I buy gold for long-term investment value. Over the years I've collected a few Krugs. I only buy from reputable dealers who are numismatic experts, never fly-by-night CASH FOR GOLD places. A year or so ago I purchased one or two Krugs from my same people, and these coins do not have the exact same characteristic reddish-copper hue of the others I have. They look noticeably different, more gold, more yellowish. I noticed the difference right away at the counter and questioned the store owner, who said to me that in all the years he has been doing business, he has only seen 1 fake Krug, and joked that "you could probably tell from across the room." I was just wondering if any of you have Krugs that deviate from the familiar copper-ish color enough to notice? I will attempt to upload or provide a link to a picture of these "suspect" coins at a later time, with an embedded color profile so that it displays with some accuracy if you view it in a program that can use color source. (With others for comparison of course.) Suspect is kind of a hard word, I don't really think they are fake. I am posting a pic of a "normal" Krug here at this time, compared to the very GOLD hued buffalo. If it doesn't post it's not for lack of trying. Even though I am not a coin expert, I do trust my eye and thought the question worth posing. My coin dealer is a gem (pun) and he would certainly trade the coins for others if he felt I wasn't satisfied. In fact he offered to do that when I came back the next time and raised this question. But at that time gold was trading more scarce and he wasn't able to lay out a selection of several coins for me to swap.
If the dealer has only ever seen one fake Krugerrand, then he simply does not get out much, or cannot tell a fake. There are tons of fake krugerrands out there. Heck, they were faking these, (well), out of the middle east long before China got into the fake game in a major way. I am not an expert in Krugerrands, but what you say makes me vry suspicious. Is the date 1967 by chance? I think they made some gold plated ones with this date for some reason from the mint.
Of course it's a different color. krugerrands are 91.67% gold and Buffalos are 99.99% gold. Krugerrands are made of an an alloy, Buffalos are not, so of course they are different colors. Also, contrary to popular belief, gold tones, just like silver or copper tones. So of course an older coin is going to be a different color than a newly minted coin. And even if you have 2 gold coins, made of the same alloy, and of the same date, and stored side by side, it is not unusual for those 2 golds to end up being colors than each other. It is their nature and the nature of toning.
I would agree two Krugerrands might be a different color, just disagree with the source. Btw, yes, Krugerrands are darker gold coloring. All I have ever seen, even newly minted ones, are a copper gold color rather than a 24k gold color.
No, the date was not 1967. I don't believe I have a Krugerrand dated before the late 1970's. I posted a Krugerrand beside a Buffalo because I wanted to see if the coppery Krug and the very gold Buffalo could be easily distinguished when scanned. There's no point in posting pics of "slightly off-color" Krugs unless you can actually see it. But the scan looks true. Lastly, I have seen gold "spot", like dark blemishes on a Maple, but I have not seen it "tone" to the point where, using the Maple again for an example, there is any appreciable difference in color from a 1980's Maple to a 2014. Small difference sure, but not like what I'm talking about with these 1 or 2 Krug's. I don't have any experience with gold from a hundred years ago, so if it tones considerably over time I wouldn't know.
Doug claims gold tones, other, (including me), claim impurities in gold coins like silver or copper can tone or create "spots", and gold coins can acquire a atmospheric "haze' on them that washes off, but the gold itself does not tone. So, I would say its possible for an older krugerrand to look a little darker or have copper spots, but it should look very similar to new ones. If you have a krugerrand and it appears much more goldish in color than your others, that would make me nervous. Krugerrands are a dark coin, that is how every one I have ever seen looks like. At this point, you could spend the $40 or whatever and send it into ANACS for authentication. You are not worried about grade, (and for grade ANACS is not as accepted as NGC/PCGS), but for authenticity I believe ANACS is as good as any of them. It would be $40 well spent if it let you sleep at night knowing you are not holding a fake gold coin, right?
As I have suggested many times, anybody who wants to prove to themselves and see with their own eyes that gold, even pure gold, tones - can easily do so by conducting a little experiment right in your own home. It's very simple, go out a buy a gold coin - .999 or .9999 gold. (That is pure gold, there are no impurities in it to cause toning as claimed.) Take it home and store it in the open air for a year, or longer if you like. At the end of that year take said coin with you to the coin shop and ask the owner to see a new, freshly minted, gold coin of the same purity. Lay your coin down on the counter next to the new coin. You will see a difference in color between the two. Now Chris you claim this color is "atmospheric haze" that will wash off. But wash off with what ? You can rinse the coin in distilled water, the color will not change. You can rinse it in acetone or xylene, the color will not change. Why not ? Because those things will not "wash off" toning. But yes, you can wash it off. But only if you use a commercial coin dip that will "wash off" the toning from any coin.
I have washed off such "haze" with distilled water and commercial hand cleaner Doug. I bought an estate from a heavy smoker, and all of the coins had a heavy doses of smoke on them. With a long soak and immediate proper drying I was able to remove the strong smoke smell, and all of the coins were brighter. I guess I always equated this experience with other surface grime that would accumulate on coins if exposed to all of the household fumes floating around our house. All of my chemistry buddies swear gold will not form chemical bonds with chemicals commonly found in the air short of extreme heat or pressure situations. So, Doug and I disagree on the topic. I do not care much about the issue, though, so I am not going to fall on my sword over it. Everyone is free to believe what they wish on the issue. Btw, its one of a very, very few issues I disagree with Doug about OP, and consider his posts to be a gold standard here.
You're far from being alone in your thinking that gold does not tone Chris, I know that. The idea that gold does not tone has been the accepted norm for centuries. Until I started specializing in collecting gold coins years ago, I was a believer myself. But it was doing that collecting that taught me otherwise. For there were many coins that I collected that were of gold as pure as the modern Buffalos, and those coins were toned. And not toning that washed off. And somewhere in the many threads where this has been discussed I have posted links where there is even modern science that says gold tones on the molecular level. So it seems that science is catching up with I have been saying for years based on my personal observations.
I appreciate the clarification regarding differences in color by those who have experience in this matter. I clean coins with a 50/50 mix of alcohol and water, a lot of elbow grease and a soft cotton cloth. After finding and inspecting the Krugerrand that I posted about, I have come to the conclusion that the difference is more about lustre, not really color. These pics are from phone. Without controlled lighting I don't know if you can see what I mean. These two coins, viewed in person, look pretty different. The 1974 (left) is typical of color and finish. The 1978 on the right is noticeably brighter, shinier, and therefore appears a slightly different color. The 1978 brighter coin even appears to be smoother under magnification, in the sections where the metal is cast against a non-etched section of the mold. The typical Krugerrand appears to have a natural "grain" to the metal, like fine sand, where the bright coin has much less. The difference is more about shininess, like what you would expect between a proof and a non-proof. So I am wondering if the coin that appears brighter is either a special run, or possibly struck w/a brand new die? It is such a stark difference to observe under bright lights. Apologies if you cannot see it here.
This, all by itself, would be plenty of reason for the coins to look different from each other. Also, I hope you realize that by doing that, you are destroying any numismatic value that the coins might have and reduced the coins to being worth a small premium over melt value. Now I'm not criticizing you, I'm merely trying to help you by giving you good information.
No, I certainly appreciate your input, although I can't for the life of me imagine how water mixed w/rubbing alcohol and a lint free kitchen towel does anything except remove dirt and germs.
What you are doing is harmful because it is a form of harsh cleaning and easily detectable by anyone that knows coins. The rubbing with the cloth destroys most if not all of the coin's luster and leaves behind tell-tale hairlines all over the coin.
In addition to what GDJMSP posted above, it may not always be the soft cloth that does the damage. It's by sliding the dirt/debris across the coin as you wipe that can scratch the coin's surfaces. Undetectable a lot of times by the eye but not under magnification.
If you wished to remove surface dirt the safest ways are soaking (not rubbing) in either distilled water or acetone and then rinsing with water I've cleaned many a coin with grime grease or PVC residue by soaking for a day or so in a jar of acetone then rinsing under a faucet then drying on a paper towel being very careful not to rub or abrade the coin in any way
Okay, I should have known I'm chatting with some hardcore indivs. I don't have anything rare, historically significant or uncirculated. But now I know what NOT to do. I admit it is pretty cool to look at a coin under magnification and see very fine condition. But for me it's equally cool to hold silver or gold in my hand and think about how it came into being, supernovae and stuff. I like that even more. It's a connection to something almost unfathomable.
Absolutely! Always remember, though, even if you do not think what you have is exceptionally rare or having stunner condition is not important to you now, think of the people in the future that may own what you currently own. Preserve it for them so that they may admire it much the same way you can today. We would not be able to collect those stunner pieces if they weren't preserved over the last century or more. Also, you cannot say with certainty what will become historically significant. What if there is a major shortage of gold in 20 years? The governments could buy up modern gold coins at melt to use. After some time the gold supply could increase and the shortage will be over. But any gold coins from prior to that that remain would be scarce in number and a reminder of what can happen economically. Shortages and surpluses have happened over and over throughout history. That's what makes the early silver dollars so rare, and 1880's Morgan dollars so common.
Appreciate all the postings here. I too have noticed some color differences in recently purchased KRands... the new ones have passed a size, and weight test, both diameter and thickness and weight... so to be fake they would have to be tungsten... something somewhat hard to work with... and as purchased from reputable source, I tend to discount that. These are dated in the late 70s and early 80s... but they are brighter than the others I have. My guess is, it all depends on how they were stored and played with before they came to me. My guess is there is a small amount of oxidation, as KR's are not pure gold that the "new" ones do not have yet.
