Random thought about some of my coins

So I just recently posted a couple of pics of some coins I own, Edward I pence to be exact. I searched for the pics that I posted. Long story short, my old computer was wiped, so I don't have the pics anymore. However, I found the pics, and reposted them. That got me thinking. 2 coins, 700 years old each... how much does "what happened" factor into condition? Granted, when it comes to Edward I pennies, I have my own criteria as to what makes my collection, rather than "a guide." But here are coins that were minted, used, buried, dug up centuries later, cleaned, sold, and possibly sold again. Then I look at my Indian Head Cent collection and say... these weren't buried for centuries. CENTURIES. My green Roman bronze is "protected" by the patina but green spots on an IHC is bad. How is that not the beginning of a patina? Maybe I need to stop collecting both? At any rate, thanks for listening. If you feel like chirping in, go ahead.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Just different standards. Because the U.S. hasn't been minting coins very long and enough survive is such pristine condition there are higher standards and ten degrees of uncirculated.

 

It would be far, far better if your Edward pennies had survived intact, without the patina. We would all prefer that, but it is what it is. We protect and preserve the history as we can, in the best condition we can, and if we can employ conservation procedures which honestly return the coin to a more original state, we do so.

 

Green spots on an IHC are likely bronze disease. The sort of patinas you find on ancient bronze take centuries to develop, perhaps at least a thousand years. There's no reason you can't collect both ancient and modern, keeping the aesthetics separate - you simply don't judge one category by the standards of the other. It's all good.

 

Are we talking about the same thing? Collectors of ancients find an attractive patina highly desirable. Stripping an ancient coin of its patina is tantamount to scrubbing a modern coin with a brillo pad.

 

Which is why you prefer the patina. It's a genuine protective coating, better suited to keeping the coin safe for the future than any change one could make to it. If the IHC's mentioned here were millennia old, my opinion of what's appropriate for them would probably be different.

Would collectors of Ancients prefer the patina to an untouched Mint State example if the latter were common and affordable?

 

Would collectors of Ancients prefer the patina to an untouched Mint State example if the latter were common and affordable?

Personally, yes. I also prefer an original patina on a circulated bust half over an untouched Mint State coin. Just my particular weirdness.

 

I misunderstood you then - you were speaking of IHC's. IHC's haven't had enough time to develop a true patina, so of course you're correct.

That's a matter of taste, and that decision does have to be made when it comes to certain very common Roman bronzes. Here are two examples of the Falling Horseman types, minted by Constantius II. Both coins are over 1600-years-old. The first did not develop much of a patina, mostly its darkly-toned bronze...



The second developed a thick, rock-hard patina which covers the whole coin in a lovely emerald green...



Collectors of ancients don't talk much about "mint state" coins. It's difficult to use the term for coins that, even if they didn't circulate in commerce, spent thousands of years in a buried pot and have to be cleaned. Mint state is long gone.

 

Perhaps you guys use the word patina differently. We only use it to refer to mineral deposits that have accrued evenly over the surface of a bronze coin. We do not use the word to refer to anything that happens to silver. I picked up this bustie at an antique shop last week - I happen to agree with your take on original skin. But as a collector of ancients, I would call this coin darkly toned with deposits, not patinated...

 

Yes, this. We (Classic coin folks) tend to use the term to describe chemical oxidation-process results as opposed to the Ancients definition, and in your case the process you're describing - regardless of the word used - is quite desirable as it guarantees a "stable" coin into the future.

In truth, I'm only into Classics because they got me first. Should time and budget ever permit, I'd very much like to poke my nose into Ancients.

 

Come on in, the water is fine. As to budget, many ancients are far less expensive than US Classics. The first coin I posted cost $20, the second, $40.

 

It's not the individual coin budget - already figured that out, they're remarkable affordable in what I'd consider "acceptable" condition - it's my obsessive nature combined with the wondrous variety of Ancient issues. I'd have to pick a concentration, and I lack the ability to concentrate.

 

Dinosaurs, Moss on trees, penguins. You did say RANDOM thoughts

 

@rooman9 you forgot bacon.

 

You should see my collection!

 

Well that one just goes without saying

 

That's not random.

 

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...bacon

 

Something I have wondered about, the difference between verdigris, bronze disease and patina. Mostly a matter of adhesion and surface properties would be one guess. It would be an interesting experiment to take a copper cent coin and deliberately induce verdigris, polish off the flaky part and retain the harder mineral coating...really long term stuff...wonder what @BadThad would have to say about this thread.

 

mmmmmmmmmm...customers!