• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Quick question on silver toning

Started by Kurtdog,

14 posts in this topic

Kurtdog

Kurtdog

Posted
Posted

Is there a difference between the surfaces of 90% silver coins, i.e., the "skins?" If so, we're wondering how much if any that dictates the toning on those coins. Take proofs vs. business strikes. Take Morgan and Peace Dollars. I've heard rumors to that effect. After all, toning is but "skin" deep.

 

Thank you in advance for your cooperation and participation. These kids in the coin club are the inquisitive type, what can I tell you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Member: Seasoned Veteran
DWLange

DWLange

Posted
  • Member: Seasoned Veteran
Posted

The degree of work hardening and the texture of a coin's surface do affect the nature and degree of toning. For instance, proof coins, with their mirrorlike surfaces, tend to tone much more darkly than currency pieces. Weakly struck copper or bronze resists toning better than sharply struck pieces and thus is more likely to remain fully red. I don't understand the physics of this, but I've observed it across a broad spectrum of coins over the years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cpm9ball

cpm9ball

Posted
Posted

Kurt, I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but take a look at some nice silver toners under the high magnification of a good stereomicroscope sometime. You might be surprised at what you can see.

 

Chris

 

PS. I think the kids at the club would get a big kick out of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kurtdog

Kurtdog

Posted
  • Author
Posted
The degree of work hardening and the texture of a coin's surface do affect the nature and degree of toning. For instance, proof coins, with their mirrorlike surfaces, tend to tone much more darkly than currency pieces. Weakly struck copper or bronze resists toning better than sharply struck pieces and thus is more likely to remain fully red. I don't understand the physics of this, but I've observed it across a broad spectrum of coins over the years.

Interesting observation on the strikes, Dave. You just rose my level of consciousness. And that's no easy thing to do, lol.

 

Seriously, I'm going to start paying attention to this. Peace Dollars on the whole are "weaker" than the Morgans, no? That might explain something, there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jpcienkus

jpcienkus

Posted
Posted
Kurt, I'm not trying to be a wise guy, but take a look at some nice silver toners under the high magnification of a good stereomicroscope sometime. You might be surprised at what you can see.

 

Chris

 

PS. I think the kids at the club would get a big kick out of this.

 

Chris,

 

I like this idea. I'm going to check it out this weekend on my NT and one of my AT coins so I can really see the difference.

 

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raisethis2

Raisethis2

Posted
Posted

I've been told that cleaned old coins tone more readily than unc coins of the same type/age with ample luster. I'd think this implies that luster might actually interfere, but I don't know that.

 

As David said, weakly struck cents accept toning better than sharply struck ones. I'd think the luster wouldn't be affected either way but that's kinda been my observation too.

 

Similarly, Peace dollars don't tone like Morgans because the Silver was annealed differently in some way.

 

This very much points to "skin", I'm just not smart enough to know more but I'd like to.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kurtdog

Kurtdog

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Similarly, Peace dollars don't tone like Morgans because the Silver was annealed differently in some way.

Just on this, that's interesting, as it's specific to Morgan and Peace dollars. I heard a "specific" on those relative to how the luster was imparted. For a "specific," yes, it was that vague, I don't quite understand it very much beyond that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cpm9ball

cpm9ball

Posted
Posted
Similarly, Peace dollars don't tone like Morgans because the Silver was annealed differently in some way.

Just on this, that's interesting, as it's specific to Morgan and Peace dollars. I heard a "specific" on those relative to how the luster was imparted. For a "specific," yes, it was that vague, I don't quite understand it very much beyond that.

 

Kurt, one thing I noticed when examining Morgan dollars under the stereomicroscope was that you could see the flow lines radiating outward from the center toward the rim. They look like very fine "peaks and valleys" through the fields. I've always thought that this "flow pattern" had a lot to do with the luster.....light reflecting off those "peaks".....and toning much like a river in the "valleys". (If that makes sense!)

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Six Mile Rick

Six Mile Rick

Posted
Posted

Chris,

I have enjoyed this post so far and probably will continue to enjoy it but I have a question for you.

What size stereomicroscope do you use as I would hate to pay for more than I actually need. That line you just put in that post sounded a bit like poetry. :grin:

 

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cpm9ball

cpm9ball

Posted
Posted
Chris,

I have enjoyed this post so far and probably will continue to enjoy it but I have a question for you.

What size stereomicroscope do you use as I would hate to pay for more than I actually need. That line you just put in that post sounded a bit like poetry. :grin:

 

Rick

 

Rick, I have a 9-year old Pac-Sci (conventional) stereomicroscope which has zoom capability to about 80x. It can enable me to zoom in full-screen on a single digit of a Morgan dollar. When it was new, it was $850, but like all technology, prices have come down considerably. At the time, I actually wanted a trinocular scope which had a dedicated lens for the camera attachment, but they cost about $3500. Now, the trinocular scopes with zoom and a USB camera are about $1300-1500.

 

The new hand-held, digital USB scopes are not to my liking. 200x magnification, in my opinion, is overkill, and I'm not a big fan of the LED lighting.

 

I should also point out that none of these scopes, mine included, are intended for use in taking full coin shots for pretty much anything larger than a dime. So, if you don't already have a camera set-up, I'd recommend getting that first and the scope later on.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cpm9ball

cpm9ball

Posted
Posted
Did you mean to say "are intended" or "are not intended"?...I am thinking you meant the latter and mistyped the former.

 

No! It is correct. You overlooked the word "none" earlier in the sentence.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Six Mile Rick

Six Mile Rick

Posted
Posted

Thanks Chris!!

I now know to keep it between 30X and 80X. I would like the option for close up views and it seems the 40 - 60 - 80 is around $185 and up. I too do not like the new USB scope that I got last year.

There's gotta be a better way!! :)

 

Rick

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing