Peck - "artificially toned, as issued"?

[Coinery 1,153]

Can anyone explain what is meant by "artificially toned, as issued," in reference to the 1934 and '35 pennies in Peck?

[Rob 3,152]

Can anyone explain what is meant by "artificially toned, as issued," in reference to the 1934 and '35 pennies in Peck?

Darkened as with the 1944-6 pennies, though Peck doesn't note whether the same agent was used for both series, only mentioning 'hypo' treatment for the later coins. This was a result of the WW2 tin shortage which should not have had any bearing on the currency in 1934-5, so a perusal of the mint records for these years might prove fruitful if anyone has them.

[Red Riley 2]

Can anyone explain what is meant by "artificially toned, as issued," in reference to the 1934 and '35 pennies in Peck?

Only a small proportion of 1935s seem to have been treated but virtually the whole of 1934. 1934s are notoriously difficult to find in high grade, I suspect because the people who used to put a nice shiny penny away every year, just couldn't find one for 1934 and gave up in despair. The tone of these pennies is usually somewhat lighter and, in my opinion, not quite as attractive as the 1944-46 batch.

The alternative explanation as to why the coins were mint toned was simply to prevent hoarding i.e. stopping the likes of you and me collecting the things. Don't forget this was in the middle of the great depression and any wastage of the circulating currency was a drain on the state, which it could ill afford. Judging by the dearth of high grade 1934s, it probably achieved its objective.

But why only these two years? Why no halfpennies? Farthings?

Edited February 20, 2013 by Red Riley

[Accumulator 52]

I agree with everything above. If you've not seen an artificially toned penny, here's an example with a normally lustred penny alongside. On close inspection the toning is slightly mottled:

Edited February 20, 2013 by Accumulator

[Red Riley 2]

and here's a 1934

Edited February 20, 2013 by Red Riley

[Peckris 579]

Can anyone explain what is meant by "artificially toned, as issued," in reference to the 1934 and '35 pennies in Peck?

Only a small proportion of 1935s seem to have been treated but virtually the whole of 1934. 1934s are notoriously difficult to find in high grade, I suspect because the people who used to put a nice shiny penny away every year, just couldn't find one for 1934 and gave up in despair. The tone of these pennies is usually somewhat lighter and, in my opinion, not quite as attractive as the 1944-46 batch.

The alternative explanation as to why the coins were mint toned was simply to prevent hoarding i.e. stopping the likes of you and me collecting the things. Don't forget this was in the middle of the great depression and any wastage of the circulating currency was a drain on the state, which it could ill afford. Judging by the dearth of high grade 1934s, it probably achieved its objective.

But why only these two years? Why no halfpennies? Farthings?

But why pennies? Surely that argument would apply more to small silver like silver threepences and sixpences? It also seems odd that they would seek to prevent hoarding of a low-mintage year like 1934 and then more or less give up during a high-mintage year like 1935. I wonder if it may be more to do with general experimentation on the bronze coinage, and pennies seemed to be the natural target for this - after all, there were the Lavrillier patterns of 1933, only the year before. It certainly warrants more research, that's for sure.

Here's a 1934 on which the toning is even more obvious.

[Coinery 1,153]

Many thanks for that, gents (and for all the images)! I have to admit to being thrown by it, having a 'regular' looking lustred '35!

Did they do something similar with 1950? I seem to see so many top-rated coins of this year with an even brown tone?

[Accumulator 52]

Many thanks for that, gents (and for all the images)! I have to admit to being thrown by it, having a 'regular' looking lustred '35!

Did they do something similar with 1950? I seem to see so many top-rated coins of this year with an even brown tone?

You mean like the photo below. I'm honestly not sure of the reason, but it only seems to affect the proofs. The top grade currency strikes all seem to have good lustre.

[Nick 329]

Many thanks for that, gents (and for all the images)! I have to admit to being thrown by it, having a 'regular' looking lustred '35!

Did they do something similar with 1950? I seem to see so many top-rated coins of this year with an even brown tone?

You mean like the photo below. I'm honestly not sure of the reason, but it only seems to affect the proofs. The top grade currency strikes all seem to have good lustre.

I have to say that my 1950 proof doesn't look very proof like.

[Peckris 579]

Many thanks for that, gents (and for all the images)! I have to admit to being thrown by it, having a 'regular' looking lustred '35!

Did they do something similar with 1950? I seem to see so many top-rated coins of this year with an even brown tone?

You mean like the photo below. I'm honestly not sure of the reason, but it only seems to affect the proofs. The top grade currency strikes all seem to have good lustre.

It could be that because many 1950 pennies circulated in the Caribbean for a while, the sea air got to them and gave them a tone quite quickly?

[Coinery 1,153]

Many thanks for that, gents (and for all the images)! I have to admit to being thrown by it, having a 'regular' looking lustred '35!

Did they do something similar with 1950? I seem to see so many top-rated coins of this year with an even brown tone?

You mean like the photo below. I'm honestly not sure of the reason, but it only seems to affect the proofs. The top grade currency strikes all seem to have good lustre.

It could be that because many 1950 pennies circulated in the Caribbean for a while, the sea air got to them and gave them a tone quite quickly?

Possibly? I've had 3 decent 1950 currency pennies through my hands now, all with that uniform tone you can see on accumulator's penny, which is never the way you see other coins of the period tone?

Edited February 20, 2013 by Coinery

[Nick 329]

Many thanks for that, gents (and for all the images)! I have to admit to being thrown by it, having a 'regular' looking lustred '35!

Did they do something similar with 1950? I seem to see so many top-rated coins of this year with an even brown tone?

You mean like the photo below. I'm honestly not sure of the reason, but it only seems to affect the proofs. The top grade currency strikes all seem to have good lustre.

It could be that because many 1950 pennies circulated in the Caribbean for a while, the sea air got to them and gave them a tone quite quickly?

Possibly? I've had 3 decent 1950 currency pennies through my hands now, all with that uniform tone you can see on accumulator's penny, which is never the way you see other coins of the period tone?

But isn't Accumulator's picture a proof? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick again?

[Accumulator 52]

Many thanks for that, gents (and for all the images)! I have to admit to being thrown by it, having a 'regular' looking lustred '35!

Did they do something similar with 1950? I seem to see so many top-rated coins of this year with an even brown tone?

You mean like the photo below. I'm honestly not sure of the reason, but it only seems to affect the proofs. The top grade currency strikes all seem to have good lustre.

It could be that because many 1950 pennies circulated in the Caribbean for a while, the sea air got to them and gave them a tone quite quickly?

Possibly? I've had 3 decent 1950 currency pennies through my hands now, all with that uniform tone you can see on accumulator's penny, which is never the way you see other coins of the period tone?

But isn't Accumulator's picture a proof? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick again?

You're right Nick. Mine is a proof, not currency. Not the best example though.

[Coinery 1,153]

Many thanks for that, gents (and for all the images)! I have to admit to being thrown by it, having a 'regular' looking lustred '35!

Did they do something similar with 1950? I seem to see so many top-rated coins of this year with an even brown tone?

You mean like the photo below. I'm honestly not sure of the reason, but it only seems to affect the proofs. The top grade currency strikes all seem to have good lustre.

It could be that because many 1950 pennies circulated in the Caribbean for a while, the sea air got to them and gave them a tone quite quickly?

Possibly? I've had 3 decent 1950 currency pennies through my hands now, all with that uniform tone you can see on accumulator's penny, which is never the way you see other coins of the period tone?

But isn't Accumulator's picture a proof? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick again?

Yes, of course, but it's a good example of the tone I've seen on my currency pennies of the same year. I've got a few pictures to take tomorrow, I'll get an image of mine up!

[Coinery 1,153]

I can't believe how horrible my penny was under magnification, and how much verd there was in the nooks and crannies, I struggled to put it up here!

Feast your eyes as, believe it or not, this is apparently an NGC MS63, complete with verd!

[Peckris 579]

I can't believe how horrible my penny was under magnification, and how much verd there was in the nooks and crannies, I struggled to put it up here!

Feast your eyes as, believe it or not, this is apparently an NGC MS63, complete with verd!

A coin graded MS-63 has mint luster that may be slightly impaired. Numerous small contact marks and a few scattered heavy marks may be seen. Small hairlines maybe visible without magnification. Several detracting scuff marks or defects may be present throughout the design or in the fields. The general quality is about average, but overall the coin is rather attractive. Copper pieces may be darkened or dull. Color should be designated.

Obviously, to NGC way of thinking, "mark" = "scratch", and as verdigris isn't even mentioned in the definition, we won't either!

[VickySilver 830]

Wow, wish they could look at my coins on such a generous day. I do see some greenish ugly - wonder if this was adressable with acetone?? Anyway, they are not always as generous and have had similar come back in the AU55 range...

[Coinery 1,153]

A coin graded MS-63 has mint luster that may be slightly impaired. Numerous small contact marks and a few scattered heavy marks may be seen. Small hairlines maybe visible without magnification. Several detracting scuff marks or defects may be present throughout the design or in the fields. The general quality is about average, but overall the coin is rather attractive. Copper pieces may be darkened or dull. Color should be designated.

Obviously, to NGC way of thinking, "mark" = "scratch", and as verdigris isn't even mentioned in the definition, we won't either!

I had a coin rejected by CGS with miniscule/near-invisible traces of verdigris. In fact, it was so minimal, it was totally gone, following a light wipe of Acetone.

[Accumulator 52]

A coin graded MS-63 has mint luster that may be slightly impaired. Numerous small contact marks and a few scattered heavy marks may be seen. Small hairlines maybe visible without magnification. Several detracting scuff marks or defects may be present throughout the design or in the fields. The general quality is about average, but overall the coin is rather attractive. Copper pieces may be darkened or dull. Color should be designated.

Obviously, to NGC way of thinking, "mark" = "scratch", and as verdigris isn't even mentioned in the definition, we won't either!

I had a coin rejected by CGS with miniscule/near-invisible traces of verdigris. In fact, it was so minimal, it was totally gone, following a light wipe of Acetone.

Sometimes I've noticed a microscopic build up of a green-coloured grease/wax in the detail of a bronze coin. This can be removed with a toothpick but it's not verdigris as far as I can tell. Certainly it leaves no evidence of pitting on the host coin.