PCGS Details grades - Cleaned versus "dipping"
kbbpll
Posts: 542 ✭✭✭✭
I have recently purchased a code 92 coin with the following on the label:
"PCGS SP Genuine
Cleaned - UNC Details"
On the PCGS Grading Standards page, View Details for code 92 Cleaning mostly seems focused on hairlines, and specifically excludes "dipping" - " 'Dipping' (the removal of toning with a chemical bath) is not considered cleaning under this definition".
So, does "dipping" then fall under code 91 Questionable Color, or code 94 Altered Surfaces? Neither of them specifically mention "dipping", but a treatment to remove toning seems to fall under code 91. A related question is - does "Cleaned" always involve hairlines, or could it be something else? I can see where a coin that is "dipped and wiped" with obvious hairlines would just get a 92, so at this point I'm curious where "just dipped" falls.
Comments
It all depends on what the coin looks like. Generally, coins below AU58 look terrible when dipped, even with no abrasive hairlines.. a dipped lower grade coin can receive the "cleaned" designation.
"Just dipped" is generally a coin with full unc details, and the dip only removed light toning and/ or prints, so has full luster. If it's difficult or impossible to tell it's been dipped, because it was done properly on a good candidate coin, it will straight grade.
Same detail coin but heavy toned, when dipped, will be dull and lifeless, as the luster will be stripped, as will multiple dips, each time takes off a little more, an overdipped coin looks smoothed and feels kinda "soapy" in the hand.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Dipping is a form of cleaning, but in many/most cases, one that is market acceptable. That means many dipped coins receive straight grades, as opposed to details grades. Dipping would not be considered “questionable color”. I don’t know whether some over-dipped coins end up with the “altered surfaces” designation as opposed to a “cleaned” one.
Cleaning does not always involve hairlines.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I think both posts above have very good answers. As usual, I'd like to add something most already know.
Cleaning can be only chemical (dipping); only mechanical (types of abrasion in various degrees); or a combination of both and not all cleaning is done at the same time. Therefore, when we dip a coin we are "cleaning" it and if we do a really good cleaning job it is called "conservation." The best cleaning (proper cleaning) is done in such a way that no one can tell for sure that it has been cleaned.
BTW, dipping is not the same as "questionable color" but the results of a dip can leave the coin with a "questionable color."
More information, skip to the last paragraph if you start glossing over.
This is a world coin, but a general grading question so I posted it here. The coin has two small areas of scratches, that are obvious in TV, so I was fully aware of them at time of purchase. The TV image is quite brown looking, but in hand it is purely silver in color, highly reflective, almost no hint of toning, and clearly UNC and SP.
There are three other images of this coin on PCGS. All three show the same scratches in one area, and one has the second patch of scratches. I had proven to my own satisfaction that both sets of these scratches are identical with at least one other coin, and thus exist on the die. So, since the obvious scratches are not cleaning, I posted this thread seeking an alternative explanation for the 92 code. The ones I came up with are -
1. there are other less obvious hairlines that caused "Cleaned"
2. it was "dipped" and this was the reason
3. something else, possibly a mistake
If it was "dipped", according to the responses above, I would have to say "market acceptable", but that is so subjective. When I opened the package, I went "wow". Totally not what I expected. To me it's stunning.
FYI, it is cert #37625549 and PCGS #32222 but I'm not sure if that helps. There are only 29 in the pop report so PCGS has not seen a whole lot of them.
So my followup on here - if #1 or #3, is it possible to get further details from PCGS on what exactly caused the Details grade? And with or without those specifics, what are people's experiences with resubmitting for straight grades? Do you submit your own "data" and/or "argument" and hope they consider it, or does that matter?
Dipping can result in "questionable color" if you're dipping copper to try and make it "red" again.
My YouTube Channel
Looking at the TV the coin should have graded 92B. Cleaned with Brillo.
If done correctly and with a coin which will benefit from the process dipping yields good results and is a necessary operational strategy in removing tarnish / damage from reaction with the atmosphere. Suggesting reading: Coin preservation handbook.
One coin shop I did business with decades ago offered this service as a courtesy.
That's the gut reaction. Have you looked further? Nearly every straight-graded example of these has "hairlines" crossing this way and that. Not looking for GTG here. I'm interested in the particulars of the 92 designation and others' experiences resubmitting them.
On a practical basis, it makes no difference what others have experienced in resubmitting details-grade coins. It will have no bearing on your coin. That said, my guess is that the overall percentage of such coins which, when resubmitted, straight grade, is quite small.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
A number of coins labeled 92 cleaned actually have coarse die polish lines. If otherwise problem free, they'll usually fix it, if one makes their case politely and thoroughly.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Similarly, there are certain 1806 quarters with what looks loke 98-damage to the shield.. it was the die that was damaged and all examples of that marriage display it.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
My view, dipping should fall under something other than a straight grade more than it does. Shipwreck gold that has been "conserved" but has the color of Bozo the Clown's hair, or gold that has been Jewelustered to look like a Cheestos Cheese Puff won't be in my collection. Nor will most any bright white colored silver or bright salmon copper coins with any age to them.
I find it very hard to believe that 3-4 PCGS professionals cannot tell raised die polish from incuse hairlines!
In the interest of fuller disclosure and not wishing to turn this into something that better belongs in the World forum, this is what I'm talking about. My coin is on the left, and straight SP66 examples on the right. When faced with this, my first thought was "well, was it dipping? Was it other hairlines?". @Baley, from your comment it appears that PCGS does pay attention to someone "making their case", and as such perhaps worth pursuing further. I have no intention of trying to play the grading game and profit - I searched for 15 years for one of these I could afford, and knowingly purchased it "as is" just to have one, and as I said it exceeded expectations.
If you rejected every 18th, 19th and early 20th century coin that has been dipped, there won’t be much left to collect. Some pieces, that anti-dip “experts” think are original, have really toned again.
If you don’t you want to buy coins that have been dipped, you are under no obligation to purchase them. My problem with the “no dipping purists” who are looking to turn other people’s coin into “details grade coins” is that it’s none of your business. There is a good, healthy market for original surface coins and coins that look like they have original surfaces. You should cultivate that segment and leave other people’s holdings alone.
Sometimes dipping is needed because the toning that is there makes the piece ugly and unsaleable, or it might even be doing further damage to the piece. If the purists won’t buy it because it’s ugly and they won’t buy it after is has been dipped, the bottom line is they won’t buy it.
There were some threads on "original surfaces" about a decade ago, but I think that too many coins have been dipped for a business-level of effort.
The PNG refused to include dipping in their definition of doctoring, even with active debate from respected members of these forums.
Also, CAC and JA approve of dipped coins.
When the 92 definition says "dipping is not considered cleaning under this definition", I generally take that to mean a light dip will be graded as problem free.
I agree that too many coins have been dipped, but the process goes in cycles. When I was a young collector in the 1960s and early ‘70s, a very large number coins were dipped, including Bust Dollars in VF and up. Some grading experts were telling collectors to avoid toned coins because they could hide problems. I remember one writing that one needed to really know what they were doing if they were looking to buy toned coins.
Let's try CAC and JA do not disapprove of skillfully-dipped coins
OP,
You have made your case about hairline die polish; and so far, from the posted images you are correct.
However, coins have two +1 sides. Some coins exist with only one problem side - including its edge. Additionally, photographing coins or examining them in only one orientation to the light can be VERY DECEPTIVE! Unless you view a coin in several positions, obvious evidence of abrasion in one position will be absent in another. That's why graders' tip and rotate coins (at the same time) under bright light.
LOL. A much needed correction.
I think you might be obsessing over the die polish. The reverse of the coin looks like the coin might have been cleaned more than the obverse, which are the images you've provided. Now, the TV might not be accurate to what it looks like in hand.
Also while "dipping" doesn't automatically equate to cleaned. Over-dipping will get you a cleaned grade sometimes. Dipping is not a separate category in my experience.
Overall, still a very nice looking coin. You can always resubmit or ask for reconsideration.
To me, granting a CAC sticker is approval (an active, explicit act) vs. not disapproving (a passive, implicit act).
Disapproving would be like having a weak for the grade or overgraded sticker. So “not disapproving” would be like not granting a sticker.
To me, there’s a difference between accepting something and approving of it. I accept dipping, but don’t approve of it. I’m sure I’m not alone in that regard.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
There is being neutral (e.g. doing nothing) and active approval (e.g. adding a sticker).
Different people have different approaches. I believe when you were a dealer your descriptions indicated dipping.
CAC’s approach seems to be the industry consensus.
@jmlanzaf - The reverse under magnification and the right lighting angle is nearly full of uniform vertical die polish lines. There is no hint of any other hairlines, and it appears quite pristine to me. Keep in mind these are specimen dies.
@Insider2 - I have looked at it at 10x from all angles, and under my lame microscope. There are areas of cross-hatched lines such that the same spot on the coin shows lines running one direction under one lighting angle, and 90 degrees opposite under another. You can see this on some other PCGS examples and on HA. The coin is also distinctly concave on the obverse, and convex on the reverse. (This is also true for some 1948 versions of this coin). The concave side causes accentuation of lines closer to the rim, which of course could have been physically accentuated due to the curvature whether die polishing or cleaning.
I'll post my best efforts at "what it really looks like" and probably move on. I'll follow up with PCGS on what resubmitting is like and take it from there. I consider it "market acceptable cleaning" regardless - I'm the market and it's acceptable.
Your statement is, absent any qualifiers, a global statement about CAC standards that may allow for an inference that is quite often NOT applicable. It lacks any semblance of nuance. You suck at logic, languaging or both.
I know him and his style well, but wouldn't pretend I speak for JA. But you are being semi-cleverly oppositional yet patently mealy-mouthed and sly and may mislead others with your posturing. With commensurate empathy balanced towards avoiding what Buddhists conceptualize as "idiot compassion" , in service to others who might otherwise honor your utterances, Shut up and get the hell off my lawn
CAC accepts coins that are dipped if they consider it to have been done with sufficient skill. Most dipped coins on the market would not meet their standard, but many, especially for some common dates and types, will.
Jesus wept
Qualifiers and nuance may be needed to achieve a desired result, but I’m just looking at things objectively.
There is nothing "clever" about saying that a dipped coin can be CAC approved. It was just a quick mention to indicate dipping is often market acceptable and not meant to be controversial. It has been this way since at least 2010:
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/797857/is-cac-changing-market-opinion-on-dipping
Also, this isn’t your lawn
Oh boy, a CAC thread. Thanks for all the other replies.
Thanks for the full coin photos @kbbpll
On the obverse, the field behind the neck does seem to be interesting and there seems to be some roughly horizontal lines in the field at 9 o'clock.
This statement is gobbledy-gook. Your claim of "objectivity" is a false claim of authority in the same way the "acceptable" and "appropriate" are misused. I suggest you've mistaken used simplistic simplicity for because an un-nuanced statement can get you elected President (sometimes). Try "alternate facts". Would you like me to school you in semiotics? Or are you going to school me in sophistry?
Try this on for size.
I helped JA start NGC.
I was its first grader.
He personally asked me to be on the PNG Coin Doctoring Definition committee. He and I talk often about this topic. He knows I can doctor coins and am artful and skillful. And truthful. This is not my lawn, it's my turf. My professional turf, and I've made hundreds of thousands of dollars on my conservation skills. For myself and others. And the industry knows and respects that. Good, bad, ethical, heinous, it is what it is, and I know. I am by no means unique in this regard.
I taught this stuff at ANA Summer Seminar.
So it is my turf.
By the end of the first day of class we would have reached an understanding, you and I, that while you might well declare yourself your own sovereign entity (bowing down to NO man, or some crap like that) , you were not really my numismatic co-equal.
I'm not assuming any authority. I was granted it..... for achievement.
I am sure others have felt my withering condescension and survived. And you are perfect in your imperfection.
So feel free to remain in denial. I'm telling other people your statements can be problematic. The "shut up" is for their ears, not your mouth.
@ColonelJessup I guess you're taking over the OP's lawn now
It's okay to have different opinions. I know you have a lot of experience which I do respect. However, here I'm just using logic. Even you indicate dipped coins can be CAC approved.
As for the PNG Coin Doctoring Definition committee, I read some of the deliberations and I know Mark, and presumably others, thought that dipping should be mentioned as a form of doctoring.
If you want to keep discussing this, please create another thread so we can both get off the OP's lawn and back to discussing the coin and topic here. However, my initial post on this not meant to be controversial, and you even agreed dipped coins can be stickered, so I'm not sure what's left to discuss.
Your initial post was lazy. You lack the necessary intellectual rigor. You think that I agree with you, but do not understand that I disagree with you also - you omitted critical details and conditions which, to my understanding, must be explicitly explicated..
I will happily start a thread titled "Dipping and Cleaning.. The same and different? How?". But only because, in New Jersey, it is raining on my cheeseburgers. And because @Feldini and I can do this duet with our eyes closed. His point about "accept vs. approve" is crucial to a nuanced understanding of the issues involved.
In my view, it's not lacking rigor, but accurate and making a point. It might make some feel better to say approval isn't happening, but that's what a sticker is to me.
My comment on Mark is that the group that wanted dipping to be classified as doctoring wasn't successful so those people may need to be "accepting" of the agreed upon definition. To me, this is different than stickering a coin.
If dipped properly nobody can tell the difference. These coins will straight grade, sticker or whatever else your heart desires. There is nothing more disgusting than toned silver. Dip them all I say.
The whole worlds off its rocker, buy Gold™.
Based on a dictionary meaning of “approval” copied below, you are correct. Based upon what the Colonel and I know of J.A., he might not see it the same way you do.
“:the belief that something or someone is good or acceptable”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
My experience is that you will not ever get an answer of what exactly caused the grade, other than "several professional graders looked at the coin independently and concluded it was cleaned". I would not send it in for reconsideration as the graders probably need to see the coin out of the plastic to make another determination objectively.
You like the coin, but not the label, I would crack it out and look it over carefully raw in various light and angles. If you still feel it is worthy of a grade, send it in again.
Ultimately, taking a bath with a loofah, is not the same as skinny dipping.
National Commemorative Medals of the U.S. Mint:
https://www.pcgs.com/setregistry/u-s-coins/medals-tokens/national-commemorative-medals-united-states-mint-1940-present/alltimeset/195526
He thinks it is. Let him have that.
As much as I loathe stepping into this particular minefield, I think the issue is what you are applying the approval to.
JA is not "approving" of dipping, he's approving of the coin even though it has been dipped. It is a somewhat different thing.
JA is known to love "original skin". As such, he's probably the last person I would accuse of giving approval to dipping.
I am seriously considering cracking it out. The Cook pedigree is more of a stain than a bonus,
@Zoins, the field behind the neck indeed is an area filled with lines. As is this SP66. Same orientation as mine.
Under the scope they look like this.
And there's a thread or wire fragment struck right into the coin.
People like pictures, right?
It's more than that. I've made and saved people millions of dollars over my career. People you recognize as world-class experts consider me the same. You condescend to me at the risk of costing other people besides yourselves advantage based on the depth and breadth of my knowledge.
Woe is you, eh?
I value your contempt more than I do many people's praise. Please (wait patiently and then) attack my new thread.
I assure you my positions are, to some degree, indefensible.
Dude, it was a joke. I'm in total agreement with you on this thread...well, maybe excepting the excessive self-congratulations!
I would look past the lines. The coin looks dipped to me in some of the pictures, especially on the reverse. Look at the luster breaks. That may be why it got the details grade.
It is a nice coin and very collectible, but it just might have gotten a slightly too aggresive dip at some point.
I accept PROPER dipping. I approve of it when done correctly, even if the coin "blows up unexpectedly." I dip coins every day. One of my nicknames is "Dipper." It is a "play" on my actual nickname - "Skipper."
More to add but I have been summoned to dinner.
Dude, I know when you and Trump are joking. And not. punctuation, emojis. Nada-licious on the icicle scale. Dude.
ROFLMAO
Keep in mind the reverse is convex, and I suck at pictures. Heritage has a comment on that, from a 2003 auction of a Belzberg specimen: "Don't be fooled by the slightly polished look of this coin, as all examples have the same characteristic and the lines are die striations, not hairline scratches. "
Looking at other HA images, I kind of agree with that, although I have no idea where that info came from. They also say "The obverse dies were later used to strike the concave version of the 1948 specimen 50 cent", which allows questioning anything else they said, because the 1948 obverse was completely different than the 1947ML. It was the whole reason they made the 1947 Maple Leaf coins in 1948 - they were waiting for new obverse dies from England without the ET IND IMP - he was no longer emperor of India. Hard to believe someone could get that so wrong.
If you want more fun, have a look at this SP66 sold August 2015. Cleaned?
https://coins.ha.com/itm/canada/world-coins/canada-george-vi-specimen-50-cents-maple-leaf-curved-7-1947-sp66-pcgs-/a/3041-29125.s?ic4=GalleryView-ShortDescription-071515
No, that coin doesn't have the same "cleaned" look that yours does. At least, to my eye, the Heritage coin looks more "original" or maybe "more professionally dipped".
Green mottled originality!
Ha, I just noticed both coins have the exact same scratch through the G. Have to be careful calling stuff "hairlines".
What coin is that? That looks chemically cleaned. That's the Heritage 66???