What is this Residue on Half Dime?

I recently acquired this 1833 Capped Bust Half Dime, the LM-10 die marriage with a PCGS AU-53 grade. There's nothing notable about this coin except for the whitish, waxy-looking residue that is impacted into the denticles almost all the way around the obverse. The same material appears to a much lesser degree on the stars on the sides facing the rim. The reverse does not display any of this residue with the exception of a tiny bit on I of UNITED.

I have seen similar impactions on other Capped Bust Half Dimes but only in circulated grades of XF to AU. None on MS coins or lower grade circulated examples. Nor have I seen this type of residue on other 19th century denominations but then I haven't been looking for it. It spurred me to speculate on the source of this residue and encourage you to comment and speculate also.

Forthwith, photos including a closeup of the obverse denticles with residue followed by my speculations in order of my view of most likely to least likely.



1) Residue left over from some sort of cleaning product, most likely a soap. Raises the question of why almost none of the residue appears on the reverse. But the soaps of the 19th century were not the highly developed formulations of today. And the graders at PCGS did not assess the coin as cleaned nor can I see any evidence of a harsh cleaning. That doesn't preclude a soap wash with an insufficient rinse.

2) Back in the 19th century, the envelope industry didn't exist so most letters were mailed using the folded-up paper of the letter itself to serve as the envelope with the closure flap sealed by a wax dollop, often with an impressed signet into the hot wax. I call it wax but it could have any of numerous formulations involving bees wax, turpentine, candle wax, paraffin, etc. Usually, people with means had special signet seals purpose-made for this duty. But poorer people may not have had or needed such equipment and may have used whatever was at hand to imprint their letter seal. Could that have been a coin? The half dime at 15.5 mm is right in the size range for a typical letter closure seal. And this may explain why the residue appears almost entirely only on one side of the coin. The user might have liked the obverse better or may have wanted to use the date for some purpose known only to them. I did some internet searching looking for anything related to the use of coins as a signet during the 19th century and found nothing.

3) The normal human oils and environmental grunge that circulated coins are prone to gather. This doesn't really explain the uniform color of this residue nor it's appearance almost exclusively on the obverse. Most coins I've seen with circulation grunge in the devices show evidence of multiple sources of contamination.

4) Someone dropped the coin into a vat of pig fat being rendered down to lard. Mostly a tongue-in-cheek explanation.

Please feel free to comment or speculate. And if you think I'm seeing zebras where there are only horses, go ahead and say so.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I had a coin with the similar white crud. It could be glue as it was removed after being soaked in acetone.

 

Good guess. Maybe someone glued this coin into a coin album or whatever. Odd though to glue and hide the obverse and not the reverse.

But I wonder why PCGS did not detail this coin for environmental damage or some other detail grade if it's a foreign contamination other than circulation grunge?

 

I don't believe PCGS would have missed this type of contamination.

 

My bets are on a varnish that was used as it often was to retain the shine... on a coin lg cents you always see...was now worned ....and a attempt was tried to clean up. Notice the creamy yellowish color... thats varnish thats contaminated.
That should never been missed by a TPG ...its quite common on type coins.

Remember varnish is thin and flows well to seal cracks or grain.

 

My first reaction when I see something like is some residue from a cleaning. The coin has clearly been cleaned, so this seems likely.

It could also be the remnants of some lacquer or varnish, as Paddy mentions. This was fairly popular many years ago.

 

Or . . . someone coated it with a lacquer or spray of something a long time ago and most of wore off. I read somewhere that old time collectors would often spray their coins to protect the surface, and it was acceptable, then.
Just a guess.

 

Exactly....blow up the photo its in the ☆'s too

 

It looks like wax to me. It was an old preservation method to rub or drip wax onto your a coin. Easy find out if you crack it, I suspect xylenes would take it off.

 

My first thought was lacquer/varnish too, but I'm not very experienced with what aged or messed-with lacquer looks like. It also reminded me of what happened with PVC damage when I tried acetone on it. It turned milky white and gooey looking, but still had some green tint. It's the only time I used acetone on a coin so I don't have much experience there either. Just what popped into my head...

 

I’m going with 1+2

 

You members are good guessers

 

We don't really have a consensus of opinion but some very well-educated guesses. Most people subscribe to a non-natural source, i.e. not just circulation grunge. They are:

- Wax from a letter seal (my favorite theory just because it's more interesting).
- Varnish or lacquer applied by a collector to preserve the coin.
- Wax applied by a collector to preserve or clean the coin.
- Soap or other cleaning agent left over from a cleaning attempt.
- PVC buildup not removed when the coin was cleaned of most of the PVC.
- Glue.

I'm taking the coin with me to my LCC meeting tonight and showing it to some other guys to see what they think. If there's some new insight, I'll share it.

In the meantime, what do you think about why this coin did not receive a details grade?

Thanks for all the good opinions.

 

I would think if it was lacquer or varnish it would be more dispersed than it is, also if it was stored vertical it be more to the bottom. Of course if whoever did whatever to this coin and wasn't very good at it there could easily be a "pooling effect" around the devices.

 

Just because pcgs didn't detail it, don't mean it wasn't cleaned.

 

Yes, of course. There are thousands upon thousands of cleaned coins in TPG holders. They make a distinction between a coin that has been cleaned (not details) and a coin that has been harshly or improperly cleaned (gets a details grade). The point is that the residue on this coin is pretty obviously either from a cleaning or from some other non-circulation source. Wouldn't the TPG judge that to be a cause for a details grade? Similar to a coin that has PVC accumulations? So why didn't they give it a details grade?

 

I don't see any evidence of any kind of harsh cleaning here, and I think this is a nice example of a 53, with some nice grunge on it. I suspect that the consensus here is right - namely, that a collector put something on this coin. (As opposed to say, dirt picked up during commerce: some grubby waif using this coin at the local general store for a loaf of bread and a pound of flour.)

I do have alternative ideas:
1. Dried salt from the tears of a half-dime specialist who, after buying the coin raw thinking he was cherrypicking an LM-5 R7, found it was an LM-10 R1 and cried a little. (@Publius gets this even if some folks don't; shared reverse P)
2. Wax left over from Dentil Floss. Get it? Dentil? Dental?

ahem, I'll see myself out...

 

Rim shot. And no, I did not think it was the 5.

 

I am surprised pcgs passed that in an AU. But it was recently graded. And I'm not sure what's been going on lately at PCGS but I've noticed this a lot more. I would think with CAC grading on the horizon they would try to tighten the standards more.