coin toneing

[peterrose4743 0]

i read a bit about toned coin and choose to have a go at doing this my self so i put a 10p in dandruff shampoo, a 20p in bleach, a 5p in nail poish remover, a 10p in jack daniels and finally i put a 20p in a tub and blow smoke on it and left all of these for 6 days i was quite suprized when i went back and dried them all heres the results let me no what you think and i hear that toned coins are worth more then normal coins not that i would sell my coins and also is this called fake toneing

the results are as follows

dandruff shampoo- left a brownish toned all over coin

bleach- left green circles on the coin

nail poish remover- went a lovely shade of blue

jack daniels- nothing apart from being a bit more shiney

smoke- little brown dots but smelled bad

the nail varish remover was by far the best i have been told if it is done with pure acitone it will be better so i am gona try that soon

let me no what you think

[peterrose4743 0]

can some one reply dont no if my postings are workin thanks

[azda 978]

post some picture results

[Red Riley 2]

I once suspended a bronze penny over a pungent solution of sodium metabisulphate (best known as a homebrew sterilising agent) and it nigh on disolved it! I have experimented with all sorts of things over the years and have discovered that nothing beats sunlight, dribble and... time.

I keep on meaning to experiment with baking a coin in a potato (an idea I got from an American website) but haven't got round to it yet. Chemistry is hardly my strong point but it occurs to me that in the main, toning probably comes from contact with human flesh and as we are carbon based organisms then toning too probably has a carbon element. But how we simulate the toning on a coin, now that's the rub.

[1949threepence 3,367]

Thing is, some coins tone beautifully over (as Red says) time, whereas others always look a mess.

Not sure what the magic formula is, but I don't think it's dipping in chemicals.

[Gary D 76]

Thing is, some coins tone beautifully over (as Red says) time, whereas others always look a mess.

Not sure what the magic formula is, but I don't think it's dipping in chemicals.

I suspect Sulphur could be a good toning agent.. Not sure how you would go about it though

Gary

[scott 129]

sulpher makes silver completly black.

with silver age seems to have the best toning.

[TomGoodheart 377]

I'm not sure about peterrose's nail polish remover. Toned CuNi coins aren't really my thing and I don't know if it would work on silver.

I was told a few 'theories' about toning; from it being due to the effect of cigar smoke as gentlemen passed their collections around for their peers to admire after dinner, to the small amount of sulphur in old manila envelopes the coins used to be stored in.

I was taught a technique using an egg. It works but you risk getting a slightly brownish grey at the light end to some of that rather artifical rainbow colouring the Americans seem keen on if you overdo it. I've not found a way to replicate that nice steel grey silver seems to go naturally and have given up fussing over the things.

Yes, I have a couple of coins from hoards that have been cleaned and are still bright and I'd like to tone them down a bit. But until I find a more realistic way to do it I'm going to try to just put up with it. Some toning is nice. But when it screams artificial! I'm not so sure.

Edited June 16, 2010 by TomGoodheart

[Hussulo 6]

I wouldn't recommend:

dandruff shampoo- left a brownish toned all over coin

bleach- left green circles on the coin

nail poish remover- went a lovely shade of blue

jack daniels- nothing apart from being a bit more shiney

smoke- little brown dots but smelled bad

as I think the coins will look cleaned/ stripped if using dandruff shampoo or bleach. and the rest of the things you've tried will look artificially toned.

I have tried and successfully used yellow sulphur powder to tone an edge knock/scratched on a copper coin.

I made a paste mixing the sulphur powder in a little water (apparently you can use Vaseline too) and applied it to the bright scratched area it took a couple of days but it did work and it looked natural.

Here is the after pic:

I'll try and find a before pick but the edge knock was also scratched and looked a bright coper colour.

I have heard of people using stink bombs to tone silver colourfully. Apparently if you place a silver coin in an airtight container brake a stink bomb in next to it and seal the lid it works. I've never tried this though.

What ever you use will most likely result in the coin looking artificially tones. Nice natural toning takes years to appear.

[1949threepence 3,367]

Nice natural toning takes years to appear.

I believe this is an example of natural bronze toning. I'm really pleased with this coin:-

Edited June 16, 2010 by 1949threepence

[Hussulo 6]

Nice natural toning takes years to appear.

I believe this is an example of natural bronze toning. I'm really pleased with this coin:-

Thats a nice one 1949threepence.

here's one I shared not to long ago probably envelope tonning but it does have some lovely blues and gold in it:

1696 William III Sixpence, first bust, early harp, large crowns

[Hussulo 6]

This is one I used to own.

Lovely natural toning with a lot of lustre showing through:

Edited June 16, 2010 by Hussulo

[scott 129]

some gorgeous natural toning

[Red Riley 2]

I think for natural toning, the reddy brown of a well-circulated King's Norton penny takes some beating. It is of course possible that an additive was used to encourage this particular tone.

[scott 129]

this toning?

[Red Riley 2]

this toning?

That's the one.

[davidrj 194]

this toning?

That's the one.

I always thought the colour of KN pennies was due to a lower tin content, George VI Aussie pennies go a similar colour

Leaving small change in you jeans pockets when it goes through the washing machine often produces intersting results, I assume soap powder is fairly alkaline

[Red Riley 2]

I always thought the colour of KN pennies was due to a lower tin content, George VI Aussie pennies go a similar colour

I have a theory on the tone assumed by circulated bronze coins and did a little historical research a couple of years ago. It is my opinion that varying metal contents is not the answer. Okay, so this is what I wrote on the subject:

'It seems to be the generally accepted view that variations in the colour of bronze coins up until about 1926 was due to slight variations in the metal makeup of those coins, i.e. marginally more or less tin or zinc used in the alloy. This view is underlined by Michael Freeman in ‘The Bronze Coinage of Britain’, but it does have problems, principally that it does not explain the variations in tone of the previous base metal coinage which was unalloyed copper and by that argument should have been a uniform colour.

I would like to propose a rather different theory, but to do so it is necessary to take a brief look at the history of copper mining in Britain. This metal had been mined, principally in Cornwall and Wales right back to the Bronze Age. Curiously tin and copper often occur naturally in close proximity to each other, making the conditions in the far west of Britain ideal for the production of bronze implements such as swords and ploughshares.

By the middle of the nineteenth century, copper mining in Britain which had traditionally been run on a small scale with a large number of individual mines, was encountering stiff competition from much larger operations in the New World and southern Africa. Simply, the British copper industry could not compete and one by one the mines declined and closed. I have not established quite when the last mine ceased production, but certainly there were a very few still operational during the First World War but none in production on the outbreak of the second conflict, so a date in the early twenties would seem about right. Ore mined in different locations is quite identifiable (and archaeologists frequently use this method) by the level of trace elements i.e. impurities it contains. It is therefore reasonable to assume that British copper/bronze coins were initially made from domestic ore, then a mixture of domestic and overseas and finally exclusively overseas, probably from one identifiable source. All of these would have had their individual characteristics.

Early coin, say up until the 1850s used a variety of British ores and would have been quite variable in hue; coin of the middle period, up to about 1920 would have been every bit as variable, if not more so; finally, coin produced from that date would have been much more uniform in colour as the trace elements themselves would have been consistent in nature.

Allied to this, technical advances in the smelting of metals during this period would have been able to dramatically reduce the levels of impurities thus tending towards a more consistent product and further uniformity in tone.'

Obviously, not being a metalurgist, I have not run any tests but from a non-technical perspective it does seem to make some sense.

[Peckris 579]

Interesting research Red! May well account for many variations.

It does not though, I believe, account for the Kings Norton red-brown tone, which I think really was due to a slight variation in the alloy. This can be verified by a similar tone appearing on some examples of all dates of pennies between 1912 and 1919. "What?" I hear you ask, "how does that confirm the Kings Norton thesis?" Well, according to Freeman, KN supplied blanks to the Mint between 1912 and 1919, as well as minting a small number themselves in 1918 and 1919.

[Red Riley 2]

Interesting research Red! May well account for many variations.

It does not though, I believe, account for the Kings Norton red-brown tone, which I think really was due to a slight variation in the alloy. This can be verified by a similar tone appearing on some examples of all dates of pennies between 1912 and 1919. "What?" I hear you ask, "how does that confirm the Kings Norton thesis?" Well, according to Freeman, KN supplied blanks to the Mint between 1912 and 1919, as well as minting a small number themselves in 1918 and 1919.

Without detailed chemical analysis, I don't think we can prove conclusively why the hue varied, but I'm still sticking to my guns! I have seen much earlier coins (e.g. an 1893 penny) with the distinctive KN colour. My view on this is that King's Norton received all their metal from one source which may have had say, a trace of ferrous oxide in its makeup. Of course alterations in the alloy can make a difference (e.g. later QE2 bronze) but why would Kings Norton use a different alloy from that which the Royal Mint requested?

My theory also explains why some coins have a streaky appearance i.e. ores from two different sources were used in the alloy, and were not completely mixed in the furnace.

[Peckris 579]

Interesting research Red! May well account for many variations.

It does not though, I believe, account for the Kings Norton red-brown tone, which I think really was due to a slight variation in the alloy. This can be verified by a similar tone appearing on some examples of all dates of pennies between 1912 and 1919. "What?" I hear you ask, "how does that confirm the Kings Norton thesis?" Well, according to Freeman, KN supplied blanks to the Mint between 1912 and 1919, as well as minting a small number themselves in 1918 and 1919.

Without detailed chemical analysis, I don't think we can prove conclusively why the hue varied, but I'm still sticking to my guns! I have seen much earlier coins (e.g. an 1893 penny) with the distinctive KN colour. My view on this is that King's Norton received all their metal from one source which may have had say, a trace of ferrous oxide in its makeup. Of course alterations in the alloy can make a difference (e.g. later QE2 bronze) but why would Kings Norton use a different alloy from that which the Royal Mint requested?

My theory also explains why some coins have a streaky appearance i.e. ores from two different sources were used in the alloy, and were not completely mixed in the furnace.

I can certainly corroborate from experience that the red-brown colour appears outside the date range I mentioned above - for example quite a few late date Edward VII pennies, i.e. 1908 - 1910, also feature it : which leads to two possibilities perhaps? (1) That KN actually provided blanks to the Mint not just in the period mentioned by Freeman (which in turn came from a RM Report apparently) but from the 1890s through to the end of WW1 when that colour seems to disappear. (2) That KN consistently got their copper from just one supplier (your theory) who also was used passim by the RM.

I've only ever seen bad streakiness on coins from 1920 to 1926. The explanation I heard from one source was that this was caused by the use of gun casings in the 'mix', which we've discussed here before I think? The problem I have with the 'two ore' hypothesis (though I freely admit I'm not a chemist) is that surely two sources of copper ON THEIR OWN could not cause streakiness? After all, irrespective of its origin, chemically copper is copper is copper. Would it not be more likely that the other metals used in the alloy were not properly mixed together? Though I'd welcome an input from a chemist to clear this point up.

[Red Riley 2]

I can certainly corroborate from experience that the red-brown colour appears outside the date range I mentioned above - for example quite a few late date Edward VII pennies, i.e. 1908 - 1910, also feature it : which leads to two possibilities perhaps? (1) That KN actually provided blanks to the Mint not just in the period mentioned by Freeman (which in turn came from a RM Report apparently) but from the 1890s through to the end of WW1 when that colour seems to disappear. (2) That KN consistently got their copper from just one supplier (your theory) who also was used passim by the RM.

I've only ever seen bad streakiness on coins from 1920 to 1926. The explanation I heard from one source was that this was caused by the use of gun casings in the 'mix', which we've discussed here before I think? The problem I have with the 'two ore' hypothesis (though I freely admit I'm not a chemist) is that surely two sources of copper ON THEIR OWN could not cause streakiness? After all, irrespective of its origin, chemically copper is copper is copper. Would it not be more likely that the other metals used in the alloy were not properly mixed together? Though I'd welcome an input from a chemist to clear this point up.

I have a distinctly streaky 1875, a pale coin with darker streaks. On the other hand although I have unalloyed copper pennies all shades of brown, I have never to my knowledge seen a streaky one. For me though, the vastly differing colours assumed by 1797-1860 pennies is the clincher and to my mind this can only have been caused by different sources of ore.

[scott 129]

i got some interesting ones from pre 1920 streakyness

[scott 129]

and this one seems to be a crossover from the black 1895-10 coins

[Peckris 579]

and this one seems to be a crossover from the black 1895-10 coins

Good pictures scott. The 1866 penny is an enigma, but it COULD be a result of an abrasion scar across the reverse which exposed bare metal and hasn't properly toned back yet. It doesn't look like a classic example of 'streakiness'.

Your other two pennies seem to be classic examples of 'streaky lustre'. This occurs a lot in the early 1920s, but you appear to have got two examples from earlier than that. However, there's no way of telling whether they came streaky from the Mint, or have acquired some form of environmental toning. The Vic in particular looks like a 'toned Unc with lustre', while the Edward ... do you think it is possible that is a high grade penny that has been artificially lustred? (It has the look of an Edw VII farthing that's been treated.)