How old can you still get an uncleaned, untoned silver coin?

[Oxford_Collector 0]

I was wondering how far back you could go and still realistically get an uncleaned, but untoned silver coin? I've nothing against toned coins, if the coin has toned attractively (and isn't completely black...) BTW! I was just wondering as, for example, I have a UNC 1816 George III sixpence that is completely untoned, but to my eye at least, even under a magnifier, does not look like it has been dipped - is this possible? I also have a few BU young head Victoria shillings that don't look dipped either. I guess it depends partly on how the coin has been stored and whether this was near to an area with much sulfide-producing industry, also perhaps on the relatively humidity? Or is toning inevitable with coins this old? Thanks

[headsortails 8]

in an oxogen gas they will all tone,but is this a bad thing?

[Oxford_Collector 0]

in an oxogen gas they will all tone,but is this a bad thing?

Not necessarily, I've seen some great toned coins, but also some fuggly ones...

My original question, though, was more about whether its actually be possible for a 200 year-old coin to be uncleaned, yet untoned or is this only possible if the coin has been dipped?

[numismatist 2]

In the 1960's I did not see ANY BU 100 year old coins in the Stocks of

Seaby , Spinks , Baldwins etc, they were all Toned GVF to EF, then they

were bought by the hundred, taken out of London, Silver Dipped , sold to

the Dealers all over the Country and sold as BU, BU Gem etc . Thats the

true situation. No one wanted GVF and EF toned Coins so they were made

into BU ones. The main London dealers did NOT grade Coins as BU in those

days EF was about the limit. Now 50 years later most have toned again into

a multitude of silver tarnish hues, some look wonderful other struggle !

[Oxford_Collector 0]

In the 1960's I did not see ANY BU 100 year old coins in the Stocks of

Seaby , Spinks , Baldwins etc, they were all Toned GVF to EF, then they

were bought by the hundred, taken out of London, Silver Dipped , sold to

the Dealers all over the Country and sold as BU, BU Gem etc . Thats the

true situation. No one wanted GVF and EF toned Coins so they were made

into BU ones. The main London dealers did NOT grade Coins as BU in those

days EF was about the limit. Now 50 years later most have toned again into

a multitude of silver tarnish hues, some look wonderful other struggle !

So are you suggesting the florins I posted on this page are dipped, for example?: http://www.predecimal.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3664&st=4350

They don't look it IMHO, the surfaces look 'real', of course these coins are "only" about 100 years old, whereas I was questioning whether it was possible for a 200 year-old coin to still be "naturally" untoned

[Peckris 579]

I was wondering how far back you could go and still realistically get an uncleaned, but untoned silver coin? I've nothing against toned coins, if the coin has toned attractively (and isn't completely black...) BTW! I was just wondering as, for example, I have a UNC 1816 George III sixpence that is completely untoned, but to my eye at least, even under a magnifier, does not look like it has been dipped - is this possible? I also have a few BU young head Victoria shillings that don't look dipped either. I guess it depends partly on how the coin has been stored and whether this was near to an area with much sulfide-producing industry, also perhaps on the relatively humidity? Or is toning inevitable with coins this old? Thanks

I'd say that it is far from unknown post-1816, but much rarer before that. I do have an UNC 1708 shilling with only very light toning but I'd say most early milled tones for some reason. after then, It may be the way planchets were prepared for steam minting, or another reason, I don't know - but there are many full lustre silver coins of the 19th Century that shouldn't be suspected of dipping.

Of course some WILL have been dipped, but if there's bags of lustre present I'd say it was unlikely. I have a George III shilling and sixpence, a George IV halfcrown, William IV shilling, and all Victoria denominations, that appear to be both untoned and undipped.

[Rob 3,152]

I've got a 1731 shilling in virtually mint state with full dusty lustre, but that was hermetically sealed in a Georgian drinking glass base until the glass broke a few years ago, so I cracked it out. (it's the one in the confirmed unlisted varieties section)

Actually, you can go back indefinitely in time if a coin was part of a hoard. Greek and Roman coins are regularly found with full originally lustred surfaces

Edited February 21, 2012 by Rob

[VickySilver 832]

I am afraid the vast majority of untoned pieces have been dipped. I can not prove the point but have some experience; it is not always a bad thing, but many times is poorly done which then becomes problematic especially when trying to "upgrade" a particular piece as was alluded to above. I don't know the history of your florins, but if was a betting person and based on NOT having the piece in hand that they were likely dipped.

With due respects to Rob, I believe most dug ancients including silver are in rather a poor state even if from the middle of a hoard and that most have been cleaned. If I ever figure out how to effectively post a decent image I have a late 5th Cent. BC Athenian Tetradrachm that would be a perfect example as it is near to mint state, probably dipped and only now starting to retone.

[scott 144]

i'm guessing fully UNC coins with little contact from anything would still be, i like the toning though to me it shows the coin is genuine

[Rob 3,152]

I am afraid the vast majority of untoned pieces have been dipped. I can not prove the point but have some experience; it is not always a bad thing, but many times is poorly done which then becomes problematic especially when trying to "upgrade" a particular piece as was alluded to above. I don't know the history of your florins, but if was a betting person and based on NOT having the piece in hand that they were likely dipped.

With due respects to Rob, I believe most dug ancients including silver are in rather a poor state even if from the middle of a hoard and that most have been cleaned. If I ever figure out how to effectively post a decent image I have a late 5th Cent. BC Athenian Tetradrachm that would be a perfect example as it is near to mint state, probably dipped and only now starting to retone.

The Cambridge Cnut penny I have for sale on the website is not cleaned. There was a hoard that all came out looking like this. The soil on the east side of the country is dry and sandy in many instances, so you get fewer water damaged surfaces. It's the continual contact with water or at least regular contact and what is in solution that causes the change in tones. The tone of one coin is usually replicated through the hoard, reflecting the common exposure.

[Rob 3,152]

And for good measure, here's one that hasn't been dipped or dug. A Charles I York shilling with nearly all its original lustre. Just a bit missing off the top left serif of the XII and thinning on the cheekbone.

Edited February 21, 2012 by Rob

[Coinery 1,157]

And for good measure, here's one that hasn't been dipped or dug. A Charles I York shilling with nearly all its original lustre. Just a bit missing off the top left serif of the XII and thinning on the cheekbone.

Hmmmmph ...speechless!

[numismatist 2]

Hello "Oxford_Collector, not suggesting your Edwards are dipped, but in

the 1960's period I was talking about 100 year Coins of that era, so thats

1860 or so and older , but certainly I did not see any BU 1887 Coins in the

main london dealers and they had them by the thousand but most of the

Country had not cottoned on to what there was in London, so those that

bought them in large quantities, took them home , silver dipped them, took

them around the dealers who paid on average double the London price, then

doubled them again. Thats why the Coin Magazines of the time were full of

adverts selling BU and BU Gem Silver Coins at about four times the London

price ( though in London they were called GVF to EF )Those were the days !!

Thats not to say UNC bright mint condition coins dont exist, but you have

the be very carefully, as a lot of the 1960's Silver Dipped ones that have

lain in Collections have re-toned through the years, some have gone very

grubby looking, and are now ripe for the Silver Dip pot once again. In

those days the average collector did not appreciate toned coins but now

thankfully that has changed and many collectors can now see the beauty

that lies in the different hues and shades of toning.

[Peter 615]

The coins that come out of the brecklands are super.A light sandy soil and I have bought a few. :P :P :)

[Oxford_Collector 0]

Hello "Oxford_Collector, not suggesting your Edwards are dipped, but in

the 1960's period I was talking about 100 year Coins of that era, so thats

1860 or so and older , but certainly I did not see any BU 1887 Coins in the

main london dealers and they had them by the thousand but most of the

Country had not cottoned on to what there was in London, so those that

bought them in large quantities, took them home , silver dipped them, took

them around the dealers who paid on average double the London price, then

doubled them again. Thats why the Coin Magazines of the time were full of

adverts selling BU and BU Gem Silver Coins at about four times the London

price ( though in London they were called GVF to EF )Those were the days !!

Thats not to say UNC bright mint condition coins dont exist, but you have

the be very carefully, as a lot of the 1960's Silver Dipped ones that have

lain in Collections have re-toned through the years, some have gone very

grubby looking, and are now ripe for the Silver Dip pot once again. In

those days the average collector did not appreciate toned coins but now

thankfully that has changed and many collectors can now see the beauty

that lies in the different hues and shades of toning.

I appreciate that its likely that many "BU" coins *have* been dipped, but it sounds like its still *possible* that an uncleaned UNC bright mint condition coin could from 100, 150 or even 200 years ago could exist? I'm just trying to establish what is within the realms of possibility. I thought I knew the give-away signs of a dipped coin, but perhaps its not always so obvious, though I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference between original mint lustre, which has quite a unique quality (and which is something I think those florins exhibit), and something that is only bright because it has been dipped. Also, coins that have more wear than AUNC, but are bright and shiny, I'm always suspicious about and in EF or lower I would usually prefer a toned coin.

One related thing - almost all proof silver coins I've seen that are 100 years old (or even less) seem to be toned (though usually quite attractively), but I'm not sure whether that's because something about the finish of proof coins makes them tone more easily, or whether the padded boxes they are stored in encourage them to tone more, or whether proof coins are just less likely to be dipped (or perhaps all three?!) - what's the verdict on why proofs are more often seen toned than not?

[azda 979]

In the 1960's I did not see ANY BU 100 year old coins in the Stocks of

Seaby , Spinks , Baldwins etc, they were all Toned GVF to EF, then they

were bought by the hundred, taken out of London, Silver Dipped , sold to

the Dealers all over the Country and sold as BU, BU Gem etc . Thats the

true situation. No one wanted GVF and EF toned Coins so they were made

into BU ones. The main London dealers did NOT grade Coins as BU in those

days EF was about the limit. Now 50 years later most have toned again into

a multitude of silver tarnish hues, some look wonderful other struggle !

Impossible to be sold as BU in the 60s when the BU grade only came out in the 80s :ph34r:1684 and undipped

Edited February 21, 2012 by azda

[VickySilver 832]

Of course there are many types of "dip", and this would include acetone, rubbing alcohol, soap and water, olive oil, turpentine, gasoline, Jewel Lustre, etc. Some are mildly acidic, some stronger, some not acidic at all; some oxidize the metal surface free of "toning oxidants", some merely clean adherent detritus, dirt, etc.

I am always suspicious of even toned coins as having been "cleaned" but there is a spectrum of cleaning (ie see the "finer" of the 1905 halfcrowns in the LCA auctions current sale), as well as retoning of cleaned coins, etc. (see ebay's famous "Greattoning" seller - LOL).

I have seen, and indeed have, some coins that have been lightly dipped with little apparent loss of lustre. Interesting about the sandy soil bit as usually there are choride compounds lurking in such, but evidently not at Rob's locale...

Edited February 21, 2012 by VickySilver

[Rob 3,152]

Interesting about the sandy soil bit as usually there are choride compounds lurking in such, but evidently not at Rob's locale...

Unfortunately East Anglia is nowhere near where I live. My local soil is sandy, to the extent that a couple feet down you can use it straight from the ground for mortar, but much of the local soil contains a few hundred years of industrial activity. Mind you, things are getting better. I remember seeing a duck on the river in 1978-9 for the first time since I had moved to Manchester, and now it even has fish because someone pulled a 14lb pike out 5 years ago.

[Peckris 579]

Hello "Oxford_Collector, not suggesting your Edwards are dipped, but in

the 1960's period I was talking about 100 year Coins of that era, so thats

1860 or so and older , but certainly I did not see any BU 1887 Coins in the

main london dealers and they had them by the thousand but most of the

Country had not cottoned on to what there was in London, so those that

bought them in large quantities, took them home , silver dipped them, took

them around the dealers who paid on average double the London price, then

doubled them again. Thats why the Coin Magazines of the time were full of

adverts selling BU and BU Gem Silver Coins at about four times the London

price ( though in London they were called GVF to EF )Those were the days !!

Thats not to say UNC bright mint condition coins dont exist, but you have

the be very carefully, as a lot of the 1960's Silver Dipped ones that have

lain in Collections have re-toned through the years, some have gone very

grubby looking, and are now ripe for the Silver Dip pot once again. In

those days the average collector did not appreciate toned coins but now

thankfully that has changed and many collectors can now see the beauty

that lies in the different hues and shades of toning.

Absolutely they do. I take issue with your 1887 claims - I've seen many (and other 19th Century coins too) where the fields are brightly mirrored, but the raised parts of the design aren't. A clear indication of an undipped coin - dipping would make the whole coin uniformly bright (or flat), i.e. design, legend and fields. Polishing would have the reverse effect - the design and raised portions would be bright, while between the legend and general small areas of field, would be less bright.

In the 1960's I did not see ANY BU 100 year old coins in the Stocks of

Seaby , Spinks , Baldwins etc, they were all Toned GVF to EF, then they

were bought by the hundred, taken out of London, Silver Dipped , sold to

the Dealers all over the Country and sold as BU, BU Gem etc . Thats the

true situation. No one wanted GVF and EF toned Coins so they were made

into BU ones. The main London dealers did NOT grade Coins as BU in those

days EF was about the limit. Now 50 years later most have toned again into

a multitude of silver tarnish hues, some look wonderful other struggle !

Impossible to be sold as BU in the 60s when the BU grade only came out in the 80s :ph34r:1684 and undipped

??? Where on earth do you get this idea from ??? I can prove to you that the BU grade was around in the 60s, from any one of my back issues of Coin Monthly. That 1684 looks cleaned, by the way, at least it does from the photos you've supplied.

[VickySilver 832]

OK, this discussion is reminding me of the US chat rooms of the NT/AT wars (=naturally toned versus artificially toned). It seems they believe EVERYTHING is naturally toned even if they are neon colored...