Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Maxfli, post: 2778203, member: 69089&quot;]I&#039;m no expert on the subject, but I do have a lacquered coin — an uncirculated 1941 Belgian 5 francs that I lacquered myself many years ago. Why? Because like a lot of WW2 European coins, it&#039;s zinc, and those zinc coins are almost completely flat black which makes it nearly impossible to see any detail without a strong lamp and a magnifier. They&#039;re like a numismatic black hole from which no light escapes. Lacquering mitigates that problem to a degree and makes viewing the coin more enjoyable, so I figured why not? (It&#039;s not rare or valuable.)</p><p><br /></p><p>Anyway, I just wanted to say that the look of my lacquered 5 francs is quite a bit different from the look of your medal. Not sure if this makes sense, but on my coin you kind of get a sense that there&#039;s a physical layer of something on top of the metal. I&#039;m not getting that from your pics. Pics can be deceiving, but to my eye, your medal looks like it simply has a bit of a polished (burnished?) finish.</p><p><br /></p><p>And speaking of polished, I seem to recall seeing other European medals of that era with a similar look.&nbsp; At least, I assumed that&#039;s what it was, and I chalked it up to being the fashion of the day among medal makers. But again, what I know about medals AND lacquered coins wouldn&#039;t fill a thimble.</p><p><br /></p><p>If I&#039;m wrong and there is a coating of lacquer (or something) on your medal, I&#039;d suggest xylene rather than acetone. I&#039;ve occassionally has unpleasant results with acetone on bronze, and besides, I think xylene is a far better tool for the job.[/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