Maple milk spot experiment #1 has commenced
- Thread starter SpacePete
- Start date
whinfell said:SilverPete said:
Photos or it didn't happen!
Done! (I was holding them in cotton gloves so there a few stray strands on the face)
Full size: http://i.imgur.com/Y7Q6yXP.jpg
It was a bit hard to capture the spots clearly with the camera. You have to get the angle against the light just right.
PHD thesis? Need a placebo controlled, double blind randomised trial though.
Hairy Nugget
New Member
I have a Pronghorn coin that has been exposed for over a year (and still is)
No capsule,left out in the sun, touched without gloves all the time, washed in dishwasher ++
Not a single hint of lactose.
So they can if they want to, it just comes down to QC. I hope they can get it right consistently soon, because I for one really like their coins.
The philharmonics Ive tried the same with, has fogged up substantially.
Maybe I should unwrap some elephants too, but I have a suspicion of how that would go..
No capsule,left out in the sun, touched without gloves all the time, washed in dishwasher ++
Not a single hint of lactose.
So they can if they want to, it just comes down to QC. I hope they can get it right consistently soon, because I for one really like their coins.
The philharmonics Ive tried the same with, has fogged up substantially.
Maybe I should unwrap some elephants too, but I have a suspicion of how that would go..
mmissinglink
Active Member
From PCGS: "For modern silver issues, spotting is a Mint acknowledged problem that is also beyond the control of PCGS. For modern silver coins, it is possible for two coins to have the same technical grade and one be spotted and one be spot-free. In these instances, the spotted coins will command a lesser price in the marketplace." http://www.pcgs.com/eyeappeal.html
Obviously milk spots can affect the secondary market value but there apparently could be two silver CML's that are in the same condition (receiving an identical technical grade...MS66 for example) with the only difference being one has milk spots (I'm assuming small and few milk spots) - ergo, milk spots may not necessarily affect the grade but will likely affect the after market value.
Have I interpreted PCGS's statement correctly?
EDIT: We should keep in mind that the CML bullion coins are not intended to be products produced for the collector / numismatist...they are an investor product and investors in general, tend to only value the silver content/weight, not the condition of the coin. In spite of the now well known milk spotting on silver bullion CML's, the RCM has had record sales of these coins in the past couple or so years I believe.
The RCM has no apparent intention of finding a solution to resolve the development of milk spots on their bullion CML's because the time and money that they'd have to invest in hypothetically correcting the problem may dramatically harm their ROI since most of the coins are purchased by investors who apparently don't care whether the coins have milk spots or not and the much smaller amount of sales they may get from collectors who are newly interested in the bullion silver CML coin since the hypothetical resolving of the spotting problem would be probably insignificant compared to the investor volume.
It's also possible that at some point in the future, (minor) milk spotting may no longer be seen by most coin collectors as the 'horrible monster' that it is seen today by many collectors. Who really knows how sentiment toward a certain eye appeal concern may change. Was "toning" of silver coins always regarded in the same way throughout the decades? I don't know.
Finally, maybe there will be some genius chemist who will some day devise a non-destructive method which can remove milk spots without affecting at all the technical grading qualities of a coin.
Just food for thought.
.
Obviously milk spots can affect the secondary market value but there apparently could be two silver CML's that are in the same condition (receiving an identical technical grade...MS66 for example) with the only difference being one has milk spots (I'm assuming small and few milk spots) - ergo, milk spots may not necessarily affect the grade but will likely affect the after market value.
Have I interpreted PCGS's statement correctly?
EDIT: We should keep in mind that the CML bullion coins are not intended to be products produced for the collector / numismatist...they are an investor product and investors in general, tend to only value the silver content/weight, not the condition of the coin. In spite of the now well known milk spotting on silver bullion CML's, the RCM has had record sales of these coins in the past couple or so years I believe.
The RCM has no apparent intention of finding a solution to resolve the development of milk spots on their bullion CML's because the time and money that they'd have to invest in hypothetically correcting the problem may dramatically harm their ROI since most of the coins are purchased by investors who apparently don't care whether the coins have milk spots or not and the much smaller amount of sales they may get from collectors who are newly interested in the bullion silver CML coin since the hypothetical resolving of the spotting problem would be probably insignificant compared to the investor volume.
It's also possible that at some point in the future, (minor) milk spotting may no longer be seen by most coin collectors as the 'horrible monster' that it is seen today by many collectors. Who really knows how sentiment toward a certain eye appeal concern may change. Was "toning" of silver coins always regarded in the same way throughout the decades? I don't know.
Finally, maybe there will be some genius chemist who will some day devise a non-destructive method which can remove milk spots without affecting at all the technical grading qualities of a coin.
Just food for thought.
.
barsenault
Well-Known Member
Ron and Bron, you taking note? This type of thing can't happen to your coins, or forget about it.
Pirocco
Well-Known Member
It's alot food.mmissinglink said:
Especially that 'investors only value silver content/weight'.
A brutal lie?!
Even DEALERS sell these coins for a reduction.
And dealers aren't even 'investors'.
But an 'investor' SHOULD buy them as new?
People even get rid of ugly non pm circulation coins and banknotes first. For a reason. Only that State forces to accept.
Why having a coin in the first place?
If the RCM really thinks that investors don't care.
WELL
Just sell blancs with only 1 ounce 999 silver on it?
No need for a design!
And why then having changed the design in 2014?
RCM says that people don't care about how a coin looks like. So the design change was just useless?
This is an interesting sentence:
"For modern silver coins, it is possible for two coins to have the same technical grade and one be spotted and one be spot-free."
Note the term "modern".
Thus, for old silver coins it wasn't the case.
Due to different production process?
Due to a 10% (or so) copper content?
Copper adds the drawback of green discolorization.
Which would make it a choice between two drawbacks.
Question: does anyone know an old coin that was 999? Let's say year 18xx or early 19xx.
Would be interesting to know if milk spots then also occurred.
And a second thing about the sentence: I wonder if they ment the chance on development of spots, or the actual presence of spots.
It makes a difference, because the former must have a specific production origin, the latter not, since time and environment are the determinators.
Pirocco
Well-Known Member
This is interesting.Hairy Nugget said:
Because also RCM, also 99.99, also Brilliant Uncirculated.
But quality control sees what is there on the moment of control.
Milk spots seem to develop out of an apparently nothing.
So it's not like that QC can just throw away what doesn't look like it shouldn't.
This sounds very much alike it IS known what causes the milk spots, and that for higher premium coins alike this Pronghorn, apparently have a somehow different production process.
Must be some extra treatment or so.
I've a theory that I thought of before: an eventual washing of the coins. For the Maples (lower premium) they use cheaper hard(er) water, whose dry up leaves mineral traces on which the spots develop, and for the Pronghorns (higher premium) they use (more expensive) water that underwent some treatment (softened / filtered / demineralized).
Does the RCM produce its own blancs, or does it buy them from some metal processor? Because it is more likely that the washing occurs in a pre stamp stage. Not sure, but washing flat surfaces is easier than relief ones.
Nabullion Dynamite
Active Member
Thanks for the update, I was wondering how this experiment was doing!
barsenault
Well-Known Member
Hairy Nugget said:
interesting indeed. I wonder if it has to do with hard or soft water. Because there is a significant diffrence. I have a water distiller at home, and its the most pure form of water one can drink. And the crud that is left behind after a few distillations is amazing...sand, grit, stones, and who knows what else those solids are...but looking at the water before distillation, it looked just like the 'purified water.' So maybe there is something to the type of water used. obviously the RCM must know what the difference is...because their bullion has it riddled on most every coin, whereas their collectibles do not...inquiring minds want to know the difference in quality???
edit: Oh, and your elephants will definitely form spots...I know from personal experience.
Hence why I got rid of all my elephants, phils, canadian wild-life, maples, and eagles, and sank the money into kooks nearly 2 years ago. Hoping and praying my kooks don't get them...but I'll never know because most are in the original wrap, and will stay that way upon selling.