So I was going through a bunch of coins, and I'm not sure where this came from. The year makes me think it was mixed in with some large dollars I inherited from Gramps (RIP), but I'm not 100% sure. I really don't know what to think of it, if it's an error, or what. I believe it's dated 1959, and it's the exact size of a dime, but thin and not silver (far as I can tell, doesn't seem silver to me). I have no idea, what do *you* make of it?
post mint damage. Looks like it was hammered flat then sanded around the edge..thats my opinion. But, my knowledge of errors is limited.
Well, the only thing I question about the hammering is that how would it leave the building essentially fine, and only flatten the inner metal? Same question with the acid? It eats only the middle away? As I said, I have no idea, if someone has hammered or dipped a coin and the end result is this, I'd like to know.
I would said acid soaked / dremeled, except for the rim pic, that coin looks paper thin. Acid soaking it until it was that thin would leave no detail, and hammering it that flat would have damaged more detail, plus stretched it out. I'm guessing post-mint damage for sure, but hard to say how it was done.
I would say acid as well. Something to remember, most people think of a coin's design as being only on the surface. Therefore if a coin were dipped in acid that the design, being on the surface ,would be the first thing eaten away. This is not true. Think about what Nic-a-Date does - it restores a worn away date to the point where it is visible again. And what is Nic-a-Date and how and why does it work ? It's an acid and it works because it eats away the softer metal in the fields of a coin which allows the date to be visible once again. And the date is visible once again because the struck up portions of the design cause the metal to be harder and more dense in those areas. Same thing applies to a coin dipped in acid. Even thought the majority of the coin is literally eaten away to the point where the coin is but a fraction of it's original thickness and the diameter is less than it should be - the design on both sides are still yet visible. That's because when a coin is struck the design is not just on the surface, it goes all the way through the coin.
some sort of electrolysis treatment maybe?? Whatever happened to it it sure is an interesting conversation piece
Bqcoins,electrolysis won't do this to a bronze coin.It's definitely been dipped in an acid of some sort. Aidan.
This coin was most likely dipped in silver nitrate and used in a science experiment, to show molecular bonding. Essentially the silver steals electrons from the copper to become stable and the copper which is now unstable bonds with the nitrate to become stable Cu(0) + 2AgNO3 = Cu(NO3)2 + Ag(0) When I was in High School I saw my chem teacher do this many times and the coin always looked like that when it was removed from the solution.
I have several of those, acid is the way to do it, only works on pre 82 cents, anyway, nice to see another one.
