I've a decent eye for detecting dipped morgans, and I don't necessarily look at the edge either. Tjkillian brought up the point of Q-tip dipping, this is one reason why you cannot judge solely by looking at the edge. However, cleaning the fields with a Q-tip will generally leave the uncleaned areas hazy, which can be detected by looking at the coin at the proper angle. An easier way to clean just one side without touching the edge or the other side is to blot with a cottonball. I've done this to a morgan with obverse toning (came out of a GSA--had a clean edge already) for a friend whose collection has an all white theme who was pleased with the results.
Had I seen this thread earlier I would have said the BTW. The way I make a determination is look at contact marks and especially luster grazes. Can you tell how the contact marks on the cheek are bright, displaying a sort of glint? Luster grazes show up even more dramatically than contact marks. A luster graze on a dipped morgan will be very shiny to the eye and will even show up "black" on some scans and pics. Another area to look at on a morgan is the cap--or other high relief rub areas. If there is rub present, this area will be abnormally shiny after dipping, and looking at an extreme angle you can see almost what looks like cameo against the depressed areas--may also show up as black on a scan or pic.
If the coin is not holdered, you can do the water test. Water will bead off the entire surface of an udipped silver coin, as opposed to a dipped coin where the water will "grab" on to the surface. I won't kid myself and profess an ability to determine dipped/nondipped 100% of the time, however I do believe I can discern most dipped morgans, certainly better than just guessing.
I've never tried the water test, but it makes sense to me.
Most people do not realize that the vast majority of undipped 'white' older coins are not in fact 100% completely white. Upon careful examination and tilted just the right way, most undipped white coins will still exhibit a very faint patina, and many will also show signs of a light coating or streaking of dirt and other contaminants, especially around the denticles and other deep recesses, this is particularly true for many Peace dollars. The trick is to tilt the coin just right under the proper lighting, standing with your back to natural sunlight and holding the coin in front of you often shows a dramatic difference from dipped and undipped pieces....original 'white' GSA Morgans are excellent for using in this test and for comparison purposes. Many dipped coins will also exhibit unnatural areas of frost combined with a satiny texture which is a sure giveaway in some cases, it all depends on the coin and the experience level of the viewer.
Also knowing what an original 'white' coin typically should look like for any specific date and/or series based on its lustre is also a good starting point.
Of course many older coins were dipped many years ago, and may have since retoned to some degree which makes the determination if it was ever dipped far more difficult in many cases, however dipped coins sometimes retone in predictable ways unlike their undipped counterparts.
For any individual to say that there is conclusively no way to detect dipped coins from natural white original undipped coins based on a couple examples and a few ramdom opinions is however 100% untrue. Like making most other determinations on various aspects of coins, experience is nearly always the best method.
Most people won't acknowledge the validity of this "test" because it's not a valid test of Iwog's main point and proves nothing. You know as well as anyone on this forum that grading or judging whether a coin has been dipped or otherwise doctored based on a photograph is guess work unless there is some very obvious evidence that shows up in the photograph. What is seen in the photograph is based on lighting, angle, camera settings, software and monitor.
Is it difficult to spot whether a coin has been dipped? At times it can be. Impossible? No, because some evidence of the dipping (removal of material from the surface of the coin) is always left behind. It may take a very trained eye and/or expensive equipment (EDS, SEM, IC, etc.) to find it but some evidence is almost always (avoiding the absolutes ). left behind.
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
You know as well as anyone on this forum that grading or judging whether a coin has been dipped or otherwise doctored based on a photograph is guess work unless there is some very obvious evidence that shows up in the photograph.
hey Paul
the above quote of yours is exactly what this thread is about, thanks for the acknowledgement. Iwog stated it twice, though each a bit differently:
Inspired by a previous thread, I've decided to test if anyone can tell a dipped coin from a scan.
The purpose of this thread is to imperfectly demonstrate that it is IMPOSSIBLE to identify a properly dipped coin from an "original" coin.
as i stated long ago, why is it that these dipping threads always work their way to the microscopic level?? if that's what's needed, it seems a moot point. to argue it in that fashion always smacks of self-righteousness to me.
Stman, I'd hardly call it the main attraction but no one I talked with was willing to bet that one coin was dipped over the other.
I have another 19 Washington/Carver coins left over in that original roll with 2 nicely toned endcaps. Is anyone willing to bet real money that they can pick out a dipped example next to a blast white original one? I know it cannot be done from experience and I have cases full of dipped and slabbed coins to prove it with. Most in fact were dipped by myself and submitted years ago. Many are in green PCGS holders, some have aquired a very light tone, while others have remained snow white. Shall I conduct another test in different lighting? Do I need to submit the coins in person to a panel of experts to prove I'm right? Lets not be absurd about this issue........dipping a coin doesn't damage the luster or overall eye appeal. It's only the elitists who insist that everything be "original" who desperatelly NEED the ability to discriminate to this level, so they appeal to a scanning electron microscope. (as keets pointed out)
The issue for me has always been the surface of a coin, and the eye appeal that a blast white coin has to almost everyone. The real unspoken issue (in this thread anyway) is the fact that toning destroys the surface of a coin, and that dipping almost always takes the blame because it REVEALS the damage. Since so many yucked out and darkly toned coins are held by dealers in inventory, they have a HUGE conflict of interest when discussing this issue. Originality MUST be pushed and pushed hard, otherwise these coins would never sell.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
<< <i>Lets not be absurd about this issue........dipping a coin doesn't damage the luster or overall eye appeal. It's only the elitists who insist that everything be "original" who desperatelly NEED the ability to discriminate to this level, >>
Man, I've been trying to stay out of this thread mainly to not get confrontational. Seems like you are looking for this by calling someone that prefers "original" surface coins to blast white ones "elitists." I have started calling coins that imo are "original" UNMOLESTED. I do this to not get in the everyday redundant (imo) battles of what is original and what is not. I also have nothing to try and prove (or convince) to anybody. On the other hand, it seems you have a need to knock toned coins and such.
Does this make me an ELITIST? not hardly. If you haven't noticed most advanced collectors including myself don't even want to waste their time on your little test and agenda. Eye-appeal is just that, and everybody has a different set of eyes. It's really that simple.
Please... Save The Stories, Just Answer My Questions, And Tell Me How Much!!!!!
The tread started with the idea that it would be difficult/impossible to tell if a coin was dipped via a scan. I would admit in some cases that is true. But then Iwog made the tremendous leap to "The purpose of this thread is to imperfectly demonstrate that it is IMPOSSIBLE to identify a properly dipped coin from an "original" coin." That statement is absolutely false for the reasons I've stated.
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
Anyone calling themselves an "advanced collector" and thus trying to imply other people are "beginning or uninformed" collectors fit the dictionary definition of elistism. No really, I just looked it up!
I suggest you examine what you mean by the term "unmolested". Coins that are heavily oxidated are far more molested than coins that are dipped once but have their lusterous surfaces intact.
This was kinda funny. (no offense intended) Seems like you are looking for this by calling someone that prefers "original" surface coins to blast white ones "elitists." I'm sure you are aware that ALL coins minted in the last 150 years or so had blast white surfaces originally............right?
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
pmh, given 5 slabs in person could you pick out the one that has been dipped? Care to wager on that? If my statment is absolutely false then certainly there's a way to test it.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Iwog.... Ok, I didn't look in a dictionary and my intention was not implying anybody was a beginner or uninformed. I think you know that and just want to nit pick and tear apart anything anybody says. And I for one am not going any further on this. Like I said before... A waste of time. Many collectors and dealers on this board know me and I am far from claiming (or acting) like an elitist.
Please... Save The Stories, Just Answer My Questions, And Tell Me How Much!!!!!
Take them out of the slabs and send them my way (you didn't think I was going to fall for letting you keep them in the slabs did you?). I've got some very advanced lab equipment avail to me including very high powered microscopes, SEM, EDS, etc. Send them my way and I'd be glad to give it a try .
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
In person I think MOST dipped coins can be identified but not all of them. Some like blast white and others like original toning- just collect what you want and enjoy. mike
Comments
Had I seen this thread earlier I would have said the BTW. The way I make a determination is look at contact marks and especially luster grazes. Can you tell how the contact marks on the cheek are bright, displaying a sort of glint? Luster grazes show up even more dramatically than contact marks. A luster graze on a dipped morgan will be very shiny to the eye and will even show up "black" on some scans and pics. Another area to look at on a morgan is the cap--or other high relief rub areas. If there is rub present, this area will be abnormally shiny after dipping, and looking at an extreme angle you can see almost what looks like cameo against the depressed areas--may also show up as black on a scan or pic.
If the coin is not holdered, you can do the water test. Water will bead off the entire surface of an udipped silver coin, as opposed to a dipped coin where the water will "grab" on to the surface. I won't kid myself and profess an ability to determine dipped/nondipped 100% of the time, however I do believe I can discern most dipped morgans, certainly better than just guessing.
Thanks for some additional insight into what the thread was suppoesed to be about, instead of another flame.
I've never tried the water test, but it makes sense to me.
Most people do not realize that the vast majority of undipped 'white' older coins are not in fact 100% completely white. Upon careful examination and tilted just the right way, most undipped white coins will still exhibit a very faint patina, and many will also show signs of a light coating or streaking of dirt and other contaminants, especially around the denticles and other deep recesses, this is particularly true for many Peace dollars. The trick is to tilt the coin just right under the proper lighting, standing with your back to natural sunlight and holding the coin in front of you often shows a dramatic difference from dipped and undipped pieces....original 'white' GSA Morgans are excellent for using in this test and for comparison purposes. Many dipped coins will also exhibit unnatural areas of frost combined with a satiny texture which is a sure giveaway in some cases, it all depends on the coin and the experience level of the viewer.
Also knowing what an original 'white' coin typically should look like for any specific date and/or series based on its lustre is also a good starting point.
Of course many older coins were dipped many years ago, and may have since retoned to some degree which makes the determination if it was ever dipped far more difficult in many cases, however dipped coins sometimes retone in predictable ways unlike their undipped counterparts.
For any individual to say that there is conclusively no way to detect dipped coins from natural white original undipped coins based on a couple examples and a few ramdom opinions is however 100% untrue. Like making most other determinations on various aspects of coins, experience is nearly always the best method.
dragon
<< <i>but when passed around the Sacramento coin show no one was able to tell which one was dipped either. >>
<< <i>Hmmm.....imagine that! >>
Hmmmm.... I was at the Sacramento show and don't recall seeing these pieces being passed around as the main attraction.
Edited to not seem too sarcastic.
Most people won't acknowledge the validity of this "test" because it's not a valid test of Iwog's main point and proves nothing. You know as well as anyone on this forum that grading or judging whether a coin has been dipped or otherwise doctored based on a photograph is guess work unless there is some very obvious evidence that shows up in the photograph. What is seen in the photograph is based on lighting, angle, camera settings, software and monitor.
Is it difficult to spot whether a coin has been dipped? At times it can be. Impossible? No, because some evidence of the dipping (removal of material from the surface of the coin) is always left behind. It may take a very trained eye and/or expensive equipment (EDS, SEM, IC, etc.) to find it but some evidence is almost always (avoiding the absolutes
hey Paul
the above quote of yours is exactly what this thread is about, thanks for the acknowledgement. Iwog stated it twice, though each a bit differently:
Inspired by a previous thread, I've decided to test if anyone can tell a dipped coin from a scan.
The purpose of this thread is to imperfectly demonstrate that it is IMPOSSIBLE to identify a properly dipped coin from an "original" coin.
as i stated long ago, why is it that these dipping threads always work their way to the microscopic level?? if that's what's needed, it seems a moot point. to argue it in that fashion always smacks of self-righteousness to me.
of course, that's just my opinion as always.
al h.
I have another 19 Washington/Carver coins left over in that original roll with 2 nicely toned endcaps. Is anyone willing to bet real money that they can pick out a dipped example next to a blast white original one? I know it cannot be done from experience and I have cases full of dipped and slabbed coins to prove it with. Most in fact were dipped by myself and submitted years ago. Many are in green PCGS holders, some have aquired a very light tone, while others have remained snow white. Shall I conduct another test in different lighting? Do I need to submit the coins in person to a panel of experts to prove I'm right? Lets not be absurd about this issue........dipping a coin doesn't damage the luster or overall eye appeal. It's only the elitists who insist that everything be "original" who desperatelly NEED the ability to discriminate to this level, so they appeal to a scanning electron microscope. (as keets pointed out)
The issue for me has always been the surface of a coin, and the eye appeal that a blast white coin has to almost everyone. The real unspoken issue (in this thread anyway) is the fact that toning destroys the surface of a coin, and that dipping almost always takes the blame because it REVEALS the damage. Since so many yucked out and darkly toned coins are held by dealers in inventory, they have a HUGE conflict of interest when discussing this issue. Originality MUST be pushed and pushed hard, otherwise these coins would never sell.
<< <i>Lets not be absurd about this issue........dipping a coin doesn't damage the luster or overall eye appeal. It's only the elitists who insist that everything be "original" who desperatelly NEED the ability to discriminate to this level, >>
Man, I've been trying to stay out of this thread mainly to not get confrontational. Seems like you are looking for this by calling someone that prefers "original" surface coins to blast white ones "elitists." I have started calling coins that imo are "original" UNMOLESTED. I do this to not get in the everyday redundant (imo) battles of what is original and what is not. I also have nothing to try and prove (or convince) to anybody. On the other hand, it seems you have a need to knock toned coins and such.
Does this make me an ELITIST? not hardly. If you haven't noticed most advanced collectors including myself don't even want to waste their time on your little test and agenda. Eye-appeal is just that, and everybody has a different set of eyes. It's really that simple.
Wrong.
The tread started with the idea that it would be difficult/impossible to tell if a coin was dipped via a scan. I would admit in some cases that is true. But then Iwog made the tremendous leap to "The purpose of this thread is to imperfectly demonstrate that it is IMPOSSIBLE to identify a properly dipped coin from an "original" coin." That statement is absolutely false for the reasons I've stated.
I suggest you examine what you mean by the term "unmolested". Coins that are heavily oxidated are far more molested than coins that are dipped once but have their lusterous surfaces intact.
This was kinda funny. (no offense intended) Seems like you are looking for this by calling someone that prefers "original" surface coins to blast white ones "elitists." I'm sure you are aware that ALL coins minted in the last 150 years or so had blast white surfaces originally............right?
Take them out of the slabs and send them my way (you didn't think I was going to fall for letting you keep them in the slabs did you?