Ætheling

If it's CuSO4 then wouldn't just washing it in water remove it? Afterall it's water soluble.

Mind you having said that i've just remembered i once chucked a copper plate penny in some CuSO4 and it turned green quite quick, sticking that in water didn't get it off. So maybe it'd be so well bonded to the surface that it wouldn't shift?

Thank you for the advise

One of the coins was MS62 like

the lowest rank of the three

So I dunked it in acetone and rubbed it with a surgical glove on

The green spots just rub off

So it must be a mono molecular layer of coppersulfate or copperchloride or whatever because the saltcolor on gold changes

like black silversulfide shows red etc

I am going to let the next one sit in acetone without touching for an hour

and see what happens

If it's CuSO4 then wouldn't just washing it in water remove it? Afterall it's water soluble. Me thinks it must be chloride or carbonate, which i forget if they are soluble or not.

Okay anyone with existing knowledge or a Krause please help me figure this out because there's seems to be no logic to how these obverses are used. There's no standard set of dates for this lot.

Here's the UK Version of it that i know from memory; (Pictures are from Tony Clayton's Website)

The Gillick Obverse (1953-1967) (also including a proof only issued of predecimal coins issued in 1970 to be sold as 'the last predecimal' coin sets.) This obverse is still in use on the Maundy Money produced in the UK as handed out by the Queen.

The Machin Obverse (1968-1984) Now only used on stamps.

The Maklouf Obverse (1985-1997) No longer in use.

The Rank Broadley Obverse (1998-present) Used on all new coins except the Maundy Money which retains the orginal 1953 design.

Are there any countries still out there that still issue new coins bearing the Machin or Maklouf obverses? I believe some countries skipped the Maklouf altogether. Whilst others such as Canada came up with their own...

Now that is a hell of alot nicer than the monstrosity they released for the UK for that particular event.

This does also demonstrate one other thing though, where is the logic behind the obverse portraits? 2002 and they are still using the Maklouf portrait, not that i should complain it could be worse it could be the Broadley 'old mugshot' obverse.

Is Alderney still using this obverse?

That avatar of yours...

I know Canada is a country that has French and British influence, but don't you think including the fleur de lis in the shield is a bit of an anomaly?

The British monarchy relinquished all claims to any particular French territory in 1801 and that's the year the French Royal arms were dropped from the Royal Standard. Considering the last piece of mainland French soil we own was Calais and we lost that in 1558, it was probably about time they did something about the somewhat out of date Royal Arms. (Although we still rule Jersey and Guernsey so we haven't lost everything French).

Whioch makes me wonder why they included them on the Canadian coinage. Now you might be inclined to argue it from the French side and say they merely represent the French heritage of Canada, but if so why did they pick the Fleur de Lis? Because in France they'd been replaced even earlier during the French Revolution when the tricolour was introduced.

I hadn't noticed until now. Very odd. But intriguing.

I don't have my book handy. What's the composition of the sovereign.

 

Gold plus perhaps copper...

1816-present = 22ct gold, rest is copper. So .917 Au.

Except some 1859's which are 22ct Au, with the remainder comprising of Cu and As.

Super coin, papadoc! 

 

Looks a little like this German commem: 

 

No offence on this one but doesn't he have a slight, erm resemblence to a Koala Bear? Hmm Odd...

EDIT;- Now if i had bothered to let the first image load before i saw that one i would have got it!

Never mind...

Was it that calcium chloride granule material sold under the name of Damp-Rid?  That stuff is corrosive to most metals when wet.  I hope your collection isn't too badly affected.

Well if it's anything with that in then there's your problem. Chlorine is very reactive and gets on with metals far, far too well. Also avoid Fluorine which is even worse.

If you think about it there's not many silver compounds out there when compared to say iron or copper, but you'll note that chlorides go way down the reactivity lists.

As do nitrates.

Although i am somewhat puzzelled, did you say the coins were silver or copper? Silver and copper are less reactive than calcium and thus i would have though that the chlorine would have remained with the calcium. Unless it's done something more complicated and come up with a more complex compound involving the coins as well.

That's why i never used tissue. I think you'll find a cloth is better or a tea towel.

Yeah, I'd agree too much change is better than no change, though neither is really preferable.

I'd rather have no change than too much. I don't like change very much, gradual i can cope with, too fast and i feel i can't keep up.

Immobilised coinage is sometimes nice.

Yep forgot about that bit!

Yeah i used to place it between two books, or under something heavy. Not just curling, you don't want it looking crinkle cut...

...pure sodium when put in water

Add Lithium, Potassium and Cæsium to that list, plus a few others. I bet Francium is fun.

The other day i finally managed to get my first 2004 Trevithick £2 coin. Only took me how long to find one? It can now be spent again...

Other than that, still nothing interesting and no 2005's either. Collecting from change really is dull round these parts.

(I never could get those stamps removed without tearing them.)

Well generally you cut the envelope to get it down to a managable size around the stamp. Then submerge it in water for a minute or two.

With a bit of care the stamp should come right off, then leave it on the side to dry.

A few Gothic florins might go down well for that.

This is PERFECT!!! I saw many grossus, but none like this! I like the "H" from PHILIPPVS REX...

I bought this at the London coin fair last month. I think it was about £25, i think.

the 'h' is Lombardic style lettering.

I wonder...

If the alloy is too pure could that happen?

Failing that the only thing i can think of that would cause such a thing would be crystallisation of the metal. With ancient coins i've come across this; Cue to Reid again...

But with such modern coins is it possible?

...lately the dark side has been calling 

Another one bites the dust!

Excellent!

Glad it all arrived well, i'm always a bit nervous shipping stuff over. But i'm glad you like it.

Number 3) !

How could i have been so stupid?

Slabbed...

What Art would give to be counting those cents right now!

Pretty cool, it actually reminds me of some pictures in a certain UK Price guide which are pretty much showing the same kind of things. Although i think those might have been from the 1910s.

These days it's all about profit...

Ah right i get it now!

So i take it the coinage must have had a fairly big change in 1957? It also explains why most Juan Carlos coins i have are dated 1975!

I must say i do like the date/stars business because as a date collector it would save me alot of money, because i could just go on the big date and not one the star dates, which i could ignore almost as if they were die numbers on UK coins...

The Spanish minted these large types until 1989 (some types), since 1980 there was the World cup series, the 1 Pta. became alum., there was a smaller 100 Ptas. (about the size of a pound) and new 200 and 500 Pesetas coins. (These large coins no longer had the minting year on the star! Note that "Franco" coins circulated all these years alongside "King" coins").

I used to go to Spain a lot and don't remember seeing "large" and "small" coins mixed together, i'm guessing they were out of circulation in 1990???

 

Jose

I think either 1989 or 1990 would be a good guess, i don't think i saw any large coins either when i was there. It was a long time ago though!

I've just found a few more coins, a Cien Pta which i presumed to be the 100pta (1988 and a bit bigger than a pound), got a 200pta as well, the portrait on that one is pretty awful. Line drawn or what!

And i found two of the larger 1pta coins from 1987 (now you tell me about the stars, i was looking all over on the 1987 1ptas to see if i could find them to no avail!)

I've got some of the brass looking 1ptas as well, including a few Franco ones.I do have a 1980 world cup series 5pta though.

Whilst we're on the dates in stars thing, take a 1957 Franco coin (here we're talking about the date on the coin, not the date of issue), now if that was actually one of the 1957 issues would it have the stars saying 57, or would there be no stars since they'd not be required since for once the date on the coin would actually be the date of issue?

Not having a loupe dating these things plays havoc with my eyes, and i'm short-sighted so seeing things up close really shouldn't be a problem. Not a series for the long-sighted me thinks.

Well Al cents are a new one on me...

Why the metal change? Was it to see if they could produce them more cheaply? But they figured Zincolns were better?

I never used to like Al coins but i've got to say i've warmed up to them alot recently ever since i branched out into German coins, with a hint of lustre they look kinda alright and they seem to wear alright. The weight of the coins seems to be their downside though. Although they deal with corrosion better than Cu based coins, which have a habit of turning nasty shades of furry green in the wrong conditions.