Observations on Personal Responsibility, Numismatics and Blue-Toned Copper

[TomB]

This topic has taken me quite some time to think through in order to formulate a response that reflects my numismatic belief system. Combining the PCGS and NGC threads leaves us with myriad coins, accusations, purported explanations and theories however; I do not know that they really answer the underlying questions. Specifically, what level of numismatic manipulation or conservation is acceptable to the individual, the TPG and the market, and whose responsibility is it to make those decisions?

 

This lengthy post will likely satisfy few, if any, who take the time to read it. It is not extreme in nature and it finds valid points brought to light by each school of thought. It is also posted much later in the fray than many would have liked, given the avalanche of phone calls, emails and private messages that I have received this week querying my absence in the disputes. In truth, it takes me time and effort to write a post that attempts to retain some scientific accuracy while addressing scientific points in a lay manner, and that also tries to address what this might mean in the numismatic arena. Additionally, as is the case with all of us, there are simply some weeks that are better than others with regard to time and the ability to participate in more than a cursory manner.

 

The current PCGS thread regarding Rick Snow and his proof IHCs is over 400 replies, of which I have read only 280, and the similar NGC thread regarding Greg and his copper is over 100 replies, of which I have read only 100. Each site has also spawned a number of tangential threads, which appear to be dominating board discussion, but I do not get the sense that many of the participants are actually engaging in dialogue. In my opinion, we have two cases here that are independent of one another even though they center on the identical coinage metal, series and implied appearance. I must state that I have examined none of these coins in-hand, and do not know the accuracy of images from the three sources of provided images. I have had dinner with Rick at larger shows, but have never met Greg. I have sold a single coin to Greg and own two coins purchased from Rick. Neither with Rick nor Greg, however, have I exchanged more than sporadic private messages. Additionally, I am a toned coin enthusiast, I have written often about toning and I am a practicing scientist with a PhD in chemistry and biology, but I am not a physicist. Lastly, I have very little to gain or lose in the arena of blue-toned copper because I own only one intensely toned violet and blue matte proof Lincoln cent, one proof IHC with mossy blue and violet highlights and one glossy brown and blue proof IHC. To complete the disclosure, all the toned coins in my collection (MS and PF, type and series) constitute only a small percentage of the value of my collection.

 

Rick Snow appears to have purchased his IHCs in question from a recent Stacks sale of the Northern Bay Collection. What I find interesting with these coins is the transparency of ownership. The ownership trail, as told by Rick in the initial PCGS thread, is one of Stacks to Rick to the walk-through service at PCGS and then back to Rick who subsequently offered them on his web site. Therefore, if the entirety of the Stacks winnings was listed on Rick’s site, he is not hiding his involvement with these coins via consignment. The coins, sold at public auction, were available for inspection to all interested parties. Rick claims the coins were in a coat of lacquer, others have not disputed this assertion, and that with the removal of the lacquer the appearance of the coins changed dramatically. Rick also claims to have removed the lacquer coat with acetone and that this process revealed surfaces with exceptional beauty. In truth, I have never removed lacquer from a coin, and from the information provided, I do not even know what solution, resin or compound was actually on the coins. Lacquer, as a term, encompasses a wide range of distinct compounds, whose usage patterns have changed over time, and whose stability and rate of oxidation differ. Currently, Rick has stated that an analytical examination of some of the remaining non-certified coins, to look for trace contaminants, will be performed and the results published in the ANA Journal of Advanced Studies in Numismatics. The parameters of that study, which will determine the validity of its conclusions, should be interesting to read.

 

An early post by Sunnywood, on the PCGS boards, was accurate and to recall this post is to recall the truth. Briefly, the points include that acetone is a solvent that removes many organic compounds including PVC and lacquer, that removal of PVC or lacquer should not cause a secondary toning reaction and that toning on metals occurs because of the formation of oxides and primarily sulfides that, in general, are refractory to organic solvents. In addition, clear lacquer coatings may oxidize over time and this oxidation generally darkens the coating, and that proof IHCs are one of the "hot" coins in the AT market, partly for their popularity and partly for the difficulty to spot them vs an NT coin.

 

The debate regarding thin-film interference is odd in that this property of physics and optics is well known and well characterized for decades. You may read the article, which needs some polishing and reworking, on thin-film interference on my web site or may choose to read the primary literature, or physics and optics books, to come to your own conclusions. In one sentence, thin-film interference in numismatics is the formation of a very thin layer of metallic sulfides over time, through oxidation of the underlying metal, which causes light rays impinging on the coin's surface to refract back to the viewer an array of colors. This is exactly what toning is; the optical experience of the physics of perturbed light rays after contacting the chemistry of metallic sulfides.

 

The statement that oxidation is oxidation, regardless of whether it took 100 years or three minutes to produce does not necessarily reflect science. It is true that the oxidation of a single molecule may be identical, regardless of if the reaction proceeded quickly or in an attenuated manner. However, reaction kinetics are extraordinarily important in describing gross phenomena such as toning. I will list two examples for illustrative purposes, and I hope that all realize this is an approximation of scientific theory and is not completely accurate.

 

For example, we are all familiar with natural diamond and graphite, and many of us likely realize that natural diamond and graphite are both pure carbon and nothing else. The amazing differences between natural diamond and graphite are primarily due to how each forms. Natural diamond forms slowly, with the carbon atoms making contact with each other in such a way as to build a face-centered cubic structure that is internally sturdy and that has many strong interactions with neighboring carbon atoms. Graphite forms with the carbon atoms making hexagonal contact with each other in such a way as to build sheets that may slide against one another. This sheet-like interaction allows carbon atoms that lie in the same plane to be strongly attached to their neighbors while allowing atoms that are in adjacent sheets, such as sheets of a textbook, to be loosely bound to one another. Both natural diamond and graphite are pure carbon, just as both AT and NT coins may be metallic sulfides, but the reaction kinetics help to shape the properties of the final product. This does not mean that I have a reaction kinetics-based method for determining AT vs NT, but it does mean that stating that oxidation is oxidation, regardless of how it occurred, does not necessarily reflect science fact. However, I can embrace the notion that a very good AT job may be nearly impossible to determine in comparison to an NT coin.

 

A second way to look at this is to realize that all reactions have a starting material (reactant) and a final material (product) and that in order for the reactant to form the product there must be a transition state, and an amount of energy called the transition state energy, that must be overcome. Additionally, a single reactant may have several choices of transition states that lead to various products. This may be thought of as a central valley that is surrounded by a mountain range. The folks in the valley (the reactants) must travel over any peak in the mountain range (transition states) in order to reach the neighboring valleys (products). It should be obvious to most that if the goal is to hike from the central valley to any one of the neighboring valleys while expending the least amount of energy that the inhabitants of the central valley will almost always choose the easiest path and will gather into a single valley (product). This is also part of the general paradigm of reaction kinetics in that the reactants will become products while passing through the lowest transition state available and while requiring the least amount of energy possible. However, if the inhabitants of the central valley are given the option of using more energy for their travels, in the form of a railroad car or plane, then these inhabitants will travel over moderately sized peaks by train to get to new valleys (new products) and will travel over very large peaks by plane to get to even more valleys (even more new products). The same happens in chemistry if you put more energy into the system, via added heat or chemicals that make the apparent transition states easier to cross, and you will now obtain products that would not have been prepared had the system not been perturbed.

 

Why do I write all of this? Well, I believe there is a good deal of unintentional misquoting or misunderstanding, on multiple levels, within these threads. My opinion is that the most likely scenario to have occurred is that put forth by Rick Snow. Others corroborate the statement that many of the proof IHCs had lacquer or PVC on them, treatment of lacquer with acetone will remove the coating, lacquer will oxidize and darken over time to obscure the underlying surfaces and the coins may have previously soaked in Coin Care or Blue Ribbon, which were very common several decades ago. In addition, the chain of ownership of these coins is compelling. Rick is a high profile specialist dealer who has a large following, yet he openly sells them on his own site, realizing that both the Stacks auction images and his own images would be online and open to examination. In my opinion, someone who is out to deceive via vividly toning IHCs is not likely to share ownership so openly when images are freely available, and might be more evasive when answering questions as to the chain of ownership. I also believe that Mark Feld made a very good proposal when he suggested to coat with lacquer a vividly toned, dark blue IHC and observe the colors, which should now be muted according to Rick's explanations, and then remove the lacquer coat with acetone, which should again reveal the vivid blue toning. That seems to be the most reasonable and scientific course of action if the goal is to prove the explanation. However, additional experimentation should also be performed and this would require an outlay of coinage that one may not want to jeopardize.

 

Lastly, with respect to the Snow thread, and somewhat off-topic, I was thoroughly amazed that a high profile dealer would state that PCGS should be the last line of defense in the culling out of AT coins. To me, the last line of defense should be the buyer, regardless of whether or not the buyer is a dealer intent on flipping the coin for a profit or if the buyer is a collector who intends to keep the piece for the long term.

 

The NGC thread regarding Greg and his copper is slightly different, in my opinion, from the PCGS thread regarding Rick. Greg has acknowledged before and after ownership of only one coin, the 1914 matte proof Lincoln cent, while others have claimed his ownership involvement extends to a number of proof IHCs, some of which were apparently consigned to other individuals.

 

Greg has also consistently stated that his only treatment of these copper pieces has been to swab with MS70 to remove grime, which is similar to Rick’s assertion that he had only treated his proof cents with acetone in order to remove lacquer. MS70, like acetone, olive oil or Jeweluster, is an industry-accepted product, the use of these products on coinage is industry-accepted and the industry in general does not consider these actions to be within most members’ definition of coin doctoring. However, I believe there is more anecdotal evidence that MS70 will dramatically change the appearance of copper than there is evidence for this action with acetone. This is something that Greg and others heartily agree with, though it should also be kept in mind that many users state that the consequence of such usage cannot be predicted. Greg’s off-the-cuff usage of the term “improper storage” when first discussing these coins is just that, off-the-cuff. There has been a long and somewhat cantankerous history to the discussion of toning on both the NGC and PCGS boards and those of us who have been on these boards for an extended length of time would immediately recognize the sarcasm in those words.

 

While I do not agree with the stance that the before and after ownership status of other coins has no bearing on the discussion, I agree very much with the conclusion that there might be folks who now own these pieces, who would not be happy to know that their coins were previously in a holder with a lower certified grade. This statement is not limited to those pieces that are blue-toned copper, but is all encompassing for other metals and series. My opinion is that the certification history of a coin should not matter as long as the coin was not doctored in the intervening period. I also agree heartily with the assertion that the eye appeal of a coin is in conflict with the time given to grade the piece, and that the greater the initial eye appeal the more likely that the coin will receive a higher, and perhaps more accurate, grade. This idea is nothing new, and in my opinion, is one of the major flaws of the current TPG paradigm. Again, in my opinion, there is pressure to grade a coin in less time and this leads to less accurate grading and to grading that relies more on initial flash than on careful study. This is not Greg’s fault, he is merely adapting to the currently perceived grading environment.

 

However, I believe that proceeding with surface manipulation in the absence of a compelling reason such as to avoid additional surface injury, be it called cleaning or conservation, is quite tricky when there is the realistic chance that the surface properties of the underlying metal might change. In my opinion, the resulting coin that was treated not in an attempt to avoid future injury but rather in an attempt to improve its eye appeal, and that has had its surface features changed, is an example of artificial toning or of a doctored coin. A WYNTK thread on original surfaces is already in place and might be something some of our members would be interested in. Please note that I include the very popular practice of dipping to remove non-harmful toning in this category. This is an unpopular position to hold, and flies counter to long-accepted industry and hobby standards, but it is what I believe. It is also a position that does not allow me to scrutinize coins closely with conveniently obtained and used metrics, but must be applied on a coin-to-coin basis and relies on experience and logic. Therefore, if one accepts that the use of MS70 on copper might result in a brightly colored blue or pink coin where that color was not originally hiding, and then that color appears on said coin, it is my opinion based upon my personal preferences and definitions that the resulting coin is an example of artificial toning. The extension of this is that a great many blast white Morgan dollars and the majority of blast white Seated Liberty and Barber coinage has been doctored through dipping to alter the surfaces of the coins. Does this mean that NCS will doctor coins on-demand when the request is simply to remove undesired, but non-harmful toning? Yes, in my opinion this is a reasonable statement if these parameters are used. The end result is that I would categorize the 1914 matte proof Lincoln as an artificially toned coin, based upon my personal preferences and definitions.

 

SilverEagles95 asked how a coin with attractive color could receive a grading boost, especially of two points, and this has been discussed for many years on these boards and on the bourse floor. If you read my WYNTK thread about the toning premium, you may come to grasp more about this volatile niche market. Of course, the premium and grade boost provide a strong impetus for manipulation and they are currently the hot topic of the coin boards, which is exactly what Greg has previously stated. Not only do I agree with Greg’s statement that the toning conundrum is the driving force behind many current posts, I agree that this topic will again recede into the background, as it has on many occasions on the coin boards, and that it will be replaced by another impassioned debate or argument only to resurface in the future.

 

Finally, I strongly believe it is the responsibility of each individual to determine what is acceptable to his or herself. Is dipping to produce the elusive blast white Seated Liberty half okay? How about the production of blue-toned copper from an otherwise RB example? Should the introduction of a small amount of putty onto the surface of a gold coin be viewed as favorable? May PVC be safely removed with acetone? What about those coins stored in cardboard albums, where do they fit in this discussion? These are things that must be answered by the individual and that should be reflected in their purchases. Additionally, what is the role of the TPG and its relationship with the dealer and collector? Who is the final arbiter of what is artificial toning? Does a person who produces an artificially toned coin, by one’s definition, automatically become a coin doctor? What is an acceptable level of cleaning or evidence thereof? Whose opinion as to grade is more valid or valuable? I hold strongly that knowledge is king, and that before one spends disposable income on numismatics that one should be well equipped to make complex decisions under a tight timeframe.

 

This is a long thread and I do not believe there is anyone who is reading it that agrees with everything that I have written. I also realize that I am not thoroughly versed in reaction kinetics, metallurgy or physics and that my descriptions and illustrations have in some cases been simplified in order to provide a helpful visual learning tool. I would hope that any discussion that goes on in this thread is truly discussion and is not allegation, recrimination, hyperbole or smokescreen. Truly, this may turn out to be the least satisfying thread on the boards for anyone to read. I apologize for this in advance, but thought that the number of requests for opinion received merited a thought-out post.

[MAULEMALL]

Tom I stated in another thread that Mr Snow was a Gentleman.

I would like to state now that Tom is a Gentleman and would like to thank him for a very well thought out and well stated posting.

[John Martinez]

Tom. Thanks for the insight. I did read it in complete detail. Again, thank you.

[WinstonWare]

I'll admit it. I was one of the people who harassed Tom about his absence in the disputes.

 

Tom, great post. Thanks for taking the time to share your expertise in this area.

[CTcollector]

Tom - thanks for taking the time out of your schedule to contribute. It was well worth the wait.....

[Bruceswar]

Thanks for another great read.

[MikeInFL]

Thank you, Tom, for weighing in on this issue. I know many, including myself, look to you as a bellwether on this topic...Mike

[Newmismatist]

Tom

 

One of the best and most intelligent posts that I have read on these boards Thanks for taking the time to carefully discuss these issues that are curently being hotly debated here and elsewhere.

 

The only thing that could improve your comments would be if you let me buy that 1912 Toned Proof MPL back - it's one of the few coins I regret selling. It is vividly toned and beautiful!

[Regis44]

Refreshing.

 

Thank you,

Regis

[Hoot]

Nice insights, analogies, and explanations. Great food for thought. I hope that those who rage in the debate over coin chemistry take the time to understand the subtleties and the implicit complexities of the processes that they are otherwise considering.

 

Hoot

[Stanley]

Thanks Tom,

I read the whole thing and found it very informative. Thanks again for taking the time.

[MikeKing]

Thanks for the in depth post and the well thought out analogies.

[IGWT]

I would have responded sooner, but it took me as long to read and digest your post as it took you to write it. For those of you who read Tom’s post once, I suggest that you read it at least one more time to glean everything. You’ll find a lot of meaning in the nuances of diplomatic language as well as in the scientific presentation.

[Stanley]

I would have responded sooner, but it took me as long to read and digest your post as it took you to write it. For those of you who read Tom’s post once, I suggest that you read it at least one more time to glean everything. You’ll find a lot of meaning in the nuances of diplomatic language as well as in the scientific presentation.

 

Funny you should mention that. In my original post ( see above) I started to mention I savored every word. I did take my time to read it. It is very sensible and informative.

[ldhair]

Thanks Tom. Well said.

Your post helped me understand this.

[Oldtrader3]

Thank you, Tom for your thoughful written insight regarding the slippery slope of treating copper with anything that changes it's refractive properties (color), especially when employed to raise a coin slab by (2) grades. I have read various articles and posts about this and not being a copper, brass or bronze coin expert, I have never stated an opinion on this subject, but I heartily agree with your position regarding MS70 and other chemicals that color otherwise RB coins.

[EZ_E]

I have a toned proof IHC and a toned proof two cent piece. The color scheme is similar yet so very different. The color of the two cent piece seems to originate from deep within the coin itself and seems to radiate outwards in irridescence. The IHC, on the other hand, has great mirrors but the blue seems to just sit on the surface of the coin. This suggests to me that the IHC has less than veracious colors that could very well have occurred by cleaning with MS70. It is still a nice coin but differs tremendously from the two cent piece.

 

Whether this observation is true for all toned copper, I can't say, but in my experience, it seems pretty obvious.

[Bruceswar]

Victor that 2 cent piece is a super nice coin! Can't wait to see it.

[Excaliber]

This thread needs to be bumped.

 

Very interesting, well thought out, and presented thread Tom. Thank you.

 

Ex

[D.D.]

People like you Tom make this a great hobby!

 

Thanks,DD

[IGWT]