<< <i>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. >>
no sir. it would be like saying you sand the varnish off the top of your desk. then it is altered. if you then revarnish it, it is still altered. it may look exactly the same to the guy in the next cubicle, but it has been altered.
Just out of curiosity, We're all fond of looking at suspicious coins and giving out opinion on whether or not it is AT.
Can you look at a ciun and tell if it has been dipped?
dwood
"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
<< <i>no sir. it would be like saying you sand the varnish off the top of your desk. then it is altered. if you then revarnish it, it is still altered. it may look exactly the same to the guy in the next cubicle, but it has been altered. >>
That's what I meant when I said we don't agree on the definition of "has something changed." To me, dipping is picking up the piece of paper. To you, it's sanding/revarnishing. I'm not saying you're wrong, we just don't agree. You asked earlier "why YOU accept this double standard" and I was explaining why I don't see it as a double standard.
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.
Yes, to me, it is non arguable that you have altered the surface. Dipping, however, is mostly market acceptable. If I can tell a coin was dipped, I avoid it. Any raw coins that I own have had the surfaces neutralized to hopefully prevent future problems, one of which is a undetectably dipped coin turning.
Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.
Comments
<< <i>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. >>
no sir. it would be like saying you sand the varnish off the top of your desk. then it is altered. if you then revarnish it, it is still altered. it may look exactly the same to the guy in the next cubicle, but it has been altered.
K S
We're all fond of looking at suspicious coins and giving out opinion on whether or not it is AT.
Can you look at a ciun and tell if it has been dipped?
"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
<< <i>no sir. it would be like saying you sand the varnish off the top of your desk. then it is altered. if you then revarnish it, it is still altered. it may look exactly the same to the guy in the next cubicle, but it has been altered. >>
That's what I meant when I said we don't agree on the definition of "has something changed." To me, dipping is picking up the piece of paper. To you, it's sanding/revarnishing. I'm not saying you're wrong, we just don't agree. You asked earlier "why YOU accept this double standard" and I was explaining why I don't see it as a double standard.
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.
and that practice is objectionable to me.
novice.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
K S