulated the rub will keep most silver coins free of the dark roning and tarnish that would eventually be their state. The silver coin is always and I repeat always seeking an equilibrium with the oxygen rich, relativley humid and reletively polluted environment it is in. Place a mint coin in a vaccum then it will remain white and bright. Other than that the coin is seeking to become stable which happens when the coins surface has lost and gained the atomic components that allow it to become stable and the unreactive with the environment it is residing in. Pour some acid on it then the equilibrium is upset and a whole new cycle starts over.
The Doc

Iwog · March 29, 2003 3:22PM

Eagle, toning cannot increase or enhance the luster on a coin. It can only color it. A very light color on a brilliant coin looks very nice because most of the silver is still intact, but silver sulfide is dull and black and can never increase the reflectivity of the coin.

Survey on Toning and Chemical Damage

Comments

Leave a Comment