Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 174120, member: 112&quot;]I can&#039;t recall every showing any pics that would really fit the description your using. But I&#039;ve posted some really closeup shots to illustrate my points in the past. Maybe you&#039;re confusing some pics somebody else posted Ruben - but I&#039;ll search thru the archives and see if I can find them. Now ya have me wondering :rolling: </p><p><br /></p><p>But I do understand what you mean, dipping does strip away metal and it can show on the coin if it wasn&#039;t done correctly and you know what to look for. But I&#039;ve seen plenty of coins that I know were dipped and I couldn&#039;t see it - not to point it out to somebody anyway.</p><p><br /></p><p>But to answer your question - &quot; What condition existed where so many of the GCC Morgans from the tresury have almost no toning and original luster because CLEARLY they do, despite the severe age.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>Somebody else already touched on that, and it&#039;s really not that hard to understand - especially if you take into consideration other comments I&#039;ve made about the differences you can see in coins described as blast white in that they are not all the same. But simply put, the coins were stored in bags of 1,000 coins. The coins on the outer edges of the bags did tone, some of them beautifully so. But some of the coins in the center, that were completely covered up with other coins toned very little. This was because they were cut off from the circulation of air. It was blind luck really and conditions just happened to be just right.</p><p><br /></p><p>First of all the bags were stored in a vault where very little air circulated to begin with. Add to that that the coins were covered with other coins and bags upon bags and you have even less circulation, virtually none. And the coins were left that way for decades. So they toned very little. You also have to consider that thse coins were no treleased to the public until the &#039;70s, and by then the collecting community had ready access to good quality coin holders and they knew about proper storage methods. So even after the coins were released, they weren&#039;t exposed to the air much and that helped keep any toning to a minimum.</p><p><br /></p><p>But if you were to compare any of those coins to another one made of exactly the same material, .900 silver alloy, that was struck today - you would see a quite noticeable difference in the color. And that difference would be due to toning on the older coins. Yes, they would still appear to be freshly minted white if you looked them by themselves. But once compared to a freshly minted coin, side by side, the slight grey color would be evident.</p><p><br /></p><p>You also have to realize that toning does not destroy luster at all. At least not until it becomes very, very dark and the oxidation reaches the point that it is literally eating the metal. That&#039;s why when you look at a toned MS coin it still shimmers in the light and has the cartwheel effect - the luster is still there. In fact a fully lusterous coin will tone more readily than one without luster. I&#039;ve explained that before, it&#039;s because there is actually more surface of the metal exposed to the air due to the flow lines that create the luster in the first place.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in