???? I really hate being the bad guy here. I disagree. Perhaps a baby's bum with chicken pox as there are lumps all over the surface. Why can't we just agree that most would not call this surface smooth. Then we can agree that it is a piece of amazing artistic restoration. The fact that his work shows absolutely no evidence of tooling in the photo hints at his possible method. As for color, IMHO there was virtually no trace of silver on the corroded coin. I don't care what the lighting was.
This coin is killing me. I paid more then double for it and just can't get passed that. Newbie learning curve I guess.
I was talking about the lighting on the restored coin. The remains of silvering was hidden under the corrosion.
Just a few points... I have first hand evidence that museums destroy coins with severe mass cleaning methods in order to identify them, but not preserve them. I do not like their methods, I wouldnt work for them and they wouldnt have me in any case. I am no genius.... I paid alot of money to obtain some techniques which had been developed by someone else. I gave my word the techniques would not be divulged to anyone else...ever. Maybe if you gave your answers to questions 2 and 3 it would be helpful... 2. Do you think it has been fraudulently altered? explain YOUR thoughts... 3. What brown coin? Are we looking at the same photographs? The coin surfaces may appear to be rough after cleaning, but they are perfectly smooth. The silvering which remains is patchy and gives the impression of a rough surface. It is hard to photograph such a coin, as has been discussed before.
Hmmm, it seems this thread is becoming a tad 'animated' too. I suppose there's a fine line for many of us deciding when a coin has been cleaned too much or just enough. The effect of the work is indeed like night and day and far superior to the original but I miss a little bit of the grunge---you ought to see my garage
That does not make sense to me but what do I know? I believe the silver was on the surface of the original coin. Then it became corroded. This changes the surface COMPLETLY. That is what corrosion does. Anyway, I will not discus the condition of the silver on the original coin. I am still curious if renewing the silver surface of a restored coin is considered a "fraudulent practice" no matter how well it was done.
Insider, the coin has not been re-silvered or renewed. I guess if you took some of that silvering stuff and glued it to a coin, yes that would be fraudulent. It would look wrong and be easily spotted. That is not the case here.
IMO, the line between cleaning a coin's surface or removing lumps of corrosion and then silver plating the coin is called "COIN DOCTORING." It is not "strictly" coin conservation but who would know in this case. Again, it does not matter the outcome. Some "doctors" are better than others and the person who worked on/"saved" this coin ranks with the best I've ever seen. I should send it in to be slabbed - If holdered, you have a real prize. As I posted before, this is night & day to me. The coin has been altered (for the best). Is its owner required to show the "before" image when it is sold? If he does not is he involved in the deception? See, I can . No ax to grind here but no weasel words either. I don't care about anything except this: Agree the coin has been altered. Agree the coin looks better. Agree the coin is worth more money. Agree the restoration is amazing. Agree not to judge the owner of the coin and what he does with it. How is that for animation?
Sorry @Insider, I will say this for the last time. The coin has not been silver plated, it has the same silver on it as when it came out of the mint, sadly not as much as it originally had. If you can't accept that, there is nothing I can do about it. I have nothing more to say on the subject.
And the point with this particular coin is that it has not been corroded, it's make up is that of a typical hoard coin. With hoarded coins, as opposed to 'field found' casual losses the build up of verdigris within the hoard protects the surfaces of the coins. Once that is removed the surfaces of most of the coins generally reflect what they were like when deposited. All coins within a hoard become affected to a greater or lesser degree by post deposition elemental effects, for instance if water had gathered within the pot along with (typically) the past 50 years of intensive agro-chemicals then these coins will suffer corrosive effects upon them. The coins surrounded by others generally tend to fair the best, Pishpash's looks to be one of them and he's ended up with a very nice coin that has had an excellent restoration job done to it. The skill is in removing those deposits to uncover the original tone or silvering without causing damage, nice job YOC!
YOC posted: I have first hand evidence that museums destroy coins with severe mass cleaning methods in order to identify them, but not preserve them. Me too I do not like their methods, I wouldnt work for them and they wouldnt have me in any case. IMO, That's their loss. I am no genius.... Oh YES YOU ARE. I paid alot of money to obtain some techniques which had been developed by someone else. I gave my word the techniques would not be divulged to anyone else...ever. Write the method down and seal it to be opened when you die and it is auctioned off by your estate to the highest bidder. Then you kept your word. Many of us have "secrets" and over time they come out or are discovered by others. I should think that the person who taught you has surely taught others. Maybe if you gave your answers to questions 2 and 3 it would be helpful... 2. Do you think it has been fraudulently altered? Yes, see post #30 explain YOUR thoughts...I believe you (especially you) know the difference without my input. 3. What brown coin? I see red, brown, black and green (no silver color) in the "Before" photo. Are we looking at the same photographs? The coin surfaces may appear to be rough after cleaning, but they are perfectly smooth. The silvering which remains is patchy and gives the impression of a rough surface. It is hard to photograph such a coin, as has been discussed before. You call it smooth, I call it rough with tiny lumps of raised metal especially next to the relief. Photography does not make a rough surface sooth, a smooth surface rough, or totally add silver color to its surface. I examine coins using a microscope so we probably have a different opinion of the word "smooth." Again, I've enjoyed your input. Still wish to know how long the process took as I have doctored a few bronze and copper coins in my life and my work is not even close to yours as I don't plate or fill surfaces. Just in case you missed it...You are a genius!
@Kentucky @BadThad Would you two please invite some of the other chemists over to this thread. Thanks! I'm interested in hearing some "outside" opinions.
