How about some AT coins that don't look AT!!!

[Hoot]

With all of this yammer about AT and NT, I thought I'd throw some zingers into the mix... Hoot

 

[Hoot]

Or how about this one:

 

[HaydenTubbs]

Oh great retoned copper

[Hoot]

I could do this all day, so how about some more from you people and a big fat argument to supplement the controversy .

 

Hoot

[EZ_E]

Perhaps they look better than before but they still don't hold my appeal for me.

 

Hey, Mark. Could you please share photos of the 1804 cent...purdy please.

[Hoot]

I think that you might like the coins I posted in-hand. They are both a nice chocolate brown - the 1827 does not appear as natural as the 1802. Over time, the color will be fully restored.

 

As for the 1804, the resoration isn't done yet.

 

How's about a 1794 that came to me truly raunchy? Just needed some TLC. (The weakness on the reverse is due to a split die and is expected with the variety - S44.)

 

Hoot

 

[HaydenTubbs]

Care to show before pictures Hoot?

[Hoot]

Care to show before pictures Hoot?

 

The before pics are compromised from having been in a holder - therefore, the details are masked. Keep that in mind... you may even like the before pics more. In-hand (now), however, the coin looks great, whereas before . I've had some copper collectors make offers, but it's my only 1794 cent, so not yet... Hoot

 

[HaydenTubbs]

Well,I must admit that the before pictures look better,you'll just have to mail me the coins so that I can decide for myself.

[Hoot]

Well,I must admit that the before pictures look better

 

Not surprising. In-hand, you'd have seen that the coin suffered from a thinly corroded surface. This was likely getting worse due to some untreated verdigris. So, I removed the upper layers of verdigris and inactivated it, then I began oiling the coin with Care and brushing it. The coin actually looks much better now than the photos I first posted, but I haven't gotten around to scanning it again. Besides, a scan will always show some of the resulting uneven surface coloration that's inevitable from mistreatment. However, this is a coin that any TPG would not hesitate to holder now, since it looks like a middle-grade circulated 1794 cent!

 

Most 18th and 19th Century coins have been "re-toned" once or more. The coins above had significant problems that had to be attended to, and I got them relatively cheap.

 

Hoot

[HaydenTubbs]

You'll have to do a "What-you-need-to-know" on a preserving old copper.

[Hoot]

You'll have to do a "What-you-need-to-know" on a preserving old copper.

 

What you need to know is that we need no "What-you-need-to-know" threads, only good threads, which occasionally arise all by themselves - always have. But thanks, Hayden, and thanks for all of your musings, insights, questions, and ruminations. Quite a sage for your age.

 

Hoot

[Hoot]

Care to show before pictures Hoot?

 

I found this one in the archives... Hoot

 

[MunkyMan95]

Chad likes the before!!! Why darken the coins up? I have a large cent that looks almost exactly like the before. One of my favorite coins.

[Bruceswar]

Chad likes the before!!! Why darken the coins up? I have a large cent that looks almost exactly like the before. One of my favorite coins.

 

You will grow to like the darker coins over time.. trust me.

[EZ_E]

I believe this was you, Mark:

 

You posted an image of a lg cent that you carried in you pocket for a few months. How does that look now?

[HaydenTubbs]

Care to show before pictures Hoot?

 

I found this one in the archives... Hoot

 

 

 

Ok,this one looks better dark.

[Hoot]

I believe this was you, Mark:

 

You posted an image of a lg cent that you carried in you pocket for a few months. How does that look now?

 

That was the 1827 Victor. That coin had a very thick ring of verdigris around every device that NCS refused to remove. So, I put the coin in my pocket, carried it around until the verdigris had worn off, then re-toned it. The coin lost a little detail, but not even enough to drop a grade step. My scan of that coin makes it look flat, but in-hand the coin is very rich in appearance.

 

I think we get used to old copper with oily surfaces, which gives the coins a sheen, when in most cases, they are unnaturally shiny. I think the 1794 cent I showed is unnaturally shiny, although now it's been dulled down a bit to a more natural sheen. Perhaps that's why the "before" scan of that coin has a bit more appeal - it's duller.

 

This also all goes to show that scans and photos all require attending descriptions. Without the attending description, the photo takes on a life of its own that is strictly the interpretation of the viewer - much harder to get people to agree that way than if coins are being viewed in-person.

 

Hoot

[MikeKing]

I get the sense that NCS doesn't remove verdigris from coins. I would think that this is what part of their purpose should be, I mean, remove the verdigris for goshsake. Why do you think that is?

[MunkyMan95]

I agree Mike. I've got a 1697 Great Britain 1/2P NCS AG Details Corroded. It's still got some verdigris on the reverse... You'd think they would remove that.

[Wihlborg]

Mike,

 

I think it could be that they are concerned about exposing corrosion that may lie beneath the verdigris.

 

John

[ldhair]

Mike,

 

I think it could be that they are concerned about exposing corrosion that may lie beneath the verdigris.

 

John

That was my first thought as well.

When you remove something from the surface, you never know what is under it.

[Hoot]

Mike,

 

I think it could be that they are concerned about exposing corrosion that may lie beneath the verdigris.

 

John

That was my first thought as well.

When you remove something from the surface, you never know what is under it.

 

I'll agree with both of these statements. However, if verdigris is left on the surface of a coin, it will spread. If kept under perfect conditions, this can be greatly attenuated, but most coins aren't kept under ideal conditions all the time.

 

I suppose that a person has to weigh whether they want the continued corrosion of their coin and the rather unsightly verdigris, or have a mark on their coin that was left by the corrosive chemistry of the verdigris. I believe the latter is preferable to the former, but that may only be me. Besides, the grading services will readily grade a coin with a spot or two of verdigris, but will readily BB a coin that has the leftovers.

 

Hoot

[WinstonWare]

Not sure about this one, but it looks too blotchy to be NT. What do you guys think?

 

[TomB]

Ummmm.....errrr.....I think Hoot wanted coins that didn't look AT.

[WinstonWare]

Coins that are AT but don't appear AT is a fine line. This is as close as I can get with my limited expertise.

[Bruceswar]

If we are getting technical.... Some people would call this coin AT...

 

[MunkyMan95]

Taco Bell napkins are 100% natural!

[Hoot]

WW - Your Franklin looks AT, but it's also rather pretty! SEGS has holdered many an AT coin. One that really stands out in my mind was a 3-legged buff that was nothing short of psychedelic.

 

Bruce - Yes, some may call your half dollar AT, but it's re-toned very nicely and acceptably. I like that coin a lot - the eye appeal more than makes up for its problems.

 

SE95 - Taco Bell's napkins are natural but their food is not.

 

Hoot

[WinstonWare]

And here I thought it was bold of me to post a holdered coin in an AT thread. Sorry - still learning.