Restore Buffalo before and after

I pulled this smooth 1916 Buffalo out of a roll this morning. I took photos and subjected it to restoration. The restoration was to this stage by lunch.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Well done!

 

Agree, but what did he use?

 

The secret sauce…of course! ;-)

 

I use a mixture of 40 Volume Peroxide (usually only available at Beauty Supply Stores) and Vinegar. Mix in a small glass dish. If you cover the dish don't make it tight. The gas generated will cause the cover to remove itself. Start by leaving it in for a short time. I have seen them develop in a few minutes. Practice with different formulas and different times. Take the coin out regularly and always rinse. If left too long the coin may turn black or green.

I am posting this because I want feedback. So, report your success, failure and improvements.

 

I've never done it. The dealer I went to today had about 60$ face of dateless Buffalos. You make me want to try a few to see just what date they are, as if I don't have enough to do.

 

I don't subscribe to the old notion that restoring damages the coin. You are removing the damage of decades. Previous processes left unsightly stains. This process leaves the surface with a uniform texture. I think they have eye appeal and tell that are really what they appear to be.

 

Now, you said Peroxide and Vinegar but how much of each? I have a few dateless buffalos looking for a date.
Not sure about the peroxide. I'll check with the chick from the 80's band up the street if she has some.
Seriously, can't hurt.. Right? Will it work on detected Nickels from the ground? Hmmm

 

I use about 50/50

 

I am not kicking the process at all your result are way better at showing the details of the coin. Spot treatments are just that an eyesore. I think that the dilution level can get too aggressive and attack the surfaces rather than just bringing up a date, you draw details that are not there. Technically

 

For me anyways, most of mine have been detected and are deemed damaged anyways. Just fun to see the date again, I guess...

 

Timing and removing the coin after short spells, rinsing, etc. is good control. Like I said above, too long can turn it black or green. Details other than the date? Look at the buffalo. A lot of detail including from no horn to full horn. You have a coin that will look good in a circulation set rather than a dirty white disk with no detail at all.

 

I think you are playing fast and loose with the term "restoration". You aren't restoring anything... you are corroding the surface to reveal things that weren't there.

I agree that it is more attractive than Nic-a-Date, but you are essentially doing the same thing.

If you sell any of these pieces, make sure you disclose what you've done.

 

I'm removing years of built up crud. I guess I am cleaning them. But I am "restoring" their identity. If we were all purists there wouldn't be any ancient coins that are recognizable. Virtually the same processes are used to to remove the crud built up. Are you going to disqualify everything that has had crud removed? Are you going to disqualify all "dug" coins the detectorists come home with?

Disclosure? All such coins in my collection are isolated and identified.

Every coin in your collection and mine is there because of validity and eye appeal. Refusing to accept these processes and products as valid is an injustice to the hobby.

 

No, you are not. You are not removing any crud at all. You are literally eating away the metal to reveal details based on the different density of the struck coin - exactly the same process as nic-a-date, just over the entire coin. If you look at your original coin, there is no crud there.

There is a significant difference between removing verdigris or corrosion built up on a coin. That is actual restoration. That is not what you are doing here. I'm perfectly fine with removing corrosion and stabilizing a coin (ancient or modern). But please don't try to fool yourself - that is not what you are doing here.

 

I am not fooling myself and am not trying to fool anyone else. I rediscover the identity, isolate the coin and note that it was restored.

Are you trying to say that the result of my process reveals something that never was there? Are you saying that the surviving devices are a figment of my imagination? Something appeared that never was there?

I'm not sure why you have a problem with this practice. Do you consider it forgery?

 

I'm saying that something has appeared which had been removed. The coin was dateless, meaning that it had been worn down to the point that you could no longer see the date. Of course the date was there when it was made! But, by the natural wearing process, it was removed. However, the internal metal structure of the coin is such that the density is different as the metal flows during the striking process.

You are altering the surface of the coin by intentionally corroding the surface. The softer metal of the fields corrodes faster than the denser metal flowing up into the devices, which allows you to reveal these details.

You are not restoring anything. You are corroding the surface even further. You are producing an altered coin.

I do not consider it a forgery. Forgery requires several elements (false making or alteration, intent to defraud, appearance of authenticity, and presentation as genuine).

In my opinion, you're just presenting an altered coin and claiming it as genuine. You don't meet the legal definition of forgery.

My problem is that you are considering this a "restoration"... attempting to return it to its natural state. You are absolutely, 100%, not restoring this coin.

 

I have restored the dates and mint marks on a number of Buffalo Nickels. I’ve found some tough dates, including a 1926-S and several of the teens and twenties. You did a nice job in getting those dates to show.

 

If it is revealing details that are present (internal structure of the coin's metal), sure, it's "alteration" - but no more so than the wear that obscured those details in the first place.

I don't think anyone would say that a nickel with a restored date hasn't been "altered". But the way you're using the word, and the overall tone of your message, seems to equate it with adding a non-existent mintmark or altering a 1944-D cent to a 1914-D. I certainly don't agree with that equivalence.

In what sense is this not a genuine (albeit damaged) 1916-P nickel?

If you don't want to collect such nickels, it's perfectly understandable. But I really don't understand your claim that this is somehow no longer a 1916-P nickel, even though it was struck at the Philadelphia mint in 1916.