Curiosity Question - Lacquered Coins and TPG's

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Agreed - the "sniffer" won't need more than a few molecules to do its' thing.

 

That was my thoughts as well. It just seems hard to imagine that it would be possible to have an undetectable protective layer. I could see it going undetected if they somehow have it set to ignore it, but I agree that it seems more likely that it does catch it and they have just deemed it to be something that is acceptable

 

If it is a 'sniffer', the chemical would have to be volatile. If it was volatile it would eventually disappear or drop below detectable levels. To be protective, it can not be volatile. I believe we are giving the TPG too much credit. Half is an advertisement ploy, half is conjecture, less someone is foolish enough to send in fresh from treatment, but whatever you believe.

 

Well I do not possess info on the chemical composition of Thad's compounds, but yes, within the realm of nature, all things can vaporize, just not all at the operating conditions. If in 'sniffing' the machine also emits a laser beam with heat enough to vaporize material on the surface before sniffing, or a heating element to raise the temp of the coin several hundred degrees, I would agree with you. But I am sure they wouldn't try this as many deleterious problems could result. At room temp or close, many substances, once the carrier solution has evaporated, can not be detected airborne. This is why many 'sniffers' working in airports or immigration centers use 'wipes' to dissolve surface materials to get the surface material volatile again. Some of the newer detection guns are emmissive, using beams of radiation to excite the surface molecules, but again I would suspect there would be complaints from customers if TPGs used such, . Of course I do not know what Thad uses , and I suspect it is proprietary. IMO as I understand it, Jim

 

I agree, above article says it more explicitly. The article I was referring to mentions a couple of problems with lacquer and states that "in these cases the presence of lacquer will prevent a coin from certifying with NGC." I understood it as "details grade" or "no holder".

 

Dang Jim......Star wars........May the Smores be with you.......

 

Ever go camping?

 

According to the PCGS website:

Last I saw, it was only using FTIR Attenuated Total Reflectance. A technique that is not very sensitive at all. It is not sensitive enough to detect VC on a coin surface. In the PCGS operation video, they showed VERDI-GONE as a material they detect. That is TOTAL hogwash. No how and no way would they ever be able to detect it because it was 100% volatile. Their guy almost grabbed the bottle but then chose "nose grease", then he put on a HUGE glob on the coin and did the demo. Of course, it was detected as the layer was several millimeters deep. Had he chosen VG, the demo would have failed - even if he put a huge drop on the coin!

Obviously, shown by the PCGS statement on the sniffer, they are not scientists. They misspelled FOURIER TRANSFORM! EDXRF only detects elements, not compounds. Unless the instrument is super sensitive like the type used with an electron microscope, they will get no surface contamination data. I have both instruments in my lab and I know them VERY well. Only an electron microscope with an EDS detector would be good for use with coins. We do microscopic elemental analysis on metal pieces every day.

PCGS banters some pseudo-scientific jargon to scare people. Their real goal is to try to stop people from submitting altered coins under the fear "you will be caught". When in reality, it detects very few alterants.

 

There is no vaporization in their instrument. It is nothing like sniffers used at airports and stuff. It's simply an FTIR using Attenuated Total Reflectance.