Heavy Toning and Luster

[MBA101]

Just curious and looking for knowledge. I have several heavily toned busties, with little wear, yet almost no luster. Can toning become so heavy as to eliminate luster? Or has the luster actually been worn off prior to toning? I am just wondering if silver oxidizes enough, the "luster lines" actually can get filled in? Can an uncirculated coin actually be stored in such a way that over time it has little or no luster left? I have several XF-45/AU-50 Busties with almost no luster, and very little wear to speak of, so it makes me wonder.

 

Would post pics, but it is nearly impossible to see the luster in a pics on the coins that I am referring to. Facts? Opinions? Anyone?

[MarkFeld]

Just curious and looking for knowledge. I have several heavily toned busties, with little wear, yet almost no luster. Can toning become so heavy as to eliminate luster? Or has the luster actually been worn off prior to toning? I am just wondering if silver oxidizes enough, the "luster lines" actually can get filled in? Can an uncirculated coin actually be stored in such a way that over time it has little or no luster left? I have several XF-45/AU-50 Busties with almost no luster, and very little wear to speak of, so it makes me wonder.

 

Would post pics, but it is nearly impossible to see the luster in a pics on the coins that I am referring to. Facts? Opinions? Anyone?

Heavy toning can obscure luster that is present, but it can also accompany surfaces whose luster is diminished due to wear or other reasons.

[James_OldeTowne]

Just curious and looking for knowledge. I have several heavily toned busties, with little wear, yet almost no luster. Can toning become so heavy as to eliminate luster?

That absolutely can happen, and the older and more original the coin, the more likely. Bear in mind, however, that toning can sometimes reduce the appearance of wear as well.

[carson city]

Mud in the eye, hides many flaws.

[physics-fan3.14]

I know that when a heavily toned coin is dipped, the luster is muted and dull. That is because the toning has affected the flow lines, so I would assume that the toning would mute the luster somewhat while it was still on the coin as well.

[stman]

Often times the luster can be hidden by the dark toning. But is still there upon close examination. Many folks these days are calling anything with some tone on it "crusty" when it isn't the least bit crusty.

 

For me, when we get to XF45 and up in AU with Bust halves...... no luster equals dead fish and back it goes. I rarely return a coin because I ask these questions, but sometimes I don't get honest answers. Recently I had a Bust half sent on approval that was in a p50 or 53 I can't remember which. There was absolutely no luster and I mean NONE. I got it outta here quickly! (thumbs u

[okbustchaser]

I know that when a heavily toned coin is dipped, the luster is muted and dull. That is because the toning has affected the flow lines, so I would assume that the toning would mute the luster somewhat while it was still on the coin as well.

 

No, that is because the acid of the dipping (either prior to the toning or as a result of the current dipping) has affected the flow lines. Toning, in and of itself, has nothing to do with whether or not a coin retains its original luster, only whether or not it is visible.

[TJ'S Coins]

When toning has progressed to the point that it is black in color, it has begun to erode the coin and impair its luster and grade. Even if dipped, these coins will not be as lustrous as one in the earlier stages of toning.

[okbustchaser]

When toning has progressed to the point that it is black in color, it has begun to erode the coin and impair its luster and grade. Even if dipped, these coins will not be as lustrous as one in the earlier stages of toning.

 

Once again, the reason that such a coin will not be as lustrous as one in an earlier stage of toning is because of the overdipping in acid that is necessary to remove such heavy toning--not because of the toning itself. Admittedly, the result is the same--an overdipped dead-looking coin.

[physics-fan3.14]

I know that when a heavily toned coin is dipped, the luster is muted and dull. That is because the toning has affected the flow lines, so I would assume that the toning would mute the luster somewhat while it was still on the coin as well.

 

No, that is because the acid of the dipping (either prior to the toning or as a result of the current dipping) has affected the flow lines. Toning, in and of itself, has nothing to do with whether or not a coin retains its original luster, only whether or not it is visible.

 

Yes, the acid of the dip dissolves the silver sulfide, which is what appears as tone. The sulfur has reacted with the surface of the coin (which, in the case of luster, are the flow lines.) So, when you dip a heavily toned coin, you remove the silver sulfide - you are removing the flow lines. Toning can indeed give the appearance of muted luster because the silver on the surface is being converted into silver sulfide. What appears as toning is actually a film of chemical on the surface of your coin, very similar to rust on iron.

[MBA101]

OK, OK. Lets look at a couple of more specific examples:

 

My avatar

 

 

Graded XF-45 by NGC. You need an electron microscope and a 100000 watt bulb to find the luster. This is my idea of a perfect coin, which it looks like some of you would dislike for the grade because there is no luster evident upon quick inspection.

 

Example # 2

 

 

This one is another personal favorite. Graded AU-50 by NGC, and properly so if going by wear. But this coin has no luster whatsoever. It does have a very thick crust of navy blue-purple toning, and plenty of "gunk" attached to it. So would you throw this back for lack of luster for the grade? There is less wear than on the 1812, and in fact, I have seen more wear on some higer graded AU coins.

 

Enough for now, but I do have more. For a coin to obtain this level of toning, it means it must have been left untouched in an oxidizing environment for an extreme amount of time. I am just curious about the progression of when the coin was bright to when it got to this phase. How the luster went from radiant to squadoosh. I cannot believe that either of these were dipped at some point. The crust is too thick. But with this amount of wear, I figured that there would be more luster evident. But maybe on these particular coins, the die flow lines were way to shallow or something, and were easily overcome by toning...just wondering.

 

 

 

 

[MikeKing]

this is a hard call. Think too, that a lot of busties were minted after the dies were polished and have kind of proof-like surfaces. I believe this would just confound the matter.

 

I had a coin, I won't say which one, that PCGS graded a 50. It had absolutely no luster. I eventually sold it. Something was definitely done to this coin even though it was heavily toned. I even had some experts look at it and they liked it. Nothing could really convince me that something wasn't done to that coin to flatten the luster. And it wasn't die polishing!

[MikeKing]

I know that when a heavily toned coin is dipped, the luster is muted and dull. That is because the toning has affected the flow lines, so I would assume that the toning would mute the luster somewhat while it was still on the coin as well.

 

No, that is because the acid of the dipping (either prior to the toning or as a result of the current dipping) has affected the flow lines. Toning, in and of itself, has nothing to do with whether or not a coin retains its original luster, only whether or not it is visible.

 

Yes, the acid of the dip dissolves the silver sulfide, which is what appears as tone. The sulfur has reacted with the surface of the coin (which, in the case of luster, are the flow lines.) So, when you dip a heavily toned coin, you remove the silver sulfide - you are removing the flow lines. Toning can indeed give the appearance of muted luster because the silver on the surface is being converted into silver sulfide. What appears as toning is actually a film of chemical on the surface of your coin, very similar to rust on iron.

 

help me to understand this a little bit better

silver sulfide will NOT erode the silver, am I right?

[MikeInFL]

Judging solely from the bust halves I've seen, I suspect the coins are lusterless because a prior harsh dipping/cleaning removed the luster. The lusterless coins then subsequently retone. I suspect this is the cause of the loss of luster, and NOT because the toning has eaten away the luster, per se.

 

For example, I have a few darkly toned coins which still exhibit luster under the toning (and a few cleaned ones that don't ). On the uncleaned examples, the luster is most certainly muted/impared relative to an untoned example, but it is present under the toning nonetheless and fairly easy to spot under the right light.

 

Consider this coin (Thanks and sorry, Lee. ):

 

 

This is a DARK coin in-hand -- even darker than the photos suggest. However, if you look at the photo you can clearly see luster under the dark toning. While the luster in this area is "muted" or "impared" as compared to the less toned areas of the coin, the luster is still very much present and visible. While it may be impossible to say if this coin was cleaned/dipped in the past, it certainly can be said that despite the dark toning, luster is still quite evident on this coin.

 

All IMHO, respectfully submitted...Mike

[MBA101]

Those two busties that I had posted, are not cleaned. MIF, you seem rather cynical about any coin's past. Not every coin has been cleaned or even dipped. And a true indication of this would be how heavy the toning is. The toning on the two coins that I posted has depth and a glossiness to it that resembles the candy coated shell of an M&M. And I may add, no hairlines. Mike King mentioned that some of these older busties may not have had any or much luster to begin with, which makes me wonder about how these are to be graded to begin with.

 

Another example:

 

This coin has no luster in some areas. The remaining luster is subdued by heavy toning. There is hardly any wear on this other than the tops of some of the highest points. In fact, I have seen some MS graded coins that almost have this much wear on them. There are protected areas though, especialy in the 12-3 o'clock range on the obverse, and the corresponing area on the reverse, where the luster is non-existant. Gone. Kaput. By wear alone, this coin to me is an AU-58. But the luster would make many dispute that grade. It resides in a PCGS AU-50 OGH. The thing is, was there actually any luster to begin with? How would anyone know? Did this coin ever even truly see circulation?

[physics-fan3.14]

I know that when a heavily toned coin is dipped, the luster is muted and dull. That is because the toning has affected the flow lines, so I would assume that the toning would mute the luster somewhat while it was still on the coin as well.

 

No, that is because the acid of the dipping (either prior to the toning or as a result of the current dipping) has affected the flow lines. Toning, in and of itself, has nothing to do with whether or not a coin retains its original luster, only whether or not it is visible.

 

Yes, the acid of the dip dissolves the silver sulfide, which is what appears as tone. The sulfur has reacted with the surface of the coin (which, in the case of luster, are the flow lines.) So, when you dip a heavily toned coin, you remove the silver sulfide - you are removing the flow lines. Toning can indeed give the appearance of muted luster because the silver on the surface is being converted into silver sulfide. What appears as toning is actually a film of chemical on the surface of your coin, very similar to rust on iron.

 

help me to understand this a little bit better

silver sulfide will NOT erode the silver, am I right?

 

No, you are wrong. The silver sulfide definitely eats into the surface of the coin, just like rust eats into the surface of iron. The silver sulfide will not progress as far, it instead develops a patina, which serves to protect the coin. If you weigh a heavily toned coin (very precisely), then dip it and weigh it again, it will weigh measurably less after the dip. I would recommend that you check out a book called "Coin Chemistry" by Weimar White. While some of the information is outdated, on the whole it is a very good book on the chemistry of coin surfaces. The book also includes detailed chemical formulas, so you can see exactly the processes involved.

[MBA101]

I know that when a heavily toned coin is dipped, the luster is muted and dull. That is because the toning has affected the flow lines, so I would assume that the toning would mute the luster somewhat while it was still on the coin as well.

 

No, that is because the acid of the dipping (either prior to the toning or as a result of the current dipping) has affected the flow lines. Toning, in and of itself, has nothing to do with whether or not a coin retains its original luster, only whether or not it is visible.

 

Yes, the acid of the dip dissolves the silver sulfide, which is what appears as tone. The sulfur has reacted with the surface of the coin (which, in the case of luster, are the flow lines.) So, when you dip a heavily toned coin, you remove the silver sulfide - you are removing the flow lines. Toning can indeed give the appearance of muted luster because the silver on the surface is being converted into silver sulfide. What appears as toning is actually a film of chemical on the surface of your coin, very similar to rust on iron.

 

help me to understand this a little bit better

silver sulfide will NOT erode the silver, am I right?

 

No, you are wrong. The silver sulfide definitely eats into the surface of the coin, just like rust eats into the surface of iron. The silver sulfide will not progress as far, it instead develops a patina, which serves to protect the coin. If you weigh a heavily toned coin (very precisely), then dip it and weigh it again, it will weigh measurably less after the dip. I would recommend that you check out a book called "Coin Chemistry" by Weimar White. While some of the information is outdated, on the whole it is a very good book on the chemistry of coin surfaces. The book also includes detailed chemical formulas, so you can see exactly the processes involved.

 

Hmmm. That sounds interesting...

[MikeInFL]

MBA, You (and Mike) make a good point concerning the lack of luster on prooflike examples of busties, and it is well taken. However, one would expect luster to be present on the hidden areas of the devices on even these coins, no?

 

Regardless, that does not change my cynicism concerning the extant bust halves, and please don't mistake this cynicism with judgement of your coins in particular -- coins I have only seen in photographs. I have just seen too many examples of dipped/cleaned busties (many hairline free) with dark toning in my (admittedly limited) parusing of bust halves on the bourse. Perhaps I am just jaded....

 

That said, and with all due respect, how do you know "Those two busties that I had posted, are not cleaned"? In other words, how can you rule out the possibility that they were dipped or cleaned long ago and have subsequently retoned?

 

Take care...Mike

 

p.s. & FWIW, that 1810 looks, to me, and judging solely from the photos, to be the most original looking of the three.

[MikeKing]

Those two busties that I had posted, are not cleaned. MIF, you seem rather cynical about any coin's past. Not every coin has been cleaned or even dipped. And a true indication of this would be how heavy the toning is. The toning on the two coins that I posted has depth and a glossiness to it that resembles the candy coated shell of an M&M. And I may add, no hairlines. Mike King mentioned that some of these older busties may not have had any or much luster to begin with, which makes me wonder about how these are to be graded to begin with.

 

Another example:

 

This coin has no luster in some areas. The remaining luster is subdued by heavy toning. There is hardly any wear on this other than the tops of some of the highest points. In fact, I have seen some MS graded coins that almost have this much wear on them. There are protected areas though, especialy in the 12-3 o'clock range on the obverse, and the corresponing area on the reverse, where the luster is non-existant. Gone. Kaput. By wear alone, this coin to me is an AU-58. But the luster would make many dispute that grade. It resides in a PCGS AU-50 OGH. The thing is, was there actually any luster to begin with? How would anyone know? Did this coin ever even truly see circulation?

 

this coin looks like it's from a polished die, and I'm saying this not actually seeing it, but by the way it photographs, you can see this through the toning in the fields...it just has that 'look'. I would call it an AU58 also, and I doubt that it's ever been in circulation.

 

ps thanks physics for the physics lesson

I should get this book.

 

edited to add again: what I was talking about was how the color of the aged silver peers through the toning, almost like a blush. But what is also evident is that some of the stars have taken on that spindly character that only comes with die lapping.

[MBA101]

MBA, You (and Mike) make a good point concerning the lack of luster on prooflike examples of busties, and it is well taken. However, one would expect luster to be present on the hidden areas of the devices on even these coins, no?

 

Regardless, that does not change my cynicism concerning the extant bust halves, and please don't mistake this cynicism with judgement of your coins in particular -- coins I have only seen in photographs. I have just seen too many examples of dipped/cleaned busties (many hairline free) with dark toning in my (admittedly limited) parusing of bust halves on the bourse. Perhaps I am just jaded....

 

That said, and with all due respect, how do you know "Those two busties that I had posted, are not cleaned"? In other words, how can you rule out the possibility that they were dipped or cleaned long ago and have subsequently retoned?

 

Take care...Mike

 

p.s. & FWIW, that 1810 looks, to me, and judging solely from the photos, to be the most original looking of the three.

 

This goes back to my point of "toning depth". The first 2 coins, you can see subtle trace amounts of luster, that really no longer has any "glow", but the toning has penatrated deeply into the coin to the point where removal is likely impossible without destroying the coin. This why I had mentioned that photos are of little help. There is no way that those first two were dipped, unless it 150 years ago, then the coins were stored in an envirnment that allows the toning to develop over a very long period undisturbed. Not sure that there was "coin dipping" that long ago, nor do I think that these coins were that dark yet 150 years ago to make someone want to dip them. Another point is, and I did have my materials classes in college, toning will protect a coin. It will also slow over time, after it has its initial oxidized crust. To form a very thick crust, it must sit for a very very long time in a suitable environment undisturbed. I also believe artificial enhancement will not penetrate deeply into a coin, for once that outer surface is effected, it will protect the inner layers from damage, unless the coin doctor has enough patience to leave the coin alone for more time than he would like.

 

On another note, I have a couple blast white coins (a Washington and a Merc) that I have stored in 2X2's for 30 years (since the beginnings of my collecting days) and they still have no toning.

 

What I am trying to figure out is, is it proper for a coin to be downgraded because toning has overtaken the luster of a coin?

 

Another example. This is a lusterless XF 45, that perhaps if it had luster, would grade AU 50-55. Cool coin regardless.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MikeInFL]

This goes back to my point of "toning depth". The first 2 coins, you can see subtle trace amounts of luster, that really no longer has any "glow", but the toning has penatrated deeply into the coin to the point where removal is likely impossible without destroying the coin. This why I had mentioned that photos are of little help. There is no way that those first two were dipped, unless it 150 years ago, then the coins were stored in an envirnment that allows the toning to develop over a very long period undisturbed. Not sure that there was "coin dipping" that long ago, nor do I think that these coins were that dark yet 150 years ago to make someone want to dip them. Another point is, and I did have my materials classes in college, toning will protect a coin. It will also slow over time, after it has its initial oxidized crust. To form a very thick crust, it must sit for a very very long time in a suitable environment undisturbed. I also believe artificial enhancement will not penetrate deeply into a coin, for once that outer surface is effected, it will protect the inner layers from damage, unless the coin doctor has enough patience to leave the coin alone for more time than he would like.

 

Coin dipping has been around for a very long time, MBA101, and it is practically impossible to distinguish a coin that is 100% original (i.e. undipped) since its minting, and one that was, say, dipped say in 1950, and has since sat undisturbed (perhaps in a humid and warm area). How, precisely, would you be able to tell the difference between these two coins? The same chemical processes are occuring, but the only difference is the amount of time the toning took. Both could have a "thick" skin, both could be darkly toned, so what's the difference between 65 years of toning and 165 years?

 

In my humble opinion, there is NO way to tell the difference between a once-dipped coin if the original dip was a good one (i.e. it didn't remove the luster) and one that has remained undipped since being pulled for circulation in the 1800s.

 

In short (and please excuse my bluntness), I suggest that you don't really know. You may think you know, but don't know for sure.

 

 

What I am trying to figure out is, is it proper for a coin to be downgraded because toning has overtaken the luster of a coin?

It has been my experience that darkly toned coins are downgraded by PCGS and NGC. Given the same amount of detail, the darkly toned coin will generally be lower graded, particularly if the toning has muted/impared the luster.

 

Is that proper? Who's to say, but remember, TPGs don't do technical grading, they do market grading, which is even more subjective and takes into account issues such as luster imparement due to toning.

 

That said, I happen to agree with the TPGs when they downgrade a coin whose luster has been impared by toning -- if given the choice between two indentical coins except one has toning which has impared the luster, I would take the one with the unimpared luster every time. But that's just me, and YMMV.

 

Respectfully submitted as my opinion only....Mike

[MBA101]

Me? I love coins that look old and crusty, luster be damned.

[MikeInFL]

Fair enough. In the end, that's all that is important!

[MikeInFL]

p.s. I apologize if I came on a bit strong. It just rubs me the wrong way when people speak in absolutes when they aren't dealing in absolutes. It is one thing to say "that coin looks original" and quite another to say "that coin is original".

[xJack]

Here's another example - tons of detail, very well struck, but NO Luster.

 

 

 

NGC AU-50 holder.

[MBA101]

That is one sweet dollar!

[BillJones]

Toning is the result of a chemical reaction that changes silver to silver oxides. It's been said that toning is damage, and in a way it is because the metal is permanently changed. The only way to remove toning is to remove the metal that has oxidized. Yet, with proper storage, the toning process can be significantly slowed to the point where a collector will not see a coin change in his life time. Toning can also preserve the coin because it protects it from other agents.

 

Having said all of this, yes very heavy toning can kill off luster on an otherwise Mint State coin. The reason is that the chemical reaction reaches the point where it damages the flow lines. There is a chance that some toning, which as been called “thin film interference” can be dipped off and some luster will show through. BUT if the process has gone to when the coin is black, chances are the luster has been lost forever.

 

[BillJones]

Me? I love coins that look old and crusty, luster be damned.

 

Frankly I think the best coins are the ones that have toning with the luster showing through. That's the kind of AU and Mint State coins that I prefer.

 

No offense, but this crusty thing can go too far. The goes for both gold and silver. Yea, it's original, but original does not always mean attractive.