Now this is something I always normally tell people never to do. BUT at a coin show today I purchased a 1995 Lincoln Cent Double Die for a really rediculous amount. Only a few dollars. The reason was the coin had finger prints on the left and right side of the obverse. Other than that it was at least MS65. Reverse was as perfect as could be. So I said to myself, SELF, nothing to loose so I dipped it in Acetone, allowed to soak a while, removed it, rinsed with distilled waterand the finger prints were still there. Next I tried carefully washing with lens cleaner and an artist brush. Still finger prints. Next it was in Tarn-X Jewelry Cleaner for a while, rinsed with distilled water, still finger prints. Finally placed in something called Connoisseurs jewelry cleaner from Walmart. Allowed to soak for a few minutes, removed, rinsed with distilled water and POOF, no more finger prints. Coin now looks like MS66, does not appear cleaned. So I said to myself, try it on an older coin. Took a 1915D Lincoln Cent in about EF condition. Did the same as with the 95 DD. End results were a horribly odd toned in blue cent. Can't win them all. One more reason not to clean coins.
I gave up trying to clean Lincoln cents. After playing around with cleaning them, I found the results to be unpredictable -- even when the coins are from the same year and mint. I've had a few turn out OK but most have been a horrible bluish-purple mess. They do, however, make conversation pieces when I use them to pay for things. One problem seems to be due to the fact that the metal composition on Lincoln cents has changed over time. I wouldn't expect dropping different alloys into identical solutions to produce similar effects. The 1915 and 1995 cents are very different. The 1915 is an alloy of 95% copper plus 5% tin and zinc (I don't know the percentages of tin and zinc but I'll bet it varies). The 1995 contains a core of 99.2% zinc and 0.8% copper with a pure copper plating. I'm not a chemist, but my guess is that very slight changes in the structure of the alloy make it very difficult to predict the chemical reactions.
Basically what said is true. However, note the almost complete Copper is still similar to the Copper coating on a Zinc coin. The Zinc has no part in a chemical reaction with any solution unless the copper coating is damaged. The problem is usually in the variety of contaminates on the surface of the coins and/or the cleaning solutions being contaminated with other substances. Although the Copper on the 1915 and the 1995 is basically the same, it is obviously not exactly the same. Also, there is a thing called tolerences in manufacturing of anything and the sheets of material used to make coins is no exception. Please note I said I did the same thing with the 1915 as with the 1995. Any substances on the 95 are now in the solution used for the 15 so that in itself is a contaminate. I forgot to note that these cleaning agents have been used in tha past for cleaning other items so again, more contaminates present.
Carl, do you have any before-and-after pictures of the 1915-D? This might help drive home the point that we shouldn't clean coins.
Carl, Since Lincoln Cents from 1909 to 1942 and from 1959 to 1962 are composed of .950 Copper and .050 Tin and Zinc and the Cents from 1944 to 1958 and from 1962 to early 1982 are composed of .950 Copper and .050 Zinc, they are going to react differently to different solutions than a Cent produced from the latter part of 1982 to the Current Year which has a pure Copper coating! Also like you stated, any contaminants which may be introduced into the cleaning solution from other coins, may cause additional types of chemical reactions when the next, then the next, then the next coin is introduced into the cleaning solution. Frank
Carl, good experiment. Cleaned and fingerprinted coins are probably undervalued by persnickety collectors.
Sorry but I've seldom take photos of coins. I have the coins so never could see a reason to take photos of them. With situations like this I sometimes wish I did because it truely would help make others see the damage that is possible by cleaning. I looked again today at the 1915 and it looks worse. I think the reaction is continuing.
True but the 1995 is coated with pure Copper. The 1915 does have that small % of Tin and Zinc but the reactions are usually caused by the cleaning agents. Note one thing not mentioned previously that all should note is the shelf life of any chemical solution. The container itself becomes a contaminate after a while. I remember in Chem classes there was this story of a scientist that claimed he had produced the purest water possible. This was a hundred or so years ago. Today that sealed vile of so called pure water is in a museum and is all clouded due to the dissolving of the glass container it was put into. Remember glass itself is basically Silicon Dioxide and is eventually dissolvable.
Even with the small amount of (.050) Zinc and Tin in the composition, it is reasonable to believe that the composition will have a somewhat different reaction than a Cent with a pure Copper coating! I wonder how the 1944 to 1958 or 1962 to early 1982 Cents which contain .095 Copper and .050 Zinc would react if dipped in the same solution. Frank
As an after thought I took several Lincoln cents, a nickel, Silver dime, clad quarter and put them all in Acetone in a glass jar, sealed it for a few days. It was in my garage on a window ledge. Today I took them all out, rinsed with distilled water, allowed to dry on a cotton towel. All coins were well worn, dirty, of no real value. The dime became darkened in many large areas. All the rest of the coins basically looked no different. The nickel did appear a little cleaner. I've been experimenting with differnt types of cleaning agents for years but so far either nothing like the above or horribly ruined by discolorations and/or pitting. Regardless of what some say, there is just no advantage to cleaning most coins. With my 95 Double Die cent it was an exception but out of many, many other cleaning attempts, most ruined coins.
If the slabbing companies can offer to "conserve" coins, there are obviously "secret" but acceptable methods for cleaning them. The methods will only be discovered through experimentation. Therefore, what you attempted was worth the effort.
ok, so i tried some Acetone, well actually nail polish remover on a 1954 wheat cent. The cent was in ms 60 condition because it had a lot of dirt, ect and a partual fingerprint on the obverse. AFter soaking in the nail polish remover for 20 seconds. I took the coin out, and washed it off, then took a cu tip and tried to remove some of the dirt. Nothing really happened, but after trying this several times, there appeared to be no dirt on the obverse and the same amount on the reverse(but thats just because I didnt operate on the reverse) So anyway, after all the cleaning and air drying had been completed the coin looks toned in certain areas. I cant post a pic right now, but would ngc realize that this coin was cleaned, or would they simply think that it was toned, thus giving it a higher grade.
AHHHHH. Nail Polish Remover. Please read the lable. There is probably more different stuff in that bottle than grains of sand at the beach. Your lucky the coin didn't try to get out by itself. Yes they will be able to tell. Keep watching that coin. It may still change a lot more unless you really rinsed it well. One thing they would naturally look for is a coin that old should have some junk in the inside of the 0 or 4 and in other letters. If that is out, they wouldn't think it just fell out on it's own. Note different brands of nail polish contain different chemicals. Many are there for women to soften the nails as well as removing the polish. Some of those could completely distroy your coin. Some contain a type of perfume also. So now you have a nice, smelly but clean coin.
