Give the man the cigar ! As I have posted more times than I can count, toning is always, always, always - did I say always ? - dependent upon any of thousands of variables. And everybody, everywhere, has different variables. So of course there are going to be different outcomes and different rates for the progression of toning. But in any event, no matter what the variables, it doesn't mean that toning to some degree or another has not occurred. Every coin there is begins toning the instant it is made.
So when they put "Details Corroded" on a label they are telling the truth but when a coin is toned and they don't add "Details Corroded", then they are lying?
At some point corrosion moves to where the coin is considered damaged. There are also different kinds of corrosion. Toning is oxidation and if a coin oxidizes too much they will details it. It’s just like coins that have been scrubbed. Sometimes a little bit of hair lining will pass because they decide the coin isn’t a problem. Severity is the key.
Ask NGC if "Conserving" the Norweb coin was a good idea. Like I said before, dipping is erosion, plan and simple. If you put it back into the same environment, you have done nothing but hasten its demise. If it has been exposed to natural atmospheric conditions for it's entire life, it will survive on it's own and be much better for it. If it has been exposed to a very harsh environment, eroding the surface off isn't saving it, where removing it from that environment would be.
Bingo. Winner winner chicken dinner. But alas no because the TPG Firms MUST keep up the mith that their cleaning service isn’t cleaning but conserving so they aren’t lying. Wink wink. Just chemically altering the surface of the coin by stripping the toned no, tarnished no, oxidized surface OFF OF THE COIN! Sounds like double talk to me. Reed and a bewildered Sparkles the Unicorn.
You are right. After dipping a coin the fresh surface is more reactive than the coin was before. So proper storage is key or long term you are worse off based on what I have read. You’re wrong. But I don’t know how to help you understand. That’s ok. You can be wrong.
@BooksB4Coins Yes,Here is the comparison of the Peace ( Left) and the Morgan (Below)dollar fields at 100X. The photo on the top right is a Morgan at 400X Had to retrieve from original source PB doesn't like me. Jim
Thank you very much, Jim, and a belated thanks to @GDJMSP as well. I also hope they're of assistance to some involved in this discussion.
First air conditioner was made in 1902. So before that, it was almost impossible to properly store coins. Of course, just because it was invented in 1902, doesn't mean it was widely used. I grew up in a home built in the early 1960's and it didn't have air conditioning until we had it installed in the early '70's. So without wide spread use of conditioned air, it was nearly impossible to properly store coins. I've read your posts in this thread and I agree with them. This post is meant to provide supporting data to your improper storage comments. Without the ability to remove moisture from the air, toning/corrosion would be difficult to prevent on coins.
Put them in a glass jar, put a cork in it, seal it with wax. The mass of air and humidity trapped in the bottle is tiny compared to the mass of the coins. Once anything reactive in the bottle combines with the coins, reactions stop.
I have noticed a lot of darker toned earlier circulated coins ie bust and early seated that come out of New England. And I mean from old estates not collections you get a lot of the almost black circulated cameo ones a lot of times and I always attributed it to the massive amount of wood and coal smoke in the winters the last 209 years and all the sulfur compounds in it just like antique weathervanes from eastern Massachusetts and any of the mill towns in Maine and New Hampshire will have a very heavy dark green copper verdigris patina compared to ones from more rural New England and upstate New York (I deal in antiques and specialize in Americana and folk art) and have had dozens of early weathervanes and have examined hundreds if not thousands
That's the type of experience that can give you the ability to determine authenticity with high certainty.
There was an even easier way - Ball Jars and or Mason Jars. They were manufactured for home canning purposes and first invented in 1858. As I have said before Jeff, I have never doubted that it was "possible" to protect coins, even long ago. The thing that matters is the probability of that happening. Did it ever happen ? I have no doubt at all that it happened ! I believe it is an absolute certainty that it did happen. But how many people do you think actually did that ? Coin collectors certainly would not have. In the first place they were few and far between. In the second place they didn't store their coins that way. In the 3rd place they never even considered trying to protect them because they never even thought about trying to protect them because they didn't see any reason to do so ! For centuries before that the single most common thing that coin collectors did, for those who didn't like the toning, was every once in a while they would take their coins out and polish them with rags and pieces of cloth. And a few would dip them. And yes the chemicals existed back then. All of this history combined is what makes it so very, very improbable that coins would be stored in canning jars. The one and only thing that existed at the time that would do the job.
So how do you protect the temperature of the jar with no air conditioning? The jar would get warm, wouldn't condensation form on the inside of the jar?
Sure, if you put them in damp or when the air was humid. But if you put them in dry, especially if you put them in during the winter when the air is cold and dry, there won't be enough moisture in the container to form condensation.