Beware of rainbow toning

Lehigh,

I know why I personally feel it is entirely appropriate to deduct grading points for ugly tobacco spit toning, but some people don't agree with me and quite frankly should. I know a little something about "dipping" that many people will dispute, but I am correct. "Dipping", done correctly damages zero metal, ... none. Let me restate here that I have never used, bought, held, wanted, or even seen a bottle of EZest except in an ad. I use my own formula, adapted from an Eastman Kodak Company formula (not an off-the-shelf product) used to "de-stain" textiles used in a photographic darkroom. Now, I state here categorically that no coin I've ever dipped ever had its luster impaired by that dip. Any impaired luster was already there, done by the toning itself, and the dip merely revealed the damage that was already put there by the toning process in the first place!!!

How do I know this? Another Eastman Kodak trick. I have a stash of silver content test papers used to determine if a fixing bath is exhausted. No matter how many silver coins I dip, for however long I want, that "dip" contains no sign of silver whatsoever. What it will contain is a fairly significant precipitate of pure yellow sulfur, and a distinctive whiff of hydrogen sulfide. I have removed some sulfur and left every atom of silver behind, still on the coin. The luster is exactly what the luster was, before the dip. Nothing more, nothing less.

So for you to suggest that a heavily tobacco spit toned coin should not be down scored if it's luster is still all there, strikes me as a nonsense sentence. If it had toned to brownish black, its luster is already likely shot. The bride's veil merely obscures the zits or crow's feet. They're still there.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Note to self: hitting "post" while on a train with sketchy wifi leads to duplicate posts.

 

What are you waiting for? "V. Kurt's Premium Coin Cleaner" sounds like a sure fire money maker!

 

I know the intellectual property rights to Kodak's holdings were acquired en masse by some tech company, maybe Microsoft or Apple or even Google. I just don't know which one.

I did discuss this formula in lavish detail at my Saturday 9:00AM "Money Talk" last August at ANA Chicagomont. Hey, you think a national show is just a big bourse? Nah ah ah!

By the way, I have also tried it on copper. The effects are too variable to be useful, but a tendency to run an unattractive yellowish greenish tone is disturbing. A properly toned copper coin should remind one of really old Scotch.

 

Correct answer-you do. Were it as easy as you think the market would have been saturated by now. Period.

 

Whenever I see the field "1880-S Morgan Dollar", my first reflexive thought is "extremely many very beautiful pieces out there, so common so that if one were inclined to pick a low-risk date to monkey with, that'd be one of the top contenders". I'm not saying I know there are lots of fake toned ones out there - I'm saying it's one of the first dates I'd suspect, and expect.

 

Logic and greed dictate that Vic is correct.

 

As would self-interest, don't you think? Look, I have ZERO desire to blame you for protecting this turf. I'd do it too, were I as invested as you are. A little introspection is all I'd like to see, and less hyper aggression. Does not the risk/reward set of incentives at least give you pause?

 

Nice post, but completely tangential to our conversation. I never even mentioned correct dipping methods. All I said was that the TPGs don't start deducting points for grade until the toning affects luster, otherwise is treated as neutral with respect to grade. Then I posted two 1886 Morgan Dollars with toning in the same cycle, one with muted luster, the other fully lustrous.

Did you bother to read the thread about the Uniquely Toned Peace Dollar? You didn't even mention what you think of that coin. My guess is that it is a "tobacco spit" coin, but as you can see, it is fully lustrous, and the reaction to the coin varies widely.

 

The common date Morgan Dollars would be an easy choice for coin doctors to experiment on due to their affordability. They would also be the coins that display the most dramatic bag toning since they are the coins that languished in bank vaults for decades. The top dates for toned Morgans are: 1880-S, 1881-S, 1882-S, 1883-O, 1884-O, 1885-O, 1885, 1886, 1887. These dates comprise an overwhelming majority of the bag toned Morgan Dollars in existence.

 

No, according to some the AT coin doctors are the only fraudster who truly want a long term scam to go on for ever, so they are all disciplined to not over saturate the market. They are not interested in making a ton of money in a short period of time. They are not racing against each other to maximize profits before the crash, they are working together so they can teach their kids the art of AT, so they to will have carears.

 

Lol, but you forgot the roll eyes emoji. Some members of this thread might actually think you are agreeing with them.

 

Honestly, this is an entirely different beast from than that ugloid yesterday, isn't it? There is nowhere near as much "acreage" involved here. There is enough left untoned that the luster is obvious. BUT, I guarantee you that under those wisps of brown lie "the very rare and very dangerous" luster breaks. Send in Jim to deal with them, 'cuz Marlon Perkins ain't doin' it.

If I wanted to "make" a coin like this from a whiter one, I would merely dip my fingers into a thiourea and baking soda bath, then somewhat carefully, but not fully, dry them and then put the coin haphazardly in a Saflip. Add a few days, and VOILA, what you see here.

Not that I'd ever do it to a 28-S Peace Dollar, but a stupid 63-D dime can prove the concept. BTW, I only understand the 63 grade if some of those brown wisps are also contact marks. I can't tell from the pic. Would I add it to my collection? Yes, I think I would.

 

Every coin is different, and that is part of my point. You can't predict which coins people will consider ugly, because opinions will vary just as much as the toning pattern. Listen, it wouldn't bother me if the TPGs penalized for ugly toning, I am just trying to explain to you the reason why they don't.

 

Kurt, I recall Kodak stain remover from my work in non-digital photography- electron microscopy in the 60s, and it was the formula below ( I still have my college lab records ). If you modified it, I would be interested in how. If you look it up, the main reactant is the thiourea, which is the same active ingredient in the old Tarnx, and it would remove silver from the coin. Small amounts, granted, but still would microscopically release it. You can find articles on the net using it to remove silver from ore, so the surface would not remain as before. I am sure some luster would be lost. Noticeable or not would depend on the length of exposure. The main difference between this Kodak product and EZ-Est is that the citric acid is a weaker acid, and would be slower. That is why I suggest using the EZ-Est at a 1:10 dilution. Silver estimating test papers we used to use indicates from a 0.0g/l and goes insteps next to 0.5 grams/liter ...up to 10grams silver/l. Much too large amount to indicate any lost by either dipping solution, IMO. Jim

Kodak stain remover S-10:
>Water.............................96oz
>Kodak Thiourea.............10oz
>Kodak Citric Acid...........10oz
>Water to make................ 1 gallon

 

Who says it is not?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2013-S-Amer...982?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4d302bba9e

First Strike?

 

Showing a PCGS mistake is not tantamount to market saturation. In answer to your question, Kurt said it is not. He attended an auction and out of 450 lots, one coin was toned.

 

Ye gads! To my eye, that coin is ruined. If that's AT, it should be a criminal offense.