dipping vs. coin-doctoring: both "alter surfaces", right?
dorkkarl
Posts: 12,691 ✭✭✭
NOTE edited to add: please jump straight to page 2!
i originally titled this thread "dipping vs. coin-doctoring: i want some real answers!". through a previous discussion w/ gilbert, i had proposed that the term "altering surfaces" was what was really at issue (for me). i failed to stick to that proposal myself. sorry for the confusion.
a better rephrasing of my question is on page 2. thanks
K S
i'm seeking genuinely thoughtful, honest input on this, because it is an issue that keeps building & building, but is conveniently ignored by certain parties. why is it that "adding color" to a coin is considered "doctoring" in an unacceptable sense, and "removing color", ie. dipping, is considered acceptable? who made this determination?
please, no bail-out answers like "dipping coins has gone on for many years", because recoloring of coins has also gone on for many years. also, please no bail-out answers like "dipping doesn't harm a coin". it is easy to prove that the coin is indeed harmed, if you consider stripping metal from the coin to be harm (how'd you like to have your skin stripped off?).
i'm really surprised that few others are bothered by this. if nick-the-coin-doctor colors a coin, making it more attractive & more marketable, he deserves to hang, but when dipsy-doodle the legendary coin co. dips a coin, making it more attractive & more marketable, it's OK.
how's about some legitimate answers from the likes of legend, coinguy1, julian, etc. the double standard doesn't make much sense to me. we've seen a lot of dancing around this issue w/out justification for the double standard.
maybe nobody else thinks dipping is doctoring?
K S
i originally titled this thread "dipping vs. coin-doctoring: i want some real answers!". through a previous discussion w/ gilbert, i had proposed that the term "altering surfaces" was what was really at issue (for me). i failed to stick to that proposal myself. sorry for the confusion.
a better rephrasing of my question is on page 2. thanks
K S
i'm seeking genuinely thoughtful, honest input on this, because it is an issue that keeps building & building, but is conveniently ignored by certain parties. why is it that "adding color" to a coin is considered "doctoring" in an unacceptable sense, and "removing color", ie. dipping, is considered acceptable? who made this determination?
please, no bail-out answers like "dipping coins has gone on for many years", because recoloring of coins has also gone on for many years. also, please no bail-out answers like "dipping doesn't harm a coin". it is easy to prove that the coin is indeed harmed, if you consider stripping metal from the coin to be harm (how'd you like to have your skin stripped off?).
i'm really surprised that few others are bothered by this. if nick-the-coin-doctor colors a coin, making it more attractive & more marketable, he deserves to hang, but when dipsy-doodle the legendary coin co. dips a coin, making it more attractive & more marketable, it's OK.
how's about some legitimate answers from the likes of legend, coinguy1, julian, etc. the double standard doesn't make much sense to me. we've seen a lot of dancing around this issue w/out justification for the double standard.
maybe nobody else thinks dipping is doctoring?
K S
0
Comments
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
myurl
I do have a problem with overdipped "washed out" BU coins and ALL dipped circulated coins, and so do the "experts"
I don't have a problem if accumulated "crud" on the surface of a circulated coin is GENTLY and Properly removed as long as the surface of the coin is not disturbed, and neither do the "experts" at the majot rading services.
I DO have a problem if the coin has been abrasively cleaned, leaving scratches large or small, and so do they (they "bb" it)
I don't have a problem with light, attractive, tastefull, natural looking toning NO MATTER HOW IT WAS ACHIEVED, slow, fast, years, days, minutes, I just don't care, as long as it LOOKS RIGHT based upon my 25+ years of looking closely at old coins. Apparently neither do the "experts"
I DO have a problem with coins that have been obviously rapidly and intentionally toned, if the coin LOOKS like it is AT, again based on my experience. Again, apparently so do the expert graders.
As for the borderline cases, it's exactly the same as when there's a lot of money riding on a single point in the GAGA area above MS67..... the slab adds a LOT of value if the coin depends on it being "there"
AS FOR MY PROPOSED SOLUTION: how about some kind of toning designation, such as XX% ORIGINAL which would be a number between 0 and 100 indicating the consensus opinion as to the "genuineness"
of the color.... with 150 year old coins that have "the look" getting 90+ and two year old ASE's with monster rainbows getting less than 10.
the value would still be up to the buyer and seller, but at least the 3 "experts" at the slabbing company would give more input about the color than just the binary decision of "IS IT IN A SLAB OR NOT", since the question of color on coins is not "is it real or fake" but "how real does it look?"
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
the answer for any given coin is not "Yes or No", but "a LOT" or "little to none"
IMO the binary decision of putting it in a slab or not ignores the issue of DEGREE of manipulation.
and trying to roll everything into slab or not and one number from 1 to 70 is just asking too much from the slab and the slab companies, when numismatists pick coin apart a lot more than that.
I would like to see a slab from a major grading company that says something like,
"1881-S S$1 VAM ###, Strike MS65, luster 63, 60%PL , marks 65, 0% toned, Dipped 0-2 times, NET GRADE MS65*"
or
"1882-S S$1 VAM ###, Strike MS62, luster 40, marks 60, 90% toned in 4-6 colors(splotchy), Toning 1% likely to be original, NET GRADE AU58-"
or
"1883-S S$1 VAM ###, Strike MS66, luster 90, marks 67, 10% toned in peripheral gold, Toning 80% likely to be original (album type), apparently undipped, NET GRADE MS67*"
since this is what knowledgeable collectors do when looking at coins, it would certainly help if the info was on the slab, and i could more easily place a value on the piece.
of course, if it was, it would certainly help "newbies" out.
but do experienced collectors want to give up their "edge" in choosing coins? think about it.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
K S
The fact is that dipping is acceptable to the overwhelming majority of collectors. A dipped coin looks just like it did when first minted. Nothing is hidden. No metal is being moved, nothing is being done to deceive. I concede that a microscopic amount of the coin's surface is removed, but since it is so minute it doesn't remove the flow lines, it falls below the threshold of concern.
An coin is AT'd either to (1) hide problems on the coin; or (2) create added value. Both are deceitful.
Maybe it sounds like a copout to say "dipping has been done for many years" but maybe it's acceptable because of the reasons I mentioned above.
It's oversimplifying to say if adding is bad, then removing is bad. It's not a fair comparison. Only by the most technical, strict definition can dipping be considered as "removing". If you can't see any evidence - i.e. all the luster is there - it's a no harm, no foul situation.
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
you can never change that some people are farther along the learning curve than others, there will always be some folks just starting out and others right there trying to rip them off.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
if it improves eye appeal, as judged by experts, it's acceptable, and Value Added for most collectors.
if it reduces eye appeal because of obvious artificiality of appearance, then "value" is reduced, generally. (notice i didn't say "destroyed" because everything has SOME value to SOME buyer)
the "rub" is that beauty is in the eye of the be"holder"
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>when I say "dipping" I mean "dipping which is done properly". >>
agreed that there have been def'n's of what is "proper" dipping, but the intent is what concerns me. i simply cannot believe that thousands upon tens-of-thousands of coins have been properly dipped for their own protection! for reasons i just can't explain, i suspect the huge majority were dipped in order to enhance the appearance, & therefore the salability of the coins. am i completely off-base?
ie. would it be true that the justificiation for "proper dipping" is marketability? & how does this differ from the justification for "doctoring"?
please keep the great comments coming
K S
best and should be left to the four or five dealers who know how to do it. Expect a lower grade if you dip a nice original coin. I spent years
coloring coins and know quite a bit about it. You will find natural color comes off easy with jewel luster. Artificial does not come off easy. When
pin holes cause the toning, that tone does not come off. The professional coin doctors do so with an oven and sulphur among other things.
I was once offered $1,000 for my process but declined. Have not doctored a coin in 15 years. All I use to clean them is acetone. And a q tip.
rusty
For example, if a coin is a 1795 dollar with a hole and some ugly spots, a beneficial doctoring would plug it up and try to smooth out the coloration. Its intention was to restore and make it more appealing. And if it was documented as such then I would consider it good.
Another example. If a coin is an 1881-S dollar that is a standard white. A person applies chemicals to add color and tries to sell it for a premium without disclosure. The intent is to defraud the customer by misleading them to think the color happened one way when it actually happened in another. And in a few months if the color turns, who cares? Not the doctor. Once the patient is out of the hospital, it's not their problem.
So that to me is where we need to be focusing in this issue: intent, documentation, and result.
Neil
If I had melanoma; yes, I would want that skin stripped off. And if I had a coin damaged by toning I would want that stripped off too.
Tom
It's semantics and I know you are smart enough to know that.
Dipping removes things from the surface of a coin and, in the process, uncovers its flaws.
Doctoring (as defined by those who distinguish it from dipping) involves adding or doing things to the surface of a coin, in an attempt to cover up or hide flaws.
You can include dipping in your definition of doctoring if you choose, but these are two very different things, with very different purposes.
What follows is partly serious and partly tongue in cheek:
Think of dipping as taking a shower, using soap and water - that is usually ok, even if you remove a bit of original "skin". But, if you shower for too long and/ or clean too much, your appearance might suffer.
Think of doctoring as wearing a costume to cover up your true appearance/condition. It might be ok for Halloween but not if you are selling yourself to the highest bidder, based on your supposed real appearance.
I think you have already received some "genuinely thoughtful, honest input" on this topic before. I don't think any response, no matter how thoughtful, is going to satisfy you.
Apparently, my argument (which I felt to be genuine) regarding "numismatic terminology" wasn't adequate enough to persuade you that certain actions within the field are described using an agreed upon definition and should not be always taken in the literal sense. I haven't yet checked the thread in which I asked for the accepted definition of "doctoring," so I don't know how or even IF anyone has responded to that, but, I think the solution lies within that perspective.
Dipping is not generally considered doctoring a coin, based on my understanding. Doctoring is considered some activity, usually physical in nature, that is designed to hide a flaw or or mask a problem (in the numismatic sense of the word(s)) to falsely increase the value of a collectible coin. And before we go off on a tangent of what is or isn't a "collectible coin," please bear in mind that doctoring initially would not applied to coins collected out of circulation. Why? If it isn't already obvious, collecting out of pocket change to put in your Whitman - well, who would be doctoring who?
In any event, I think it's your perogative to feel how you do, but, you are essentially arguing that you don't accept how a term is used. As far as "who made the determination;" well that's like asking who determined that brilliant uncirculated and mint state can be used interchangebly. Or who determined that a coin toning in a bag is natural or non-artificial. Personally, I don't feel that a bag is a "natural" environment for a coin - the channels of commerce are; but, for the sake of communicating with other hobbyists, I accept that when THEY say natural or original, they mean something that occurred as a consequence of usage or collecting.
It's a trade off to facilitate communication.
<< <i>No, dorkkarl, you don't want real answers. You just want another thread to espouse your fringe point of view. You are welcome to your opinion, just as I am thankful that I can skip over your posts from now on because they are all the same. >>
tradedollarnut, also a useful answer, but of different reasons. i really am trying to see what you see, ie. the benefits of dipping, but i have just not gotten there yet. what to you are the benefits?
<< <i>Dipping removes things ... Doctoring [adds] things >>
coinguy1, i agree. the problem that i just can't look past as practically everone else on the forum seems to do so easily, is that BOTH processes change the appearance of the coin.
point taken, the term i should have used was "altering". why is "altering" of a coin's surface accepted in some ways, not in others.
i'm going to ponder your analogy, which was quite excellent, btw.
K S
note my change to the title of this thread.
thanks.
K S
Just as I imagined, no one even addressed my question in the other thread, so just do like the others and ignore what I said. I'm out.
why the double standard when it comes to altered-surfaces? why is changing the appearance of a coin thorugh dipping "acceptable" whereas adding toning is "unaccetable"?
K S
Personally, I don't like dipped coins and I especially hate dipped out coins. But to equate a light dip to coin doctoring is going way too far for me.
And, before you say anything
You can argue that if someone unknowingly buys a dipped coin, thinking it to be completely original, he has been deceived. That would be a different type of deception, however.
GSAguy accidentally washed a toned Morgan in his britches that came out looking pretty much the same. I think it even ended up in a PCGS holder. Shows you how many he has....even occasionally leaves 'em in his pants pocket.
adrian
P.S. By the way, and for whatever it's worth, i have never attempted, according to my very best recollection, to tone any coin in any manner whatsoever. Ever. Furthermore, i don't even own a jar of Jewel Luster nor have i in the past 10 or more years, again according to my best recollection, dipped a coin in anything to remove anything from the surface of a coin. I occasionally post to threads about toned coins and artificially toned coins because the topic is interesting to me.
It is interesting to me in part because people get very worked up about coins like they're children or something, especially when it comes to whether or not something is original. When it comes to coins, if it's in a PCGS or NGC holder, and it looks gorgeous, i try to buy it. Not because i don't care whether or not it's "real" but because I don't think i'm better than PCGS or NGC at identifying artificially toned coins or harshly cleaned coins.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
you write, "...because I don't think i'm better than PCGS or NGC at identifying artificially toned coins or harshly cleaned coins.
I'm just curious as to if anyone has any speculation about under what approximate circumstances this coin acquired its spectacular color... its obviously a very very very nice coin and pretty, but "real"?
c'mon.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I can't claim to know how the coin you displayed acquired its color or guarantee you that I'm correct, but I would bet that it's original.
Like I said, bad example, but you get the point. I just don't like hipocracy. If the PNG members want to "clean up the numismatic streets" by rounding up the street level coin doctors, then they should be 100% above board themselves. That simply means that a member of the coin doctor posse should not sell any coin, raw or certified, that they feel is overgraded and a mistake. It happens every day.
Ed
You sure make a lot of sweeping pronouncements about coin dealers you don't even know (you lump them all together and you can't know all of them) and a group and its plans, the details of which you know virtually nothing about.
You sound like either a very bitter collector or investor or a coin doctor who has something to fear.
Why not judge AFTER you have seen what this all about?
You asked - why the double standard when it comes to altered-surfaces? why is changing the appearance of a coin thorugh dipping "acceptable" whereas adding toning is "unaccetable"?
The answer is because the people who buy coins said so.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
I took those very same coins (in the holders) and tried to sell them at a St. Louis coin show about 6-7 years ago. I was told by every coin dealer that the coins were slabbing mistakes and I was offered 1-2 grades lower bid prices, which would have amounted to a very large $3,000 financial loss to me. I know that $3,000 is not a lot of money to people like you and Laura, but it's a lot of dough to a guy like me. Oh, by the way, the coins were all purchased through Coin World and Numismatic News advertisements from "major dealers". I had missed the "14 day return privilege" as stated in the terms because I did not know that the coins were overgraded. When I took the coins to a coin shop I was told of the fact that most of the coins were cleaned or dipped and should have been body bagged.
So yes, Mark, I am bitter and I do lump the big coin dealers in one catagory. That's my right. I guess that it just boils down to the fact that I don't trust anyone and I have learned to grade coins for myself and I must see any coin before purchasing.
Mark, have you ever purchased a sight unseen slab only to learn that the coin was overgraded? From whom did you purchase the coin(s)?
Thank you for your explanation. I am sorry for your bad experiences and understand your skepticism/lack of trust - that is certainly your right.
You have learned two extremely important lessons, as evidenced by your statement "I have learned to grade coins for myself and I must see any coin before purchasing". Many haven't yet learned what you have and others have, but at an even higher cost.
In answer to your question - the vast majority of my purchases are on a sight-seen basis and are NGC or PCGS coins. Those that are not sight-seen, are off of Ebay and involve a return privilege or are coins that are for resale to other dealers. I'm sure I have not agreed with the grading in each instance, but do not recall any in particular.
Tom
Technically, a dipped coin cannot be original, and neither can a toned coin. "Original" would imply that it is exactly as it was when it first left the mint. The toned example (AT or natural) is not, and the dipped example is not either (there is absolutely no way to dip a coin without altering the coin itself. At a molecular level it is an impossibility).
But dipping is accepted, and toning is not. I think we'd all agree that doctoring pretty much destroys any true value the coin ever had, except perhaps in the extreme examples already cited, such as filling a hole or repairing lower grade examples for aesthitic purposes only.
So it would appear to me that there is a numismatic definition of "original" which implies that "essentially, the coin is in an acceptable condition for its age, given normal and general environment and wear." Anything used to accelerate a natural process is deemed to alter the coin, thus lessening the value. Anything used to remove "normal, but unpleasing results" is deemed acceptable, and can increase the value.
If you apply the general definition of "original" neither meets the criteria. It is NumisSpeak; the accepted, unspoken, general concurrence of the hobby as a whole. And I think it is dynamic, in that it changes and refines itself in a cyclical fashion (much like Marxist economics...Democracy to Socialism to Communism and back to Democracy, etc....White to colorfully toned to "tarnished" to white again...)
To me, there is no difference. If its dipped, it is no longer original, and if it is toned, it is no longer original. It is semantics. Personally, I like both, but would NEVER dip ANY coin.
"France said this week they need more evidence to convince them Saddam is a threat. Yeah, last time France asked for more evidence it came rollin thru Paris with a German Flag on it." -Dave Letterman
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>why the double standard when it comes to altered-surfaces? why is changing the appearance of a coin thorugh dipping "acceptable" whereas adding toning is "unaccetable"? The answer is because the people who buy coins said so >>
hey dheath, did the buyers say so? or the sellers?
numised, despite his rather, uh, "delicate" way of phrasing things, has had experience remarkably similar to mine (his on a bit larger scale). i actually don't despise slabs - just the "over-marketing" of them.
dwood, great point about the term "original". what's been bugging me is WHY "dipping" is accepted. is it because it's what has been marketed at collectors for decades & decades?
K S
Edited to add - Only ugly undipped coins, not all undipped coins.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
Remember when Rubenesque women were preferred over today's thin, fit, tanned babes? Well, that too is cyclical (Egyptians preferred women similar to what society covets today, and it has cycled through the years). So take heart. Instead of being "left behind," we're actually WAY out there on the leading edge
The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, and soon, the sheep will come and join us
"France said this week they need more evidence to convince them Saddam is a threat. Yeah, last time France asked for more evidence it came rollin thru Paris with a German Flag on it." -Dave Letterman
DHeath, thanks for asking this question. This is exactly what I am talking about. The "important" customers of the larger firms get the pick of the litter of newps, while the guys on a limited budget (like me) get the over-hyped slabbing mistakes. You are 100% correct. Thanks for your understanding. Why is it that the little guys are always the ones to get screwed?
I really do believe there are coins in the wrong holder, and I believe there is wide variance as to what constitutes a MS64. I think the coins that are dumped into the sight-unseen market are the dregs, the lowest quality for the grade. The PQ coins don't have to be dumped. My disagreement with your post is that there are some dealers that pride themselves in only buying PQ for the grade material. You won't find those coins or those dealers by price shopping. If you really hope to get a shot at PQ material for an average price, a collector/submitter auctioning off their coin is your best bet. If you are buying a coin with a large market, you know, a hot coin, then all bets are off, even with the collector/submitter. There is no free lunch, and there is no substitute for physically looking at lots of coins and cherrypicking a nice coin yourself, or for finding a quality dealer and paying a PQ price.
One other option is to buy raw, and submit your own. That's the one I prefer. It's more fun than just buying a holdered coin for a premium price. Every time you win an auction, just remember that you outbid every expert that saw the same coin.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>Every time you win an auction, just remember that you outbid every expert that saw the same coin.
I think I'm going to vomit.
Damn Heath! I never thought of it that way.....Sadly, it is very true.....
<blank stare>
"France said this week they need more evidence to convince them Saddam is a threat. Yeah, last time France asked for more evidence it came rollin thru Paris with a German Flag on it." -Dave Letterman
it suddenly occurred to me while responding to another thread, WHY this double-standard dipping thing bugs me so damn much. the reason is that legend, coinguy1, et. al. seem to believe doctoring is deception by "hiding" problems, whereas dipping is done w/out the intent to deceive (by "hiding" problems). i realized that this argument is false.
bottom line: doctoring hides problems. but dipping also hides problems (blotchy toning, etc) - by removing them from visibility. that, for me, is why dipping is doctoring
kranky said: A dipped coin looks just like it did when first minted. Nothing is hidden not true! the original toning (however ugly) IS "hidden", it is removed from visibility.
tjkillian said: I think what it comes down to is acceptability. correct. just as some dipping has come to be accepted without disclosure, shouldn't it also be that some doctoring should come to be accepted without disclosure?
coinguy1 said: Doctoring ... involves adding or doing things to the surface ... in an attempt to cover up or hide flaws ... Dipping removes things from the surface of a coin and, in the process, uncovers its flaws. that line of reasoning is not valid. doctoring hides flaws by removing them from visibility, but look, dipping hides flaws by removing them from visibility as well.
mark, as promised, i pondered your halloween costume analogy at length, & it does not hold water. you said showering is great, if you shower too much, damage results. then you said a halloween costume covers up your true appearance - but at least your true appearnce is still available. dipping deletes your true appearance permanently - which i submit to you is more deceptive then just covering it up.
coinguy1 also said: Yes, Karl, both alter surfaces, but one of them does so in a deceptive way. not a true statement. BOTH methods alter in a deceptive way. BOTH methods "hide" flaws.
gilbert said: my argument ... regarding "numismatic terminology" wasn't adequate enough to persuade you that certain actions within the field are described using an agreed upon definition yeah yeah, i understand your semantics, but it evades my issue of why dipping is considered acceptable, doctoring is not. the acceptability should not be measured by semantics! accountability, NOT acceptability is at issue here. "altering surfaces" covers both dipping & doctoring. the semantics issue should focus on use of the term "a-t" vs. "market acceptable", imo.
numised said: John Albanese and ... "major" coin dealers ... are permitted to sell dipped coins in PCGS and NGC slabs, for some reason .... I just don't like hipocracy. & i agree w/ this point. it is hypocritical for those of influence to clamor against altered-coins - when they advertise cases chock-full of dipped coins. those coins were dipped for 1 purpose, & 1 purpose only - change the appearance of the coins to make them appear nicer than they originally appeared.
so if you bothered reading all the way down to here ... you need to get a life! but seriously , this is more than just a play-on-words for me. i passionately feel that deception comes into play when it is hammered at us time & time again, seemingly always by the big-time coin dealers, that "dipping is ok". i wish more of you felt the same way.
i'm not giving up the argument, not by any means. but for the sake of not becoming the latest forum troll, i'll try & tone down on the issue.
dip on!
K S
How do you feel about post production rinses, baths, cleanings, and antioxidant treatments applied at the mint?
conceal/reveal - decidedly different definitions and results.
Samba de uma Nota Só
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
My portuguese is a bit rusty but here's the translation: One Note Samba. I don't get it.
Dipping is tolerated because the damage is not detectable without high powered magnification beyond even a 30X scope which most collectors don't care about. I imagine that if a person blew hard on a coin, some silver molecules on the surface could be dislodged and it would be technically altering the coin, but you couldn't tell with any technology presently known to us. So who cares?
Maybe the first dipper of a coin is held blameless, the second is reprimanded for hurting a coin, and the third dipper of any given coin, would be exposed on these boards for the coin killer he/she is and be forced to only collect plastic buttons and ugly bottle caps for a full year, to really highlight the severity of over dipping coins
Tyler
The fact that i except the practice of dipping because it's the reality of the situation does not mean i like it. I own both dipped coins and original coins from the 19th & early 20th century. I vote with my wallet, all my coins have "eye appeal" but i pay better prices for obviously original coins than for the pretty dipped coins that i own. My favorite coin is an 1892 S barber half in mint state 66 with obiouswly original golden/motteled toning with full luster showing thru the toning, that coin would be a blazer if it was properly dipped, but it won't happen in my lifetime!!!
my argument is NOT a call on determining what's acceptable/not acceptable. i have no more right to do so than does legend or albanese coin or pcgs. what i want to know is why YOU accept this double standard. is it because you really believe in it? or is it because dealers of influence said it is so?
<< <i>How do you feel about post production rinses, baths, cleanings, and antioxidant treatments applied at the mint? >>
they are part of the manufacturing process, as defined by the manufacturer
<< <i>conceal/reveal - decidedly different definitions and results. >>
dipping conceals a coin's original appearnce. it hides toning by removing it from visibility. doctoring does the same thing. the process involved is irrelevant - the end result is the same, that of deception.
K S
<< <i>ok, again, i am not claiming authority to tell anyone whether dipping/coin doctoring is good or bad! ALL i am trying to say is that both are deceptive. 1 cannot fairly be called "non-deceptive" & the other "deceptive". yet legend (for example) takes it upon herself to make such a call. that in a nutshell is the double standard.
my argument is NOT a call on determining what's acceptable/not acceptable. i have no more right to do so than does legend or albanese coin or pcgs. what i want to know is why YOU accept this double standard. is it because you really believe in it? or is it because dealers of influence said it is so?
conceal/reveal - decidedly different definitions and results. dipping conceals a coin's original appearnce. it hides toning by removing it from visibility. doctoring does the same thing. the process involved is irrelevant - the end result is the same, that of deception. >>
I do not accept that dipping conceals anything. To say that dipping "hides toning" is like saying that if I put a piece of paper on my desk, then remove it, I have altered the desk. You believe I have altered the desk because the paper that was there is now gone, while I believe the desk is now just the way it was originally. We don't agree on the definition of "has something changed."
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.