Interpreting Surfaces - Is This What a Dipped AU Coin Looks Like?

Shurke

Some time ago I picked up a 1928-D dime straight graded by PCGS at AU50. It looked okay in the sellers pics and in the Trueview, but upon viewing it in hand, my immediate impression was that it had been cleaned. It certainly wasn't abrasively cleaned, having no hairlines of that nature, but its appearance is unnaturally bright, and it has a weird, processed sort of quality.

I took a couple of pics of this dime sandwiched between good coins of a similar grade. The 28-D doesn't look too awful when viewed from straight on, but when you look at it from an oblique angle, it has a noticeably dark appearance.

Is this what you would expect a dipped AU coin to look like? Or in your experience, is it something else that would cause this appearance?

GaCoinGuy

How the surface looks after dipping really depends on a number of factors including the agent the coin is dipped in and how it is rinsed. From the picture shown, the 28-D looks like it may have been dipped, but it has been awhile and has retoned. The other two, from my view, do not appear to have been dipped.

TomB

Your post is a very good summation of what can be expected on dipped, circulated coinage. Of course, how a coin will look can vary just as how a completely original coin can look. Regardless, I agree that the 1928-D certainly appears to be a dipped coin and would avoid pieces like that for my own collection.

ricko

@Shurke... Your pictures indicate the possibility of having been dipped. Hard to tell conclusively from just those pictures.... If dipped, it may be tarnishing from residues not removed. Cheers, RickO

coastaljerseyguy

Agree with above posts, luster definitely lacking for an AU coin and compared to the other 2 coins.

Shurke

Thanks, everyone. It’s definitely a coin I would have avoided if I’d seen it in person before I purchased it. Luckily, it’s a relatively inexpensive mistake as things in the coin world go.

I guess I’ll set it aside and keep it as a reference.

pursuitofliberty

Although a fools errand from images, I also pulled up the TV's to see what I thought.

The 28-D does look dipped and worked (cleaned) a little, where the 26 and the 42/1 appear much more original

Shurke

You know, it’s funny about the 28-D—I keep looking at it and thinking it looks too smooth. But even under 30x magnification I can’t spot anything that would indicate light burnishing or anything of that nature.

In terms of originality, I really like both the 26 and 42/1. Heck not just originality, I really those two in all terms.