How can you tell if a coin has been "lacquered"?

[1949threepence]

Curious to know as can't find too much definitive information on post lacquering appearance, especially of bronze.

The reason I ask is that I bought an 1866 penny in 2010 as a BIN from e bay, which the seller said at the time "showed signs of old lacquering". Because the coin was otherwise decent, probably about GEF, and had no obvious issues, I bought it for the £50 asked. It was then put away in my collection and largely forgotten about until today, when I read something about lacquering of coins, and was reminded.    

Does anybody know what - typically - should be looked for to establish evidence of lacquering? Thanks in advance.

The coin itself is as shown:-

 

 

  

[mrbadexample]

Can't really help Mike other than to say I got a cartwheel 2d in an auction lot that I'm sure had been previously lacquered as there was a bit left on the edge. Came off ok with a bit of acetone. Is it worth looking at the edges to see if there's any trace? Probably more likely there than on the other surfaces. Looks like a nice enough piece to me though.

[1949threepence]

6 minutes ago, mrbadexample said:

Can't really help Mike other than to say I got a cartwheel 2d in an auction lot that I'm sure had been previously lacquered as there was a bit left on the edge. Came off ok with a bit of acetone. Is it worth looking at the edges to see if there's any trace? Probably more likely there than on the other surfaces. Looks like a nice enough piece to me though.

Thanks Jon. I can't see any trace of anything in particular. The obverse seems quite shiny, and I'm not entirely sure whether in a natural way or not. There's no trace of lustre on the coin, which you might normally expect for one in a decent state of preservation.  

[Paddy]

Very nice looking coin!

I downloaded the images and blew them up. I think I see traces of yellow overlaying the coin - particularly to the right of the reverse, which is what I would expect to see from a thin layer of varnish on the coin that had mostly been cleaned off. I guess that was what the seller was describing? If so, Acetone should certainly remove it, but you might want to be cautious in case it changes the colour balance of the whole coin?

If the varnish used was very old it might have been shellac, in which case alcohol should remove it too - surgical spirit is what I use.

[mrbadexample]

6 minutes ago, 1949threepence said:

Thanks Jon. I can't see any trace of anything in particular. The obverse seems quite shiny, and I'm not entirely sure whether in a natural way or not. There's no trace of lustre on the coin, which you might normally expect for one in a decent state of preservation.  

Pete might know better - he seems to have a good idea when something's been monkeyed about with.

[Stuntman]

Was lacquering fairly common, and why was it done?  I have a few bronze coins that have a different sort of sheen and finish to the others.  They don't appear to have been obviously cleaned, but they look a little different.  Two of them are 1930s George V, one is Victoria bun head.

[Sleepy]

I still have a 1976 Coin Year Book that recommends lacquering coins in it's coin care section!!

[1949threepence]

1 hour ago, Paddy said:

Very nice looking coin!

I downloaded the images and blew them up. I think I see traces of yellow overlaying the coin - particularly to the right of the reverse, which is what I would expect to see from a thin layer of varnish on the coin that had mostly been cleaned off. I guess that was what the seller was describing? If so, Acetone should certainly remove it, but you might want to be cautious in case it changes the colour balance of the whole coin?

If the varnish used was very old it might have been shellac, in which case alcohol should remove it too - surgical spirit is what I use.

Thanks a lot, Paddy. Very useful observation, work & info. Much appreciated.

[1949threepence]

17 minutes ago, Stuntman said:

Was lacquering fairly common, and why was it done?  I have a few bronze coins that have a different sort of sheen and finish to the others.  They don't appear to have been obviously cleaned, but they look a little different.  Two of them are 1930s George V, one is Victoria bun head.

Not sure how common it was, but I understand it was done to preserve lustre. If so, it's not worked in this case ! 

8 minutes ago, Sleepy said:

I still have a 1976 Coin Year Book that recommends lacquering coins in it's coin care section!!

Frightening what used to be recommended for coins. 

[mrbadexample]

13 minutes ago, Stuntman said:

Was lacquering fairly common, and why was it done?  I have a few bronze coins that have a different sort of sheen and finish to the others.  They don't appear to have been obviously cleaned, but they look a little different.  Two of them are 1930s George V, one is Victoria bun head.

I believe it was fairly common as a means of preservation / protection before we knew better.

[jelida]

14 minutes ago, Stuntman said:

Was lacquering fairly common, and why was it done?  I have a few bronze coins that have a different sort of sheen and finish to the others.  They don't appear to have been obviously cleaned, but they look a little different.  Two of them are 1930s George V, one is Victoria bun head.

Lacquering was common, Lindner sold a kit, I had one back in the ‘70’s. It was meant to help preserve the coin by excluding oils, moisture, salts etc, but was prone to varying thickness and dribbles.(sounds like me on a Friday night!) I don’t think it did much harm, though the ‘coin cleaner’ dip that one was meant to use first can’t have been good. It should come off easily with acetone dip, though whether your coin is lacquered I can’t tell from the photo. They usually look pretty obviously varnished.

Jerry

[1949threepence]

20 minutes ago, jelida said:

Lacquering was common, Lindner sold a kit, I had one back in the ‘70’s. It was meant to help preserve the coin by excluding oils, moisture, salts etc, but was prone to varying thickness and dribbles.(sounds like me on a Friday night!) I don’t think it did much harm, though the ‘coin cleaner’ dip that one was meant to use first can’t have been good. It should come off easily with acetone dip, though whether your coin is lacquered I can’t tell from the photo. They usually look pretty obviously varnished.

Jerry

Thanks Jerry.

[mrbadexample]

35 minutes ago, jelida said:

but was prone to varying thickness and dribbles.(sounds like me on a Friday night!) 

Thanks, I've now got tea in my keyboard. 

[Peckris]

Lacquering became popular from the late 60s if I remember - about the same time as you could embed your coins in perspex lumps.

[Coinery]

I’ve had two lacquered coins in my life...both ‘cleaned’ up with ‘proper’ acetone, which has a negligible effect on tone or lustre, mostly no effect.

[1949threepence]

50 minutes ago, Coinery said:

I’ve had two lacquered coins in my life...both ‘cleaned’ up with ‘proper’ acetone, which has a negligible effect on tone or lustre, mostly no effect.

Thanks Stuart. I may well give that a whirl.  

[copper123]

On 20/02/2018 at 9:35 PM, Sleepy said:

I still have a 1976 Coin Year Book that recommends lacquering coins in it's coin care section!!

Thats prob with a "lustre preserver " product that was doing the rounds in the mid seventies .

I boughts some , its really useful , comes off perfectly with acetone

[1949threepence]

On 2/20/2018 at 10:48 PM, Peckris said:

Lacquering became popular from the late 60s if I remember - about the same time as you could embed your coins in perspex lumps.

Just noticed this. I never realised slabbing had been around that long. Always thought it was a very recent development - this century even. 

Well, you live and learn. Thanks Peck. 

  

[zookeeperz]

On 20/02/2018 at 7:54 PM, 1949threepence said:

Curious to know as can't find too much definitive information on post lacquering appearance, especially of bronze.

The reason I ask is that I bought an 1866 penny in 2010 as a BIN from e bay, which the seller said at the time "showed signs of old lacquering". Because the coin was otherwise decent, probably about GEF, and had no obvious issues, I bought it for the £50 asked. It was then put away in my collection and largely forgotten about until today, when I read something about lacquering of coins, and was reminded.    

Does anybody know what - typically - should be looked for to establish evidence of lacquering? Thanks in advance.

The coin itself is as shown:-

 

 

  

you would notice straight away if it was lacquered it's kind of like looking through a thin film of water and very very shiney just as an old piece of varnished furniture looks. From the pic it doesn't look it  . I don't know if you can see on mine that glisten look. Thats the lacquer against the light. Sorry crap photo but I have my investigating microscope on lol

[zookeeperz]

[Rob]

You also see ponding inside the loops of characters due to surface tension.

[bagerap]

Slightly off topic but the Victorians were inordinately fond of lacquering commemorative medals, particularly the white metal types. Today, these present as blackened lumps, most of which are resistant to alcohol and acetone. I did manage to clean one a few years ago, with Nitromors, and found a mint fresh medal underneath the crud. Apart from shellac, what other lacquers were available in the C19th?

[Peter]

I soaked mine in gin.My great Nan always had a gin and orange at Xmas and that kept her smiling and reckoned it was good for her.I can tell you a bottle of the damn stuff laid me low....never again.

[Peckris]

15 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Just noticed this. I never realised slabbing had been around that long. Always thought it was a very recent development - this century even. 

Well, you live and learn. Thanks Peck. 

It wasn't slabbing in the modern sense - there was no ID or grading or certificate or even label. I.e. there was no TPG connected - it was just a service that encased your coin(s) in a lump of perspex to preserve condition and avoid handling marks.

As for actual slabbing, I believe that may have started in the States in the 80s? (Not sure).

Edited February 24, 2018 by Peckris

[1949threepence]

On 2/20/2018 at 10:48 PM, Peckris said:

It wasn't slabbing in the modern sense - there was no ID or grading or certificate or even label. I.e. there was no TPG connected - it was just a service that encased your coin(s) in a lump of perspex to preserve condition and avoid handling marks.

As for actual slabbing, I believe that may have started in the States in the 80s? (Not sure).

It would appear that a certification service began with ANACS in 1972, but that actual slabbing did not start until PCGS commenced operations in 1986, and NGC followed in 1987. So you were spot on Peck.

link  

Quote

 

History

Third party coin certification was pioneered by ANACS, which was founded by theAmerican Numismatic Association (ANA) in 1972. The Board of Governors realized the need to have a guarantee of authenticity, so they offered the first authentication service. At that time, the coins were not graded, only confirmed as genuine. Coins were returned with a photo certificate but not encapsulated.[1][2]

In 1986, PCGS began operations, providing encapsulation with a plastic slab now known as its first-generation holder (aka Old Green Holder [OGH] or rattler, because of its label color and the fact that coins would rattle inside.) NGC commenced business in 1987. Other companies have provided similar services but most are no longer in business and all have certified far fewer coins.

 

Here's an original holder:-

 

Edited February 24, 2018 by 1949threepence
Quote messed up again. Still shows incorrect time and date.