Is a dipped and retoned coin more acceptable than a coin that was only dipped?
DisneyFan
Posts: 2,093 ✭✭✭✭✭
Is a dipped and retoned coin more acceptable than a coin that was only dipped?
This is a public poll: others will see what you voted for.
0
Comments
As I just posted in another thread:
Many dipped coins retone on their own, as their surfaces become more reactive. That’s typically (though not always) acceptable and to be distinguished from coins that are artificially retoned.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I was referring to artificially retoned coins. Is it normal to refer to a coin as being "dipped and retoned" when the toning itself appears natural?
In that case door #3 as applied to classics.
Agreed new info changes my opinion
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
I didn’t know which poll answer to pick, too many variables. But here’s what I think. If a coin was dipped and it retoned it often ends up with better eye appeal than when it was freshly dipped. But not always, sometimes they look really bad. Like regular toning, in general if it retones slowly it tends to look better, but if it retoned quickly it often looks like environmental damage or looks artificial.
Mr_Spud
Yes. Many people will dip a coin and then put them in an album or paper envelope or wrap them in tissue paper that has sulfur in it for a while to let them retone on their own 'naturally'.
Toning is just one component of age, the layers of skins are all but impossible to replicate and will tell the tale
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
Lots of dipped silver tones again on its own and many of us refer to this as “dipped and retoned”. I know I typically use the phrase that way.
One of the little, nasty secrets of this industry is that freshly dipped coins typically have a highly reactive surface and many dealers and collectors will dip high end AU or MS coins and then place them in high sulfur acidic holders to hopefully get more eye appealing coinage.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
I assumed you meant natural re-toning; if we are talking about the funky colors or uniform first cycle brown shades vs. a properly/gently dipped white coin, I’d take the latter on average even as someone who prefers them crusty and original.
If the latter spends a decade in an envelope or album and develops some really attractive toning, that’s a different story.
There is not an answer here for me. Most of the coins that collectors and dealers call “original” have been dipped and have retoned. Whether or not it’s good or bad depends upon the toning, and the judgements about the toning which are subjective.
Whether or not I buy such a coin depends upon my perception of its beauty and whether or not I think that it is stable. Many dipped coins, which have not been properly, dipped will continue to tone, sometimes with disastrous results. Those pieces are to be avoided, especially of they have slabbed. You can’t neutralize what’s going on if you can’t get at it.
Yes, it is.
The poll needs to specify AT and then the answer is that AT is not acceptable. NT retoning is completely acceptable.
"Artificially natural"
If a coin is toned, I like it to be original toning. If it is dipped, I like it white or mostly white with good luster.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
So many coins were dipped back in the day they hard to avoid. 25 years ago on Ebay I would buy cheap dipped rare coins raw acetone them and put them into my collection as filler coins. After 25 years those surfaces have toned again and are more acceptable than a blast white AU 1835 25C or 1860's dollar.