i can't stand the dipped coins anymore
dorkkarl
Posts: 12,691 ✭✭✭
this is not intended to be another "roast the dealer" thread, but this just bothers the he11 out of me:
legend said this in another thread:
<< <i>Light [fingerprint]'s do NOT bother me-especially when they don't detract from a coins eye appeal and can be removed easily. If the coin doesn't sell, we plan on having it dipped. This coin will be a true ultra cameo without the toning! ... I did go and double check the coin today, yes there IS a light SUPERFICAL FP on it. It can easily be removed without any damage. >>
they also said this:
<< <i>If you check other descriptions I write, I ABSOLUTELY describe EVERY ding, discoloration, spot, FP, or minor problem when in my eyes I feel they should be mentioned. >>
my question is, would legend described that the coin is dipped? dipping obviously changes the coins color, ie. dipping doctors a coin, so why would that not be described as well, especially considering that they would know danged well the coin was dipped?
i know it's a rehash of an old argument, but they are taking a coin as-is, changing it's appearance to make it more marketable (by dipping it), then selling it w/out the alteration mentioned.
just had to get this off my chest. if it were a 1963 washington quarter, or a 1942 mercury dime, that would be 1 thing, but this is in reference to a pedigreed & conditionally extremely rare morgan dollar
i'm just sick of it. i don't claim this makes legend 1 of the "bad guys", but does this kind of deception have to go on w/ nothing being said about it???
LEAVE THE FREAKIN COINS ALONE
K S
PS: link to other thread
edited to change title
legend said this in another thread:
<< <i>Light [fingerprint]'s do NOT bother me-especially when they don't detract from a coins eye appeal and can be removed easily. If the coin doesn't sell, we plan on having it dipped. This coin will be a true ultra cameo without the toning! ... I did go and double check the coin today, yes there IS a light SUPERFICAL FP on it. It can easily be removed without any damage. >>
they also said this:
<< <i>If you check other descriptions I write, I ABSOLUTELY describe EVERY ding, discoloration, spot, FP, or minor problem when in my eyes I feel they should be mentioned. >>
my question is, would legend described that the coin is dipped? dipping obviously changes the coins color, ie. dipping doctors a coin, so why would that not be described as well, especially considering that they would know danged well the coin was dipped?
i know it's a rehash of an old argument, but they are taking a coin as-is, changing it's appearance to make it more marketable (by dipping it), then selling it w/out the alteration mentioned.
just had to get this off my chest. if it were a 1963 washington quarter, or a 1942 mercury dime, that would be 1 thing, but this is in reference to a pedigreed & conditionally extremely rare morgan dollar
i'm just sick of it. i don't claim this makes legend 1 of the "bad guys", but does this kind of deception have to go on w/ nothing being said about it???
LEAVE THE FREAKIN COINS ALONE
K S
PS: link to other thread
edited to change title
0
Comments
Also, let me go on record as saying I don't like dipped coins, but don't believe it is doctoring.
I'll take mine original!
i also feel confident saying that many coins which are upheld as original were at one time "conserved" according to the state-of-the-art at the time it was done. in the mid 1800's dipping was considered acceptable and practiced widely by that era's collectors. sad but true.
al h.
It's one thing to implore sellers to leave coins alone, but quite another to say it's deceptive to not mention a coin was dipped.
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.
It's only that it has market approval that makes it "acceptable" doctoring.
To each their own.
Joe.
BTW, I don't think that Legend is doing anything unethical. In my opinion, most if not all of the "big" players utilize some light coin doctoring technicques (i.e. dipping). The difference is that they do not get into the underworld of coin doctoring, like AT or thumbing.
I think this thread should NOT be addressed to Legend, but rather everyone (dealers and collectors). Like DorkHead said: "Leave the freakin coins alone!"
My thoughts were 1) Why would anyone dip a coin like that?, and 2) Dipping such a piece can't possibly increase its value or desirability or cause someone who wasn't going to buy it to then decide to buy it, so 1) Why would anyone dip a coin like that?
See, its a vicious cycle.
Remember, "doctoring" a coin is NOT an acceptable practice. Conservation methods ARE accepted to a degree.
There are my 2 lightly toned, slightly dipped cents worth
perhaps.................PCGS slabbed the coin and unknowingly fingerprinted it at that time. the coin was graded and returned, with the print showing later and causing your puzzlement.
certainly the above scenario would justify removal of the print by whatever named means necessary. or perhaps it's owner should sit back and swallow the bitter pill of accidental impairment in the name of self-righteous principal?? i think not. remove the unintended print which adds nothing.
al h.
PS - Nic-A-Date will completely destroy a silver coin.
Steve
How can dipping not be categorized as doctoring, when metal is removed from the surface?
Not all collectors can recognize a dipped coin, shouldn't an honest dealer disclose any surface alteration that was done to the coin?
I strongly believe that while Dorkkarl has the freedom to state his opinion, it is being done in a very malicious and defamitory manner against myself. An educated person would undrstand more about dipping.
Here is my response to Dorkkarls other thread:
dorkkarl,
DIPPING DOES NOT MOVE METAL OR STRIP THE SURFACES! Coin doctoring (which encompasses scraping, polisheing, or messing w/powerful chemicals) does! Dippingis only meant to remove a light film. Bad news, BOTH PCGS AND NGC will DIP coins to remove PVC or unsightly FP's.
Anyway, the chances of you knowing what is out there that has been dipped is slim. Do really believe coins are pure white from the 1800's? How about coins that were dipped and gorgeously retoned? If you are so appalled by dipping, I'm amazed that you have EVER bought a coin!
Anyway, at least I am honest about my intentions.
I want everyone to understand I do NOT make a practice of dipping coins. I must comment, that more people (including collectors) do it than you realize. I don't know of any single dealer or collector worth his salt who at one time or another hasn't had a coin dipped for whatever reason. However, if I'm the one to get flamed on it, so be it.
JUST SAY NO TO WANNABES! They lurk and prey on unwitting collectors in chatrooms!
When I hear that a coin has been "doctored", I almost always think of AT or a process to hide a flaw etc. . ., in other words, "doctoring to me equals deception. Preservation to me is not deception.
I guess it's all about definitions and what is/isn't acceptable to you as a collector/dealer.
But as previously mentioned, "dipping" done incorrectly will almost always give silver that "washed" out faded look. To me that is borderline destruction of the coin.
<< <i>... an informed collector can usually spot a dipped coin from a mile away. Therefore, I don't think it is necessary to mention the obvious. >>
but the problem is - it AIN'T obvious in a digi-pic. that's my beef - legend claims to describe all the defects on a coin, so why not that it's been dipped, if they themselves dipped it?!
<< <i>though it's a bitter pill for you to swallow, karl, when a coin can be helped by some type of conservation it will always be seen by the majority as acceptable. >>
keets, your right, but let me ask you this: do you honestly think that dipping the morgan in question "helps" it in any way?
<< <i>i also feel confident saying that many coins which are upheld as original were at one time "conserved" according to the state-of-the-art at the time it was done. in the mid 1800's dipping was considered acceptable and practiced widely by that era's collectors. sad but true >>
but this is exactly part of my point: early coinage that is NOT "conserved" is extremely rare - so how can it be a good thing for legend to remove 1 more coin from that extremely rare population? they admit to planning to dip the coin ONLY for the purpose of making it more marketable - not to "help" the coin.
<< <i>For many coins, if they are not dipped they are NOT SALEABLE. Original surfaces don't always mean attractive. Attractive orginal surfaces are worth a premium, at least for Classic coinage. >>
TOTALLY disagree w/ regard to this coin. dang right this coin is saleable, JACK LEE bought it, & he was willing to pay strong for his coins! i don't buy that argument for this coin, not at all
i know, i know, i should just get over it. but dang it, i am tired of seeing coins doctored like this only for the profit motive, yet hiding behind the argument that "dipping is curating, which helps the coin"
i'm so sick of it, i'm outta here. a 6-pack will do me good right now
K S
<< <i>For many coins, if they are not dipped they are NOT SALEABLE. Original surfaces don't always mean attractive. Attractive orginal surfaces are worth a premium, at least for Classic coinage. >>
If its pure white and from the 1800's......ITS BEEN DIPPED!! It can't get more obvious then that!
ok, i really am outta here. gimme a bud light
K S
The answer to that is real simple. Many times if you tell a colletor a coin has been dipped, he'll pass on your coin and go to the next table or web site and buy a dipped coin there. I had that happen to me last Sunday at a show. I tell people the truth far more than most dealers, but sadly telling the truth does not always improve your bottom line. Some collectors sadly just don't get it. Most Mint State coins have been dipped because one could not sell them otherwise.
I did get a bit touchy when I saw Legends name in the threads headline.
I just want to make sure people here understand what I am saying.
If you don't like dipped coins-thats OKAY! I can't stress enough that more coins are dipped than most people realize, and will pass for coins that don't look dipped.
JUST SAY NO TO WANNABES! They lurk and prey on unwitting collectors in chatrooms!
I'm sure I can hunt up a Three Cent Silver from the 1800's that is white and full of luster that has not been dipped.
Once the coin has been dipped, however slight, it no longer has an original surface period.
Remember the BURNISHED SACAGAWEA!
Arguments were abound that the burnishing process alters the coin surface enough where the diagnostics can be thrown off and accurate grading is difficult.
Dipping alters the surface. It all depends on how harshly it is dipped. IMHO.
I don't think this is what Laura meant. The other "dip" that I think Laura meant is the one that is acetone-based. As I understand it, that is used to cleanse a coin of filmy residue, like PVC and whatnot. It does NOT affect any original toning, and does not affect original metal.
With silver coins, I've used both methods...
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
legend, i am sorry , your right that i should not have put your name in the title, & make it sound like your the only 1 dipping coins.
i just got ticked off from the other thread.
open apology hereby offered from dorkkarl to legend for my screw-up.
but i STILL despise coins being needlessly dipped, especially extremely rare coins.
K S
I carefully selected coins, making sure that they had no rub on the knee (which many of them have in MS-63 and 64 holders) and no major marks or spots and good luster. He asks me, “Have these been dipped.”
“Yes” - honest answer.
Result, NO SALE.
I sold the coins to others later, but this is what it’s like.
Come on guys! Do you expect a 70+ year old coin that has not kept away from the atmosphere like a Morgan dollar in mint bag to be white? What happens to your wife's silver that is stored in a silver chest or left out in the air in only a few months? THINK, guys! Use your head!
However, again, more of them ARE dipped than you realize! A coin from the 1800's really shouldn't be BLAST White and semi-PL! Morgans probably represent the MOST dipped series onthe planet! And don't think some Modern coins don't get dipped as well.
dorkkarls appology IS accepted! thank you. I DO understand you feelings about dipped coins.
JUST SAY NO TO WANNABES! They lurk and prey on unwitting collectors in chatrooms!
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
hey karl
as a matter of fact i do. what gets in the way of sense with regard to the fingerprint and this coin is the insert and the seller. if the coin being discussed were the same date/mintmark/grade without the holder and posed as one you owned the replies would be different. the fact it's pedigreed and being sold by legend adds the "Bias Factor" which precludes some objective thinking.
that is my biggest "mental hot-foot" on the forum lately. posters come here looking for helpful input or posing legitimate questions and they unintentionally sabotage the responses.
consider this approach------if you had posted the coin just as a double image, obverse-reverse side by side, and asked if the coin should have that fingerprint removed, what do you think the responses would have been like?? while it is a nice piece as is, sans print it would be better!! that is legend's sole intent here. to return the coin to an appearance of what it was before it was damaged by careless handling.
ironically, while some speak out against removing the fingerprint, the coin will continue to undergo the affect of whatever chemical reaction is happening until the print is removed and the residue nuetralized. that is the essence of conservation, to protect against damage.
the alternative is to leave the coin as it is and hope that the print doesn't darken and spread in size. which do you honestly prefer, the former or the latter??
al h.
JUST SAY NO TO WANNABES! They lurk and prey on unwitting collectors in chatrooms!
With all that said, dipping has been going on since I have been a numismatist, and that goes back to 1971. It was done before I got into collecting. Properly done, it will restore a proper candidate to it's original condition. By candidate, I mean there are coins which dipping will greatly help. Some coins, such as heavily toned Peace Dollars, should not be dipped, because the toning is so entrenched on the surfaces that if you dip it enough to turn it white, it will have the burnt out look.
Another example of a coin that can be helped with dipping is a coin with heavy PVC contamination. There is a point where PVC can not be removed by an acetone soak, but before it starts eating into the surface of the coin and causing pits. I have successfully restored many coins at this stage by a very careful dipping.
In summation, it is important to recognize that harsh cleaning and dipping are two very different things. Some people would like you to believe a coin that has been dipped has been "cleaned", knowing full well that when a coin is called "cleaned", that it implies a harsh cleaning with surface damage (hairlines). A properly dipped coin will show no evidence of the dipping, unless it has been "burnt out" by repeated dippings to the point that the flow lines are obliterated.
<< <i>It never ceases to amaze me that someone will start a thread with something like "No offense but" or "I don't mean to roast the dealer but" and then proceed to make an inflammatory statement >>
the inflammatory statement was intentional - w/ respect to the issue/action, not the dealer. had mama-moses-coin-shop made the comment, i'd have posted the exact same inflammatory statement
i feel very strongly about the issue of dipping coins, at least where classics are concerned. like i said before, dip your walkers & your roosies & your kennedies all you want, there's billions more, but bust halves? seated quarters? flowing-hair dollars? kinda gets out of hand, doesn't it?
K S
<< <i>i feel very strongly about the issue of dipping coins, at least where classics are concerned. like i said before, dip your walkers & your roosies & your kennedies all you want, there's billions more, but bust halves? seated quarters? flowing-hair dollars? kinda gets out of hand, doesn't it? >>
First of all, the coin that gave rise to this thread was a 1889-S Morgan. I didn't see anywhere where Laura said she would be dipping Bust coins.
So tell me, if I send a coin in to a certain unnamed grading service, and it comes back with a big fat greasy fingerprint, what am I supposed to do? Leave the print on the coin and never be able to sell it? There are times when a proper dip is necessary to preserve a coin. Too many people are trying to confuse the issue, dipping is not the same as harsh cleaning.
I have personally dipped a huge volume of coins and resold many of them. I've also experimented with rolls of fresh silver, bags of dirty coins, and toned slabs that I thought I could get an upgrade on. I post many coins from my personal collection that I have dipped and some are worth thousands of dollars apiece.
With this experience behind me, I am confident that most people haven't the slightest idea if a coin has been dipped in the past or not. They have absolutely ZERO chance of correctly identifying a single dipped proof coin in a modern proof set, and have even less chance of determining if toning on a coin is original, second generation, third generation, or applied with a turkey baster.
I can't tell the difference, neither can PCGS graders. Dipping is acceptable because it doesn't screw up the coin like toning does, and most collectors like brilliant coins. The silver sulfide collectors will never get this.
Just curious...do you dip only MS coins?
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
If dipping has a place, it removing p.v.c and almost black-tarnished silver coins [and badly bold finger prints]
Nay i say to dipping, just to get the "blast white" look !
Better watch it Donkari, when i was a new member i braught this up and the dippers started bashing me upside the head!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dipping is your right, it's your coin. But please stop calling it anything but dipping [not conserving or preserving-it's dipping] just my well known opionion. Les
<< <i>Dirty coin lovers crack me up.
I have personally dipped a huge volume of coins and resold many of them. I've also experimented with rolls of fresh silver, bags of dirty coins, and toned slabs that I thought I could get an upgrade on. I post many coins from my personal collection that I have dipped and some are worth thousands of dollars apiece.
With this experience behind me, I am confident that most people haven't the slightest idea if a coin has been dipped in the past or not. They have absolutely ZERO chance of correctly identifying a single dipped proof coin in a modern proof set, and have even less chance of determining if toning on a coin is original, second generation, third generation, or applied with a turkey baster.
I can't tell the difference, neither can PCGS graders. Dipping is acceptable because it doesn't screw up the coin like toning does, and most collectors like brilliant coins. The silver sulfide collectors will never get this. >>
Iwog:
While I do not dispute your experience with dipping, I must disagree with some of your broad general remarks as well as your conclusions. Lets start by separating coins into 3 areas: (1) MS coins; (2) Proof coins; and (3) Circulated coins.
Lets start with circulated coins... There are several collectors and dealers that have experience in terms of identifying coins that have been dipped This is especially true for those coins that ARE NOT MS. I can identify Morgan Dollars, Seated Dollars as well as several other types of coins that are not MS that have been dipped. The bottom line is... so can the graders at PCGS. Unfortunately, there is a mind set that involves dipping a choice AU 50 coin to give it a look that might pass for AU 55. Dipping the coin only strips the natural look that a slightly circulated coin has... Dipping in this instance hurts the natural look that the coin would have. Why do you think that there is a significant premium for original classic coins that grade EF45 and higher? The reason is because there are so few original undipped classic coins left to enjoy and collectors prefer originality instead of dipped and brilliant coins. Perhaps I am equally annoyed as Dorkkarl as to the dipping of coins within this catagory.
As for MS coins, I understand your position. If you like blast white coins that is your right. I even recall complementing you on your Old Spanish Trail commem graded MS66 or 67 on another thread. The question here of whether or not a coin has been dipped is far more difficult. However, if the coin has been dipped and as you said has "third generation toning" or toning applied by a "turkey baster" that can be identified by experienced collectors and PCGS graders...they have been known to body bag coins... With MS coins, the issue of toning and white will be debated and collectors are entitled to their preference. In the matter of taste, there truly can be no dispute.
As for Proof coins... well, maybe we can save that one for another thread.
I agree that dipping has become a well accepted practice, but mostly for all the for wrong reasons.
One final comment, I really find it hard to believe that toning as you implied "screws coins up". I have seen attractively toned thalers that are approaching 400 years old that have lustre and don't look screwed up to me. The majority of folks that you refer to as silver sulfide collectors really do get it, they just do not see things the way you do. That does not make either side to the debate over blast white or toned coins right or wrong...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
To travel on in old accustomed ways
I still remember the talks by the water
The proud sons and daughter
That knew the knowledge of the land
Spoke to me in sweet accustomed ways
If a buyer hesitates to buy a professionally and carefully dipped coin, that means (1) it DOES affect marketability in both directions to dip a coin, depending on the buyer's tastes and collecting philosopy, and (2) a dipping dealer can then try to educate the hesitant buyer that all white silver 19th century coins must have been dipped, or that some dipping doesn't remove silver, or that dipping is conservation. Let the information get out there, and let the buyer decide (whether dealers think the buyer is ignorant or not).
Yes, this allows dipping dealers who then deny it to sell dipped coins to some buyers. To my mind, that is not a justification to do as they do.
K S