How to tell if a CAM or DCAM coin has been dipped?

mavs2583

Hi all,

I'm looking to buy a proof seated liberty dime and came across a couple that really interest me. I love their look but am concerned that coins with these characteristics may have been dipped and therefore may turn in the holders soon after purchase. Is there anything I should be looking for as a telltale sign of dipping? Here are the two examples I'm looking at specifically.

1887 is graded PCGS PR66CAM and the 1891 is graded PCGS PR65+DCAM

MFeld

Sometimes, there’s solid evidence, but other times, just clues. In this case, the fact that a coin from that era is color-free, makes it extremely likely the coin has been dipped. Additionally, the areas of apparent light splotchiness on each side could be indications of remnants of toning that was once present.

mavs2583

@MFeld said:
Sometimes, there’s solid evidence, but other times, just clues. In this case, the fact that a coin from that era is color-free, makes it extremely likely the coin has been dipped. Additionally, the areas of apparent light splotchiness on each side could be indications of remnants of toning that was once present.

Thank you for your response! I assumed the 1891 had a good chance of being dipped, it seems almost too perfect.
For the 1887 example, are you saying that the areas on the side with toning could indicate that it was old toning that wasn't removed during dipping?

MFeld

@mavs2583 said:

@MFeld said:
Sometimes, there’s solid evidence, but other times, just clues. In this case, the fact that a coin from that era is color-free, makes it extremely likely the coin has been dipped. Additionally, the areas of apparent light splotchiness on each side could be indications of remnants of toning that was once present.

Thank you for your response! I assumed the 1891 had a good chance of being dipped, it seems almost too perfect.
For the 1887 example, are you saying that the areas on the side with toning could indicate that it was old toning that wasn't removed during dipping?

You’re most welcome and I apologize for the confusion. Part of my previous comments pertained to the 1891. I don’t feel as if I’m getting a real good look at the toning on the 1887. But it’s possible that the darker areas represent toning that had etched into the surface of the coin and did not come off in a dipping. Please understand that I’m just speculating.

mavs2583

@MFeld said:

@mavs2583 said:

@MFeld said:
Sometimes, there’s solid evidence, but other times, just clues. In this case, the fact that a coin from that era is color-free, makes it extremely likely the coin has been dipped. Additionally, the areas of apparent light splotchiness on each side could be indications of remnants of toning that was once present.

Thank you for your response! I assumed the 1891 had a good chance of being dipped, it seems almost too perfect.
For the 1887 example, are you saying that the areas on the side with toning could indicate that it was old toning that wasn't removed during dipping?

You’re most welcome and I apologize for the confusion. Part of my previous comments pertained to the 1891. I don’t feel as if I’m getting a real good look at the toning on the 1887. But it’s possible that the darker areas represent toning that had etched into the surface of the coin and did not come off in a dipping. Please understand that I’m just speculating.

Once again, thank you. I was able to find older pictures of the 1887 when it was sold a decade ago. Seems, in my opinion, to be a good sign that the coin is in similar condition to its more recent photography.

ColonelJessup

The 1887 has been dipped. The cloud above and about the head is burnt metal. The blotchiness on the reverse comes from the scarring that variegated multiple layers of corrosion leave behind. They are not residue. The blotch of color on Liberty's lap is poor rinsing; the secondary toning that formed on the rims at the same time is market acceptable. To some. Not CAC as a PR64 .

The "tells" are not apparent for the 1891. The image can't be analyzed with that lack of size and granularity. However, It would be highly unlikely that any would survive so "originally white". But plenty of artfully conserved DCAMs are not only market-acceptable, but CAC-acceptable too. Yes if PR64+DCAM CAC ... Those white things around the head look like failed assassination attempts

mavs2583

I appreciate the information. That's very disappointing to hear. Dipping is the equivalent of cleaning to me IMO, and spending 4 figures on a dipped coin is hard to do.

MFeld

@mavs2583 said:
I appreciate the information. That's very disappointing to hear. Dipping is the equivalent of cleaning to me IMO, and spending 4 figures on a dipped coin is hard to do.

Dipping is a form of cleaning. However, while in varying degrees, you, I and others are opposed to it, a majority of market participants find it to be acceptable, if not desirable. Some buyers spend five or six (and maybe even seven) figures on dipped coins.

mavs2583

Thank you Mark. I may still make a purchase on one of these if I can get a fair price (I find them to be beautiful coins, and I don't find the worn seated liberties attractive at all), but I will take more time to research others as they come up, and perhaps find one without as many questions as these have.

privatecoin

Artificially white....

DisneyFan

I bought a blast white coin from the 1910s a few years ago. In my safe deposit box it developed a horrible sploosh in the upper obverse corner. It was so bad that when I showed it to the selling dealer, it was bought back. Since then I've seen the exact coin appear in two different auctions and finally on a dealer's website as "amazing toning."

It's discouraging to think CAC would accept artfully conserved coins. I'd like to think a CAC would protect one; but, a coin could always turn in a few years afterwards.

ColonelJessup

@MFeld said:

@mavs2583 said:
I appreciate the information. That's very disappointing to hear. Dipping is the equivalent of cleaning to me IMO, and spending 4 figures on a dipped coin is hard to do.

Dipping is a form of cleaning. However, while in varying degrees, you, I and others are opposed to it, a majority of market participants find it to be acceptable, if not desirable. Some buyers spend five or six (and maybe even seven) figures on dipped coins.

but very few buyers spend six and seven figures on dark ugly coins.

@Mfeld and I both put in time as conferees on the PNG Coin Doctoring Definition Task Force quite a few years ago.

By the strictest of definitions, in that there is destruction of surface molecules, one could loosely categorize immersion in an acidic or basic solution as "cleaning". Certainly the opprobrium that attached to cleaning by the Van Allen-Mallis dictum "and then after you dip it, be sure to scour it in baking soda so you can see the die cracks more clearly".
In the 60's and 70's when I was starting to learn , "cleaned" was often intended to say "with hairlines from a perhaps ill-advised or unintentional wiping with some cloth (or Brillo)"

In the purest theological sense, the coin is no longer virgin intacta. For a skilled and artful conservationist, the result may sustain an argument on, not "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?", to the rather more cynically reductive "How many angels is it acceptable to kill if the pin can retain its sharpness".

Only tertiarily-involved with distribution of the two-hundred-plus bag Continental Bank Hoard, but further educated by what I see fellow pros having sent to our host via bulk submissions, there are an easy million Morgan dollars more acceptable to the simplistic MS63 and 64 buyers that are owner's hands today rather than the grunge so often encountered in bulk amounts.

The PCGS PR68 Extremely High Relief CAC just sold for $3.6M or so, or the one Sil DiGenova dipped under David Hall's aegis in the PCGS offices that then graded PR69?

NOT the same ring in our circus.

ColonelJessup

@DisneyFan said:
I bought a blast white coin from the 1910s a few years ago. In my safe deposit box it developed a horrible sploosh in the upper obverse corner. It was so bad that when I showed it to the selling dealer, it was bought back. Since then I've seen the exact coin appear in two different auctions and finally on a dealer's website as "amazing toning."

It's discouraging to think CAC would accept artfully conserved coins. I'd like to think a CAC would protect one; but, a coin could always turn in a few years afterwards.

Was this coin CAC approved before it went into your SDB? if not, of what relevance is it to this argument?

Your understanding of "skilled and artful conservation" needs expansion. It will only come incrementally... Welcome

mavs2583

From the discussion here, it seems as if it's accepted practice to grade and sticker early proofs regardless of obvious dipping. If you buy a regular coin that's been cleaned, it is labeled as such and the prices bear that difference. What is stopping the grading companies from doing the same here? Is it because there's more uncertainty about what has been dipped and what hasn't?

ColonelJessup

@mavs2583 said:
From the discussion here, it seems as if it's accepted practice to grade and sticker early proofs regardless of obvious dipping. If you buy a regular coin that's been cleaned, it is labeled as such and the prices bear that difference. What is stopping the grading companies from doing the same here? Is it because there's more uncertainty about what has been dipped and what hasn't?

So it's "accepted practice", but by whom and for how many?

Obvious is not the same as blatantly eye-ball-burning.
There are numerous titrations of thioureic and other acids AND bases whose applications are scientific and artful.
And too many lazy locutions where someone says "dipped" when they mean immersed.

jmlanzaf

@ColonelJessup said:

@mavs2583 said:
From the discussion here, it seems as if it's accepted practice to grade and sticker early proofs regardless of obvious dipping. If you buy a regular coin that's been cleaned, it is labeled as such and the prices bear that difference. What is stopping the grading companies from doing the same here? Is it because there's more uncertainty about what has been dipped and what hasn't?

So it's "accepted practice", but by whom and for how many?

Obvious is not the same as blatantly eye-ball-burning.
There are numerous titrations of thioureic and other acids AND bases whose applications are scientific and artful.
And too many lazy locutions where someone says "dipped" when they mean immersed.

Yeah, someone should define "dipped". A little "dip" in acetone isn't the same as a "dip" in silver polish.

And, per this thread, isn't the real question whether the surface is stable, regardless of whether it was dipped or not?

keets

Is there anything I should be looking for as a telltale sign of dipping??

it might not be possible to know with 100% certainty whether a coin has been dipped or not, but there are signs such as ColJ has pointed out which can help make a determination. knowing that doesn't really help to know whether the coin will "turn" in the holder. that depends on how well it was done and how stable it is going into the holder. I think that with dipping and toning the surest way to know how stable the coin is might be the age of the holder. if something has been in a holder for 10-20-30 years, it will probably look like it does now if you store it in a safe manner.

one thing I accept from reading accounts from old timers, looking at lots of coins and my own personal experience is that most coins from the mid-1800's which are brilliant have at some point been dipped. the same goes for red copper. metal ages.

MFeld

@keets said:
Is there anything I should be looking for as a telltale sign of dipping??

it might not be possible to know with 100% certainty whether a coin has been dipped or not, but there are signs such as ColJ has pointed out which can help make a determination. knowing that doesn't really help to know whether the coin will "turn" in the holder. that depends on how well it was done and how stable it is going into the holder. I think that with dipping and toning the surest way to know how stable the coin is might be the age of the holder. if something has been in a holder for 10-20-30 years, it will probably look like it does now if you store it in a safe manner.

one thing I accept from reading accounts from old timers, looking at lots of coins and my own personal experience is that most coins from the mid-1800's which are brilliant have at some point been dipped. the same goes for red copper. metal ages.

While there will be be exceptions (including large quantities of Morgan dollars), as a general statement, you can probably safely add several decades to your “mid-1800’s” timeframe.

Joey29

@MFeld said:

@keets said:
Is there anything I should be looking for as a telltale sign of dipping??

it might not be possible to know with 100% certainty whether a coin has been dipped or not, but there are signs such as ColJ has pointed out which can help make a determination. knowing that doesn't really help to know whether the coin will "turn" in the holder. that depends on how well it was done and how stable it is going into the holder. I think that with dipping and toning the surest way to know how stable the coin is might be the age of the holder. if something has been in a holder for 10-20-30 years, it will probably look like it does now if you store it in a safe manner.

one thing I accept from reading accounts from old timers, looking at lots of coins and my own personal experience is that most coins from the mid-1800's which are brilliant have at some point been dipped. the same goes for red copper. metal ages.

While there will be be exceptions (including large quantities of Morgan dollars), as a general statement, you can probably safely add several decades to your “mid-1800’s” timeframe.

Mark are most blast white Morgan’s not dipped as they were stored in bags and released by the treasury in the 1950 and 1960’s etc. directly to dealers? Is there any tell tale signs of a dipped Morgan?

MFeld

@Joey29 said:

@MFeld said:

@keets said:
Is there anything I should be looking for as a telltale sign of dipping??

it might not be possible to know with 100% certainty whether a coin has been dipped or not, but there are signs such as ColJ has pointed out which can help make a determination. knowing that doesn't really help to know whether the coin will "turn" in the holder. that depends on how well it was done and how stable it is going into the holder. I think that with dipping and toning the surest way to know how stable the coin is might be the age of the holder. if something has been in a holder for 10-20-30 years, it will probably look like it does now if you store it in a safe manner.

one thing I accept from reading accounts from old timers, looking at lots of coins and my own personal experience is that most coins from the mid-1800's which are brilliant have at some point been dipped. the same goes for red copper. metal ages.

While there will be be exceptions (including large quantities of Morgan dollars), as a general statement, you can probably safely add several decades to your “mid-1800’s” timeframe.

Mark are most blast white Morgan’s not dipped as they were stored in bags and released by the treasury in the 1950 and 1960’s etc. directly to dealers? Is there any tell tale signs of a dipped Morgan?

Many Morgan’s from bags were color-free, though I can’t claim to know the percentages of those, vs. toned ones. Some signs of dipped examples are subdued luster (from over-dipping) and light/whitish splotchiness or stained looking areas, which can be remnants of toning that was once present. Another sign is re-toning, that can occur when a coin is improperly rinsed after a dip.

mavs2583

@MFeld said:

@Joey29 said:

@MFeld said:

@keets said:
Is there anything I should be looking for as a telltale sign of dipping??

it might not be possible to know with 100% certainty whether a coin has been dipped or not, but there are signs such as ColJ has pointed out which can help make a determination. knowing that doesn't really help to know whether the coin will "turn" in the holder. that depends on how well it was done and how stable it is going into the holder. I think that with dipping and toning the surest way to know how stable the coin is might be the age of the holder. if something has been in a holder for 10-20-30 years, it will probably look like it does now if you store it in a safe manner.

one thing I accept from reading accounts from old timers, looking at lots of coins and my own personal experience is that most coins from the mid-1800's which are brilliant have at some point been dipped. the same goes for red copper. metal ages.

While there will be be exceptions (including large quantities of Morgan dollars), as a general statement, you can probably safely add several decades to your “mid-1800’s” timeframe.

Mark are most blast white Morgan’s not dipped as they were stored in bags and released by the treasury in the 1950 and 1960’s etc. directly to dealers? Is there any tell tale signs of a dipped Morgan?

Many Morgan’s from bags were color-free, though I can’t claim to know the percentages of those, vs. toned ones. Some signs of dipped examples are subdued luster (from over-dipping) and light/whitish splotchiness or stained looking areas, which can be remnants of toning that was once present. Another sign is re-toning, that can occur when a coin is improperly rinsed after a dip.

Could a coin that has been dipped still display cartwheel luster?

MFeld

@mavs2583 said:

@MFeld said:

@Joey29 said:

@MFeld said:

@keets said:
Is there anything I should be looking for as a telltale sign of dipping??

it might not be possible to know with 100% certainty whether a coin has been dipped or not, but there are signs such as ColJ has pointed out which can help make a determination. knowing that doesn't really help to know whether the coin will "turn" in the holder. that depends on how well it was done and how stable it is going into the holder. I think that with dipping and toning the surest way to know how stable the coin is might be the age of the holder. if something has been in a holder for 10-20-30 years, it will probably look like it does now if you store it in a safe manner.

one thing I accept from reading accounts from old timers, looking at lots of coins and my own personal experience is that most coins from the mid-1800's which are brilliant have at some point been dipped. the same goes for red copper. metal ages.

While there will be be exceptions (including large quantities of Morgan dollars), as a general statement, you can probably safely add several decades to your “mid-1800’s” timeframe.

Mark are most blast white Morgan’s not dipped as they were stored in bags and released by the treasury in the 1950 and 1960’s etc. directly to dealers? Is there any tell tale signs of a dipped Morgan?

Many Morgan’s from bags were color-free, though I can’t claim to know the percentages of those, vs. toned ones. Some signs of dipped examples are subdued luster (from over-dipping) and light/whitish splotchiness or stained looking areas, which can be remnants of toning that was once present. Another sign is re-toning, that can occur when a coin is improperly rinsed after a dip.

Could a coin that has been dipped still display cartwheel luster?

Absolutely!

mavs2583

@keets said:
Is there anything I should be looking for as a telltale sign of dipping??

it might not be possible to know with 100% certainty whether a coin has been dipped or not, but there are signs such as ColJ has pointed out which can help make a determination. knowing that doesn't really help to know whether the coin will "turn" in the holder. that depends on how well it was done and how stable it is going into the holder. I think that with dipping and toning the surest way to know how stable the coin is might be the age of the holder. if something has been in a holder for 10-20-30 years, it will probably look like it does now if you store it in a safe manner.

one thing I accept from reading accounts from old timers, looking at lots of coins and my own personal experience is that most coins from the mid-1800's which are brilliant have at some point been dipped. the same goes for red copper. metal ages.

Thanks for the info

mavs2583

This thread has been incredibly helpful in ways I didn’t expect.

ricko

Excellent thread with input from experts. For those concerned about this issue, I recommend reading the inputs from our forum experts several times. Cheers, RickO

PerryHall

You can't tell if it's been dipped but you sure can tell when it's been over-dipped.

jesbroken

I do not feel the 1891 has been dipped, at least anywhere near recently. It, btw, would be my choice for the selection. My 1890 had been dipped when conserved by NGC and I was never happy with it again.
Good luck(hope you get the 91').
Jim

DisneyFan

@ColonelJessup said:

@DisneyFan said:
I bought a blast white coin from the 1910s a few years ago. In my safe deposit box it developed a horrible sploosh in the upper obverse corner. It was so bad that when I showed it to the selling dealer, it was bought back. Since then I've seen the exact coin appear in two different auctions and finally on a dealer's website as "amazing toning."

Was this coin CAC approved before it went into your SDB? if not, of what relevance is it to this argument?

No.

Is it possible that rolls of blast white coins from the 1910s and later, exist that have never been dipped? I bought my coin with that assumption.

mavs2583

@jesbroken said:
I do not feel the 1891 has been dipped, at least anywhere near recently. It, btw, would be my choice for the selection. My 1890 had been dipped when conserved by NGC and I was never happy with it again.
Good luck(hope you get the 91').
Jim

Thank you. The 1891 is my favorite of the two as well

MFeld

@jesbroken said:
I do not feel the 1891 has been dipped, at least anywhere near recently. It, btw, would be my choice for the selection. My 1890 had been dipped when conserved by NGC and I was never happy with it again.
Good luck(hope you get the 91').
Jim

It sure looks dipped to me, regardless of when that might have occurred.

Klif50

I have made this statement many times over the years but will repeat it again. In the mid 1970's up to about 1981 I worked in a coin shop in Laurel, Maryland. During those years we dipped almost every coin that went into the case or went out to other dealers. Signs of toning on any of the coins was not acceptable during this time. Even well circulated coins were dipped. Dipped, rinsed in cold water from the sink faucet and patted dry with paper towel. I really believe a large number of those coins were under rinsed and and enthusiastically patted dry with the paper towel. Not something to be proud of but it was the trend of time, at least in our part of the market.

Eldorado9

Here is one immutable truth with regards to untouched, fully original toned proofs from the late 1800's and early 1900's. They aren't making any more of them.....period. First they were lost to melting, then more were lost to rigorous scrubbing with baking soda, etc. then what remained, were lost to dipping. Those that remain today in a pristine state are the few proud survivors.

PerryHall

@Eldorado9 said:
First they were lost to melting, then more were lost to rigorous scrubbing with baking soda, etc. then what remained, were lost to dipping. Those that remain today in a pristine state are the few proud survivors.

Agree. Also, you can add than many old proofs entered circulation when their owners were desperate for spending money during hard times.

Eldorado9

@PerryHall said:

@Eldorado9 said:
First they were lost to melting, then more were lost to rigorous scrubbing with baking soda, etc. then what remained, were lost to dipping. Those that remain today in a pristine state are the few proud survivors.

Agree. Also, you can add than many old proofs entered circulation when their owners were desperate for spending money during hard times.

Excellent point @PerryHall It's true, many proofs were put into commerce, and those show up today as PF-50, or something less than PF-60....I am sure it was tempting back then, if you had say a proof Trade Dollar in your pocket around 1876 or so, to just go spend it on a lot of stuff! It's almost a miracle that any proofs exist in a fully un-touched state!

PerryHall

@Eldorado9 said:

@PerryHall said:

@Eldorado9 said:
First they were lost to melting, then more were lost to rigorous scrubbing with baking soda, etc. then what remained, were lost to dipping. Those that remain today in a pristine state are the few proud survivors.

Agree. Also, you can add than many old proofs entered circulation when their owners were desperate for spending money during hard times.

Excellent point @PerryHall It's true, many proofs were put into commerce, and those show up today as PF-50, or something less than PF-60....I am sure it was tempting back then, if you had say a proof Trade Dollar in your pocket around 1876 or so, to just go spend it on a lot of stuff! It's almost a miracle that any proofs exist in a fully un-touched state!

That works for proof only issues but if there were also business strikes made, after a certain level of wear, a proof coin will lose its identity as being a proof.

ColonelJessup

@PerryHall said:

@Eldorado9 said:

@PerryHall said:

@Eldorado9 said:
First they were lost to melting, then more were lost to rigorous scrubbing with baking soda, etc. then what remained, were lost to dipping. Those that remain today in a pristine state are the few proud survivors.

Agree. Also, you can add than many old proofs entered circulation when their owners were desperate for spending money during hard times.

Excellent point @PerryHall It's true, many proofs were put into commerce, and those show up today as PF-50, or something less than PF-60....I am sure it was tempting back then, if you had say a proof Trade Dollar in your pocket around 1876 or so, to just go spend it on a lot of stuff! It's almost a miracle that any proofs exist in a fully un-touched state!

That works for proof only issues but if there were also business strikes made, after a certain level of wear, a proof coin will lose its identity as being a proof.

That wear would have to go down below the point where proof diagnostics could no longer be determined. Rims to AG in order for squared and perpendicularly sharp devices conjoining the fields. Those are identifiers, if you will, but not its identity.

Elcontador

Could a coin that has been dipped still display cartwheel luster?

Absolutely!

I have one of them. A dip done which removes crud which has built up on the surface of a coin and only removes such crud, can leave you with a con with nice cartwheel luster.

coastaljerseyguy

@Klif50 said:
I have made this statement many times over the years but will repeat it again. In the mid 1970's up to about 1981 I worked in a coin shop in Laurel, Maryland. During those years we dipped almost every coin that went into the case or went out to other dealers. Signs of toning on any of the coins was not acceptable during this time. Even well circulated coins were dipped. Dipped, rinsed in cold water from the sink faucet and patted dry with paper towel. I really believe a large number of those coins were under rinsed and and enthusiastically patted dry with the paper towel. Not something to be proud of but it was the trend of time, at least in our part of the market.

Yikes! If that was common practice, I guess that is why so many key date coins have that look like they really shouldn't be in a 'clean' holder. I was looking at 89, 92 and 93 CC Morgans online recently and so many have that washed out look. What a pity.