MS70 causes blue toning on copper?

[Hard Times]

Those are some suggestions that have been posted on various boards.

 

Here is a listing for the product:

 

Industrial Strength

Coin Brightener

MS-70 is a blend of industrial detergents and surfactants designed to remove surface contamination from metal without disturbing the metal surface itself.

 

Surface contamination can be seen as PVC., tarnish, fog, oil, dirt, etc.

 

When MS-70 is applied the surfactants (wetting agents) first break the surface tension of the contamination then the detergents in MS-70 go to work as you "work" the coin as described in the instructions by suspending the contamination so that it may be rinsed away leaving a bright metal surface as undisturbed as the day the coin was made.

 

* Safe on Gold, Silver, Copper, Nickel, Bronze and Brass

* Best when used with mint state or slightly used coins

* Contains no acids or solvents

* Will not discolor mint state copper coins when used as directed

* Environmentally friendly and biodegradable

 

 

No mention of 'blue toning'. Does anyone have any proof at all to these claims? Before and after images? If so, it would be appreciated if you could show them to resolve this issue.

 

Thanks, HT

[physics-fan3.14]

Hard Times, you weren't around a couple/few years ago when this brouhaha went down, but lets just say it was very ugly, many tempers were raised, there were many unkind words thrown about, and many of us would rather not revisit this. If you want more info, do a search for "blue indians" and you will find what you need to know.

[Hard Times]

Thanks will do the search. Happy Hoildays, HT

[Hard Times]

I guess I am going to have to bring it out again. I could not find your thread but one popped up ATS going on right now. The same old arguments are being put forth that lead some, such as MikeinFl to claim the blue toning on my large cent is AT because of MS70 as posted on another thread here. After reading some points ATS by Rick Snow, I am lead to believe that blue toning on my large cent is NOT AT. Rick points out the following:

 

"You know all this is written in my book, which was the sole reason to write a second edition. If you comment on blue-toned Proofs without reading it you are speaking from ignorance. That's not a good way to post.

 

Fact is, that in the 1930's Abe Kosoff's first coin deal as a professional was with hundreds of blue-toned proof Indian cents from the 1878-1909 era. This is from "Dean of Numismatics" by Q. David Bowers. The coins had at that time been stored for 50 years in mint tissue.

 

So, it is not a new phenomenon.

 

Now if those coins got ugly brown when they were coated in PVC, lacquer or dirt and grime of 70 years of storage then I guess they would lose their vibrancy. Ans, yes - any solvent will remove that and expose the coin beneath.

 

The coins I'm taking about are deep patinated brown coins with blue/meganta/lavender color. Not the acetone-color you see on psuedo-red coins."

 

Turns out, MikeinFl is posting on that thread ATS, he who has the authentic blue toning on his Randall Hoard LC, while he claims mine is AT. Hmm..... MikeinFl, is questioning Rick's interpretation of old copper coins that have blue toning. My coin fits Rick's description of authentic NT proof or otherwise. MS70 appears to clean the grime off and bring out NT on MS, brown patinated coins. Just like on mine I posted on the other thread.

 

Gmarguli posted a before and after experiment showing indian cent brown, then cleaned with MS70 and suddenly vibrantly toned on the ATS thread. I am thinking no way Jose a detergent can do that, you would be calling upon instantaneous sulfide/oxide mineralization on the surface by simply cleaning it with detergent. That toning had to be there before the detergent cleaning - sulfide and oxide typically takes along time to form from reaction with S in the air. All the detergent is doing is bringing out the toning underneath the grime/surface coating.

 

Having said all of this, I am happy for someone to show us the chemistry and show that MikeinFl is correct when he says MS70 caused my blue toning where Rick Snow suggests coins such as that are NT.

 

Happy Holidays, HT -not to be confused with AT or NT

[BillJones]

Proof cents can have blue color, but it's not the bright blue that MS-70 seems to leave behind.

 

In my view MS-70 is a menance. I don't care for look of silver after it has had the treatment; it's too bright. I wish people would put to use on something other than coins.

 

This Matte Proof Lincoln cent has the "proper" blue color. I shot the picture an angle to bring up the color.

 

[Hard Times]

Proofs are made of the same metal as their unproof counterparts. 'Proof' has no bearing on whether the surface will turn blue or not.

 

MS70 is a detergent. Detergents cannot produce sulfide and oxide on surfaces instantaneously. From its description it is soap and/or solvent. You need acid to cause a reaction of the type people are claiming causes blue toning from MS70. Acid strips off metal, but leaves a marked decrease in luster, everyone has seen what acid can do when dipping copper (or silver or gold), it leaves a dull surface. The same would be true if a detergent is strong enough to strip off metal, but it won't produce sulfide or oxide films instantaneously. My large cent has a flashy cartwheel, it has not been stripped by acid or detergent. It has NT - brown with blue tinges.

 

Alternatively, provide the proof through chemistry is all I ask because nothing about MS70 suggests it will cause blue toning. In my view, Rick has nailed it, old copper is efficiently cleaned with a product that is neutral to metal, it will to remove foreign matter, old copper brings out its NT.

 

 

 

 

[gmarguli]

MS70 can turn brown copper bright blue, dull blue, brown, RB, RD, pink, or have no change at all. It can be unpredictable.

 

The idea that there are tons of blue Indians (and Large cents & Half cents) that were stored for years in tissue is a joke. Perhaps all the blast white silver coinage of this era were stored in hermetically sealed mason jars? The vast majority of blue copper is the result of chemicals and/or heat.

 

There are many telltale signs of MS70 use on copper. I've posted these numerous times before. You can use these to be rather sure that a coin has been treated with MS70. However, you cannot use these to say a blue copper is not the result of MS70 as there are very easy ways to mask the look and as I said before, MS70 can be unpredictable.

 

The TPG clearly are aware of what MS70 can do and they still slab most of these coins. My personal opinion is that if you bag one of these for being unnatural, then they should also bag all blast white classic silver coins for the same reason.

 

In the end, buy what you like and will enjoy owning.

[robec1347]

What do you suppose was used on this coin to turn it from the first image to the second? I actually like the appearance of the first image. It upgraded to a 67BN in the bottom image from the top image's 65BN.

 

[James_OldeTowne]

This is a thread you need to review very carefully.

[e1cnr]

I do not know what there actually is in the product, and suspect the label is lacking or wrong.

 

 

I have used it on some Jefferson nickels, and a couple with colorful toning become

ugly just like it had been dipped in EZest

 

 

can you check pH on that stuff?

[MikeInFL]

Who are you going to believe? A dealer who makes his living selling these coins, or collectors like you?

 

If I'm so wrong, why aren't people contradicting what I say?

 

Could it be that I speak the truth?

 

FWIW, Greg, with whom I've butted heads a few times over the years, deserves credit for bringing this to light. He has quite a bit of experience doing it, and you should pay close attention to him because he speaks from experience. It is also not a coincidence that he suggested your coin was blue because of MS-70.

 

 

 

[MikeInFL]

p.s. the blue-green which sometimes shows up on natural coins is quite different from the blue colors that come from exposure to a soap. In-hand the distinction is quite easy to make, but in photos it's quite a bit harder. That's why I suggest you experiment for yourself to build direct first-hand experience and draw your own conclusions.

[e1cnr]

is the boiling to neutralize the acid or is it the heat that causes the color?

[cpm9ball]

Post Deleted

[Hard Times]

Who are you going to believe? A dealer who makes his living selling these coins, or collectors like you?

 

If I'm so wrong, why aren't people contradicting what I say?

 

Could it be that I speak the truth?

 

FWIW, Greg, with whom I've butted heads a few times over the years, deserves credit for bringing this to light. He has quite a bit of experience doing it, and you should pay close attention to him because he speaks from experience. It is also not a coincidence that he suggested your coin was blue because of MS-70.

 

 

 

Your logic is all completely wrong, this is the whole point I have been trying to make on both threads with your 'authoritative' opinions. You and others claim that MS70 does this, while the other half, you call the 'evil dealers', claim that the toning was there and MS70 just cleaned off the gunk. To their credit, the 'dealers' have some credibility in this. MS70 has a pH adjusted to 7 in order to be neutral to metal - that has been discussed by real chemists on other online threads - people who do this for a living as it turns out. The only way to get it to react with metal and cause instant oxidation or somehow, create pretty blue sulfides on a surface of metal, is to change the pH or react with S somehow. Is that possible? I simply do not know at this point but both sides have only qualitative arguments to make. To counter this, I have asked you to write me a chemical reaction and prove that MS70 causes the blue toning. You have not. Then you make a claim that my large cent with muted blue toning intermingled with brown patina, which according to the PCGS grading guide, meets the conditions of NT, is caused by MS70!! Then you go further by posting a Randall hoard large cent, that is bright blue covering the reverse unlike any large cent I have ever seen, has all marks of AT because the toning covers everything even the devices, and you claim it is NT! The PCGS grading guide conditions for AT says otherwise.

 

So yes, who you gonna believe? Give me some demonstrable, quantitative proof as to what you claim as AT from MS70. From everything I have learned, it seems the evil dealers have the upper hand in this argument, prove, not just show pics, because we can't say for sure that the toning did in fact underlie the gunk or is created by MS70, prove, your point.

 

There are experiments that can be done to demonstrate this empirically. What has been shown so far would not pass critical review as valid. If you can't figure out what experiments to do, stay tuned, when I get MS70 and when I have time, I will do the correct experiments to empirically test both sides of the argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MikeInFL]

My opinion is not authoritative, and I have never knowingly suggested it is. It is my opinion. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

Not knowing the chemical reaction by which copper is often turned blue by MS-70 doesn't change the fact that it happens. I can't tell you precisely why the sky is blue, yet I know what color my eyes perceive.

 

There is demonstrable proof in the two images I posted that you quoted above. This is backed up by the posts of Greg, James, Bruce and others -- people who have nothing to gain by lying to you. Can the "evil dealers" (your words, not mine) say the same? Put aside your emotion and think about it.

 

Good luck with your experiments. I look forward to your results and I hope you are as verbose in your apologies when your experiments result in blue copper as you are in your protestations of disbelief, and I am sorry that I had to be among those to break this dirty little secret of numismatics to you. I truly am.

 

Take care...Mike

[Hard Times]

MikeinFl. Actually no, those images can just as easily be interpreted as against any changes from MS70 taken at face value. If what you said was correct about the alleged color change then it should in theory be pervasive because it is all copper, whereas, it is clearly not in the pictures you show from Gmarguli. I am open to believe it is just as possible that the color change does not reflect reaction with MS70 but instead it was already present on the coin and was brought out by the conservation. I am open to either side of the argument but need quantifiable results to be convinced either way. I want the science to speak about this, not just qualitative arguments based on no proof either way.

 

What I have read and seen so far about MS70 seems to be old wives tales. You and others say 'Conserve copper with MS70, it changes color, it must be reacting with the conservation agent. Others say it is instead removing something on top and bringing out what is beneath. That makes some sense chemically, taken at face value given how the product is claimed to work, but neither side has quantifiable proof at this point. It has nothing to do with my 'disbelief' or belief, it only has to do with what is the science of what is going on?

 

There is going to be no verbose apology from me to you no matter what the results of my experiments are. Especially to someone who posts comments to others such as 'I know precisely how you feel. I was in your shoes just a few years ago'.

 

Come on MikeinFl, you really think that is an appropriate comment just because I love and thus purchased this large cent I should somehow feel bad (I don't) and that I somehow am in some kind of bad shoes simply because you and other like TDN chose to say this is a problem coin when myself and others don't? Do you really think this is helpful to say such things? A verbose apology because you think you know the right answer and you imply I am not smart enough to know what the right answer is? Again, proof, proof, more proof is needed and I remain open minded (you clearly are not) until proof is in hand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tradedollarnut]

What I suggest that you do - just for your own education [and I would suggest this to ANY and all] - is to go to a major coin show and try to 'sell' the coins that you own. If you receive strong offers, then you are doing just fine. If you receive just cents on the dollar offers, then you'd best adjust your eye.

 

To me, this is the BEST way to get a quality check on one's purchases. Of course, another would be to spend the $10 to have it checked out by CAC ... because afterwards you can pick up the phone and talk to JA about why he did or didn't like it.

 

One problem with AT is that it taints the rep of NT coins with similar attributes. So even if the coin is NT, it still is questioned. One thing that Laura always told me is to look twice at any coin with different obverse and reverse toning patterns - immediate suspicion.

 

Does that mean that you shouldn't like your coin? Nope - I have coins that I suspect or know are AT and I still own them. BUT, you should at least open your eyes and acknowledge the possibility that something was done to it. It doesn't matter that it's in a TPG holder and it doesn't matter that the dealer who sold it to you likes it - it still could be messed with. And in general, since there are sooooo many Randall Hoard coins around - why get stuck on any single specimen?

[ldhair]

I thought all the proof in the world was on the table years ago.

[MikeInFL]

MikeinFl. Actually no, those images can just as easily be interpreted as against any changes from MS70 taken at face value. If what you said was correct about the alleged color change then it should in theory be pervasive because it is all copper, whereas, it is clearly not in the pictures you show from Gmarguli. I am open to believe it is just as possible that the color change does not reflect reaction with MS70 but instead it was already present on the coin and was brought out by the conservation. I am open to either side of the argument but need quantifiable results to be convinced either way. I want the science to speak about this, not just qualitative arguments based on no proof either way.

What science would satisfy you?

 

What I have read and seen so far about MS70 seems to be old wives tales. You and others say 'Conserve copper with MS70, it changes color, it must be reacting with the conservation agent. Others say it is instead removing something on top and bringing out what is beneath. That makes some sense chemically, taken at face value given how the product is claimed to work, but neither side has quantifiable proof at this point. It has nothing to do with my 'disbelief' or belief, it only has to do with what is the science of what is going on?

So, if this toning was present the whole time, it stopped when it got to the precise thickness causing the thin film to turn blue. Why aren't greens, yellow, and all the other colors "uncovered" by MS 70? After all, these toned copper coins turn all kinds of colors, yet none other than blue (and an occasional pink/purple) are ever "uncovered" by MS-70. Why is that?

 

I am not a chemist, but it is my understanding that you are a PhD in the topic. You tell me.

 

There is going to be no verbose apology from me to you no matter what the results of my experiments are. Especially to someone who posts comments to others such as 'I know precisely how you feel. I was in your shoes just a few years ago'.

I was trying, with that comment, to liken my situation to your own. I'm sorry if you think trying to relate to your situation is inappropriate. I just remember how resistant I was to the idea that these coins were AT. After all, how could the guy who wrote the book on these coins be wrong? Then I did some experiments myself, and spoke to a great number of fellow collectors and dealers on the topic and I learned what's really behind these coins. It was an eye-opening experience, and one I hoped to share by responding.

 

Come on MikeinFl, you really think that is an appropriate comment just because I love and thus purchased this large cent I should somehow feel bad (I don't) and that I somehow am in some kind of bad shoes simply because you and other like TDN chose to say this is a problem coin when myself and others don't? Do you really think this is helpful to say such things? A verbose apology because you think you know the right answer and you imply I am not smart enough to know what the right answer is? Again, proof, proof, more proof is needed and I remain open minded (you clearly are not) until proof is in hand.

Who said you should feel bad? The coin is what it is, neither good nor bad. The only person's opinion on the coin that really matters is your own. If you like the coin, more power to you! Just don't get "miffed" when you ask for opinions and get ones that are contrary to your own.

 

Also, I never said you were not smart enough to know what the right answer is, nor did I intentionally imply such a thing. However, I think you were ignorant as to the effect of MS-70 on copper and what constitutes negative eye appeal in the market, and I stand by those statements.

 

And again, I will ask you: Why do you think the most experienced numismatists on this forum -- people who have nothing to gain by lying to you -- agree with me? I have been patient with you and answered all your questions, now I would appreciate an answer from you.

 

Lastly, I do think that discussions like these are helpful. You may not believe me, but I responded to this thread hoping to help you. Alas, nobody likes to hear their baby is ugly, and I fully expected the idea would be met with resistance.

 

Again, I look forward to your experiments. Please be sure and stop by when you've completed them and share you results and conclusions. I am open minded to whatever you find and conclude. Take care...Mike

[Coindude]

I'll tell you guys that I did an experiment a while back.

 

Personally, I already knew that MS70 turned coins a purple-blue color from some previous attempts to clean copper. The first time I did it, it ticked me off because what I wanted to do was clean some gunk off a really nice coin and now, it was purple!

 

The first time I tried it, was on a cheap 1904 RB proof Indian Cent. Yea, it turned purple especially where it was brown before, which would lend to the theories being thrown around by Mr. Hard Times.

 

I tried it several more times as experiments as I found that all other coins, it did not turn colors.

 

Now, let me throw another monkey wrench in the mix. I was able to turn proof red cents into purple monsters. In fact, a few years back, to prove this point, on these boards as a matter of fact, I dipped a 1964 proof cent, pure red, halfway into some MS70 and it turned half purple.

 

Now, let me throw another monkey wrench into the mix, I have dipped pure red cents into MS70 and .... they stayed red.

 

What MikeInFL was stating is that MS70, just like any other detergent, which is what MS70 is, it states so on the label. Is that detergents will turn copper colors.

 

Does it always do this? Apparently not, as my own experiments have proven. Will it sometimes cause coins to turn purple? Obviously, as my experiments have proven.

 

Do I understand all the points of view here? Sure, I know that not all purple / blue toned copper is AT and not all are NT.

 

Like TDN said, will the TPG's grade such copper? Absolutely not .... SOMETIMES!!

 

Will everyone pay strong money for said coin? Not always... and why? Because they are afraid they have been treated by MS70, when it's quite possible that it might not have been.

 

Are coins that are toned two different tones, one on obv and the other on rev a concern? Yea, it should throw up a flag, just so that you take another look. Does that mean that it's fake toning? Not necessarily. But, as previously stated, you should take another look and think about it.

 

Does that change the fact that I think that the coin in the OP has a wonderful strike? Nope, not in the least. Yea, I see the streaks on the obverse, and I see the colors that are different. I still like the coin and if HT likes the coin, that's what really matters.

 

So all in all....l does MS70 affect copper? Absolutely..... SOMETIMES!!

[James_OldeTowne]

MikeinFl. Actually no, those images can just as easily be interpreted as against any changes from MS70 taken at face value. If what you said was correct about the alleged color change then it should in theory be pervasive because it is all copper, whereas, it is clearly not in the pictures you show from Gmarguli. I am open to believe it is just as possible that the color change does not reflect reaction with MS70 but instead it was already present on the coin and was brought out by the conservation.

...

What I have read and seen so far about MS70 seems to be old wives tales. You and others say 'Conserve copper with MS70, it changes color, it must be reacting with the conservation agent. Others say it is instead removing something on top and bringing out what is beneath.

In the experiment I linked above, my experience was that vintage copper remains "red" when applied MS70, while "brown" copper turns blue when affected by MS70.

 

In other words, applying MS-70 will not reveal an underlying color, but rather, it will merely cleanse copper that is already red and leave it so (or brighten it a little), or it will react with copper-oxide, the "brown" patina on a copper coin, to produce a blue color.

 

If a coin is red/brown, then part will turn blue and part will turn or remain red with application of MS70.

[leeg]

Sold this example several years ago. Thoughts?

 

 

PR65 RB

[James_OldeTowne]

TrueView images are horrible, and especially on coins like this, one always suspects that the image looks hardly at all like the actual coin.

 

If a coin really did look just like that, it would be flaming AT in my opinion. In fact, I believe PCGS and NGC have certified so many altered matte proofs that there's no way to trust whether a certified MPL is legit or not.

 

So for me, it comes down to whether I can enjoy and appreciate the coin's color. I'm just not a big fan of purple copper, but again, I can't tell how overblow the color is in reality from that image. For folks who like purple, I'm sure that's a great coin. I prefer a tasteful hue of bluish iridescence, and whether it gets there naturally or via MS70 probably doesn't matter to me. I just want the coin to look "reasonable".

[Hard Times]

MikeinFl. Actually no, those images can just as easily be interpreted as against any changes from MS70 taken at face value. If what you said was correct about the alleged color change then it should in theory be pervasive because it is all copper, whereas, it is clearly not in the pictures you show from Gmarguli. I am open to believe it is just as possible that the color change does not reflect reaction with MS70 but instead it was already present on the coin and was brought out by the conservation.

...

What I have read and seen so far about MS70 seems to be old wives tales. You and others say 'Conserve copper with MS70, it changes color, it must be reacting with the conservation agent. Others say it is instead removing something on top and bringing out what is beneath.

In the experiment I linked above, my experience was that vintage copper remains "red" when applied MS70, while "brown" copper turns blue when affected by MS70.

 

In other words, applying MS-70 will not reveal an underlying color, but rather, it will merely cleanse copper that is already red and leave it so (or brighten it a little), or it will react with copper-oxide, the "brown" patina on a copper coin, to produce a blue color.

 

If a coin is red/brown, then part will turn blue and part will turn or remain red with application of MS70.

 

James, those are some good points, that is what I want to find out, is it a reaction, or is it a removal of something? Interesting either way. I will need an SEM to do EDS abundance work on, and an XRD. I also want to do some measuring of the thickness of the surfaces before and after. This will take time, but I think it is worthwhile to do this. And one question I will explore is what in most cases the proofs come out more vibrant and the non-proofs more subdued - can that be produced by a reaction? I will find out quantitatively, but it will take time. Luckily I have access to all of the instruments necessary and I have a chem lab I manage at work. But will need to fit this in and make sure the research is done carefully.

[Hard Times]

I'll tell you guys that I did an experiment a while back.

 

Personally, I already knew that MS70 turned coins a purple-blue color from some previous attempts to clean copper. The first time I did it, it ticked me off because what I wanted to do was clean some gunk off a really nice coin and now, it was purple!

 

The first time I tried it, was on a cheap 1904 RB proof Indian Cent. Yea, it turned purple especially where it was brown before, which would lend to the theories being thrown around by Mr. Hard Times.

 

I tried it several more times as experiments as I found that all other coins, it did not turn colors.

 

Now, let me throw another monkey wrench in the mix. I was able to turn proof red cents into purple monsters. In fact, a few years back, to prove this point, on these boards as a matter of fact, I dipped a 1964 proof cent, pure red, halfway into some MS70 and it turned half purple.

 

Now, let me throw another monkey wrench into the mix, I have dipped pure red cents into MS70 and .... they stayed red.

 

What MikeInFL was stating is that MS70, just like any other detergent, which is what MS70 is, it states so on the label. Is that detergents will turn copper colors.

 

Does it always do this? Apparently not, as my own experiments have proven. Will it sometimes cause coins to turn purple? Obviously, as my experiments have proven.

 

Do I understand all the points of view here? Sure, I know that not all purple / blue toned copper is AT and not all are NT.

 

Like TDN said, will the TPG's grade such copper? Absolutely not .... SOMETIMES!!

 

Will everyone pay strong money for said coin? Not always... and why? Because they are afraid they have been treated by MS70, when it's quite possible that it might not have been.

 

Are coins that are toned two different tones, one on obv and the other on rev a concern? Yea, it should throw up a flag, just so that you take another look. Does that mean that it's fake toning? Not necessarily. But, as previously stated, you should take another look and think about it.

 

Does that change the fact that I think that the coin in the OP has a wonderful strike? Nope, not in the least. Yea, I see the streaks on the obverse, and I see the colors that are different. I still like the coin and if HT likes the coin, that's what really matters.

 

So all in all....l does MS70 affect copper? Absolutely..... SOMETIMES!!

 

Coindude, excellent commentary, open and honest, you would make an excellent scientist - is that what you do? What I see is that there is truly a need for systematic quantitative studies of what happens to coins when they are 'conserved' and why. I hope I can add that to the field. When I first got the comments from some that my large cent was problematic and AT, I was shocked and miffed. Now I want to know if the AT is really AT or as some claim, such as Rick Snow for blue proof IC's, resulting in removal of gunk and possibly some oxides built up on the surfaces, thus 'revealing' original NT underneath when using MS70 (or other products?). Probably some of both is my guess. So the answer is, why is MS70 doing this if it is? For all intents and purposes, it should not, in theory at least (If it has sulfonates in it then it my be possible......). So I will explore it, it will just take time. Luckily as I noted to James, I have the tools to do the study, but no one is going to pay me for the time and resources needed to do it, so it will take time as it will be my spare time. But darned interesting. We will see. Be patient and stay tuned........

 

Best wishes, HT

[Hard Times]

What I suggest that you do - just for your own education [and I would suggest this to ANY and all] - is to go to a major coin show and try to 'sell' the coins that you own. If you receive strong offers, then you are doing just fine. If you receive just cents on the dollar offers, then you'd best adjust your eye.

 

To me, this is the BEST way to get a quality check on one's purchases. Of course, another would be to spend the $10 to have it checked out by CAC ... because afterwards you can pick up the phone and talk to JA about why he did or didn't like it.

 

One problem with AT is that it taints the rep of NT coins with similar attributes. So even if the coin is NT, it still is questioned. One thing that Laura always told me is to look twice at any coin with different obverse and reverse toning patterns - immediate suspicion.

 

Does that mean that you shouldn't like your coin? Nope - I have coins that I suspect or know are AT and I still own them. BUT, you should at least open your eyes and acknowledge the possibility that something was done to it. It doesn't matter that it's in a TPG holder and it doesn't matter that the dealer who sold it to you likes it - it still could be messed with. And in general, since there are sooooo many Randall Hoard coins around - why get stuck on any single specimen?

 

Thank for the comments TDN and right on the mark. What worries me is that there are two sides of the argument about if blue toned copper is AT or NT. We need to really find out, because if it is NT, then coins with it are misunderstood. If it is AT, we really need to know this with quantitative proof. I bought the large cent with streaks on the obverse because of the streaks. I wasn't really thinking about the reverse when I selected it. I love it that way it is simple as that. I don't view that as a problem coin, but now recognize that steaks such as that is subject to ones taste after the comments received. To me it adds character and history about large cent production and is educational in its uniqueness. I know others like earlier large cents because of the history, even when they are corroded and spotty, but that is not for me, again, subject to ones own tastes. I never plan to sell this one, I bought it with the understanding that it offers its uniqueness and that other potential buyers may not appreciate the attributes that I see in it. I have had two other Randall Hoard LC's that meet expectations for most buyers and were lovely in their own right. Both sold for a very nice premium over what I bought them for. I would definitely buy more of these for immediate sale, if the right ones come along..... And if the perfect ones comes along, hey I would go the long run with it instead.

 

Best wishes, HT

 

 

 

 

 

 

[relicsncoins]

I have one blue toned proof Indian. I had to tilt the coin to bring out the colors. The coin has underlying brown patina on both sides. This example is different than most of the coins shown, in that I have photographic evidence that this coin was blue in 1986 and has not changed since then.

 

Does that mean this coin was not treated with MS70? Not unless MS70 was not around in 1986.

 

The only thing proven is that this coin was blue long before this blue Indian craze started and it has been stable for at least 25 years.

 

 

 

[TonerGuy]

Okay here's a question no one has posed yet - let say you have a blue copper cent and want to remove the blue toning - does anyone have any suggestions on how that might be accomplished ?

 

 

 

 

[michael]

in most all cases

 

rinse it off under the sink with hot running water and see what happens

 

you will not be too happy