Hacksawed an Intercept box today

Intercept shield makes these mint set storage boxes that are 13" long. If you want to throw one under the bed, I guess that's fine. But as far as storing them in any type of protective container, they're way too long. This is the second one I've hacked down. This time I used a hacksaw. You have to cut a section out of it and then rejoin the pieces. Last time I used superglue. This time I just used box tape. Still has the same protective qualities, only in a more compact version. They are nice storage boxes, just too long!

I didn't take a pic of the final product but it looks ok. Main thing is that it's serving it's purpose. I do use the slab and 2x2 boxes as well.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

If you're chopping it up, then gluing or taping it back together, is it really giving any more protection than a generic cardboard box?

 

I still wonder why people use such products when the same effect can be obtained from a few well scruffed ( previously bu) new cents laying loose in the box.

Intercept (tm) products of corrosion control originated with inventions and patents at Lucent labs ( AT&T ) for packaging made of polymer bound reactive metals to "intercept" corrosive compounds such as sulfides and bind them chemically, thus removing them from circulation within the sealed plastic bag( U.S. Pat. No. 4,944,916) issued to Franey However, this reactive metal coating was semi-opaque and rather expensive ( and to me rather ugly). Then a patent was granted to bind the reactive component to paper and other cellulose products. Here is a patent that explains this process and which led to the introduction of intercept (tm) coin products.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6593007.html

This process is not forever. There is a set amount of reactive material in the cardboard used for albums and boxes, and once it is fully reacted, it can not be reactivated, and also there is little indication as to how much reactive power is still present. Just an estimate in number of years it could protect under normal conditions. If you live in a heavy industrialized area, it would be quite less.

A sacrificial anode is basically the low tech answer to the above product. The more active metal is more easily oxidized than the protected metal ( patina)and corrodes first (hence the term "sacrificial"); it generally must react nearly completely before the less active metal will corrode, thus acting as a barrier against corrosion for the protected metal.

Since the post 1982 cents have a coating of pure copper, it could qualify for this purpose, especially if it was protecting copper containing coins that by having developed a patina would be less reactive than pure copper. But to make the copper sacrificial coin more attractive, it should be abraded and cleaned severely prior to use. Since the same environmental agents that attack copper chemically will also find silver as attractive , the anode coin will protect them also.

​

Jim

 

I do similar to Jim and have had good luck. Reminds me I need to buy some new junk silver to throw in with my better coins, I am sure the old ones are toned by now. I feel bad scuffing up silver coins, even if they are only ASE's, and I find dipping does not return the same level of reactiveness to the coins as fresh silver does. I just buy some junk, fresh silver like ASE or maple leaves and wait until they turn.

 

I remember Jim mentioning this 'anode' type of thing in another thread awhile back. So it really works for you Chris?

 

I just have always thrown in "fresh" silver into boxes of coins I wish to not tone. The coins are in holders, and the sacrificial silver is raw. I seem to notice a box with sacrificial silver stays whiter than ones without it, and I do see the silver tone some. I replace it when I notice the silver getting the grey haze over it.

Now, this is not nearly as important as ensuring the box is cardboard free, the paper in the flips is sulphur free, and you keep low humidity in the environment. You have to give the silver a chance, and not stack the deck against it.

I have never done a scientific study, (double blind, etc), but the coins I do not wish to tone, done this way, have not toned in the last 20 years.

 

Wow, I think Doug took my side for the first time since Ive been here. . I agree. I think the boxes and holder have better coverage surounding what you are trying to protect. And if kept in a relatively safe environment probably last lnger. I understand the materials have a lifespan. But they do make good holders. If they last 10 years Ill get their new products and replace the old. Its not unreasonable to me.

 

I think your idea, (sorry I did not comment on it earler), was great man. I don't have a lot of expereince with these boxes but they seem fine and seem to work. I thought it was very ingenious to cut it down like that.

Have you ever conveyed your idea to the manufacturer?

 

Thanks for the compliments. I have not contacted IS but I should. Its a niche theyre missing. Compact boxes for currency would be really nice. I like their boxes because they are thick, sturdy, and have an archival feel to them. Also I can be confident that theyre made with inert materials. They seem more appropriate than some cheap box that you find laying in a pile somewhere made out of who knows what.

 

The environmental factors do not crawl around the inside of the box like little bugs, nor are they more attracted to any specific area, They are governed by the laws of physics as in diffusion. Diffusion says that the molecules will distribute themselves equally in an area ( as long as warmer than absolute zero ( -273 degrees centigrade) and if some are removed by combination with raw copper ( whether the Intercept (tm) material or my scuffed fresh cents) the remainder will redistribute themselves until in equal quantity. As an analogy, If you drain a pool of water of water with a few Large drains ( scrubbed coins) or with a lot of much smaller drains of the same total size ( intercept material) the end result will be the same. However the intercept (tm) is finite in it protective ability, can not be recharged ( but you can put in new cents) and is a set amount of protection ( you can add more coins if they all react quickly).

It is chemistry and physics, and there is nothing special in the intercept material that actually "pulls" the sulfide, etc to it, it just sits there awaiting to be "bumped" by the sulfide substances. With the anode, you can see how fast it is occurring, replace or increase the protection, for "cents" I have nothing against intercept (tm) products, they work, they look good, and they are much more expensive than a few cents.

Jim

 

How do you feel Jim about your method of copper versus mine of fresh silver? Is copper a better protectant than silver?

 

Good question. Copper is more reactive, cheaper, and more available in a 100% purity layer in post 1982 cents. If there were reasonable price 100% silver clad coins, I would give them a try as an experiment. The idea is that a pure substance ( copper or silver) would be better than an alloy such as bronze, sterling, or coin silver, but I don't know if it would be visible.

Jim

 

But wouldn't completely pure ASE's do the same thing? Its never bad to have more junk silver, (in my mind anyway), so that is why I just use these until they tone, then they go into the junk bag and I buy replacements.

I guess I was wondering about reactivity of pure silver versus pure copper versus toning chemicals like sulphur.

 

Theoretically silver would be more reactive on sulfur and similar. Practically, I am not sure if one would notice a significant difference as long as they were as or more reactive than the coins it is protecting. Another variable I just called another chemistry professor to discuss is once the initial layer of reactant is formed ( patina ) is copper compounds more protective than the corresponding silver patina in preventing further combination. The "protection rate" curve. Neither of us were sure, and he is leaving for a vacation in Minn., so I will leave that for a later investigation. Copper is so much cheaper than silver, I use them as I can get them for face, but silver would be as good or better, as both work better than other choices, but humidity still has to be controlled in both cases. IMO.

Jim

 

Doug, that small border you are mentioning ( where the air comes in ) will soon become inactive as the copper in the cardboard is not regenerated. And you have no indication when it does become saturated. Like I mentioned , if one likes the case, that is fine, but to believe it is superior to the anode has never been shown. Would anyone buy a motor that uses oil that can't be changed? and there was no way to tell how dirty it was, and no "life time replaceable" guarantee? I wouldn't and I don't think you would. It would work well for a while, but worry the heck out of me. I prefer to open the safe or boxes every so often and if the anode cents are toning, throw in some fresh bright ones. IMO.

Jim

 

Nah, I don't have to convince myself.

But they did Here is a piece of the patent I gave the URL for in the first post of mine.They just mixed into plastic and carbon.

Jim