I was at the Eliasberg sale in 97 when his quarters were auctioned.Almost 100% of his coins were purchased directly from the various issuing mints.For you to state this 1902 o Barber quarter was dipped by Eliasberg or John Clapp is a lie.I call these remarks "diareah of the mouth"
Yes,anyone can do whatever they want to coins and this is precisely the problem that I'm attacking.When wealthy collectors or investors or should I say criminals go to Jewelers to use lasers to move metal to remove hairlines on Proof gold coins..........Yes they can do this because it is their coins.To dip an originallly toned coin that was purchased directly from the mint 100 years ago.......why?
But you must be an aesthetic genius Mr. Keets.A purist you are not but then again ...I don't know you
Just for the record, I would not have dipped this coin. Although I don't find the toning altogether knock-out attractive, it's not really unattractive either. And it IS totally original. I like coins that way.
.....GOD
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
hey, all you guys should get together and have a few beers and get worked up because everyone doesn't collect or do the same things as you the way you want them to, and they don't think the same as you on different issues and they don't think they're the ones who are correct about unanswerable questions like you guys do--------in short, they ain't you and it seems to drive you bonkers!! and you guys can't control what everyone else does and that really seems to get you worked up.
there's absolutely nothing wrong with either side of this discussion and nobody is going to be the ruination of the hobby or pristine coins which we can collect. some just have a view on things different than you.
<< <i>all you guys should get together and have a few beers and get worked up because everyone doesn't collect or do the same things as you the way you want them to >>
a convenient cop out that doesn't work. why? because a$$holes are choosing to buy coins & DIP them when they could just as easily, or more easily, choose to buy coins that are ALREADY DIPPED & blast white, or whatever the he11 they like. THAT'S THE PROBLEM keets, not whether you get to collect what you want, which you can easily do w/out damaging coins by dipping 'em, but whether you are depriving other collectors of the right to collect original, undipped coins because you are DOCTORING them. sooner or later, at the rate plastic co's are placing a premium on dipped coins, there won't be any original's left to slab.
This discussion has seen a lot of wisdom from both perspectives, but I'm going to have to side with keets myself. I have no aversion to proper conservation, and in fact, I own a number dipped coins, although I've never dipped one myself.
As to the other matter, I just wish coins were breasts. I'd never have to leave the house again.
<< <i>the coin after being dipped, IS NOT LONGER ELIASBERG'S COIN. >>
Technically, legally, etc, once the coin was SOLD, it was no longer an Eliasberg Coin. It would be better to state something long-winded like "This coin was bought from the Eliasberg Collection", or something like that. And then once the coin was resold, the Eliasberg name should be removed, because the new buyer did purchase it from the Eliasberg collection.
Since coins (for the most part) ARE NOT treated as national treasures, such as a Da Vinci or Rembrandt is, some degradation is to to be expected of all coins. As we've all seen, the lower the mintage, rarity of the coin in the various grades, the condition (lack of degradation), and what somebody is willing to pay, all contribute to the "value" of a coin.
Since the coin crossed from NGC to PCGS without an upgrade, the subject title leads me to believe that :
the "conserved"/"cleaned" coin was more desirable to the buyer, or
the PCGS slab brought in more money than the NGC slab
Either way you look at it though, whine all you want. If you really wanted to protect that particular coin, you would have sold your right kidney to purchase and protect it. Isn't that why we buy/collect coins? To enjoy them just as they are, the day we buy/acquire them?
Lets leave pedigree and sentimentality out of the mix and consider three coins.
Coin one.
Coin two:
Coin three:
Would you like to buy Coin 1? Sure you would and you would pay strong money for it. Would you want to dip it? Unlikely, and I really wonder whether dipping would increase its value even if turned out to be a CAM.
Would you like to buy Coin 2? Would you pay strong money for it? Would you pay any price close to grey sheet for it? Or would you pass and look for a nicer coin?
Now lets say you could turn Coin 2 into a coin that looked like Coin 3, would you dip it? Or would you prefer to maintain it in its ugly duckling state? If you are opposed to dipping it, what benefit would the owner derive from maintaining it in its current state? For that matter, what benefit does the coin collecting world derive from maintaining it in a state that most collectors would shun?
1st of all, i seriously doubt coin2 could turn into coin3 w/ a simple dipping. but even if it could, i still wouldn't do it, because i appreciate the originality of coin2 (assuming it's original - it's a terrible digi-pic.)
what i find ironic about the perceived original coin is that it probably isn't even original to begin with, since it exhibits what are signs of retoning from a previous poor dip.
do you really think the original coin was original??
i have made mention twice now of the perceived "original" coin having the appearance of a previous dip without a response, nay or aye.
hey Stewart
why is it that you can be such a pleasant, cordial man in person but the persona online is a belligerent, self-righteous know-it-all? that can be confusing.
first of all, i've never maintained i was an expert at much of anything, that's just a PCGS title. but you knew that, it was just an attempt at sarcasm that missed the mark by..............about a mile!! as you can see by the above pasted remarks i made earlier in the thread, i have stated quite clearly that I-ME-KEETS believes the coin has the appearance of one that was previously dipped, not toyally rinsed, with residue left on the coin which caused it to tone the splotchy way it has. i could be wrong.
are you willing to admit, are you man enough to admit, that you don't know with certainty that the coin wasn't dipped while in the original owners possession?? you can't know. i'm only saying what i perceive from the picture------it looks very similar to other dipped and improperly rinsed coins i've seen. real simple.
please try to avoid assigning any expertise, genius, purism or especially "diareah of the mouth" aspects to my personality. it shrinks you as a person. they are assumptions you're making out of anger for whatever reasons you're angry about this discussion.
oh yeah, i don't collect Rambo cards, but i know you like Lincoln Cents and i have a few of them. mainly i like Nickels and Half-Dollars.
I'm with Keets on his contention that "some coins need dipping" and have myself dipped a few hazed proofs, 20th century silver coins with light but ugly toning, and worked on verdigris on copper and PVC on all types of coins, among other "conservation" techniques.
On the other dorrkarl hand, some coins should not be dipped under any circumstances, such as important rare coins with unique toning, or distinctive coins from famous collections, and to do so, while not technically illegal, borders on the immoral because of the loss to history of important identifying details and historical patina, as when the taliban blew up those buddist statues in afghanistan, we should have known what those infidels were up to at that point. Anyway, the pedigree should stay, but with an Asterisk *conserved
Now for a judgement call like this coin, a nice but not spectacular coin, something middle of the road like a common date barber quarter, (and it WOULD be a different question if it were the 01-s!) probably half would argue that the coin is better now, and half would say it's worse, and the other half would say it doesnt matter much to them.
pretty much the ratios we've heard on this thread, huh?
<< <i>I'm with Keets on his contention that "some coins need dipping" and have myself dipped a few hazed proofs, 20th century silver coins with light but ugly toning, and worked on verdigris on copper and PVC on all types of coins, among other "conservation" techniques >>
that sort of dipping, where damaging pollutants are removed from a coin's surfaces, i am for that. but dipping for the sheer notion that blast-white is best, that's what i despise.
<<<Now lets say you could turn Coin 2 into a coin that looked like Coin 3, would you dip it? Or would you prefer to maintain it in its ugly duckling state? If you are opposed to dipping it, what benefit would the owner derive from maintaining it in its current state? For that matter, what benefit does the coin collecting world derive from maintaining it in a state that most collectors would shun?>>>
CalGold, That's your opinion and your opinion only. Myself, and probably many other collectors would not consider coin #2 an ugly duckling by any means, but would consider coin #3 unnaturally bright and artificial looking with a dipped out and 'conserved' look to it. The benefit of leaving coin #2 alone is that it looks to be a nice original piece, which is benefit enough for many.
Who is to say what "original" is? Coin 1 and Coin 2 did not come off the press looking like that. Coin 1 is beautiful but not "original"--it is colorfully toned. Coin 2 is also toned, but not with the colors of Coin 1. Originally both looked more like Coin 3.
Now, "savvy" collectors may eschew Coins 2 and 3 because they only want ones that look like Coin 1, but there are a lot more coins like Coin 2 than Coin 1.
Lets say you wanted to sell Coin 2, you exposed the coin to the market and found no takers at any price close to sheet. Lets say you then dipped and found it easy to sell at a strong price. Wouldn't that mean that the collector world favors conserved coins with eye appeal (even if obviously dipped) over cons that lack eye appeal even if "original". And yes eye appeal is subjective, but the fact is that dealers and collectors are most likely to dip coins that are ugly ducklings.
i think it's a big misconception that collectors like me want to dip coins white just for the brilliance. nothing could be more wrong. if you go back and check my post where i explain my thought processes when looking at the two coins, it might help you to understand why me and maybe some others are willing to dip a coin. i really don't believe it's any benefit at all in messing with an attractively toned coin, i don't think that's done much at all. at the same time, i don't see the benefit in leaving a coin in a poor state, whether that's accidental or just a matter of the passage of time.
ironically, what we're almost certain to see in some 10-30 years are coins which have retoned attractively from being dipped in the present day. that's actually some of what we're seeing today from late 19th century-early 20th century collections, my opinion of course.
i can't say it enough, i'm a proponent for conserving coins and i think the way they do it at NCS is working. they don't randomly conserve. i've heard enough comments about coins being rejected to assume they are trying to stop damage if possible and less to enhance a coins grade or value. it just so happens that in todays market, when you do the first you get the second. that may change or it may not.
I totally agree with keets and PCGS on that coin. IMHO, there is nothing wrong with removing the affects of time just as long as it can be done without damage to the original surface. I don't dabble in art, but I don't believe that "restored" paintings are worth any less just because someone who knew what they were doing removed dirt, mold, etc.
Of course, I'm biased. . .I love my coins blast white and "dipping" doesn't bother me or make me want to pay less for a coin I like.
<< <i>ironically, what we're almost certain to see in some 10-30 years are coins which have retoned attractively from being dipped in the present day. that's actually some of what we're seeing today from late 19th century-early 20th century collections, my opinion of course. >>
what your saying is true, that dipped coins are more susceptible to toning. however, that's if their in the appropriate environment. slabs will prevent retoning.
the problem i see w/ dipping a coin because it has "ugly" toning is that others may find that same toning "attractive". by removing the toning, you deprive those collectors of material.
i truly do believe in my mantra: if you like it, if you really really like it, the price doesn't matter, & that you should collect what you enjoy collecting. but i just think that if you really must have your coins blast-white, you can find them already that way, w/ out having to "make more".
<< <i>Of course, I'm biased. . .I love my coins blast white and "dipping" doesn't bother me >>
case in point. YOU should buy coins that are ALREADY blast white, & leave those ugly ba$tard toners for the rest of us.
l...and leave those ugly ba$tard toners for the rest of us.
Karl, we notice you did not buy this Eliasberg quarter and "not conserve" it. why not? you should have protected the poor thing from this debasement and ruination.
I just disagree with your premise that coin #2 is an ugly duckling and therefore would be a hard sell because it not a dipped white, flashy looking cameoed coin. I think most specialists in that series would consider coin #2 an acceptable and nicely original piece.
"Bottom Line: To each his own. 'Nuff said." --Trozau
Buddy, you forgot we're on the PCGS flame-forum!!!
.....GOD
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
Stupid owner for dipping, stupid dealer for dealing, and stupid buyer for buying?
Yes, Yes and Yes!
Imagine a world where everyone coin was blast white. Nuff said.
I personally looked at the coin today. Hard to believe it is the same as the original. The Heritage pix sucks [unlike Heritage] as it shows a light yellow tint. This coin has zero toning and is NOT blast white. It's a matte-ish white of a typical lifeless coin. Quite frankly the coin is boring. What is odd about the coin is the mintmark looks like the inside was "picked out", scratched out to clean. At first I thought it was an repunch but with the loupe it appears to be scratches. They are not objectionable to the naked eye but it does look like something happened there.
What is "funny" is how when it gets cleaned up it brings 2x the money. Obviously someone buying who has no coin esthetics and a fat wallet. Let's see if he/she will find a bigger sucker when it comes time to sell.
Finally, People keep refering to this coin as being upgraded. It has NOT NOT NOT been upgraded. Read the whole thread please!
One other thing. How many of you fans of "original" coins purchase DARK coins? Yes, there, I've used the D word. A consistent piece of advice that I have received from top dealers is that colorful toned coins are fine, and bright coins are fine (though you should know that they have been dipped). But DARK coins should be avoided as they are very difficult to resell. In fact I can recall a number of board members casting aspersions at the 1838-O half sold by Stacks last fall because it was dark. You can't do that and also claim to love "original" coins.
So, notwithstdanding "cries in wilderness" from "sophisticated" collectors who eschew dipped coins, there are many, if not more, collectors who will ante up big for a properly conserved coin. If you are sinking serious money into your collection, you need to take resale into account, and it is foolish to ignore the market.
Now one could argue that there are more fans of Aerosmith than of opera. But remember, Aerosmith has been a very profitable enterprise (a sad commentary on the musical tastes of the masses for sure) while opera companies survive on the "kindness of others" (subsidies from wealthy patrons and government grants). So if you are going to be in the music business and you want to release opera recordings, you are going to be doing that as a loss leader and you better have some more popular products to subsidize that part of your business.
What about Janis Joplins Porche? It was virtually destroyed. Then it was refurbished and repainted by the original painter. Although he added in a new little touch. Is it still original?
<< <i>l...and leave those ugly ba$tard toners for the rest of us.
Karl, we notice you did not buy this Eliasberg quarter and "not conserve" it. why not? you should have protected the poor thing from this debasement and ruination >>
soon as someone pays me that 100x for my colletion, i'll get right on top of it. until then, educating the masses is the best i can do.
<< <i>So if the original is so great, as many have elloquently illustrated, then explain to me why the crappy dipped POS sells for TWICE the money. >>
prove it. PLEASE show us where you get your statistics from.
<< <i>One other thing. How many of you fans of "original" coins purchase DARK coins? >>
i don't have the slightest problem w/ that, because "tint" is not an issue. i have a couple classic-head large-cents that are pratically black, but they have glass-smooth pristine surfaces. i'd take 'em any day over a pinkish orange dipped coin. i have a 1807 bust half that looks like the dark side of the moon, & i love the coin. i could list a dozen coins like that.
my point has been that if you like dipped coins, great! BUY THEM ALREADY DIPPED, & DON'T RUIN MORE COINS BY DIPPING THEM.
<my point has been that if you like dipped coins, great! BUY THEM ALREADY DIPPED, & DON'T RUIN MORE COINS BY DIPPING THEM.>
the dark coins you mention would undoubtably be ruined by a dip.
the borderline coins others are talking about are not "ruined" by a quick dip. That is a matter of taste. I think the Eliasberg quarter in question gained eye appeal but lost some originality. Oh well!
and then there are the obvious dip candidates such as hazed modern proofs and very lightly fingerprinted mint state coins, as well as pvc and other contaminated coins, which must be dipped Right Away, to preserve them for future generations.
<< <i>Oh absolutely! It should no longer be the Eliasberg coin. Just as if Eliasberg sold his car and then some damn fool WASHED it. Originality .... GONE! NO MORE! KAPUT! FINITO! >>
I don't think this is a good comparrison at all. I think dipping this coin is more like the idiot that inherits an original 8,000 mile 69 charger and cuts the wheel wells out to put bigger tires on it, cuts holes in the floor to put a "better" shifter in it and hacks apart the dash to put in a new tape player- not to mention the other mods he did to achieve the look he wanted and in his eyes and a few others these are improvements. This is a true story! A few months later the car was sold and redipped.........err- I mean modified again. I walk by the rusted out shell of this car every day yet I still picture what it looked like ten years ago. mike
and......................the moral of the story is----don't drill a hole in this quarter? sheeesh, all these comparisons are really starting to confuse me. everyone is comparing apples with oranges to try and make sense or justify their arguement. we're talkin' about a coin. not a car, a painting. a row of hedges or anything else. i'd be interested in knowing what the coin looked like before it was dipped. ohbaby has mentioned how the PCGS picture isn't accurate and commented on the mimtmark as it appears now. that can be very misleading because the inference is that it was tooled when it was dipped. more than likely it had that a[ppearance before as well and whatever marks are to be seen on it now were always there. also, perhaps the coin before looked much worse than the picture from Heritage depicts it.
we should be openminded about this, shouldn't we??
i don't think it's an open-and-shut case of it looked wonderful before and like crap now. so, who saw it in person before and can render an unbiased opinion?? anyone??
I've heard a couple people assert that in the case of PVC, dipping is necessary. Why? Why wouldn't acetone be enough? I use acetone all the time to remove PVC, and it sure isn't like dipping the coin.
.....GOD
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
"Dahlonega, perhaps you should remind the person who stored the coin in such a manner as to allow it to tone about their custodial charge. Original is shiny as it left the mint, while the toning on the surface technically is damage."
The coin was probably stored in the customary way coins were stored 100 years ago. Original for 100+ year old coins is not necessarily blast white. This coin was made no more original as a result of the dip. Actually something of the coins history has been removed so ultimate IMHO it's less original.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
Sheer stupidity! The original coin looks great. Nice toning and good eye appeal. I've seen these "shananigans" before. Surprise factor on a scale of 1-10: 0.001
<< <i>Earth calling Karl! Come in..... Karl! EARTH CALLING KARL!!!!! Dood, you should at least read the title of the thread before swooping and pooping........ >>
duhhhh, i did, dood. it says "Eliasberg Barber 25c conserved", which is false. the coin was doctored.
Uh Karl, I think he meant the rest of the thread title after "conserved", "Then more than doubles in price!", as a response to your earlier statement (from an earlier post by fishcooker):
<< <i><< So if the original is so great, as many have elloquently illustrated, then explain to me why the crappy dipped POS sells for TWICE the money. >> >>
<< <i>prove it. PLEASE show us where you get your statistics from. >>
After all of the eloquent and (for the most part), well thought out responses, it appears the main concensus is:
Don't dip nicely toned coins (such as those beauties GSAGUY shows us).
Don't dip (previously undipped) coins just for the sake of having a blast white coin.
Do dip coins in danger of environmental damage, preferably through an outfit like NCS (?) that specializes in it.
Well it sold for $16,100 or 166% increase after last sale and then doctoring...I mean "conserving".
Eliasberg will haunt this coin screaming "it aint mine"!
Conserved coins should not have the same pedigree as they are no longer the original coin. Maybe that should be the debate?
$16,100 !!!! If the buyer is a forum member I would love to hear their rationale on buying this coin and the price paid. My last comments on this topic, I promise!
Comments
<< <i> I think whoever 'widgetized' all those fabulous and very expensive coins should be hung. ... Or is that hanged?? >>
how about drawn & quartered, then ground up with dog food & dumped in the mississippi?
K S
Keets - Expert Collector
What do you collect ? rambo cards ?
Or Plastic ?
I was at the Eliasberg sale in 97 when his quarters were auctioned.Almost 100% of his coins were purchased directly from the various issuing mints.For you to state this 1902 o Barber quarter was dipped by Eliasberg or John Clapp is a lie.I call these remarks "diareah of the mouth"
Yes,anyone can do whatever they want to coins and this is precisely the problem that I'm attacking.When wealthy collectors or investors or should I say criminals go to Jewelers to use lasers to move metal to remove hairlines on Proof gold coins..........Yes they can do this because it is their coins.To dip an originallly toned coin that was purchased directly from the mint 100 years ago.......why?
But you must be an aesthetic genius Mr. Keets.A purist you are not but then again ...I don't know you
Stewart
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
there's absolutely nothing wrong with either side of this discussion and nobody is going to be the ruination of the hobby or pristine coins which we can collect. some just have a view on things different than you.
al h.
<< <i>all you guys should get together and have a few beers and get worked up because everyone doesn't collect or do the same things as you the way you want them to >>
a convenient cop out that doesn't work. why? because a$$holes are choosing to buy coins & DIP them when they could just as easily, or more easily, choose to buy coins that are ALREADY DIPPED & blast white, or whatever the he11 they like. THAT'S THE PROBLEM keets, not whether you get to collect what you want, which you can easily do w/out damaging coins by dipping 'em, but whether you are depriving other collectors of the right to collect original, undipped coins because you are DOCTORING them. sooner or later, at the rate plastic co's are placing a premium on dipped coins, there won't be any original's left to slab.
K S
As to the other matter, I just wish coins were breasts. I'd never have to leave the house again.
We ARE watching you.
<< <i>the coin after being dipped, IS NOT LONGER ELIASBERG'S COIN. >>
Technically, legally, etc, once the coin was SOLD, it was no longer an Eliasberg Coin. It would be better to state something long-winded like "This coin was bought from the Eliasberg Collection", or something like that. And then once the coin was resold, the Eliasberg name should be removed, because the new buyer did purchase it from the Eliasberg collection.
Since coins (for the most part) ARE NOT treated as national treasures, such as a Da Vinci or Rembrandt is, some degradation is to to be expected of all coins. As we've all seen, the lower the mintage, rarity of the coin in the various grades, the condition (lack of degradation), and what somebody is willing to pay, all contribute to the "value" of a coin.
Since the coin crossed from NGC to PCGS without an upgrade, the subject title leads me to believe that :
the "conserved"/"cleaned" coin was more desirable to the buyer
, orthe PCGS slab brought in more money than the NGC slab
Either way you look at it though, whine all you want. If you really wanted to protect that particular coin, you would have sold your right kidney to purchase and protect it. Isn't that why we buy/collect coins? To enjoy them just as they are, the day we buy/acquire them?Coin one.
Coin two:
Coin three:
Would you like to buy Coin 1? Sure you would and you would pay strong money for it. Would you want to dip it? Unlikely, and I really wonder whether dipping would increase its value even if turned out to be a CAM.
Would you like to buy Coin 2? Would you pay strong money for it? Would you pay any price close to grey sheet for it? Or would you pass and look for a nicer coin?
Now lets say you could turn Coin 2 into a coin that looked like Coin 3, would you dip it? Or would you prefer to maintain it in its ugly duckling state? If you are opposed to dipping it, what benefit would the owner derive from maintaining it in its current state? For that matter, what benefit does the coin collecting world derive from maintaining it in a state that most collectors would shun?
CG
K S
do you really think the original coin was original??
i have made mention twice now of the perceived "original" coin having the appearance of a previous dip without a response, nay or aye.
hey Stewart
why is it that you can be such a pleasant, cordial man in person but the persona online is a belligerent, self-righteous know-it-all? that can be confusing.
first of all, i've never maintained i was an expert at much of anything, that's just a PCGS title. but you knew that, it was just an attempt at sarcasm that missed the mark by..............about a mile!! as you can see by the above pasted remarks i made earlier in the thread, i have stated quite clearly that I-ME-KEETS believes the coin has the appearance of one that was previously dipped, not toyally rinsed, with residue left on the coin which caused it to tone the splotchy way it has. i could be wrong.
are you willing to admit, are you man enough to admit, that you don't know with certainty that the coin wasn't dipped while in the original owners possession?? you can't know. i'm only saying what i perceive from the picture------it looks very similar to other dipped and improperly rinsed coins i've seen. real simple.
please try to avoid assigning any expertise, genius, purism or especially "diareah of the mouth" aspects to my personality. it shrinks you as a person. they are assumptions you're making out of anger for whatever reasons you're angry about this discussion.
oh yeah, i don't collect Rambo cards, but i know you like Lincoln Cents and i have a few of them. mainly i like Nickels and Half-Dollars.
al h.
editted to correct the boldness!!
On the other dorrkarl hand, some coins should not be dipped under any circumstances, such as important rare coins with unique toning, or distinctive coins from famous collections, and to do so, while not technically illegal, borders on the immoral because of the loss to history of important identifying details and historical patina, as when the taliban blew up those buddist statues in afghanistan, we should have known what those infidels were up to at that point. Anyway, the pedigree should stay, but with an Asterisk *conserved
Now for a judgement call like this coin, a nice but not spectacular coin, something middle of the road like a common date barber quarter, (and it WOULD be a different question if it were the 01-s!)
probably half would argue that the coin is better now, and half would say it's worse, and the other half would say it doesnt matter much to them.
pretty much the ratios we've heard on this thread, huh?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>I'm with Keets on his contention that "some coins need dipping" and have myself dipped a few hazed proofs, 20th century silver coins with light but ugly toning, and worked on verdigris on copper and PVC on all types of coins, among other "conservation" techniques >>
that sort of dipping, where damaging pollutants are removed from a coin's surfaces, i am for that. but dipping for the sheer notion that blast-white is best, that's what i despise.
K S
CalGold, That's your opinion and your opinion only. Myself, and probably many other collectors would not consider coin #2 an ugly duckling by any means, but would consider coin #3 unnaturally bright and artificial looking with a dipped out and 'conserved' look to it. The benefit of leaving coin #2 alone is that it looks to be a nice original piece, which is benefit enough for many.
dragon
Who is to say what "original" is? Coin 1 and Coin 2 did not come off the press looking like that. Coin 1 is beautiful but not "original"--it is colorfully toned. Coin 2 is also toned, but not with the colors of Coin 1. Originally both looked more like Coin 3.
Now, "savvy" collectors may eschew Coins 2 and 3 because they only want ones that look like Coin 1, but there are a lot more coins like Coin 2 than Coin 1.
Lets say you wanted to sell Coin 2, you exposed the coin to the market and found no takers at any price close to sheet. Lets say you then dipped and found it easy to sell at a strong price. Wouldn't that mean that the collector world favors conserved coins with eye appeal (even if obviously dipped) over cons that lack eye appeal even if "original". And yes eye appeal is subjective, but the fact is that dealers and collectors are most likely to dip coins that are ugly ducklings.
CG
i think it's a big misconception that collectors like me want to dip coins white just for the brilliance. nothing could be more wrong. if you go back and check my post where i explain my thought processes when looking at the two coins, it might help you to understand why me and maybe some others are willing to dip a coin. i really don't believe it's any benefit at all in messing with an attractively toned coin, i don't think that's done much at all. at the same time, i don't see the benefit in leaving a coin in a poor state, whether that's accidental or just a matter of the passage of time.
ironically, what we're almost certain to see in some 10-30 years are coins which have retoned attractively from being dipped in the present day. that's actually some of what we're seeing today from late 19th century-early 20th century collections, my opinion of course.
i can't say it enough, i'm a proponent for conserving coins and i think the way they do it at NCS is working. they don't randomly conserve. i've heard enough comments about coins being rejected to assume they are trying to stop damage if possible and less to enhance a coins grade or value. it just so happens that in todays market, when you do the first you get the second. that may change or it may not.
al h.
Of course, I'm biased. . .I love my coins blast white and "dipping" doesn't bother me or make me want to pay less for a coin I like.
<< <i>ironically, what we're almost certain to see in some 10-30 years are coins which have retoned attractively from being dipped in the present day. that's actually some of what we're seeing today from late 19th century-early 20th century collections, my opinion of course. >>
what your saying is true, that dipped coins are more susceptible to toning. however, that's if their in the appropriate environment. slabs will prevent retoning.
the problem i see w/ dipping a coin because it has "ugly" toning is that others may find that same toning "attractive". by removing the toning, you deprive those collectors of material.
i truly do believe in my mantra: if you like it, if you really really like it, the price doesn't matter, & that you should collect what you enjoy collecting. but i just think that if you really must have your coins blast-white, you can find them already that way, w/ out having to "make more".
<< <i>Of course, I'm biased. . .I love my coins blast white and "dipping" doesn't bother me >>
case in point. YOU should buy coins that are ALREADY blast white, & leave those ugly ba$tard toners for the rest of us.
K S
Karl, we notice you did not buy this Eliasberg quarter and "not conserve" it. why not?
you should have protected the poor thing from this debasement and ruination.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I just disagree with your premise that coin #2 is an ugly duckling and therefore would be a hard sell because it not a dipped white, flashy looking cameoed coin. I think most specialists in that series would consider coin #2 an acceptable and nicely original piece.
So if the original is so great, as many have elloquently illustrated, then explain to me why the crappy dipped POS sells for TWICE the money.
Stupid buyer?
Stupid owner for dipping, stupid dealer for dealing, and stupid buyer for buying?
Buddy, you forgot we're on the PCGS flame-forum!!!
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
Yes, Yes and Yes!
Imagine a world where everyone coin was blast white. Nuff said.
I personally looked at the coin today. Hard to believe it is the same as the original. The Heritage pix sucks [unlike Heritage] as it shows a light yellow tint. This coin has zero toning and is NOT blast white. It's a matte-ish white of a typical lifeless coin. Quite frankly the coin is boring. What is odd about the coin is the mintmark looks like the inside was "picked out", scratched out to clean. At first I thought it was an repunch but with the loupe it appears to be scratches. They are not objectionable to the naked eye but it does look like something happened there.
What is "funny" is how when it gets cleaned up it brings 2x the money. Obviously someone buying who has no coin esthetics and a fat wallet. Let's see if he/she will find a bigger sucker when it comes time to sell.
Finally, People keep refering to this coin as being upgraded. It has NOT NOT NOT been upgraded. Read the whole thread please!
Link
One other thing. How many of you fans of "original" coins purchase DARK coins? Yes, there, I've used the D word. A consistent piece of advice that I have received from top dealers is that colorful toned coins are fine, and bright coins are fine (though you should know that they have been dipped). But DARK coins should be avoided as they are very difficult to resell. In fact I can recall a number of board members casting aspersions at the 1838-O half sold by Stacks last fall because it was dark. You can't do that and also claim to love "original" coins.
So, notwithstdanding "cries in wilderness" from "sophisticated" collectors who eschew dipped coins, there are many, if not more, collectors who will ante up big for a properly conserved coin. If you are sinking serious money into your collection, you need to take resale into account, and it is foolish to ignore the market.
Now one could argue that there are more fans of Aerosmith than of opera. But remember, Aerosmith has been a very profitable enterprise (a sad commentary on the musical tastes of the masses for sure) while opera companies survive on the "kindness of others" (subsidies from wealthy patrons and government grants). So if you are going to be in the music business and you want to release opera recordings, you are going to be doing that as a loss leader and you better have some more popular products to subsidize that part of your business.
CG
<< <i>l...and leave those ugly ba$tard toners for the rest of us.
Karl, we notice you did not buy this Eliasberg quarter and "not conserve" it. why not?
you should have protected the poor thing from this debasement and ruination >>
soon as someone pays me that 100x for my colletion, i'll get right on top of it. until then, educating the masses is the best i can do.
<< <i>So if the original is so great, as many have elloquently illustrated, then explain to me why the crappy dipped POS sells for TWICE the money. >>
prove it. PLEASE show us where you get your statistics from.
<< <i>One other thing. How many of you fans of "original" coins purchase DARK coins? >>
i don't have the slightest problem w/ that, because "tint" is not an issue. i have a couple classic-head large-cents that are pratically black, but they have glass-smooth pristine surfaces. i'd take 'em any day over a pinkish orange dipped coin. i have a 1807 bust half that looks like the dark side of the moon, & i love the coin. i could list a dozen coins like that.
my point has been that if you like dipped coins, great! BUY THEM ALREADY DIPPED, & DON'T RUIN MORE COINS BY DIPPING THEM.
K S
the dark coins you mention would undoubtably be ruined by a dip.
the borderline coins others are talking about are not "ruined" by a quick dip. That is a matter of taste.
I think the Eliasberg quarter in question gained eye appeal but lost some originality. Oh well!
and then there are the obvious dip candidates such as hazed modern proofs and very lightly fingerprinted mint state coins, as well as pvc and other contaminated coins, which must be dipped Right Away, to preserve them for future generations.
Please.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Earth calling Karl! Come in..... Karl!
EARTH CALLING KARL!!!!!
Dood, you should at least read the title of the thread before swooping and pooping........
<< <i>Oh absolutely! It should no longer be the Eliasberg coin. Just as if Eliasberg sold his car and then some damn fool WASHED it. Originality .... GONE! NO MORE! KAPUT! FINITO! >>
I don't think this is a good comparrison at all. I think dipping this coin is more like the idiot that inherits an original 8,000 mile 69 charger and cuts the wheel wells out to put bigger tires on it, cuts holes in the floor to put a "better" shifter in it and hacks apart the dash to put in a new tape player- not to mention the other mods he did to achieve the look he wanted and in his eyes and a few others these are improvements. This is a true story! A few months later the car was sold and redipped.........err- I mean modified again. I walk by the rusted out shell of this car every day yet I still picture what it looked like ten years ago. mike
we should be openminded about this, shouldn't we??
i don't think it's an open-and-shut case of it looked wonderful before and like crap now. so, who saw it in person before and can render an unbiased opinion?? anyone??
al h.
I've heard a couple people assert that in the case of PVC, dipping is necessary. Why? Why wouldn't acetone be enough? I use acetone all the time to remove PVC, and it sure isn't like dipping the coin.
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
holy vest, or hat or holy shorts or what ever.
Camelot
The coin was probably stored in the customary way coins were stored 100 years ago. Original for 100+ year old coins is not necessarily blast white. This coin was made no more original as a result of the dip. Actually something of the coins history has been removed so ultimate IMHO it's less original.
I've seen these "shananigans" before. Surprise factor on a scale of 1-10: 0.001
Never saw that HR Saint....
This pic has been around for years. I "found" it here:
Smiling Dog Link
CalGold,
I only collect coin #1. I leave coin #2 and coin #3 for everyone else.
<< <i>Earth calling Karl! Come in..... Karl! EARTH CALLING KARL!!!!! Dood, you should at least read the title of the thread before swooping and pooping........ >>
duhhhh, i did, dood. it says "Eliasberg Barber 25c conserved", which is false. the coin was doctored.
K S
<< <i><< So if the original is so great, as many have elloquently illustrated, then explain to me why the crappy dipped POS sells for TWICE the money. >> >>
<< <i>prove it. PLEASE show us where you get your statistics from. >>
After all of the eloquent and (for the most part), well thought out responses, it appears the main concensus is:
Don't dip nicely toned coins (such as those beauties GSAGUY shows us).
Don't dip (previously undipped) coins just for the sake of having a blast white coin.
Do dip coins in danger of environmental damage, preferably through an outfit like NCS (?) that specializes in it.
Is this correct?
Eliasberg will haunt this coin screaming "it aint mine"!
Conserved coins should not have the same pedigree as they are no longer the original coin. Maybe that should be the debate?
$16,100 !!!! If the buyer is a forum member I would love to hear their rationale on buying this coin and the price paid. My last comments on this topic, I promise!