"Copper coins should not be slabbed, and need regular maintenance"

[James_OldeTowne]

I put the thread title in quotes, because it most definitely is my opinion, though one that is shared by hundreds of collectors more knowledgeable than myself.

 

What I mean is, high grade copper coins need a good EAC brushing every once in awhile to remove contaminants, and to re-deposit natural oils on the coin that protect it from exposure to a reactive environment. Further, the coins should be stored in a stable environment that does not trap contaminants (ahem, such as slabs).

 

This is not advice that should be taken to heart by those with little experience in brushing copper properly. I myself do not brush my coppers, but if I felt I possessed the requisite skill and experience, I would.

 

I have seen high grade red (or nearly so) copper that has been properly maintained through brushing for multiple decades of ownership, and the coins are as pristine as the day they were minted.

[MikeInFL]

For brown coins, I agree. For red and/or red/brown coins, I do not. While I have little experience with red copper, I do have red/brown copper that has remained stable for decades in slabs.

 

Provided they are maintained at a stable temperature with low humidity and airflow, there's no reason to believe they can't remain stable going forward.

 

Recently dipped copper is another story entirely.

 

All of the above IMO and based on my experience...Mike

[TomB]

I've never been an advocate of brushing any copper. However, I am also not nearly as educated in the copper niche as the members of EAC or many collectors of copper. Therefore, could someone with more knowledge of this niche please share with me the logic and process of brushing copper so that I can agree with the need to brush such pieces? Thanks.

[leeg]

[TomB]

Thank you for posting this, Lee. I had previously read what you posted and had not been sold at the time on the importance of manipulating copper coinage. Sadly, I still am not convinced that regular manipulation is the best thing for the coins in question.

 

It appears that xylene is the solute of choice to treat copper and that the treatment is not only designed to remove any possible corrosion, but also to remove surface dirt. Blue Ribbon or Care is then recommended to be applied to the coin to add back any oils that were stripped off the surface by the xylene treatment, which also would have stripped off any circulation dirt or grime. Note that the oils are not present when the coin is minted, but rather come from human handling of the copper. This process is horrifyingly analogous to washing old, circulated silver coinage in water, soap and water, or mild baking soda to strip away dirt and grime and leave the coins cleaner and somewhat lighter in color. The Blue Ribbon or Care would seem to reduce the visual impact of such a cleaning.

 

At this point I would expect that EAC members would not need to manipulate the surfaces anymore since the coin would have been stripped mightily and then reworked, but it has been stated that regular maintenance is good for copper. It would be hard to justify additional manipulation to strip away more oils since the coins should be handled properly at that time and no dirt, grime or grease should be deposited. However, additional rounds of stripping, wiping and reapplication of Blue Ribbon and Care are recommended.

 

Perhaps I am nuts, but this blatant coin doctoring makes no sense to me at all and I would hope any on the boards would explain how I can construe such a time honored stripping and manipulation of a copper coin's surface in a manner opposite of how the EAC treats its beloved items.

[michael]

I put the thread title in quotes, because it most definitely is my opinion, though one that is shared by hundreds of collectors more knowledgeable than myself.

 

What I mean is, high grade copper coins need a good EAC brushing every once in awhile to remove contaminants, and to re-deposit natural oils on the coin that protect it from exposure to a reactive environment. Further, the coins should be stored in a stable environment that does not trap contaminants (ahem, such as slabs).

 

This is not advice that should be taken to heart by those with little experience in brushing copper properly. I myself do not brush my coppers, but if I felt I possessed the requisite skill and experience, I would.

 

I have seen high grade red (or nearly so) copper that has been properly maintained through brushing for multiple decades of ownership, and the coins are as pristine as the day they were minted.

 

agreed 100%

[JIM F.]

Back in 1974 there was an article in Coin World (I think) about treating new copper coins to retain mint red in the long term. If my memory is correct, it suggested dipping in benzene. I obtained a few rolls of new 1974-D pennies from the bank and dipped them in the recommended solution. 35 years later, I can report they are all bright red -- as rec'd from the bank. Here is a picture of one of them (although the picture does not bring out the true blazing orange-red the coin still is). No toning whatsoever.

 

If anyone has retained coin world magazines from 1974 they may be able to pull up the article.

[James_OldeTowne]

I had previously read what you posted and had not been sold at the time on the importance of manipulating copper coinage. Sadly, I still am not convinced that regular manipulation is the best thing for the coins in question.

Tom, I do not understand where you see "manipulating copper coinage" mentioned or implied in Rod's instructions above. Indeed, he is careful to caution against manipulating the coin itself. The process he describes is intended to remove contaminants (which are not part of the coin) from the surfaces so the coin can maintain it's original patina.

 

I am curious as to why you wanted to imply manipulation of the coin itself.

 

Blue Ribbon or Care is then recommended to be applied to the coin to add back any oils that were stripped off the surface by the xylene treatment, which also would have stripped off any circulation dirt or grime. Note that the oils are not present when the coin is minted, but rather come from human handling of the copper.

Actually, in general, the blank copper planchets would have had oils and contaminants present prior to striking. We have proof of this from the fact that many coins have been struck through grease (not to mention other odd contaminants). You are implying some sort of pristine metal surface does not reflect reality at the early mint. The mint was an oily, greasy, filthy, dirty, grimy industrial processing plant much like any other production facility of the 18th and early 19th century.

 

This process is horrifyingly analogous to washing old, circulated silver coinage in water, soap and water, or mild baking soda to strip away dirt and grime and leave the coins cleaner and somewhat lighter in color. The Blue Ribbon or Care would seem to reduce the visual impact of such a cleaning.

And again, I must respectfully disagree. Removing dark dirt from a coin's while not affecting the surface integrity merely reveals the true color of the coin that was masked by the contaminants. If a silver coin is coated in charcoal, it will look ridiculously dark, while soap and water will remove the charcoal, and of course yield a much lighter appearance.

 

Perhaps I am nuts, but this blatant coin doctoring makes no sense to me at all and I would hope any on the boards would explain how I can construe such a time honored stripping and manipulation of a copper coin's surface in a manner opposite of how the EAC treats its beloved items.

Your suspicion is based on a false assumption that the coin surface is stripped. In fact, it is left intact, while contaminants are removed by the process Rod describes. No EAC member that I personally know thinks that stripping a problem-free coin's surface (copper or otherwise) is a good idea, but most would agree that removing contaminants is important.

 

Again, I am on record as saying that I personally never brush my copper coins, but this is only because I do not feel I have the proper expertise in performing the process correctly. If I felt comfortable with my skill level, I would proceed with the maintenance. In short, the process is not recommended for a collector who lacks proper instruction and skill/ in maintaining his copper.

 

Edited to add: All of my discussion above pertains to early copper (half-cents, large cents, colonial copper). It is not necessarily applicable to later coins, which were produced under much different circumstances.

[leeg]

I can certainly understand the concerns raised by Tom in his post. Tom also states that he does not have much experience in the care of early copper, hence the apprehension. I purchased this piece many years ago out of an Heritage Auction:

 

 

 

Image when I cracked it out:

 

 

Coin now:

 

 

I basically followed the process that Rod outlines above. Your results may be different than mine and each collector has to live with the results of their actions in the care of their coins. I was unsure of how the surfaces of this piece really looked under the lacquer. One just never knows until the lacquer is removed.

[dean1345]

Lee......It looks great. I have always loved the reverse die crack on the 1818.

[L1ncolnF4n]

Wow you found a winner there!

 

[TomB]

James, you are correct that copper when struck will or may have various oils on the piece and my statement that no oils would be present at manufacture was in error. I was actually thinking about the process of turning copper ore into copper to be used for coinage and that is a different issue. Thank you for pointing that out in this thread. However, your valid point that copper coinage would be issued with Mint grease, grime, oil or other dirt/filth brings up another possibly curious point and that is that this manipulation of the surface is designed to remove materials deposited at the US Mint during time of production and to replace them with commercial products sold as preservatives. This would still be manipulation of the surface of the coin by stripping its oils and grime that were adhered to the coin at the time of manufacture, or sometime later, in order to reapply newer products.

 

We also appear to have a different working definition of the term "original" since I would argue strongly that removing dirt or grime from a coin to "reveal the true color of a coin masked by contaminants" is absolutely coin doctoring. Here is a coin that I own that is silver, it is circulated, it is a contemporary of early copper and it would fall under the realm of a potential project to remove adhered dirt and grime-

 

 

A rose thorn or other suitable instrument might truly do the job if one's goal was to remove the circulation dirt and grime adhered to the surface of the coin within lettering, date and stars. Additionally, xylene or other products could strip away a certain amount of the dirt that forms the patina on the coin. This no doubt might reveal some flow lines on the coin that are now obscured and it would certainly make the metal a lighter shade more consistent with new silver, but it would ruin the coin, too.

 

I believe the problem I am having with at least some of this idea that manipulation of copper is good comes down to working definitions for "original" and "coin doctoring". I build my collection with the idea that an apparently original coin is one that has surfaces that do not appear to have been intentionally manipulated or changed with the goal of increasing marketability (relative attractiveness), apparent grade or price. Of course as a coin is circulated its surfaces would change, but this is primarily what many coins were designed to do and thus they would be performing their role. I would also consider coin doctoring to be any intentional process designed to change a coin's surface with the goal of increasing marketability (relative attractiveness), apparent grade or price. In this respect my beliefs fly directly into the face of accepted mainstream numismatics since I believe that both the dipping of gold, silver or copper or the routine manipulation of copper would be doctoring.

[James_OldeTowne]

your valid point that copper coinage would be issued with Mint grease, grime, oil or other dirt/filth brings up another possibly curious point and that is that this manipulation of the surface is designed to remove materials deposited at the US Mint during time of production and to replace them with commercial products sold as preservatives. This would still be manipulation of the surface of the coin by stripping its oils and grime that were adhered to the coin at the time of manufacture, or sometime later, in order to reapply newer products.

On the other hand, such so-called "manipulation" occurred (and occurs) whether or not a collector intentionally applies a process to remove dirt (200 years later or 2 days later), since the mere process of circulation through hands, pockets, cash registers and jostling around in leather wallets has similar effect. In other words, it makes no sense to believe that an early coin can exist in a state today precisely as when it emerged from the mint walls, since those coins, with extraordinarily rare exception, would have instantly been subject to handling. Therefore, the instant a freshly minted coin coin fell off the dies, burning hot from the intense mechanical pressure and dynamics, it immediately began to "change" from its original state, and unless it was instantly sealed in molten glass, there is nothing one could do to keep the coin in its truly "original" state. In short, xylene removes contaminants from a coin's surface, and so does normal circulation.

 

We quickly begin to enter a needlessly complex area of semantics, because when you get right down to it, the slightest hint of handling changes every coin from "original" to "no longer original". I guess you could go so far as to call that instant of falling of the dies "original prime", the stage at which the coin is just transferred to commerce "original secondary", and ordinary use during commerce as "original tertiary", but I don't think such splitting of hairs is practical, nor does it add much to the hobby. Would we really want terms such as "quaternary, quinary, senary" to enter the numismatic lexicon? Yet, all evaluations of "original" seem to have a timing factor built in. "This coin was original the instant before it was cleaned, or the instant before it fell in the mud, or the instant before it corroded."

 

We also appear to have a different working definition of the term "original" since I would argue strongly that removing dirt or grime from a coin to "reveal the true color of a coin masked by contaminants" is absolutely coin doctoring.

I am OK with different definitions of "original", as per my nutty example above. An extreme point of view would be that your silver coin is not really "original" since it did not emerge from the mint looking exactly like that. Further, what did it look like at the exact moment just prior to those dirty deposits being adhered to the coin? What if at one time in 1819, that half-dollar was perfectly natural grey and what you would call "original", but free from contaminants. Then, it was dropped into a mud puddle, picked back up and most of the dirt wiped off, then put away for 200 years, leading to the crusty appearance you see now. Would it have been more "original" before it was dropped into the mud? or after? And was it "manipulated" when our 200 year-old consumer wiped the mud off?

 

Doesn't the mere fact that an early half was removed from normal circulation automatically imply an inferior level of "original quality", since it has been prohibited from fulfilling its intended life-cycle of circulation? After all, they were destined to be used and worn down to bare pieces of metal, not for inclusion in protected collections.

 

A rose thorn or other suitable instrument might truly do the job if one's goal was to remove the circulation dirt and grime adhered to the surface of the coin within lettering, date and stars. Additionally, xylene or other products could strip away a certain amount of the dirt that forms the patina on the coin. This no doubt might reveal some flow lines on the coin that are now obscured and it would certainly make the metal a lighter shade more consistent with new silver, but it would ruin the coin, too.

This is an excellent point at which we can agree to disagree. I believe application of xylene may or may not "lighten" a coin, depending on circumstances, and I myself have personally seen copper coins become substantially darker after maintenance, because their surfaces were obscured by a contaminant lighter in color than the coin's actual surface. So I do not believe that chroma or hue should be a sole determinant of original quality, though it could be one factor of many. In my opinion, it is possible for xylene to turn an original coin into an un-original one, but it is also possible for it to turn an original coin with contaminants into an original one without contaminants, and this would be the intent of any prudent EAC member.

 

All the above is submitted, of course with respect!

[TomB]

I'm fine with our disagreement in this case since I have given a quite precise definition of what I consider original and of what I consider doctoring. If you read and understand my definitions you will see that most if not all of your hypothetical situations fall out of the realm of the definitions and thus are not germane to the issue.

 

Regardless, I have found over the years that I have a much more strict definition of such terms than the great body of the hobby-industry and I will not attempt to persuade others to think as I do and to embrace similar definitions.

 

This is a case of a clear difference in definition and/or acceptance of coinage and I won't pursue the matter for the sake of being right or to convince others of any validity.

[James_OldeTowne]

The largest beauty of this hobby, like many others, is the opportunity to have opinions different from that of fellow collectors that are as equally valid as they are open to discussion. Thanks very much for having a stance and standing by it!

 

Collectors often get so caught up in what is exactly "the right grade" that we forget that truth and beauty ultimately derive from perspective, and everyone's perspective on the world is different.

[bigmoose-migration]

TomB, James and Michael, this is a very interesting and thought provoking thread. As an fairly long time EAC member and owner of quite a few high grade Early and Middle Date Large Cents, let me throw my 2 Cents worth into the mix.

 

I have NEVER been comfortable with the thought of brushing copper coins either after using xylol or without using xylol/xylene. It just seems inevitable to me that brushing a DRY coin will invariably leave hairlines, no matter how skilled the person is doing the brushing. I have seen EAC members brush their coins over the course of many EAC Conventions. However, my personal practice is to NEVER brush a copper coin unless it is WET--I use CARE, although Blue Ribbon would probably work just as well. I apply a liberal coating of CARE with a Q tip, dab off the excess liquid, then brush the coin only when it is covered in a coating of CARE. I believe this gets rid of surface contaminants without causing hairlines or moving metal in any way. After brushing the wet coin, I roll a dry Q Tip over the coin to remove the excess oil. Again, this is just my practice, and I hope it helps in this discussion. I have found that my Early Copper has remained in a wonderful and fresh state of preservation with this method, and has not accumulated any spots, stains or other discolorations. TomT.

[michael]

tomT i totally agree (thumbs u

 

john wright does the exact same thing (as john and i just had this discussion about three weeks ago), but he only uses q-tips dipped in some sort of blue-ribbon/care type liquid and gently rolls the q-tip over the surfaces of the early large cent he is doing