Proper acetone procedure

Did you start drinking early today?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The sun is below the yardarm somewhere in the world...

 

I know they use the multi-filtered compressed air at my local coin shop when they clean their coins (all of them).

 

At what step does BadThad's Verdi-Care come into a comprehensive conservation regimen for copper coins? Would it be these general steps below?

1. Distilled Water
2. Acetone
3. Xylene
4. Verdi-Care <--- ?
5. Acetone

 

Actually since Verdi-Care also serves as protection, it should come in last place.

 

Should I do #1 or #2? I've been reading something about the order of polarity, so I'm unsure if Verdi-Care is more or less in terms of the ascending order from 1 to 3.

#1
1. Distilled Water
2. Acetone
3. Xylene
4. Acetone
5. Verdi-Care <--- ?

Or

#2
1. Distilled Water
2. Acetone
3. Xylene
4. Verdi-Care <--- ?

 

#2
But What Kentucky did not say was if you are getting your coins graded by PCGS, you might want to follow it with xylene (I think, but possibly acetone). Their detector can supposedly detect Verdi-Care. The xylene I believe will remove the coating Verdi-Care puts on the coin.

 

Yes, if you are sending in coins for grading (any TPG) I would not have Verdi-Care on them. If you use it to remove verdigris, I would remove any coating with acetone. Perhaps @BadThad will respond.

 

I was under the impression that the "sniffer" was only used for certain level coins. If they only take a fraction of a minute to grade, I am fairly certain they can't use the sniffer, evacuate, and flush the chamber rapidly enough to process all coins. I really thought it was mainly propaganda. Thad has indicated that it is only a molecular level of residual organics that protect the coin, and its an expensive and time consuming process to detect at that level, especially if a positive had passed through before, IMO.

 

The "sniffer" doesn't really "sniff" coins, but uses reflective infrared to detect organic materials on the surface. Similar machines I have used really don't take that long.

 

I would just rather be safe than sorry. If you already have the xylene present, it takes next to nothing to rinse the coin again.

 

That's what I heard. They cannot put every coin they get through the test. Perhaps only the coins slabbed with the gold shield label.

 

I like to flambe the coin after cleaning. You keep your blowtorch nearby, and immediately after rinsing with the acetone, before it has a chance to dry, you light it. Make sure you wear goggles, flame retardant clothing, and don't leave the acetone near you. How do you think some of those morgans get their nice rainbow tone?

 

The gold shields (Secure Shield) are supposed to all go through their sniffer. I don't know how many other go through if any.

 

I think you might be surprised. Acetone like ethanol burns with a low temperature flame, like trying to tone with an alcohol/wick lamp. With proper supervision in a chem lab under a hood, you could put a few ml in a pyrex watch glass and ignite it and try such. Silver dissipates heat extremely well, so it might even be difficult to get the morgan very hot, let alone hot enough to react with the environment to change tone. That is why old-timers would put them into a potato and bake @450 in an oven until crispy, better tone ( I hear) and no danger, other than burning the potato. A high sulfur spud is best

 

I tried something like that long ago. One side came out beautiful while the other side was completely ugly and ruined. One of my instructors put a gem commemorative half on a dish with some sulfur powder and left it the wall oven with just the heat from the gas pilot light. He said he forgot all about the coin. Several months later, weeks after broiling a steak in the bottom half of the oven. he opened the top half and discovered his long forgotten experiment. The coin was an etched, gun-metal silver-gray, piece of corroded metal! He told us that's one experiment he would never try again. True story.

 

It does not seem "right" to reject coins treated with VC or CC since many collectors and dealers use these products as a preservative. I do know that Care can leave a "wet" look if too much of it remains on the coin's surface or next to/inside of the crevices of the relief design. That will get a coin rejected. Care also leaves a more glossy and attractive surface (IMO) than VC. Professionals who use it, tell me they make sure this gloss is uniform using various methods. VC disappears as it dries - a very good trait.

So, for my money (all things considered as I have used both) I prefer Care for cost, the number of things** it removes faster, and the final look of the coin when care is used properly. As for soaking coin's, which I rarely do, I would use VC.

** IMO, it should be obvious that in many cases, other things are done/used on a coin to prepare its surface or remove things before either product is used to finish the coin.

 

Who could disagree with that? However, it is not practical.

In my limited experience, at least 20% (I'm very being conservative here) of coins in major TPGS slabs have "Chemically Altered Surfaces" that are either passed as "market acceptable" or get through undetected! Many of these turn color in the slab over time making them more obvious. The percentage I posted above does not include any slabbed coins with PVC film, dirt, or built up green crud that should add another 30% (again an extremely conservative estimate).

One professional I know who has worked at different TPGS's has suggested that all coins be conserved before slabbing to remove any surface contaminants. This had legal drawbacks and was not adopted. For example, if I sent an original, gray toned dirty 1799 dollar and the dirt around the devices was removed, in most cases, the surface under the dirt would not have toned the same color and the coin would loose lots of its eye appeal and perhaps some of its retail value. Can you say possible legal problem !

Fortunately or unfortunately this has never been done; yet the seed was planted and he started NCS at NGC.