Coin Storage

I agree and he can post without insulting others in the process.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Well then you won't like this response....how is it you can respect master clutchy but still ask a question such as "when does such heavy toning be considered tarnishing?"....that is a ridiculous question they are two separate chemical reactions....its like saying that someone who weighs 280lbs must be fat, regardless if one is a troll who eats chips and peddles falsely advertised products OR is a 6'7" bodybuilder with 3% body fat....now in all honesty I may have sounded a little harsh to you there and its not directed at you really.

Ideally I would like just the facts discussed. Heavily toned is not tarnished. Period. Copper lined bags do not purify anything inside it, if they did, our walls would be lined with Intercept and noone would have any "toxic gases" to worry about in their home ever again.

Its so sad how he just posts these links with no chemistry background.....he's like; "look at the pretty animations BELL LABS has, see the little red dots, and the blue dots, and the orange dots all getting sucked up, all those DANGEROUS GASES, yeah, that's the magic of Intercept!"

derp derp derp

 

I have thick skin. It takes a lot to hurt my feelings. You missed the two points I was trying to make in this thread.

Those that have lived this hobby for many years, just call it toning. Maybe it is the wrong term in the science world but that's what almost all coin collectors and dealers call it. As Doug said, it's just splitting hairs. As a coin changes color and grows darker, it's called toned.

My second point was this. You and Armour should be able to debate this without all the insults. It takes away from you both, trying to prove your point.

With that said, I have a question. Some folks put a few fresh cents in the bags they use to store coins. Will this actually help the coins you are trying to protect?

 

you are right and I do apologize. putting some shiny pennies in, knowing you will need to rough them up and make them shiny again when they start getting dull can help....minimally. you would need A LOT of them in something the size of a safe and in all honesty, I have to look up the affinity for ambient ionic bonding of copper just to see exactly how helpful it would be. Basically you need the surface area of the pennies to be many times greater than whatever you are trying to protect, then you have to factor in the volume of air of the confined space (the smaller it is the easier to "treat it" would be) etc etc. honestly the idea of using one metal to act as a surface for these unwanted molecules to land on rather than your silver is like trying to dig a well with a spoon. there are bigger tools to use that actually make the process feasible.

Coin Armour simply cannot do this. A ziplock bag with a few pennies in it would be more effective, because it isnt just the surface area that counts. I mean think about it, if you have to rough the pennies up every so often to expose the unreacted copper, how would you rub off a layer from this CoinArmour being it is a micron or so thick? And the effect is minimal, but if that's your only option or money is preventing you from purchasing a product DESIGNED to absorb a specific compound then sure, toss a few pennies in a ziplock with your slabbed coin, or crack open a few 2013 rolls of pennie s fre sh from your bank and spread them around the bottom of your safe or SDB, but again, its just copper. It is a stable metal. The only molecules that settle on the pennies will react and stick, its not like they are attracted or are drawn to them. Its like throwing darts at a wall blindly. If you have 10 dartboards hanging on the wall you are 10x more likely to hit a bullseye than if there was only 1 dartboard.

I guess because that analogy isn't posted on BELLS LABs website it isn't true. Hahaha.

 

You are asking me to analyze the surface of a metal to determine what chemical reaction has occurred from a picture. Not going to be accurate. But one thing I can say for certain is it appears to have significant toning. And considering that this coin has obviously been around since the industrial revolution when man began pumping sulfur into the atmosphere faster than the earths limestone deposits could soak it up like it naturally would do with volcanic eruptions over time, I would say it has some minor tarnishing, most likely around the rim where oils from fingers collected and accelerated the process. There also appears to be a tarnish deposit to the left of his head.

Also, you can tell better by looking with a very strong magnifying glass or microscope by seeing if the area is raised. Remember, oxidation is a reaction occuring on the surface layer and "burrows" deeper as the oxidation increases. Tarnish is an actual DEPOSIT of sulfur reacting with the silver and builds up, actually makimg it thicker.

People can believe whatever they want. I simply am statimg facts. Take it for what its worth.

 

i agree. Nothing more pretty than a 1 oz coin with a natural rainbow painted by time itself (just had a poetic moment there)

 

what tarnish trap do you use?

 

Wow, contentious thread. I am a chemist and a coin collector/hoarder, but I am an Organic Chemist, which encompases compounds of carbon in general. BadThad is much more of a metals and surfaces expert than I am.

One of the first things we should understand when we talk about subjects like this is that language is imprecise and is mostly useful to beat each other over the head with. That being said, what is the difference between corrosion and tarnish - actually in my estimation, nothing. The difference comes about in the thickness of the layer deposited on the surface of the coin. Talking about silver specifically, if this layer is due to oxygen it is silver oxide and if it is due to sulfur (or more specifically sulfur compounds, including from the sulfates possibly used in paper manufacture, or from sulfur dioxide due to flatulence and the eggs you had for breakfast : - ))it is silver sulfide. The identity at low thickness is not really important since at this stage either would be somewhat transparent. The colors are going to come about due to the thickness and what it does to the reflected light, the thicker the layer, the darker until it becomes opaque.

I would say it is toning until it becomes opaque and after that call it tarnish.

Now THIS is rambling. Finally, oxidation is not only reaction of a species with oxygen, but can also be the reaction with any species where the reacted species has lost electrons to another species (oxidation is loss of electrons, reduction is gain of electrons - oil rig).

 

Reminds me of Groucho and Chico getting into a discussion if a building was a stable or a barn. Groucho said "If you look at it, it's a barn, if you smell it, it's a stable"

 

I would reason that you agree with me then....yes? Please review my previous posts where I discuss the thickness of oxidation determining color....the sulfur compounds depositing on the surface as tarnish...etc.

So yeah, can you just confirm Coin Armour doesn't work. They are glorified ziplock bags. It would really make my day for just someone else who actually understands chemistry say it point blank so that no other forum member gets swindled. That was my driving purpose all along.

 

You can call it whatever you like. I think it is beautiful, and I collect coins like that.

 

I collect toned franklin proofs. Were you under the impression I didn't like toning?

 

Um, no, Kentucky specified exactly what I said; 2 separate chemical reactions, color is determined by oxidation thickness. It doesn't matter if you incorrectly comingle the terms, but if someone wants to know the facts at least they have them. You literally could not have misunderstood myself or Kentucky any more than you did.

 

He is too hung up on being right to actually read what others have to say.

 

well is doesnt stop gold from toning red pure gold that is. even i have not been able to figure it out although i am running experiments

 

No, not at all. It was aimed at another person. Sorry for the confusion.