Coin Storage

i really am not an argumentative person. however, when someone makes a statement that just isn't true, i just don't understand why ignorance seems to be the solution rather than understanding.

i know there is another chemist on these forums, and i wish he would speak up. this will be the final time i say it and if people choose to ignore facts thats their own prerogative.

toning is oxidation. it results in a rainbow of colors depending on the thickness of the layer and how much light is refracted into the visible light spectrum. thinner is towards the yellow. thicker is the violet end. it is a positive thing to happen.

tarnish is a separate, chemical reaction between sulfur and silver. it is greyish black and is BAD for your coins.

saying they are the same is just nonsense. so if i had 2 identical coins, and one was heavily toned, and one was heavily tarnished, you are saying you wouldn't care which one you were given...or more importantly, PURCHASED?!?!?!?

as you are a self declared numismatist, i expect more.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

no, chris of coin armour is not a chemist, and his links are to his own site and the manufacturers that make claims aligned with mine, he simply misunderstands them. he sells a product that claims to absorb chemicals when the manufacturers statement clearly says it is a barrier.

also, if you could show me one reputable article stating that oxidation and silver sulfide are the same thing i will very calmly apologize and tip my hat to you. i believe the entire University of Florida dept of materials engineers would disagree with you, but hey, we are only the number one rated materials engineering program in the country, what do we know about chemical reactions as clearly defined as tarnish (Ag + H2S) versus toning/oxidation (Ag + O2).

one chemist briefly commented on another thread here agreeing with me. he is a very respected member and i will not drag him in unless he wishes to re-comment. i have yet to see something reputable argue with the CHEMICAL EQUATION defining sulfur reactions and oxidation.

i will keep an eye out for this endless list of numismatists, books and articles claiming that two separate chemical rections, with different REACTANTS are the same thing......

WOW

 

also, desertgem provided a link if that is the one you were referring to that supports the facts....2 separate chemical reactions...but hey, you seem to know what you are talking about. you prob work for coin armour too considering the similarities in the blind defense of a product that clearly is incapable of doing what you both now claim

 

for the love of god come back here Jim and enlighten us

 

I concur with the link. according to you what is the best form of storage?

 

Lets see...where do I begin...hmmm... rysherms you are wrong.

Here is my research...for all to see. A published article in the Bell Labs Technical Journal and republished by Wiley online in InterScience in 2006. I think the first page of the article on page 1 puts the nail in your coffin..."Another unique property of the material is that it cleanses the environment inside the bag by neutralizing corrosive species trapped within the bag during packaging" Read for yourself, it is quite interesting, after you have finished choking on your words:

http://coinarmour.com/uploads/Bell_Labs.pdf

I see no reason to hide behind "send me a PM for my analysis" Who is humiliated now???

I also guess that the follow list of companies in the article (2nd to last page) got it wrong; Getty Museum, Honeywell, Lockheed, NASA, Raytheon, Royal Danish Mint, US Mint....etc. etc. etc. You are much smarter than they are.

 

First off, I can tell just by your tone that you are so uneducated and unprofessional that any company whose OWNER speaks to a critic like that is overly defensive for a reason. Additionally, pointing at articles written for applications other than coin storage is ridiculous. You obviously have no chemistry background whatsoever.

I forwarded this to a few of my colleagues and EVERY SINGLE ONE of them agree, a copper layer a few layers thick CAN ONLY act as a barrier (for a limited time at that) and its absorbtive properties would be reacted off almost IMMEDIATELY upon first contact with even ambient air.

Peddle away buddy. Unfortunately not ALL of America is naiive and will fall for your fancy hyperlinks and complete misunderstanding of chemical properties. I'm sure you will make a quick buck off of it. But you are scary in the way you completely do notbinderstand the ratio of surface area, reactant mass and lifespan of the material you bought and turnturned into a storage bag. Ots a ziplock bag my man.

Good luck. I just hope for you there is no PVC in it and people don't sue you for destroying numismatic coins.

 

Question rysherms...

I'm not a chemist, but what you are saying largely makes sense, at least if I try to look at it with what little I know from an electrical and airframe background. However, IF the container is sealed, it would still have fumes or vapors of some sort still there and trapped as you stated. But, if sealed then there is no more transfer, or at least an extremely small amount. Even without having been done in a clean-room environment wouldn't that still be an advantage for most storage situations?

Otherwise, the link states it neutralizes by offering a larger surface area for those nasties to react with instead of the protected object. I think even a brief glance would say it will still react with the object as well, even if working as designed, but if there is a limited amount present in the container would it not react with the barrier at all?

I know it's not a dissimilar metal corrosion thing at all, but in concept it sounds like using a sacrificial anode of sorts?

Oh, I'm not asking you to say it works as advertised, I think you covered that Just trying to understand as it looks like it may act as more than just a barrier, just not in the way it's being advertised?

 

so the deal is apples or oranges right

 

Interesting "point... counter-point" thread. It always make for a good read when two members argue (in a civilized manner) opposite conclusions.

 

I keep them in a sandwich ziplock bag..Who is going to stop me?
Silver is Silver is Silver. Tone bullions is a beautiful thing.

 

SVANCASTER - you are very wise and are definitely of the right background to understand..a sacrifical anode analogy is good, but consider the mass....the 1micron thin layer would be reacted off literally the first time you open the bag....also I cannot find anything about what type of plastic this coating is applied on to form the bag....if it is PVC, which I am willing to bet due to the fundamental lack of understanding and research for his own product chris has; then any coin in it is completely screwed...posting links of other people unrelated researxh just shows how ignorant he is and that he just wants to sell product at possibly other numismatists expense.

I'm done commenting on it. If people choose to ignore science they deserve to buy these glorified ziplock bags. I wouldn't take them for free or if you paid me.

 

1) Are there any worries about slab labels (material, inks, adhesives, whatever)?

2) How do we feel about new clean dry glass sample jars with Teflon lined lids?

 

Since I am a long-time coin collector, I am well aware of the effects of PVC and PVC damage. Our bags are not made from PVC, that would be silly and comical. As for the research...it is relevant since it was written by the inventor of Intercept Technology.

 

So, what material, specifally, is the bag made of? If you are selling a numismatic product repurposed from an industrial use (pvc being the most frequently used industrial plastic and most likely contender considering its original use) you should know this immediately.

Also, burying valid criticism in links from the manufacturer that have no relevance and dodging these valid concerns is not looking good. Most importantly I would like you to respond to the concept of free radical lifespan of the copper coating. I think as soon as you figure out (this being after your product has been on the market fraudulently claiming a false lifespan) you will find that the reactive surface of the copper completely stops bonding within seconds. ESPECIALLY IF IT IS DESIGNED WITH ABSORBSTION AS A PURPOSE. If you understood that you would not have chosen this product to brand as a long term numismatic absorbtive. Greatbidea in theory however the thickness of the copper does not allow long term or multiple usiage. Fail.

 

Absorbing?? Absorbing what? I'm a metal fabricator by trade and the only way to eliminate oxidation during the welding process is to flood the area with gases other than oxygen, and even that isn't 100%

 

THANK YOU CLUTCHY!

Please speak some sense into these poor consumers. A micron thick level of copper absorbing ALL gaseous molecules?! Magic beans for sale too! Half off!

Before you say it, trust me, I KNOW - I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO EXPLAIN IT TO CHRIS HE JUST DOESNT GET IT, or, and more likely, he is NEVER going to publicly admit he is selling fancy ziplocks.

 

Even if you store your coins in a vacuum state, whatever your using to hold that vacuum would have some traces of oxygen in it. Everything on the face on this earth has oxygen in it. Even with today's technology, you can't get any metal 100% pure.

 

And now ladies and gentlemen, I introduce Clutchy! A man of science, logic, and reason.