Yes or NO
BigDipper
Posts: 54 ✭✭
Do you consider dipping "coin doctoring"?
Go METS!!!
0
BigDipper
Posts: 54 ✭✭
Comments
K S
hey bigdipper, why not change the title to have your question in it? might attract more responces.
ABSOLUTELY
K S
Hi Karl!
Russ, NCNE
NO in others
That said, I don't dip coins and try to avoid dipped coins
1. 7-17-81 Warrenton GC Driver 310 yards 7th Hole (Par 4)
2. 5-22-99 Warrenton GC 6 iron 189 yards 10th Hole
3. 7-23-99 Oak Meadow CC 5 iron 180 yards 17th Hole
4. 9-19-99 Country Lake GC 6 iron 164 yards 15th Hole
5. 8-30-09 Country Lake GC Driver 258 yards 17th Hole (Par 4)
Collector of Barber Halves, Commems, MS64FBL Frankies, Full Step Jeffersons & Mint state Washington Quarters
Coinlearner, Ahrensdad, Nolawyer, RG, coinlieutenant, Yorkshireman, lordmarcovan, Soldi, masscrew, JimTyler, Relaxn, jclovescoins
Now listen boy, I'm tryin' to teach you sumthin' . . . . that ain't no optical illusion, it only looks like an optical illusion.
My mind reader refuses to charge me....
<< <i>Do you consider dipping "coin doctoring"? >>
YES
"The silver is mine and the gold is mine,' declares the LORD GOD Almighty."
Michael
Isn't NCS dipping (conserving if you like)?
Tough call on this one.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
That is not to say dipped coins are not beautiful, collectible, prized items of Americana. But they've been altered and minute amounts of surface are forever lost.
I also think collectors in future generations will be upset at our "conservation" methods and consider it as destructive as we think of previous generations' polishing, abrasive cleaning, and design retooling.
No good deed will go unpunished.
Free Money Search
Big dippers don't like you to raise this subject.
Is Bill Clinton in the audience? ? ? MAULUMALL
Don
Email TwoDollarDon
It depends on the outcome of the dip. Some come out better (Come on, how many "blast white" silver coins have remained so over 15, 25, 50 or more years), and some come out yielding a "body bag" from the grading companies. I have so limited experience in this that I hesitate even commenting except for the fact that I tried to sell a darkly toned slabbed coin from a Major grading company twice without results, but, after cracking it out and dipping it , it sold immediately. I have since dipped a selection ( 6-8) with varied results. I honestly am divided on this subject.
I can state though that I abhor "toned coins" - qualification - "artificially toned coins" which I feel are the mass majority.
Dan
Tom
First POTD 9/19/05!!
mcinnes@mailclerk.ecok.edu">dmcinnes@mailclerk.ecok.edu
To answer your question. Yes.
Do <i>properly</> cleaned coins bother me? No.
Then again, I'd be more apt to give an ugly puppy a home.
BOSTON BOB
How many times have we seen a PF69 or PF70 coin in a slab look like crap? I think if it's dipped once, it will need to be dipped again, and again, and so on to keep its "appearance." I prefer natural. It says something about the history of the coin.
As for dipping = doctoring, I'll say no.
With that in mind, some forms of dipping are obviously fine (acetone to remove PVC) and some are obviously not (soaking your circulated barber overnight in Jeweluster).
oh, & "HI russ!"
K S
I also like Baseball's analogy; if you want to use the numismatic term of "coin doctor" loosely, then toning can be loosely defined as
tarnish - n, discoloration, stain, belmish; v, to dull the luster of, or discolor by oxidation
instead of using it for its intended purpose to describe a,
patina - a film or incrustation, .. produced by oxidation on the surface and often esteemded as being of ornemental value; surface film or coloration appearing gradually on some surface, esp as the reuslt of age or long use
What I don't understand is why after agreeing (in prinicple) to certain numismatic terms, we debate the "literal" meanings and semantics of certain words. To effectively communicate on needs to know your audience and define your terms. To me, its nonsensical to argue or support your numismatic position, using numismatic terminology, yet, NOT adhere to the accepted usage of those terms. Its no wonder there is constant disagreement.
Walt
<< <i>No, not in the numismatic sense .... "coin doctor" ... describe processes intended to hide or somehow obscure some problem or otherwise present a coin as being more desireable or valuable than it really is. >>
then "dipping" fits the bill perfectly! the process of removing natural, though "unattractive toning" to make a coin appear more desirable happens all the time. it is the most prevalent form of doctoring there is!
why do you think dipping occurs? i, being the cynic that i am , somehow just can't bring myself to believe that truckloads & truckloads of morgan dollars, walking liberty halves, & mercury dimes have been "dipped" because of the dastardly damage that was resulting from all that natural toning!!! methinks they were "dipped" to make them appear more desirable & valuable than they really were, which is exactly how you just defined "doctoring".
i don't buy the excuse "it's been done a long time" & "so & so authority said so". slavery existed for a long time, & doesn't seem right to me either, even though state governments, yes, the FEDERAL gov't (& what higher authority is there?) recognized it as acceptable practice!
equating something as benign as coin-collecting w/ the issue of slavery? hardly fair, but you get the point. just because the largest numismatic entities say it's "OK" DOES NOT make it so.
<< <i>No, if ICG, ICTA, NGC, PCGS, and PNG say it's not, then who am I to disagree with them. >>
who are you? friend, i hope you are a coin-collector who realizes that YOUR opinion is as important as that of any of those entities you mentioned, but more significantly, YOUR opinion ought to be MORE important than theirs - to YOU! IT'S YOUR HOBBY!!! this hobby does not belong to ICG, ICTA, NGC, PCGS, or PNG!
<< <i>why after agreeing (in prinicple) to certain numismatic terms, we debate the "literal" meanings and semantics of certain words. >>
because the meanings are conveniently twisted to suit the purposes of , in the case of "dipped" coins, the seller. the literal meaning is conveniently ignored when money is at issue. to ignore that this is so is a great disservice to numismatics.
<< <i>its nonsensical to argue or support your numismatic position, using numismatic terminology, yet, NOT adhere to the accepted usage of those terms >>
i am sure that those who sell dipped coins gladly concur!
K S
On this one issue, you will not prevail. Either we accept the same language or we don't, and if we don't, we cannot effectively communicate. Sorry, if we are talking numismatics, then we tacitly agree to use numismatic terminology. The terms have been defined so we may communicate in the same language. Without a common language, we have no audience.
One could argue that a coin that has never been in a bag cannot be "bagmarked." As numismatist, we accept that a bagmark is a minor mark or scuff that occurs from coming in contact with other coins in the minting or storing process as opposed to marks derived from being in channels of commerce (circulation).
I don't agree with Gilbert since what I consider natural toning is toning that has occurred as a matter of happenstance during the coins journey through history. This does not include intentionally putting a coin in a particular environment in the hope that it will acquire beautiful toning. Now some will argue that you can't be 100% sure about how a coin acquired its toning? Not always but in the vast majority of cases you can arrive at a conclusion with a high level of certainty.
<< <i>What I don't understand is why after agreeing (in prinicple) to certain numismatic terms, we debate the "literal" meanings and semantics of certain words. To effectively communicate on needs to know your audience and define your terms. To me, its nonsensical to argue or support your numismatic position, using numismatic terminology, yet, NOT adhere to the accepted usage of those terms. Its no wonder there is constant disagreement. >>
That very sentiment has crossed my mind more times I can think of in the past year. As the unique group that we are, we really should strive, or at least try to, define our definitions and terms.Whether that is possible or adhered to is a long shot, but it sure would shorten some of the debates that continually rage.
EDit; Hmmmm,, just reread my post and I repeated my quote
What did I say about toning for you to disagree with? I avoid natural vs. artificial like the plague.
So I take it you believe a coin would tone in a vacuum, or is toning the introduction of some other material (chemical of otherwise) to that of an existing coin?
<< <i>Toning, attractive or unattractive, doesn't make a coin a problem coin, numismatically speaking. >>
but, you have just introduced subjectivity into the argument. so, who get's to decide for everyone what toning is attractive or unattractive, & therefore requires dipping? i, for 1, decline that privilege. but it sure seems like the big-boys are more'n happy to take it on.
<< <i>Either we accept the same language or we don't >>
gilbert, i am not disagreeing w/ you at all. it is not my goal to "redefine" the numismatic language. but, there must be a voice of reason. it must be pointed out that this is a hobby for everyone, & nobody has the right, not PNG, not ANA, not LEGEND, no body, has the right to impose what THEY consider "acceptable" on EVERYONE.
the tide of doubt can only rise because someone made the blanket accusation: "all coin doctoring is bad".
i do NOT believe that statement, not for a moment. i have doctored coins that i would gladly buy again, given the chance, because they are so danged rare that i cannot afford un-doctored's. your right, bad coins can be cleaned to give them an acceptable appearance. gouges can be filled, bent coins un-bent, corroded coins burnished, & the list goes on. these are "adjusted" coins. but as soon as someone hits us upside the head with a term like "coin doctor", it immediately polarizes the situation, w/out even addressing what is really at issue!
why does this become such a conundrum of semantics? because it's easier to address the wrong issue. it's easy for LEGEND to hoot & holler & complain about all those coin-doctors, & to stab fingers at the other guys & declare a war on coin-doctors, & all of a sudden, everyone thinks something will get done about it. well, in my 30 years of numismatics, there is nothing new under the sun, & LEGEND's argument is nothing new either. it used to be whizzed coins, then it was dipped indians, later on it was replated silver coins, and still later, a-t, etc etc etc. but nothing has been done, nothing will be done, as long as the wrong issue is at hand.
these are all symptoms of an underlying problem. coin-doctors didn't just suddenly pop up out of the ground for no reason!
i propose using the term "adjusted coin" to be the catch-all phrase that covers dipping, toning, re-engraving, burnishing, etc. etc., any change which alters the appearance of, but not the inherent identity (ie. not an "altered date" or "added mintmark") of a coin. in that case, i still insist that the wrong issue is being addressed. "coin-doctors" are not the cause of a problem, rather the result. the real issue ought to be: "why is there such a demand for adjusted coins?".
folks, try this some time. walk up to a typical coin dealers whose case is filled w/ plastic, every silver coin as shiny as kojak's bald head, & simply ask him: "why do you sell mostly dipped coins?" really, try it! see if you get any real answers. i asked Tiso (the morgan-dollar guy - used to sell nothing but pcgs) that question once. after he turned two shades of red, he basically told me to kiss his you-know-what, & who was i to question what pcgs says is a good coin.
K S