I strongly believe that people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want to with their own damned bought-and-paid-for property.
And I also believe that I should not have to pay what they're asking for it if i don't want to buy it from them after they did it.
I prefer to buy coins that look like no one "did anything to them" to make them worth more. If They did it well enough that i can't tell, then maybe i don't care, as long as the price is fair.
Most untoned old coins and "rainbow" toned new coins look Very Fake to my eyes.
@Baley said:
I strongly believe that people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want to with their own damned bought-and-paid-for property.
And I also believe that I should not have to pay what they're asking for it if i don't want to buy it from them after they did it.
I prefer to buy coins that look like no one "did anything to them" to make them worth more. If They did it well enough that i can't tell, then maybe i don't care, as long as the price is fair.
Most untoned old coins and "rainbow" toned new coins look Very Fake to my eyes.
I have a fully struck 1921 Peace $ that was originally in an NGC MS64 holder. It had great luster, but was a tad too dark. I cracked it and lightened it and sent it to PCGS. It came back MS65. I then sent it to CAC and it has a green bean on it. Two professional grading firms couldn't tell that I dipped it. So, unless I say something, for all intents and purposes, it is original.
Everyone already does. All grades are Net grade opinions. Glad you're coming around to the logical way of thinking. Of course, not every one agrees with the "grades" assigned, and that's what makes a market function.
What is and is not AT is too hard to distinguish. If AT is based on intent, then two coins toned the same way could be AT or NT. e.g.: If I put a coin in an old coin album knowing it will tone, that is AT - versus a collector who does it ignorantly is NT? Using a higher concentration of chemical that is found in cardboard that caused 20 year album toning quicker is AT? Why? I'm unconvinced that there is a meaningful literal or ethical different between NT and AT.
Perhaps the only artificial thing about this discussion is how collectors are okay with some chemical reactions on their coins, and not okay with others.
As you may know, I tend to agree with this. I have had Canadian customers who intentionally flipped the dollars to get equal thinking on the other side. They waited a decade or more for it to happen "naturally". So, just than flipping the coin, they didn't even change the original mint packaging. AT or NT?
Everyone already does. All grades are Net grade opinions. Glad you're coming around to the logical way of thinking. Of course, not every one agrees with the "grades" assigned, and that's what makes a market function.
I've read some seriously flawed nonsense in coin forums before (most from trolls and uninformed posters) but this statement ranks in the top THREE! Congratulations, now grading instructors all over the country are going to need to correct this BS whenever it comes up. I'll NEVER come around to the convoluted and silly copper grading system practiced by a very small minority of folks.
While all "commercial" coin grading is an opinion, when an MS coin gets a tad of friction wear and becomes an AU - IT IS NOT BEING NET GRADED! However when some copper "Ex-Pert" takes an as struck uncirculated Large cent with some rim problems that is already graded Uncirculated "details" by a major TPGS and writes that the coin is actually an XF, THAT IS NET GRADING and while it is humorous it is also very sad.
@thefinn said:
I have a fully struck 1921 Peace $ that was originally in an NGC MS64 holder. It had great luster, but was a tad too dark. I cracked it and lightened it and sent it to PCGS. It came back MS65. I then sent it to CAC and it has a green bean on it. Two professional grading firms couldn't tell that I dipped it. So, unless I say something, for all intents and purposes, it is original.
The fact that PCGS graded the coin 65 and CAC stickered it, says nothing about whether they could tell that it had been dipped.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@thefinn said:
I have a fully struck 1921 Peace $ that was originally in an NGC MS64 holder. It had great luster, but was a tad too dark. I cracked it and lightened it and sent it to PCGS. It came back MS65. I then sent it to CAC and it has a green bean on it. Two professional grading firms couldn't tell that I dipped it. So, unless I say something, for all intents and purposes, it is original.
The fact that PCGS graded the coin 65 and CAC stickered it, says nothing about whether they could tell that it had been dipped.
Couldn't disagree more with those pharisaical attempts to parse "intent". On one hand, any attempt to intentionally accelerate toning by chemical alteration is dishonest, evil and not condoned. On the other hand, any attempt to intentionally reverse toning by chemical alternation is honest, pure and condoned.
They are both intentional chemical alterations and should be viewed through the same lens. Leave the coins alone.
Some refer to overgraded slabs as Coffins. I like to think of them as Happy Coins.
@nickelsciolist said:
I hate to admit this...but I don't even know what "dipping" is. Dipping in like a cleaning solution?
Dipping a coin refers to dipping it in a chemical solution, like acetone. It's purpose is being discussed. It can be used to remove chemical contaminates, ugly toning, etc - depending on the solutions used. It can be used for conservation, it can be used to make a coin "pretty" by removing a layer of the original coin.
In the coin world, dipping has been "accepted" by mainstream coin grading companies whereas artificial toning is not. That's what the thread is discussing.
@thefinn said:
I have a fully struck 1921 Peace $ that was originally in an NGC MS64 holder. It had great luster, but was a tad too dark. I cracked it and lightened it and sent it to PCGS. It came back MS65. I then sent it to CAC and it has a green bean on it. Two professional grading firms couldn't tell that I dipped it. So, unless I say something, for all intents and purposes, it is original.
The fact that PCGS graded the coin 65 and CAC stickered it, says nothing about whether they could tell that it had been dipped.
This. There is market acceptable dipping.
Restoring coins back to an attractive state is an art that can be taught. It is one of my favorite things to do with coins. Market acceptable dipping covers two operations:
Conservation (chemical cleaning with both good and bad results - some coins just blow up!) by a TPGS.
Properly done chemical cleaning by anyone that no one can detect or prove it was done.
@Baley said:
To clarify, artificial toning that looks natural is also very often "accepted."
Possibly because no one except the "doctor" who did it can prove it is accelerated by the hand of man.
@nickelsciolist said:
I hate to admit this...but I don't even know what "dipping" is. Dipping in like a cleaning solution?
Dipping a coin refers to dipping it in a chemical solution, like acetone. It's purpose is being discussed. It can be used to remove chemical contaminates, ugly toning, etc - depending on the solutions used. It can be used for conservation, it can be used to make a coin "pretty" by removing a layer of the original coin.
In the coin world, dipping has been "accepted" by mainstream coin grading companies whereas artificial toning is not. That's what the thread is discussing.
This is a very good answer. However, I'm going to clarify it just a little. Technically, we mostly "dip" things into a liquid. An Oreo cookie into a glass of milk is a good example. Therefore, anything we dip a coin into can be referred to as "dipping." The tiny correction I wish to make is the word "dipping" is generally reserved for the sole occasions when a coin is "dipped" into an acid of some type. @Baley added this below: "Dipping usually means thiourea solutions like jeweluster, e-z-est or other such brands." That does not cover acetone. Then it is "dipped" into a neutralizer. LOL!
@nickelsciolist, I hope you can appreciate and see both the humor and the specific usage of that term now.
I've only recently attempted my hand at dipping. The first coin was a 2018 proof palladium. It came from the mint with a FINGERPRINT. I got it off, and it graded 70! The only other times I've dipped is if I get an old gold coin with glue or some sort of gunk on it.
LOL, how did I do? Can you add something I may have left out or not posted in a clear manner?
Beautifully done. The only thing I would add is that an acetone soak is generally not considered "dipping". You have stated that but perhaps a bit more clarity would be helpful to some.
Sure hope you try acetone 1st before you strip a nice dirty old gold coin!
@jwitten said:
I've only recently attempted my hand at dipping. The first coin was a 2018 proof palladium. It came from the mint with a FINGERPRINT. I got it off, and it graded 70! The only other times I've dipped is if I get an old gold coin with glue or some sort of gunk on it.
@amwldcoin said:
Sure hope you try acetone 1st before you strip a nice dirty old gold coin!
@jwitten said:
I've only recently attempted my hand at dipping. The first coin was a 2018 proof palladium. It came from the mint with a FINGERPRINT. I got it off, and it graded 70! The only other times I've dipped is if I get an old gold coin with glue or some sort of gunk on it.
I would never dip a nice coin. I love dirty old gold, and gold with color. I only acetone dip to get unnatural glue/tape residue off.
Comments
I'm 100% against artificial toning.
Dipping on the other hand, while I prefer to not dip, I will if it's truly needed...
My YouTube Channel
I strongly believe that people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want to with their own damned bought-and-paid-for property.
And I also believe that I should not have to pay what they're asking for it if i don't want to buy it from them after they did it.
I prefer to buy coins that look like no one "did anything to them" to make them worth more. If They did it well enough that i can't tell, then maybe i don't care, as long as the price is fair.
Most untoned old coins and "rainbow" toned new coins look Very Fake to my eyes.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
@Baley said: "Most untoned old coins and "rainbow" toned new coins look Very Fake to my eyes."
No and yes. ATing just is not right jmo
Nicely stated!
Smitten with DBLCs.
I have a fully struck 1921 Peace $ that was originally in an NGC MS64 holder. It had great luster, but was a tad too dark. I cracked it and lightened it and sent it to PCGS. It came back MS65. I then sent it to CAC and it has a green bean on it. Two professional grading firms couldn't tell that I dipped it. So, unless I say something, for all intents and purposes, it is original.
>
Everyone already does. All grades are Net grade opinions. Glad you're coming around to the logical way of thinking. Of course, not every one agrees with the "grades" assigned, and that's what makes a market function.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
As you may know, I tend to agree with this. I have had Canadian customers who intentionally flipped the dollars to get equal thinking on the other side. They waited a decade or more for it to happen "naturally". So, just than flipping the coin, they didn't even change the original mint packaging. AT or NT?
I've read some seriously flawed nonsense in coin forums before (most from trolls and uninformed posters) but this statement ranks in the top THREE! Congratulations, now grading instructors all over the country are going to need to correct this BS whenever it comes up. I'll NEVER come around to the convoluted and silly copper grading system practiced by a very small minority of folks.
While all "commercial" coin grading is an opinion, when an MS coin gets a tad of friction wear and becomes an AU - IT IS NOT BEING NET GRADED! However when some copper "Ex-Pert" takes an as struck uncirculated Large cent with some rim problems that is already graded Uncirculated "details" by a major TPGS and writes that the coin is actually an XF, THAT IS NET GRADING and while it is humorous it is also very sad.
Dipping is OK for legitimate conservation purposes.
AT is fraud.
The fact that PCGS graded the coin 65 and CAC stickered it, says nothing about whether they could tell that it had been dipped.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
This. There is market acceptable dipping
Can you condone dipping and also oppose artificial toning.
Of course you can. I quick, light (sometimes diluted) dip that is properly rinsed is not in the same realm as intentional artificial toning.
I have dipped numerous hazy proofs without any adverse affect. Most of them slabbed as well. EZest and distilled water 50-50 followed by acetone.
Couldn't disagree more with those pharisaical attempts to parse "intent". On one hand, any attempt to intentionally accelerate toning by chemical alteration is dishonest, evil and not condoned. On the other hand, any attempt to intentionally reverse toning by chemical alternation is honest, pure and condoned.
They are both intentional chemical alterations and should be viewed through the same lens. Leave the coins alone.
I hate to admit this...but I don't even know what "dipping" is. Dipping in like a cleaning solution?
Dipping a coin refers to dipping it in a chemical solution, like acetone. It's purpose is being discussed. It can be used to remove chemical contaminates, ugly toning, etc - depending on the solutions used. It can be used for conservation, it can be used to make a coin "pretty" by removing a layer of the original coin.
In the coin world, dipping has been "accepted" by mainstream coin grading companies whereas artificial toning is not. That's what the thread is discussing.
Minor Variety Trade dollar's with chop marks set:
More Than It's Chopped Up To Be
To clarify, artificial toning that looks natural is also very often "accepted."
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Here it comes...
Smitten with DBLCs.
@Aotearoa said: "Here it comes..."
LOL, you are certainly very prescience.
Restoring coins back to an attractive state is an art that can be taught.
It is one of my favorite things to do with coins. Market acceptable dipping covers two operations:
Possibly because no one except the "doctor" who did it can prove it is accelerated by the hand of man.
This is a very good answer. However, I'm going to clarify it just a little. Technically, we mostly "dip" things into a liquid. An Oreo cookie into a glass of milk is a good example. Therefore, anything we dip a coin into can be referred to as "dipping." The tiny correction I wish to make is the word "dipping" is generally reserved for the sole occasions when a coin is "dipped" into an acid of some type. @Baley added this below: "Dipping usually means thiourea solutions like jeweluster, e-z-est or other such brands." That does not cover acetone. Then it is "dipped" into a neutralizer. LOL!
@nickelsciolist, I hope you can appreciate and see both the humor and the specific usage of that term now.
And there it was...
Smitten with DBLCs.
@Aotearoa said: "And there it was..."
LOL, how did I do? Can you
add something I may have left out or not posted in a clear manner?
I've only recently attempted my hand at dipping. The first coin was a 2018 proof palladium. It came from the mint with a FINGERPRINT. I got it off, and it graded 70! The only other times I've dipped is if I get an old gold coin with glue or some sort of gunk on it.
Beautifully done. The only thing I would add is that an acetone soak is generally not considered "dipping". You have stated that but perhaps a bit more clarity would be helpful to some.
Smitten with DBLCs.
Dipping usually means thiourea solutions like jeweluster, e-z-est or other such brands.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Thanks, I edited my post with your contribution so I would look intelligent.
Sure hope you try acetone 1st before you strip a nice dirty old gold coin!
I would never dip a nice coin. I love dirty old gold, and gold with color. I only acetone dip to get unnatural glue/tape residue off.
This sounds like it would be blasphemous to some purists. I hope I don't have nightmares about this...