Definitive Test For Black Beauty Nickels

https://www.ebay.com/itm/3071864713...ckel&etmp=no

So a rainbow toned Jefferson from the 1950's or from 1958-P or 1959-P how does this compare to a UNC Sintered Glossy piece as previously seen? So the five candidates previously mentioned sound required in this study? Seems so ... don't get me wrong TPG services seem today to know the differences between a BB or improper annealing, sintered, environmental damage & normal rainbow toning. IMO.

My mistake Coin HI. I forgot Sintered was an obsolete TPG current term. Its eliminated from this study. What then are these so-called sintered coins currently in TPG holders? I guess you can say each one needs to be examined on a case by case basis. For another day.

The reason I can not use your PCGS, NGC or ANACS coins as the coin must exist in Raw Form. A coin generally cannot be analyzed by SEM/EDS while encapsulated in a plastic slab, because the electron beam must directly strike the coin's surface inside a vacuum chamber. The slab physically blocks access to the surface, and the plastic itself would contribute carbon- and oxygen-rich signals unrelated to the coin. The primary limitation is not plasticizers, but rather the inability of the SEM/EDS system to directly image and analyze the metal surface through the holder.

By contrast, XRF analysis can often be performed through a slab, as X-rays can penetrate many grading-holder plastics with only modest attenuation of the signal. While raw coins typically provide the most accurate XRF results, slabbed XRF is routinely used in numismatics and museum studies. SEM/EDS generally requires the coin to be removed from the slab, whereas XRF frequently does not but for this study I prefer raw coins even for the XRF preliminary analysis to totally avoid any plasticizer issues in the final assay.

You are right without more sophisticated equipment in all collectors hands we will still witness the chaos currently on ebay on what is a BB and what is simply environmental damage/corrosion/heavily toned BLACK due to environmental exposure ONLY. But this is one reason I may include a BLACK/Porous environmental damage coin in the study.

So a Black Environmental Damaged Coin + Rainbow Toned still seems reasonable with the two BB's of 1958-P & 1959-P. An improper annealed coin outside of 1958-P and 1959-P may also be beneficial? I like to limit this study to 5 coins to keep it manageable so that now sintered is OUT perhaps an improperly annealed Jeff other than 1958-P or 1959-P for obvious reasons? Are BB's just hyped up improper annealed coins for these two years? Probably. Lets confirm it.

Excellent piece HI just E-Mail me and I will give you my address to send. Tropicalbats has also offered some pieces for preliminary examination. So lets review:

1. 1958-P BB. Confirmed. Acquired. Ready for Analysis.
2. 1959-P BB. Confirmed. Acquired. Ready for Analysis.
3. To be Acquired (TBA) = Black Environmental Damaged Jeff 5C.
4. (TBA) Improperly Annealed Jefferson 5C outside of 1958-P/1959-P. AU/UNC. Your coin HI. Possibly.
5. Normal nickel 1958- P UNC Rainbow toned. Acquired. Ready for Analysis.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/237010741784

3&4 to be supplied from outside sources at this time.

I see no point in analyzing an untoned 1958-P or 1959-P in glossy UNC as this study is about just comparing these toned and environmentally damaged surfaces of 1-5 above. I plan to do a polished edge analysis on the 1958-P UNC Rainbow toned #5 specimen above which will supply close to the Red Book type of assay. JPL

PART V. Planchet Errors:
Annealing Errors:
Improper Annealing:


Definition: For decades error collectors have puzzled over copper-nickel and Cu-Ni clad coins struck on planchets with a layer of copper on the surface. In times past, these errors were called "copper wash" and "sintered plating" errors. The 1962 nickel shown below is a typical example. It has a thick layer of peeling copper on the right side of the obverse face. The rest of the obverse face and all of the reverse face is black. Copper, red, black, brown, and gray are colors typically found in these errors. Coverage can be complete or incomplete. The copper can range from a slight tinge to a thick coating.



In recent years, eyewitness testimony has convincingly pointed to annealing as the specific step in the planchet preparation responsible for the surface copper. In light of this testimony, these errors are now generally labeled "improper annealing" errors by the major grading services.

In 2010 Mike Diamond contacted US Mint officials with convincing evidence which in the end supported his hypothesis that copper and nickel atoms in the 75% Cu / 25% Ni alloy were migrating and segregating themselves into layers of relative purity. In response to an inquiry first made to Tom Jurkowsky, the Mint's Director of Public Affairs, an answer came henceforth. Michael White, a spokesman for the Office of Public Affairs, consulted with the Mint's technical staff who reported a mechanism very similar to the first scenario Mike Diamond laid out. The atoms are migrating to the surface and rearranging themselves into uniform layers. The proximate cause, according to Mr. White, is prolonged exposure to heat, a failure to maintain an oxygen-depleted atmosphere in the annealing oven, or a combination of both. Here is Mr. White's verbatim explanation:

Dear Mr. Diamond:

"I've consulted with our technical experts regarding the cause of the appearance of the coins in the photographs attached with your e-mail.

The samples shown in the photos were the result of a loss of protective atmosphere or being stuck in the annealing furnace for a prolonged period of time, or both.

This would result in migration of the copper and nickel to the surface of the blank. Since there is three times as much copper then nickel in the outer layer of these coins, the diffusion of copper to the surface will be significantly greater than the diffusion of the nickel, resulting in the reddish appearance noted.

Depending on the time the blank sits in the annealer, and whether it is exposed to oxidizing conditions, various reactions can occur. This will result in the type of phenomenon shown in the photos, where a distinct layer of material forms on the blank surface (primarily copper, with a high degree of oxidation), which is quite brittle, and will break off in pieces. This will expose the original blank surface, which would also be oxidized, but closer in color to the original alloy. We have seen these types of blanks but only infrequently.

I hope you find this information useful."

I find this information VERY USEFUL.

KCM thanks for your assistance but we are good. Have both 1958-P and 1959-P BB's. Interesting bluish undertones in this Black Beauty. One of the investigative questions with BB's does Cobalt (Co) really play that much of a part in creating the BB? We will soon know in 2027. Over the last month I do believe now I have a pretty good analytical strategy in explaining all the answers collectors need to know on this improperly annealed error. As for the Sintered Label TPGs I think some top end error sellers like Mr. 97 (Its what I call him who always ends his prices with $0.97 has it CORRECT - really all sintered planchets are actually improper annealed planchets). Depending of course from this top seller to novice collectors we then find many environmental damaged pieces called improperly annealed on ebay currently and how does rainbow toning differ on the SEM/EDS analytical analysis platform to this BB toning phenomenon. All to be addressed. JPL

Colonialjohn- I know it's not the denomination you are looking for but I think it's a solid example of a moderately circulated IAP error that I'd be willing to get further testing on.

If you read through the topic I did get some XRF readings on the coin.

https://goccf.com/t/431416

Thanks for the reply John.



Could you explain this statement?

What Cu/Ni XRF readings would you expect from a non IA clad quarter for comparison?