How to Tone Coins

A couple of years ago a friend of mine gave me his penny stash to look through and cash in. It was an open, heavy-glass water bottle (before they started using plastic). He kept it in his home closet. We had to empty it before we could lift it! He didn't know the year he started putting his daily change into it, all he could recall was 1980 something.

I pulled a ton of BU coins out of this stash. Most of them from the 80's. Judging by the condition of the BU's, I have to say it appears to have been a pretty effective storage method. I didn't see much verdigris at all, it was not a problem. Here's some of the coins from that jar:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

A couple of nickels I pulled out of the jar, these things were blazing with luster :

 

And beautifully exploded microwave

 

Other numismatic interests took me away. One was the ANA convention in Dallas, where I presented a "Money Talks" and judged exhibits. Right now, my local club is working through the ANA National Money Week Quiz. That turned into a part-time job, like 20 hours so far this week, and others are even more motivated that I am.

I will go back and read and reply as needed.

 

That was where I started after. I only came into the hobby later in life and accepted much of what I learned from those with more experience. I learned about the damage caused by whizzing and other forms of cleaning. I also learned about the deceptive toning of coins to hide defects. And I accepted all of that.

But with ancients, they are often cleaned after 2000 years in the ground. I was shocked to a see a photograph in a University of Michigan report on an excavation that showed an archeologist scraping dirt off a coin with a pocket knife. Paleontologists use brushes. So, I had an over-cleaned Roman imperial and figured, "OK, what is likely to have been around when the coin was being used? Sea water. So, I tried iodine. The coin took on a nice, flat gray look, very natural. It is not a garish rainbow or champagne blue, just gray, like a coin.

My intention is not deceitful at all. I rarely buy coins and never sell them. I got out of that part of the hobby pretty quickly. I published my first article in 1993, got hired by Coin World in 1999 and sold my collection in 2000 after leaving Coin World. I still acquire coins, tokens, banknotes, and other objects, but aside from passing interest, my focus is on articles that I can write from the research I do. If my intention were deceitful, I would have said nothing at all.

Numismatic Conservation Service
http://www.ncscoin.com
To take advantage of these services, you can become a member of the Numismatic Guaranty Company (NGC) Collectors Society. NGC is another member of CCG, and enjoys a strong partnership with NCS. As an Associate or higher member of the NGC Collectors Society, you can submit coins, tokens and medals for professional conservation. For more information, contact NCS customer service at 1-866-NCS-COIN or by e-mail at NCShelp@NCScoin.com

One of my inspirations was Robert Matthews of Howell, Michigan, who won "Best of Show" exhibits at Early American Copper conventions. Bob was a pharmacist. He started selling coins from an old rotating wristwatch display. He was a founding member of the the Livingston County (Michigan) Coin Club where I was a member and served as an officer in the late 1990s. Bob gave a couple of teaching talks on Early American Copper, showing us how to grade them properly. One time, he talked about toning and told us about sulphur in petroleum jelly.

 

And they are not the only TPGS that conserves coins...just the oldest.

 

Cleaning is another topic. When I referred to baking soda, I did not mean to scrub it harshly. But the point is taken. Early Boy Scout Merit Badge advice was to clean Lincoln Cents with a pencil eraser. We know better now.

I was hoping that other people would add their own special insights and experiences on how to tone coins. I am still reading through the thread…

In a previous edition of the an ANA home study on grading coins today, they actually recommended cleaning and retoning coins in order to learn how to detect it. I objected to that back then. I passed with high honors, but I still objected.

Ideally, perhaps, every coin you collect would be MS-70 or PR-70: perfect. In reality, we are collecting artifacts and artifacts were used by people. A coin in circulation is being cleaned by wear. As soon as it stops circulating, as when you drop it in your change dish on your dresser, it begins to retone.

See above on circulation. I have seen XF/AU coins, especially copper, where a little bit of mint luster is still there close to the devices. I would never attempt to improve a coin like that because I do not know enough.

The only "original" coins are Mint State or Proof. If you want low grade 60s, because they are cheaper, I suppose that is your choice, but what you are saying is that only PR-70 is worth owning. Of course, for many coins, even proofs, from previous centuries, such perfection does not exist, so you might have to settle for a PR-64 or MS-63 as the finest known.

But that is not what you are advocating, is it?

Thanks for the support. It is also significant that envelopes, dresser drawers, and other natural environments cause different kinds of toning. Some people like the toning from paper rolls. They consider it "natural" if it was in a bank vault for 60 years.

 

It is an old problem, that coin doctoring is, like alchemy, a secretive art. It is funny, though, that museums clean and restore paintings and no one seems to mind. The one egregious case was the Elgin Marbles that were cleaned with acid.

I was shocked (shocked, I tell you) to learn that our local metal detectorists and others tumble coins to clean them. These, of course, were found in the ground. Another company retrieves them from fountains. Tumbling with crushed walnut shells seems to be what is recommended for cleaning off corrosion.

That said, I agree that "polish" (smoothness) is not something that was added to the surface. I caution against roughing up a coin to remove "polish" (wear). That is uncalled for damage. The best remedy is toning, either "natural" (leave it alone) or "intentional" (help it along).

Yeah, as has been noted here, we have coins that have been handled for 100 years from collector to dealer to dealer to collector and yet they remain miraculously "uncirculated."

Rather than "natural" toning, I recommend "unintentional." For AT, I suggest, intentional toning. All toning is chemistry. I agree that the surprising abundance of rainbow toned coins that magically appeared - magic being supernatural - when people began paying more for them certainly should be a warning.

You can tell the difference? Always? Sometimes? Usually? As has been noted in this thread by others, even the professional experts cannot always tell.

 

On the subject of cleaning coins, I have very little experience. I have used "rubbing alcohol" (isopropanol) as a solvent. Soap and water are always an option.

For cleaning ancients and other old copper, olive oil is frequently recommended. On that basis, I have tried other oils including WD-40.

Old collections often toned "naturally" (ahem) because they were stored in felt-lined wooden cabinets. It might be interesting to experiment with natural woods, such as walnut and cherry to see what tones what with what result.

 

"Coin rot" (verdigris) is an affliction of copper coins, especially ancients and Early American. Once a single coin exhibits the symptoms, the entire collection is jeopardized.

To remove coin rot, soak the coin in distilled water for three days. Remove and pick away the green rust with a rose thorn. Dry the coin thoroughly under an incandescent lamp (if you can still buy one). Put the coin back into a new batch of distilled water. Repeat… repeat…

All in all, it is an interesting discussion.

Thanks to everyone, even my detractors.

 

Thanks for all your comments and clarification of my post.. I was thinking of well worn copper such as colonials.

In the "old days" circulated copper all the way down to VF often had "original" luster in the relief recesses. The only non-original part of a naturally circulated coin is the part that is worn (circulated).

 

Try VerdiCare sometime...@BadThad is a member.

 

That needs to change. Half the reason well-intentioned people screw up coins is because they lack access to accurate information regarding how to do so safely.

I have no problem with "restoring" coins in the same sense of attention to, and respect for, history which museums (hopefully) aspire to. To a far greater degree than paintings, though, coins are produced to an exacting mechanical standard, and the "goal" of restoring a coin needs to take into account how they are observed and studied, under magnification. Anything less than restoring to that same exacting standard, for a coin, would be the equivalent of taking a belt sander and 40-grit paper to a Chippendale chair, slapping a coat of Minwax stain of the original color onto the result, and calling it good. Paintings are valued because of their provenance and the aesthetic taste and skill of the painter resonating with the buyer. You can "restore" them by duplicating the intent of the original creator. A more modern pigment, of the precise color and brush stroke of the original, does not detract.

We do not enjoy such artistic license with coins, because we base our opinions of value on original authenticity. It's why an F12 is worth less than an MS67, and why puttying the fields of a gold coin is considered reprehensible coin doctoring.

 

Nice comments until the apples/oranges finish quoted above.

A coin's grade F-12 or MS-67 (little apples) is a different thing than its "originality" (oranges).

Hopefully, every member other than me knows what you are saying. Color me dumb.

 

MS67 is far closer to "original" than F12.

 

Good one. Oh, by "original" you mean its grade - not the condition of its surface. Like if I'm ignorant or a professional grader that missed something and don't see the MS-67 has an altered surface it is still closer to "original" than an "honest" MS-66. I get it now!

 

no

 

You folks would show your intelligence far better if you'd argue the point and not the semantics. Kentucky, I expect better from you than this.

 

Unfortunately, I often miss your points (remember - color me dumb). As I wrote above, your post was very good until the end. Then it became confusing to me - not because of the words you posted - because of the "twist" that you came up with to illustrate whatever (I didn't understand) by using two completely different things.

Clue: That's nothing to do with semantics.

 

Mea Culpa...I read "authentic" rather than "original" Oops