dipped/doctored coins - something a little different
dorkkarl
Posts: 12,691 ✭✭✭
long-winded, so bear w/ me. "fictional" names & coins are used, but just for the sake of argument - & a little fun! have an open mind, please.
put aside your pre-conceived notions for a minute, and agree, just for the sake of argument, that "dipping" a coin in acid is a form of doctoring. why? because dipping does strip & mechanically alter a coin's surface. but that's not the point.
i think we all agree that whizzing a coin is also doctoring. so why can it be said that "dipping" is acceptable, whereas whizzing is not? who gets to make this call?
use russ as an example. suppose russ stumbles upon a pcgs proof-65 1966 kennedy. it looks proof-67 to him, but the danged thing has fingerprints & typical pkg toning. hmmmm. what if he dips that puppy? sure enough, voila, a proof-67 emerges.
has russ doctored the coin? my argument would be "yes". but is it a good or bad thing? this is the real issue - goodness or badness (& that's subjective). there's no question that it has been doctored , because metal has been stripped from the surface, resulting in mechanical alteration.
personally, in this case, i'd be not very upset. there's an excellent chance that russ removed residue from the coin (finger oil which was responsible for the prints), & in a way, has actually helped the coin out. besides, there are truckloads of 1966 proof kennedies in existence, & if i really must have an untouched, undipped original, there's likely a ready supply. ie. even if the coin had no fingerprints, dipping 1 or many kennedies doesn't put much of a dent in the vast population of original coins.
now let's suppose doctor-laura runs across a pcgs proof-63 1875 morgan dollar. my, it is dark - original to be sure, but dark. the toning is typical of 19th century mottled tissue paper tone. somebody mentions to doctor-laura that "you know what? brilliant proof morgan's are hot right now". so doctor-laura dips the coin. voila, a brilliant, blast-white proof-64 1875 proof morgan dollar!
here's a case where i personally am not too happy. proof 1875 morgans don't just fall out of trees, & when they do, most of 'em are hairlined. the population of these coins in proof-63 & up can be counted on three hands. now, what took 125 years to develop on the surface of that rare coin has been lost. sadly, because there are so few other examples of this particular date, the 125 year history of that coin has been permanently erased in a matter of seconds.
(ironically, when doctor-laura goes to sell the coin in the next hermitage auction, it brings only 20% more than it did the last time it showed up, which was in a bowels & martini sale.)
i suspect at least 90 out of 100 collectors would choose the brilliant-dipped coin over one w/ original toning. so where does that leave the 10% minority looking for original, undipped coins? the supply of original coins dwindles, as more & more originals are dipped to satisfy the 90% majority. point is that the population of blast-white coins can easily & readily be increased by dipping away, but the opposite is not true. it takes decades for a blast-white coin to acquire original toning, so that supply is rapidly diminishing.
what d y'all think?
K S
put aside your pre-conceived notions for a minute, and agree, just for the sake of argument, that "dipping" a coin in acid is a form of doctoring. why? because dipping does strip & mechanically alter a coin's surface. but that's not the point.
i think we all agree that whizzing a coin is also doctoring. so why can it be said that "dipping" is acceptable, whereas whizzing is not? who gets to make this call?
use russ as an example. suppose russ stumbles upon a pcgs proof-65 1966 kennedy. it looks proof-67 to him, but the danged thing has fingerprints & typical pkg toning. hmmmm. what if he dips that puppy? sure enough, voila, a proof-67 emerges.
has russ doctored the coin? my argument would be "yes". but is it a good or bad thing? this is the real issue - goodness or badness (& that's subjective). there's no question that it has been doctored , because metal has been stripped from the surface, resulting in mechanical alteration.
personally, in this case, i'd be not very upset. there's an excellent chance that russ removed residue from the coin (finger oil which was responsible for the prints), & in a way, has actually helped the coin out. besides, there are truckloads of 1966 proof kennedies in existence, & if i really must have an untouched, undipped original, there's likely a ready supply. ie. even if the coin had no fingerprints, dipping 1 or many kennedies doesn't put much of a dent in the vast population of original coins.
now let's suppose doctor-laura runs across a pcgs proof-63 1875 morgan dollar. my, it is dark - original to be sure, but dark. the toning is typical of 19th century mottled tissue paper tone. somebody mentions to doctor-laura that "you know what? brilliant proof morgan's are hot right now". so doctor-laura dips the coin. voila, a brilliant, blast-white proof-64 1875 proof morgan dollar!
here's a case where i personally am not too happy. proof 1875 morgans don't just fall out of trees, & when they do, most of 'em are hairlined. the population of these coins in proof-63 & up can be counted on three hands. now, what took 125 years to develop on the surface of that rare coin has been lost. sadly, because there are so few other examples of this particular date, the 125 year history of that coin has been permanently erased in a matter of seconds.
(ironically, when doctor-laura goes to sell the coin in the next hermitage auction, it brings only 20% more than it did the last time it showed up, which was in a bowels & martini sale.)
i suspect at least 90 out of 100 collectors would choose the brilliant-dipped coin over one w/ original toning. so where does that leave the 10% minority looking for original, undipped coins? the supply of original coins dwindles, as more & more originals are dipped to satisfy the 90% majority. point is that the population of blast-white coins can easily & readily be increased by dipping away, but the opposite is not true. it takes decades for a blast-white coin to acquire original toning, so that supply is rapidly diminishing.
what d y'all think?
K S
0
Comments
Otherwise, you made your point well Karl.
<< <i>I believe that toning is a form of rust >>
steve27, why do you believe this?
K S
When I first started in coins way back when I was taught that all cleaning was bad and dipping was cleaning. And I looked down on dealers at coin shows who said "if you shine them up, they'll be BU" which I knew to be BS. So after coming back to the hobby a year ago, I found that light dipping was acceptable and even encouraged and only repeated dipping was bad. I still haven't figured out why.
As much as I hate fingerprints and splotches and things, the surface of a coin is the surface of a coin. It's what happened to it. And I don't like messing it up. Unless it is through a non-invasive procedure like acetone rinsing, which has helped me remove laquer from a 1927 cent, PVC contaminants, and fresh fingerprints from a dealer who handled the coin a little more than I'd like to get it out of a dansco at a recent show. Went straight home to rinse those fingerprints off in acetone.
But there is also the reality portion of our program. Many coins have been dipped to brilliant and toned intentionally in an attic. You can't avoid them all and sometimes you can't even detect it without expensive equipment or experience. So where can you go from here?
Neil
Your points were well articulated, coherent and rational - therefore I am forced to agree with most of your reasoning. I hate it when that happens!
I have long thought. that some day, when the tide turns in favor of original, undipped, toned coins, the available supply will be so small that there will be a real battle to obtain them.
"steve27, why do you believe this?"
I believe this because chemically it's correct. Rust is by definition "any coating or film formed on any other metal by oxidation or corrosion." With silver if you combine a little sulfur in the process you get the pretty colors which people like, but it's still rust, and rust indicates that the coin's surface has been damaged.
Seriously find a high grade Morgan in one of the top sets that hasn't been dipped. Money will follow the market. As long as you have registry sets and the carrot to upgrade, coins will be messed with. I'd been very happy to see the grading companies stop adding a point for toning, instead add a point for original. Wouldn't that create an interesting market.
I agree with your distinction.
There is some subset of coins that is crying out for a bath (like the damaged Lexington that NCS dipped for me), but many that should be left alone. I also agree with Mark Feld's comment -- like the old Penn Station, the "original" coins may be gone before we realize what we have done.
I probably ought not post, but, I'll try to play along "for the sake or argument, ... and to have a little fun."
I admit that sumerging a coin in an acid solution (dipping) does remove some amount of material from the surface(s) of a coin; on the other hand, I have to believe that the oxidation of the metal (toning) adds some amount of material (or at least displaces molecules) on the surface too.
Generally, a quick submersion affects a microscopic amount of material and when done appropriately essentially (not literally) reverses what happened during toning. It is because of the microscopic nature of this change, and that it is relatively undetectable that dipping is considered by some to be okay. Whizzing displaces much more metal AND completely (in most cases) destroys the metal flow lines not only noticeably altering the surfaces, but in turn destroying all mint luster and forever impacting a coin. A dipped coin can retone, a whizzed coin can never regain its flow lines, luster or displaced metal.
I agree that taking a chance on ruining a coin which has an extremely limited number extant is somewhat bothersome, but I am also of the mindset that toning that has yet to damage a coin, shouldn't be computed into its assigned grade, another topic entirely.
BTW, if that 1875 PR63, formerly a PR66 until I took it out of my display cabinent and dusted/wiped or otherwise "maintained" that has subsequently toned a very nice "bullseye" based on my heirs storage methods, is that "original?" I guess I'm only trying to point out that there are some things we concern ourselves with that can be somewhat insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and there are others that should bear our scrutiny. Namely, trying to preserve a concept of originality which we may or may not know to be factual and combating a practice we know to be fraudulent and deceptive at its core.
Consensus is 50 yrs old and white = dipped and who are you trying to fool; whiz, tool, frost, plug, ect = ??? Where should the priority be.
with the surface molocules of the coin. It in effect fors a protective bond with the original skin surface
of the coin, protecting it against further damaging oxydation. There exists solutions to use on deeply
toned coins to remove dirt and unsightly and extreme dark toning, that will not strip away the
surface of the coin. This must be done carefully, best by a conservation expert, and then properly
washed and neutralized. Origonal toning does nothing for a coin if it is so dark you can no longer
see the luster or clearly enjoy the coins devices. Some toning is so ugly it could turn your stomach.
I enjoy light toning towards the warmer colors, such as gold, apple green, red, maroon on silver coins.
they not only add beauty but protection to the coins surface.It is very hard to generalize as to
toning because there are many variables including personal tast to consider in this contraversal topic.
Camelot
<< <i>Isome day, when the tide turns in favor of original, undipped, toned coins, the available supply will be so small that there will be a real battle to obtain them. >>
<< <i>Coinguy beat me to it - looking forward to the day my original FE/IHC cents are excessively rare. >>
heh heh heh
<< <i>I believe (that toning is a form of rust) this because chemically it's correct. >>
steve27, i believe there may be an error in your line of argument. hopefully a chemist will step in & correct me where i go astray, but "rust"= oxidation of iron, & is a combination of iron & oxygen molecules. oxidation of silver would be combination of silver & oxygen molecules. but colorful toning (ie not grey) on silver coins is a combination of silver & sulphur or nitrogen molecules, & therefore is not oxidation.
gilbert nailed the point exactly. it's a judgement call. i own doctored coins, & have no problem at all w/ them. laura-legend might well hate them, because a couple are re-engraved, etc. 2 different opinons on doctored coins. this is why i claim, to approach the problem from a standpoint of: "declare war on coin-doctors" solves absolutely nothing.
instead, admission by those w/ influence (slabing co's, ana, png, icta, etc) that doctored coins are ok would make great strides on this issue. then, the focus would move to how to know what you are buying when you buy it
K S
peacockcoins
I looked and looked for signs of mechanical whizzing, which I could not find. After looking some more I noticed that roughly 1/4 of the coin had been dipped in something, taking off some of the gold in that area (it is a very dark bust quarter) - after doing some more research, I found 1 definition of whizzing as "mechanical or chemical" changing of the coin's surface -
SO my question to members -> When does DIPPING become WHIZZING ??
<< <i>suppose russ stumbles upon a pcgs proof-65 1966 kennedy >>
Karl,
You're dead wrong. There were no proof Kennedys in 1966! Bwuahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!
Russ, NCNE
"Whizzing" is generally defined by use of a wire brush or something similar, which results in a simulation of mint luster. The process and the results are very different from"dipping."
"Senorita HepKitty"
"I want a real cool Kitty from Hepcat City, to stay in step with me" - Bill Carter
peacockcoins
Camelot
<< <i>Bears occassionally take a whizz in the woods.
but not down one's back and tell them it's raining. . .
peacockcoins
a modicum of integrety and decorum.
Camelot
will delete the rust and actually start dissolving the coin.
Camelot
Silver metal dissolves in hot concentrated sulphuric acid. Silver also dissolves in dilute or concentrated nitric acid, HNO3. Possibly dissolves in bear wizz too; however, this is unconfirmed
agree, just for the sake of argument, that "dipping" a coin in acid is a form of doctoring. why? because dipping does strip & mechanically alter a coin's surface.
I don't agree with the underlying premise, but I'll take you up on the offer to accept it 'for sake of argument' to discuss the more general point.
so why can it be said that "dipping" is acceptable, whereas whizzing is not? who gets to make this call?
The collective 'market' gets to make this call. Each of us may have our own preference (which we freely make known in this forum) but our collective preferences make up the total market supply and demand. The collective 'demand' sets the 'market' and establishes, by monetary value, what is 'acceptable' or not. A dipped coin holds its value (or increases) whereas a whizzed coin loses value. The 'market' has made the call. Has nothing to do with the wisdom or ethics of 'altering' the coins surface...just whether the altering technique can be accomplished without sacrificing market value.
the population of blast-white coins can easily & readily be increased by dipping away, but the opposite is not true. it takes decades for a blast-white coin to acquire original toning, so that supply is rapidly diminishing.
I agree with this completely and IMO it is why at some point in the not to distant future, the market pendulum will swing back in favor of 'original' toned coins. This begs the question, however, of whether the coin docs are going to get good enough in the interim to be able to turn those blast white dipped coins and turn them into 'original toned' coins when the market demand justifies their efforts.
Greg Hansen, Melbourne, FL Click here for any current EBAY auctions Multiple "Circle of Trust" transactions over 14 years on forum
A very well written and reasoned post. And it makes it a lot easier for me to say that because I happen to agree with you. You did say this however:
<< <i>it takes decades for a blast-white coin to acquire original toning, >>
I was under the impression you didn't believe in "original toning."
Carl
Tarnish Removal from Silver
Elizabeth A
Purpose:This demo provides students with a practical chemical reaction, and demonstrates principles of electrochemistry.
Materials:
* a tarnished piece of silver
* a pan or dish large enough to completely immerse the silver in
* aluminum foil to cover the bottom of the pan (*Note, these two materials can be combined by using a disposable aluminum pan)
* enough water to fill the pan
* a kettle to heat the water (and oven mitts if you plan to move the pan)
* baking soda, ~ 1 cup (depends on the amount of tarnished silver you have)
Procedure:
Line the bottom of the pan with aluminum foil (or use your aluminum pan).
Set the silver object on top of the aluminum foil, making sure the silver touches the aluminum.
Heat the water to boiling, and pour it in the pan (*be careful not to burn yourself), completely covering the silver.
Add baking soda (as needed); a good rule of thumb is ¼ cup per 1 liter.(Note, the mixture will froth a bit and may spill over; so you may want to put the pan in a sink – use oven mitts).
The tarnish should begin to disappear quickly.You may need to let it sit, reheat the water, and/or add more baking soda if the silver is badly tarnished.
Key Questions:
*** These should be asked before starting the demo.***
1. Why does silver tarnish?/How does it become tarnished? (see explanation)
2. Who has polished silverware in the past?
3. What commercial methods have you used?
4. How do those cleaners work?/What do you do to make them work?
5. Why/How might baking soda, water, and aluminum remove silver tarnish?
Work out the first formula with them, and write it on the board/overhead.From the teacher’s introduction, students will know sulfur reacts with silver to form tarnish, therefore, they’ll be able to get the first part of the reaction; they also know you want to recover silver (ie. it’s a product).
Have the students work out valences, and balancing.
Now let’s see what happens.Have one or all students come up to observe.Show what the silverware looks like before it’s polished.
Work out formula 2 with the students.Have them figure out what the baking soda reacts with, and ask them the two common products (water and carbon dioxide).You may have to tell them a gas is produced (“Which one?”).
***These could be asked before the baking soda has been placed in the water.***
6. Why is the water hot?
7. Why is baking soda added?
8. What will happen to the water when baking soda is added?
9. What will happen when the silverware is placed in the solution?
***These could be asked after the tarnished silver has been placed in the water.***
10. What happened?/What did you observe?
11. Why is the aluminum necessary?
12. How does this design work to remove the silver tarnish?
Explanation:
Silver tarnishes because it undergoes a chemical reaction with sulfur-containing substances in the air.Silver combines with sulfur to form silver sulfide, which is black, and darkens the silver.The silver can be made shiny again by removing the silver sulfide coating from the surface.
Two ways to remove the silver sulfide are to: remove it from the surface, or reverse the chemical reaction and turn silver sulfide back into silver. The first method involves polishes that remove some of the silver during polishing.The above demo uses a chemical reaction (which is sped up by heating the water) to convert the silver sulfide back into silver, without removing any silver.
Aluminum has a lower ionization energy (energy required to remove electrons from an atom of the element) than silver.As a result, aluminum is oxidized (loses electrons and oxidation number increases), and silver is reduced (gains electrons and oxidation number is reduced).Depending on the amount of tarnish, the silver will be bright and the aluminum foil may be brown with tarnish (aluminum oxide), in a short while.The silver tarnish is "transferred" to the aluminum via reactions, which occur instantaneously, as follows:
3 Ag2S(s) + 2 Al(s)+ 3 H2O(l) à 6 Ag(s) + Al2O3(s) + 3 H2S(aq)
silver sulfide + aluminum + water à silver + aluminum oxide + hydrogen sulfide
(* Note, this reaction can be done without the baking soda, but it takes longer to see results).
The baking soda (sodium bicarbonate) reacts with the (sulfur-smelling) H2S:
3 NaHCO3(aq) + 3 H2S(aq)à3 NaHS(aq)+3 H2O(l)+ 3 CO2(g)
baking soda + hydrogen sulfide à sodium hydrosulfide + water + carbon dioxide
The CO2 gas can be observed escaping from the most tarnished parts of the silver.
The silver and aluminum must be in contact with each other because a small electric current flows between them during the reaction.This type of reaction, which involves an electric current (because atoms are charged), is called an electrochemical reaction, and is used in batteries to produce electricity.
Reference: My Uncle told me about this when I was in grade ten, but while looking for the explanation, I found: scifun.chem.wisc.edu/HomeExpts/TARNISH.html, and http://icg.harvard.edu/~chem5/assignments/Chem 5 PS 3.pdf
Links to the Curriculum:
This demo could be used at a variety of levels, and the explanation modified to suit needs.Looking at Chemistry units, the grade nines could see it when learning Atoms and Elements, and how molecules and compounds form, because if the silver is tarnished enough, aluminum sulfide chunks form.This could be a simple example of a chemical reaction, or it could be used as a visual to demonstrate properties of sulfur, when learning the periodic table, and the physical and chemical characteristics of the major elements.The demo is appropriate for the grade ten Chemical Processes unit as an observable chemical reaction.It also shows why chemical reactions are important to consumers, as this simple electrochemical reaction can be applied to batteries.It is a good example to use for balancing equations, as well as when doing different types of reactions (ie. synthesis, etc.).This demo can also be used in higher grades during similar units, and for the electrochemistry unit.Depending on the grade level, it can be extended to include questions on: net ionic equations, identification of what is being oxidized and what is being reduced, identification of the acid and base reactants, and molarity, percent (by mass), and concentration.In addition to these links, this is a fun and easy activity to do at home.
When is the exam teacher ???
Camelot
A rose is a rose ...
It doesn't matter what anyone calls it, YOU determine whether you like it and what it is worth to YOU regardless of hype, pricelists or advice.
Joe.
<< <i>Karl, You're dead wrong. There were no proof Kennedys in 1966! Bwuahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!! >>
i know that! no 1875 morgans either!
<< <i>What's good for the goose (ie: Kennedy) is good for the gander (ie: Trade dollar). >>
a risky assumption - try telling the gander that!
lucy said "I disagree".
me too!
greghansen, don't won't to quote your excellent response, but consider: the market is comprised of individuals. theoretically, LEGEND would legislate legal recourse against coin-doctors. but some individuals in that market do NOT believe that "all doctoring of coins is bad". that is why i'm trying to point out that it is a poor way to approach the "problem".
<< <i>I was under the impression you didn't believe in "original toning." >>
carl, i do - not sure where you thought i made that assertion. silver circulation-strikes turn to grey (original toning) & copper coins turn to brown (also original toning). proofs, intended for storage in paper tissue, often acquire mottled toning (also original) from that tissue.
MtMan
1)Steve27 is copying a science lesson to be used with a piece of silver such as silverware, I believe, not coins. Silverware is usually 0.999 fine silver, I think, while coins are typically 0.900 silver. This would make a difference in the chemistry involved.
2)Read my articles on toning at my web site.
3)I am a scientist, having several degrees in both chemistry and biology, and can say that cutting-and-pasting from the web is not always the most precise or accurate way to do things. I would think that this would hold for any field.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>Bears occassionally take a whizz in the woods >>
They generally do something else in the woods too, don't they....tied into that who line of "Is the Pope Catholic ??? Does a bear..." well, you get the picture
<< <i>Bears occassionally take a whizz in the woods >>
I would never whizz on my coins... although the chemical reaction could be nice. Jeez, someone out there has tried this, haven't they?