From a distance, the depressed areas in the hair look like they have a white deposit in them, but with magnification you can see that it's very light pitting (that's what I would call it anyway). The details of this coin are really good, but something got to those crevaces. It does have, in some places, the remains of a very gritty grime, the sort of thing you might find at the bottom of a machinists toolbox. Where that grit has been removed the coin is shiny (around the stars and letters), but the rest of the obverse is toned. The reverse has some of the same characteristics, but not as much so. Seen this before? What causes it?
A very good question, one I have no definite answer to, but pure speculation could be very well that mint frost has remained in the recessed areas of this circulated Morgan. I would also speculate that at one time this Morgan was cleaned and allowed to re-tone over time. Other than that it's your run of the mill Morgan, but I'd still like to see the reverse of this coin...how about it?
Sure - but not run of the mill in terms of rarity - it's a 8tf VAM 9 (a R-7 with less than 400 ever minted) I suppose it may have been cleaned, i.e, a lot of the dirt removed, but not likely dipped or scrubbed - reason being that a sufficient amount of the original grime remains - unless someone cleaned and then dropped back in their toolbox .
Really? do you mean the pitting or the grime? The grime contains abrasive fragments and it's very gummy. I did think that the pitting could have been caused by dipping - but why would there still be the substantial amounts of gummy dirt? - and why is the pitting more prominent on one side than the other?
And if it was caused by dipping, it must have been a long time ago, no? Or could it have toned so much very quickly somehow - without toning the areas where the grime was?
Oh, actually, I think I've got it. A machinist in the 20's dipped into some metal cleaner, didn't like the way it came out, or forgot about it - it wound up in the bottom of his tool chest where it rubbed around a bit until all the little spaces were filled with grit - meanwhile all the raised spaces that weren't caked with grime toned. Then someone washed it hot water, removed some of the grime, and that left shine spaces around the stars and letters.
Not necessarily a machinist, a numismatist who doesn't like natural tarnish on coins could have dipped it in a tarnish remover, or acetone or some other cleaning compound.
So you would agree that the likelihood is that were the "damage" from cleaning then it would have had to have happened before the grime gathered and coin re-toned? And people here say that acetone doesn't remove metal from the coin - if that's true it would have to be some other cleaning agent, no? Like which ones? How about other sources of damage besides intentional cleaning, which given the grime and likelihood that it is a circulated coin, would seem possible - or even likely. What about exposure to chemicals of some kind at a worksite? If so, what kind of chemicals could do that light pitting? And if it was poor dipping technique, how could it be much more prominent on one side of the coin than the other?
Possibly, or not. It doesn't remove metal per say, but it will dull the natural luster if the coin is left in the solution too long. Any agent used to remove tarnish from silver. Since Morgans contain .77344 ounces of pure silver, tarnish is not a stranger to them.
Acetone will not harm the finish or luster. I've left silver and gold in acetone for many days...more than a week on occasion. It is perfectly benign. When folks speak of "an old dip" they're usually referring to a cleaning agent like JewelLuster (now called e-z-Est). It will remove tarnish/toning. Depending on the length and strength of the dip, and whether it is done more than once, it can damage the luster and make the coin looked washed-out. Failure to properly rinse can appear some time later as spotting, streaking, etc. FWIW, a single quick or diluted dip rarely does any measurable damage and sometimes can rescue an otherwise ugly-tarnished coin. Dealers have been doing it for decades. Even the TPG's do it at times. Lance.
So, in this particular coin, the characteristic I'm trying to know more about is the light pitting in the crevices, most noticeable in the hair. The toning, which the pictures don't completely do justice, is not dull, nor is the coin dull in any way - it even has a bit of luster. G and some other folks have said that it is damaged as a result of dipping, and has "dipping residue". But nothing anyone has said about the damage that improper dipping causes quite fits. The damage, whatever it is, seems tob be primarily in the crevices on one side of the coin. Maybe there is other information that hasn't been provided yet? Does anyone have another coin with a similar characteristic with a known history? With all due respect to the experts, I'm beginning to think it's environmental damage - i.e, damage caused by the coin lying in some corrosive material and possibly by something similar to the industrial crud, remnants of which remain - understanding there is not a lot of difference in terms of grading.
fiddlehead - think for a minute. Do you know what happens when you dip a coin ? It's pretty simple really. Coin dips are an acid, and it is the acid that removes the tarnish/toning from the coin. And the reason it removes that tarnish/toning is because it dissolves it turning it into a solution. The dip itself will become cloudy with that solution just like mud in water does. Now, there are several steps to dipping a coin properly. But if you don't do the process properly what happens is that some dirty solution will remain on the coin. And it will settle in the receesses and protected areas. And once it dries, it turns that same color that you see on your coin. I have seen it a thousand times if I've seen it once. Coins with dip residue left on them all look pretty much the same. As for the pitting you mention, most of it is not even pitting. It's light contact marks. But there are some pits, and it makes sense that there would be. That's because coins that are generally dipped are dipped to begin with because they have dark unsightly toning, often black in color. But once toning turns black it ha salso turned into corrosion. And it is that corrosion that caused the minor pitting you see. You wouldn't have been able to see it before the coin was dipped because the heavy dark toning would have covered it up and kept the pits filled. But once dipped all that goes away and the pits become visible. As for the toning the coin has now - dip residue causes a coin to tone, and tone pretty quickly. So everything that you see with this coin is exactly normal. It is precisely what you expect to see when a coin is dipped improperly. Of course it's always a matter of degree, some are worse than others. This one, is pretty bad.
Looks to me like polishing compound. Someone rubbed some kind of polishing compound on it years ago, then gave it a quick wipe that didn't remove the compound from the deeper recesses. Over the years the silver has darkened some and the volities have evaporated from the gunk left in the recesses leaving them filled with a gummy abrasive filled residue.
Thank you. Now it makes complete sense what you said. If I understand correctly, then what caused the corrosion in the crevices was damage from the original tarnish that the dipping removed. What about the gummy grit - was that the muddy mixture left over from the dipping?
In my opinion, yes. What Conder is talking about also results in residue left in the recesses. But the coin doesn't really look polished to me, thus my opinion.
