The coin probably lost some lustre with the dip. At even a slightly different angle, if the light hits it a different way, different parts can look to be less fully struck. I think that's the case here.
With 100% certainty it's the same coin, obverse and all. There are multiple tells on the obverse alone - the most significant of which is the strike thru at the 4th star. But also the vertical bagmark [line] on the left portion of the IN GOD WE TRUST ribbon, the spot at the rim near the 8 in the date, the two vertical coloration streaks near the base of the wheatstalks, the horizontal coloration streaks above Liberty's outstretched arm, and the tick on Liberty's cheek. All correspond 100%.
If I had known it was going to be dipped, I'd have bought the coin to preserve its integrity.
Hey dollardude, you don't read much do you? JK from ANR already said the coin is part of the Stacks Sale that is only part of ANRs sale. The staff at ANR didn't see the coin. Relax man. Do you expect them to pull the sale because of someone was a fool to dip the coins? Don't shoot the messenger.
Don't forget about the heinous crime perpetrated against my 1877 gold proof set, which contained historic pedigreed coins from the Garrett, Eliasberg, Bass and Dallas Bank (Browning) collections. All six coins were "conserved" after I sold the set, and three scored upgrades. The new slabs omitted all the pedigrees. The new coins all looked like identical shiny widgets. They are pretty, yes, but it is the coin equivalent of a lobotomy. You may recall I "coined" the term "dehistoricized" to describe this process. Of course, the perpetrators probably made about $80,000 to $100,000 by getting the three upgrades.
Why didn't the services get it right the first time? I know the Garrett $20 (NGC PF64 UCAM) had been submitted NUMEROUS times by Heritage in search of the 65 grade. Funny how when NCS got to "conserve" the coin, it finally got the upgrade. The set was then sold to "The Fund."
At least it was an expensive lesson to the pin-head who dipped this once-beautiful coin. Still, I think that the Coin Doctor Posse should put his or her face on an old-style "wanted dead or alive" poster. Geeeesh.
When I first saw this 1796 Quarter Eagle it was in an NGC AU-50 holder. Then it got cracked out and was “conserved, enhanced” or more accurately “shined up” so that it would be more marketable. The sad part was that the person who “improved” this piece was rewarded for their efforts. The coin went into a PCGS AU-58 holder. Shine an old coin up, and it will sell better, at least to the fools.
Here is the "before" and "after."
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
It really is sad when an important coin becomes "diminished" in this fashion.
Unfortunately, as BillJones points out, the doctors get rewarded often enough that they keep it up. I remember hearing of the 1800 $10 gold from the Pittman sale with awesome original golden orange toning grading "64" time after time when submitted after the auction. Finally, the owner dipped the coin. All the beautiful old-time toning was gone, but the coin regraded "65."
If an original "64" was valued equal or more than a dipped "65," perhaps that would remove the financial incentive for doctoring, as Pistareen suggests, but there are a lot of "plastic" collectors out there who go strictly for the numbers.
In any case, coin doctoring has certainly been around for a very long time. The McCoy 1794 dollar that Pistareen mentioned was auctioned in 1864 with an entire name lightly scratched across the obverse. By its 1867 appearance in the Zanoni sale, the impairment was not mentioned, and when it appeared in the 1874 MacKenzie sale, the picture show no impairments at all:
So, here is a coin that is known to have been doctored more than 110 years ago.
Issues like this just make it all the more important for collectors to really understand their coins and do the research to choose their coins wisely!
Removing a name that has been scratched into the surface could be called a "repair." I don't have a major problem with that if it is done well and if is mentioned in the description. BUT if it is done well than chances are it won't get mentioned.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
You dip a brilliant blast white Morgan dollar, and you get a brilliant blast white Morgan dollar.
You dip a dog with no luster with an orange tarnish on it, and you get a dog with no luster without tarnish on it. This coin had no business being in an MS64 NGC holder in the first place. The owner is only guilty of not recognizing how absurd the market is with respect to silver sulfide.
This coin has been dipped/cleaned before. Probably numerous times before achieving its nice orange color. How do I know this? Because it takes more oxidation than that to remove every last hint of luster on a coin.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Actually, most Trade $s I've seen in 5 & 6 holders (and most Seated $s in 4 & 5 holders) look like the 'after' image of the first coin. Dipped out and so dead that only a coin equivalent of a necrophiliac could like them.
Those two coins should be sold with barf bags.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
<< Hey dollardude, you don't read much do you? JK from ANR already said the coin is part of the Stacks Sale that is only part of ANRs sale. The staff at ANR didn't see the coin. Relax man. Do you expect them to pull the sale because of someone was a fool to dip the coins? Don't shoot the messenger. >>
You're the one that didn't read all of the responses in this thread. Most people here agree with me. When you're talking this kind of money, IMO, the "messenger" IS responsible for disclosing any defects. This job is part of their commission and part of how they earn their money. ANR can list any coin they want, but should not be publishing incomplete information on coins like these in this price range.
Ok, so the listing should read "Was once one color, now another"? LOL. The coin, is the coin, is the coin, regardless of what happened to it. How far back should someone selling a coin tell what it looked like? It just sounds like you want to blame the auction companies for this blunder. THey're just selling the coin for someone and not hyping what it used to be. Know what I mean? No bad blood here. I am appalled at what someone did to that beauty.
The issue that Coinchallenged was trying to bring up was this -- the coin was not consigned to ANR, nor was it described by ANR. The piece is part of a joint sale that is being conducted by ANR and Stack's, but the particular coin in question is in the Stack's part of the event.
<< <i>You dip a dog with no luster with an orange tarnish on it, and you get a dog with no luster without tarnish on it. This coin had no business being in an MS64 NGC holder in the first place. >>
Iwog,
And, you can tell that from the digital images, while those who have actually seen the coin believe otherwise? Damn, man, you're good!
Russ, yes I can tell from the images. It's so easy, my 8 year old could do it.
The luster is gone from both the before and after coin. It's obvious. Anyone willing to dispute this who has seen the coin in person? You perhaps Russ??
And, you can tell that from the digital images, while those who have actually seen the coin believe otherwise? Damn, man, you're good
Tell me specifically WHO says othewise.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
With all due respect, I held the coin in my hands prior to the initial auction and know what I saw. The luster was fine. Your interpretation of the initial photograph is in error.
I don't claim it's dull and lusterless now - that's impossible to tell from a photograph in most cases. I only claim that IMO it's a tragedy that a great coin with a great pedigree is stripped of both its toning and provenance and dumped into auction because it didn't slab at the right grade.
There is absolutely no way "the luster was fine" on this coin before or after it was dipped. The luster is entirely missing, and YES I can tell this from a photograph.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
<< <i>There is absolutely no way "the luster was fine" on this coin before or after it was dipped. >>
Uh yeah, okay, Iwog. TDN, a recognized expert on Trade Dollars who actually held the coin in hand is wrong and you, who's only seen a picture are right. You crack me up.
You have to understand, Tradedollarnut, in the world of Iwog, ALL toned silver coins are corroded garbage. In the Iwag world, toned silver is on a par with rusted iron. I think that he must be the dude who got front-page coverage on Coin World some years ago. It caused many of us, who like original coins, some problems for while, but thankfully his position has come to be viewed as his personal opinion and not a consensus among collectors.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
Quite a thread, and a truly sickening outcome for what has been shown. And I think that the onus is on the auction houses to point out the pedigree of the coin and to signal its alteration. They should tell the client up-front that they will do this. The preservation of these historically important coins is important, but equal to that is the provenance. The coins should bear their pedigree, no matter what their current state is, holdered, unholdered, no matter what omissions the insert has. I know this can't be promulgated, but it is ethically correct.
Sad, and makes me...
Hoot
From this hour I ordain myself loos'd of limits and imaginary lines. - Whitman
A significant problem exists that has been identified several times on this forum and this thread has the benefit of pictures that clearly illustrate the point... Now, what is going to be done to discourage or even prevent this in the future? Any thoughts? My thoughts have been expressed many times. Instead of seeing this turn into a bashing thread, lets see some positive thoughts that can help bring this issue to the attention of those that can really do something about it. Otherwise, this is a waste of time.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Now, what is going to be done to discourage or even prevent this in the future? >>
The seller who paid nearly $44K for the original coin stands to lose thousands on resale. He went from owning an original coin in an NGC 64 holder to owning an unattractive (at least from the picture) raw coin that has obviously been dipped with poor results. I can think of fewer better disincentives to doctoring.
There really isn't anything that can be done about coin dipping - nor should there be. Nobody should be able to dictate to someone what they can and cannot do with their own private property. In the case of a coin like this the practice should be discouraged, but anything beyond that is a violation of property rights and a very slippery slope.
I appreciate your comments, but that is not enough. Why? Because there are many coins that are endangered and subject to this activity whereby the financial reward would be an incentive... What about the gold coin example in this thread that upgraded from an AU50 to 58? I imagine that upgrade was worth a few $$$ even though the coin completely lost its appeal.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I agree with you and disagree with you which will make some sense after I explain... I agree with you that a coin that is purchased by somone becomes their property and I have no right to say they should or should not dip the coin. But before they make that decision, they should have options. ONE OF THE OPTIONS IS TO CHOOSE ORIGINALITY over dipping and enhancement which may not be right for certain types of older coins. Russ, I do not advocate taking rights away from collectors, I just advocate sharing information about real value of original coins...especially early gold and type coins.
For those that choose to keep their coins in what is believed to be an original state of preservation, those collectors deserve some level of protection in terms of an original surfaces "o/s"designation that could be part of the grading service offered by PCGS, ANACS and PCGS. The coins illustrated as part of this thread would be valued more with this type of designation and the whole concept of cracking and dipping would be discouraged... I remain a supporter for this concept and frankly the coins that have been pictured in this thread make the argument better than I do.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I find it odd that almost everyone here universally condemns what happened to this coin. At yet, at the same time, the market greatly rewards going for the "dip and flip" strategy. So what's the deal--
* Is everyone on this board just an erudite, elitist snob?
* Is everyone here simply lying
* Are we all-knowing and everyone else is dumb?
Somehow, you have to explain why this forum seems to decry the dipping practice while the market as a whole seems to endorse it. Doesn't connect.
<< <i>those collectors deserve some level of protection in terms of an original surfaces "o/s"designation that could be part of the grading service offered >>
Not a bad idea; matter of fact, a damned fine idea. It's a carrot, rather than a stick. It wouldn't stop all dipping, though. For example, in the case of this Trade Dollar that got destroyed. Do you think the original surfaces designation on the label would have stopped this guy? The pedigree on the label didn't.
I am just wondering why this "dipper" has gained the confidence to ruin a coin like this. How has he gotten so lucky to make money in the past to where he can afford to amateurishly alter 40K coins?--------------BigE
There are coins that genuinely benefit from dipping or conservation. For example, 1950's and 1960's era proofs. Frequently, if they aren't given a quick dip to stabilize the surfaces, they can turn to crap a few months after being removed from the proof packaging and exposed to the air.
In the case of a coin such as is the topic of this thread, though, dipping was a very stupid move and the coin was ruined because of it.
Your comments are welcome and appreciated, however, have you thought about the coin market and the difference between the typical unoriginal garb that seems to be reflected by bid and ask prices? Unoriginal coins are accepted by the market but it has come at a price. Original quality type coins in several series will bring substantially more than bid or ask. I believe that there is a two tiered market for coins... one for unoriginal coins and the second for quality original coins and the two just do not mix... This is true for the coins pictured in this thread...
IMHO, if either the Trade Dollar or the Early 1796 Gold coin graded AU50 had an original surfaces designation, I doubt that either coin would have been cracked out and been subject to the dipping that seems to be the major theme and complaint of this thread.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I've been reading the more recent posts here. I just think, especially for a coin that is worth tens of thousands of dollars, that the buyer has a right to know the history of that coin, and if it has been altered in any way. There has to be some way of indicating if a coin has been dipped (if known) on the holder itself. I know ANACS does this, and so does SEGS, for obvious flaws like rim dings, tooling, artificial toning, harsh cleaning, scratches, holes, and graffiti. However, for less obvious flaws like small rim bruises or light cleaning, all of the major grading services will usually slab a coin. I don't know what the answer is.
To answer your question, yes...I do think that an original surfaces designation would have prevented this. Perhaps the better view is that even if it is a deterent 50%-80% of the time, it is still serving collectors that appreciate originality, not to mention, it is an added precaution that may save several other original coins that are not as noteworthy as the two featured in this thread.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
You said that some 1950s and 1960s proofs benefit from dipping. Why? If they were taken right out of original government plastic wrapping and put into slabs, wouldn't this be sufficient?
Edited to add: I'm really playing devil's advocate here. Someone could make the case that, since it's okay to dip 50s and 60s proofs, why not dip any coin?
I agree with your comments about the 1950's and 1960's proof coinage.
Dollardude:
I have seen several coins that have been net graded by ANACS due to cleaning as well as other problems. Even if the ANACs concept of net grading is something that perhaps we all can not agree on, at least it serves a purpose which is more helpful and educational to collectors than a bb. However, this service is for problem coins... unfortunately, great original coins don't get the same treatment and recognition and frankly, I think it is about time. I agree that if collectors are paying for an opinion with respect to the grade and overall condition of a coin, that such an opinion should be as complete as possible.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>If they were taken right out of original government plastic wrapping and put into slabs, wouldn't this be sufficient? >>
Sometimes the answer is an emphatic NO. Just ask Lori about her 1964 PR69DCAM that grew milk spots after it was slabbed. I've run in to the problem several times myself. Send in a coin that looks pristine, is free of spots, and a few months after it's slabbed it's a POS spotted dog.
There are sometimes invisible surface contaminants left from the rinsing process the mint used in the 50's and 60's that will produce these spots after exposure to the air. A quick dip removes the contaminants and stabilizes the surfaces.
I agree that "great original" coins should get the same treatment as "problem" coins. Unfortunately, where do you draw the line? If someone submitted a $50 coin for grading by ANACS, and it came back net graded and worth more like $20, then PCGS obviously wouldn't have graded it and would have given it a bodybag. But, say a $10,000 coin was submitted to PCGS. Would they then give it a grade due to its rarity? Should they give additional details on the holder? Again, where do you draw the line, or would you make the same rules apply to all coins?
That coin was spotless when submitted. A few months after it was graded, it turned to crap. I now conserve every one I'm going to submit and none of those has ever turned.
<< That coin was spotless when submitted. A few months after it was graded, it turned to crap. I now conserve every one I'm going to submit and none of those has ever turned. >>
Wow, thanks Russ, oh great coin guru! That is a stunning example. Just as a side note, do you "conserve" through NCS, or do you dip them yourself? Again, playing devil's advocate here, someone could argue that if you dip these, what's wrong with dipping anything else?
I am a believer that an original surfaces "o/s" designation should be offered by the grading services for original coins, especially early gold and type coins, and that designation would be a positive development for coins and collectors. Further, it would be a deterent for what we have seen on this thread.
Where do you draw the line? Only those coins worthy of the designation would get it. Is this a perfect solution? Probably not, but then again we all know what Winston Churchill said about Democracy.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Again, playing devil's advocate here, someone could argue that if you dip these, what's wrong with dipping anything else? >>
I guess the answer to that depends on whether or not you like your modern proofs with or without spots. Sorry, I know you're playing devil's advocate, but the question is ludicrous.
Comments
The coin probably lost some lustre with the dip. At even a slightly different angle, if the light hits it a different way, different parts can look to be less fully struck. I think that's the case here.
If I had known it was going to be dipped, I'd have bought the coin to preserve its integrity.
peacockcoins
Now I have another question --
If a doctor bought this coin and through his nefarious ways, restored the coin to its former glory, would that be wrong?
Would it be worth less? Would it be worth more than what appears to be a dipped out lifeless coin?
Would you buy it knowing that the color was AT but matched the original surfaces completely?
I'm wondering if this type of coin doctoring/restoration has a place in the hobby?
Michael
-Henri Turenne
Don't forget about the heinous crime perpetrated against my 1877 gold proof set, which contained historic pedigreed coins from the Garrett, Eliasberg, Bass and Dallas Bank (Browning) collections. All six coins were "conserved" after I sold the set, and three scored upgrades. The new slabs omitted all the pedigrees. The new coins all looked like identical shiny widgets. They are pretty, yes, but it is the coin equivalent of a lobotomy. You may recall I "coined" the term "dehistoricized" to describe this process. Of course, the perpetrators probably made about $80,000 to $100,000 by getting the three upgrades.
Why didn't the services get it right the first time? I know the Garrett $20 (NGC PF64 UCAM) had been submitted NUMEROUS times by Heritage in search of the 65 grade. Funny how when NCS got to "conserve" the coin, it finally got the upgrade. The set was then sold to "The Fund."
Best,
Sunnywood
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
A national treasure destroyed........
At least it was an expensive lesson to the pin-head who dipped this once-beautiful coin. Still, I think that the Coin Doctor Posse should put his or her face on an old-style "wanted dead or alive" poster. Geeeesh.
Our eBay auctions - TRUE auctions: start at $0.01, no reserve, 30 day unconditional return privilege & free shipping!
<< <i>Locating a finer piece would be an even more impossible achievement. >>
Not after that butcher job!
U.S. Nickels Complete Set with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes
U.S. Dimes Complete Set with Major Varieties, Circulation Strikes
When I first saw this 1796 Quarter Eagle it was in an NGC AU-50 holder. Then it got cracked out and was “conserved, enhanced” or more accurately “shined up” so that it would be more marketable. The sad part was that the person who “improved” this piece was rewarded for their efforts. The coin went into a PCGS AU-58 holder. Shine an old coin up, and it will sell better, at least to the fools.
Here is the "before" and "after."
It looked much better as a 50.
Unfortunately, as BillJones points out, the doctors get rewarded often enough that they keep it up. I remember hearing of the 1800 $10 gold from the Pittman sale with awesome original golden orange toning grading "64" time after time when submitted after the auction. Finally, the owner dipped the coin. All the beautiful old-time toning was gone, but the coin regraded "65."
If an original "64" was valued equal or more than a dipped "65," perhaps that would remove the financial incentive for doctoring, as Pistareen suggests, but there are a lot of "plastic" collectors out there who go strictly for the numbers.
In any case, coin doctoring has certainly been around for a very long time. The McCoy 1794 dollar that Pistareen mentioned was auctioned in 1864 with an entire name lightly scratched across the obverse. By its 1867 appearance in the Zanoni sale, the impairment was not mentioned, and when it appeared in the 1874 MacKenzie sale, the picture show no impairments at all:
So, here is a coin that is known to have been doctored more than 110 years ago.
Issues like this just make it all the more important for collectors to really understand their coins and do the research to choose their coins wisely!
You dip a dog with no luster with an orange tarnish on it, and you get a dog with no luster without tarnish on it. This coin had no business being in an MS64 NGC holder in the first place. The owner is only guilty of not recognizing how absurd the market is with respect to silver sulfide.
This coin has been dipped/cleaned before. Probably numerous times before achieving its nice orange color. How do I know this? Because it takes more oxidation than that to remove every last hint of luster on a coin.
Those two coins should be sold with barf bags.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
You're the one that didn't read all of the responses in this thread. Most people here agree with me. When you're talking this kind of money, IMO, the "messenger" IS responsible for disclosing any defects. This job is part of their commission and part of how they earn their money. ANR can list any coin they want, but should not be publishing incomplete information on coins like these in this price range.
Check out a Vanguard Roth IRA.
The issue that Coinchallenged was trying to bring up was this -- the coin was not consigned to ANR, nor was it described by ANR. The piece is part of a joint sale that is being conducted by ANR and Stack's, but the particular coin in question is in the Stack's part of the event.
John K.
Betts medals, colonial coins, US Mint medals, foreign coins found in early America, and other numismatic Americana
<< <i>You dip a dog with no luster with an orange tarnish on it, and you get a dog with no luster without tarnish on it. This coin had no business being in an MS64 NGC holder in the first place. >>
Iwog,
And, you can tell that from the digital images, while those who have actually seen the coin believe otherwise? Damn, man, you're good!
Russ, NCNE
That hurts just to see that coin ruined.
I have bought some coins as well just to keep them out of the doctors hands.
The luster is gone from both the before and after coin. It's obvious. Anyone willing to dispute this who has seen the coin in person? You perhaps Russ??
And, you can tell that from the digital images, while those who have actually seen the coin believe otherwise? Damn, man, you're good
Tell me specifically WHO says othewise.
Sir, you are wrong.
I don't claim it's dull and lusterless now - that's impossible to tell from a photograph in most cases. I only claim that IMO it's a tragedy that a great coin with a great pedigree is stripped of both its toning and provenance and dumped into auction because it didn't slab at the right grade.
<< <i>There is absolutely no way "the luster was fine" on this coin before or after it was dipped. >>
Uh yeah, okay, Iwog. TDN, a recognized expert on Trade Dollars who actually held the coin in hand is wrong and you, who's only seen a picture are right. You crack me up.
Russ, NCNE
Sad, and makes me...
Hoot
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Now, what is going to be done to discourage or even prevent this in the future? >>
The seller who paid nearly $44K for the original coin stands to lose thousands on resale. He went from owning an original coin in an NGC 64 holder to owning an unattractive (at least from the picture) raw coin that has obviously been dipped with poor results. I can think of fewer better disincentives to doctoring.
CG
There really isn't anything that can be done about coin dipping - nor should there be. Nobody should be able to dictate to someone what they can and cannot do with their own private property. In the case of a coin like this the practice should be discouraged, but anything beyond that is a violation of property rights and a very slippery slope.
Russ, NCNE
I appreciate your comments, but that is not enough. Why? Because there are many coins that are endangered and subject to this activity whereby the financial reward would be an incentive... What about the gold coin example in this thread that upgraded from an AU50 to 58? I imagine that upgrade was worth a few $$$ even though the coin completely lost its appeal.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I agree with you and disagree with you which will make some sense after I explain... I agree with you that a coin that is purchased by somone becomes their property and I have no right to say they should or should not dip the coin. But before they make that decision, they should have options. ONE OF THE OPTIONS IS TO CHOOSE ORIGINALITY over dipping and enhancement which may not be right for certain types of older coins. Russ, I do not advocate taking rights away from collectors, I just advocate sharing information about real value of original coins...especially early gold and type coins.
For those that choose to keep their coins in what is believed to be an original state of preservation, those collectors deserve some level of protection in terms of an original surfaces "o/s"designation that could be part of the grading service offered by PCGS, ANACS and PCGS. The coins illustrated as part of this thread would be valued more with this type of designation and the whole concept of cracking and dipping would be discouraged... I remain a supporter for this concept and frankly the coins that have been pictured in this thread make the argument better than I do.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
* Is everyone on this board just an erudite, elitist snob?
* Is everyone here simply lying
* Are we all-knowing and everyone else is dumb?
Somehow, you have to explain why this forum seems to decry the dipping practice while the market as a whole seems to endorse it. Doesn't connect.
<< <i>those collectors deserve some level of protection in terms of an original surfaces "o/s"designation that could be part of the grading service offered >>
Not a bad idea; matter of fact, a damned fine idea. It's a carrot, rather than a stick. It wouldn't stop all dipping, though. For example, in the case of this Trade Dollar that got destroyed. Do you think the original surfaces designation on the label would have stopped this guy? The pedigree on the label didn't.
Russ, NCNE
There are coins that genuinely benefit from dipping or conservation. For example, 1950's and 1960's era proofs. Frequently, if they aren't given a quick dip to stabilize the surfaces, they can turn to crap a few months after being removed from the proof packaging and exposed to the air.
In the case of a coin such as is the topic of this thread, though, dipping was a very stupid move and the coin was ruined because of it.
Russ, NCNE
Your comments are welcome and appreciated, however, have you thought about the coin market and the difference between the typical unoriginal garb that seems to be reflected by bid and ask prices? Unoriginal coins are accepted by the market but it has come at a price. Original quality type coins in several series will bring substantially more than bid or ask. I believe that there is a two tiered market for coins... one for unoriginal coins and the second for quality original coins and the two just do not mix... This is true for the coins pictured in this thread...
IMHO, if either the Trade Dollar or the Early 1796 Gold coin graded AU50 had an original surfaces designation, I doubt that either coin would have been cracked out and been subject to the dipping that seems to be the major theme and complaint of this thread.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I've been reading the more recent posts here. I just think, especially for a coin that is worth tens of thousands of dollars, that the buyer has a right to know the history of that coin, and if it has been altered in any way. There has to be some way of indicating if a coin has been dipped (if known) on the holder itself. I know ANACS does this, and so does SEGS, for obvious flaws like rim dings, tooling, artificial toning, harsh cleaning, scratches, holes, and graffiti. However, for less obvious flaws like small rim bruises or light cleaning, all of the major grading services will usually slab a coin. I don't know what the answer is.
Dan
Check out a Vanguard Roth IRA.
To answer your question, yes...I do think that an original surfaces designation would have prevented this. Perhaps the better view is that even if it is a deterent 50%-80% of the time, it is still serving collectors that appreciate originality, not to mention, it is an added precaution that may save several other original coins that are not as noteworthy as the two featured in this thread.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
You said that some 1950s and 1960s proofs benefit from dipping. Why? If they were taken right out of original government plastic wrapping and put into slabs, wouldn't this be sufficient?
Edited to add: I'm really playing devil's advocate here. Someone could make the case that, since it's okay to dip 50s and 60s proofs, why not dip any coin?
Dan
Check out a Vanguard Roth IRA.
I agree with your comments about the 1950's and 1960's proof coinage.
Dollardude:
I have seen several coins that have been net graded by ANACS due to cleaning as well as other problems. Even if the ANACs concept of net grading is something that perhaps we all can not agree on, at least it serves a purpose which is more helpful and educational to collectors than a bb. However, this service is for problem coins... unfortunately, great original coins don't get the same treatment and recognition and frankly, I think it is about time. I agree that if collectors are paying for an opinion with respect to the grade and overall condition of a coin, that such an opinion should be as complete as possible.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>If they were taken right out of original government plastic wrapping and put into slabs, wouldn't this be sufficient? >>
Sometimes the answer is an emphatic NO. Just ask Lori about her 1964 PR69DCAM that grew milk spots after it was slabbed. I've run in to the problem several times myself. Send in a coin that looks pristine, is free of spots, and a few months after it's slabbed it's a POS spotted dog.
There are sometimes invisible surface contaminants left from the rinsing process the mint used in the 50's and 60's that will produce these spots after exposure to the air. A quick dip removes the contaminants and stabilizes the surfaces.
Russ, NCNE
I agree that "great original" coins should get the same treatment as "problem" coins. Unfortunately, where do you draw the line? If someone submitted a $50 coin for grading by ANACS, and it came back net graded and worth more like $20, then PCGS obviously wouldn't have graded it and would have given it a bodybag. But, say a $10,000 coin was submitted to PCGS. Would they then give it a grade due to its rarity? Should they give additional details on the holder? Again, where do you draw the line, or would you make the same rules apply to all coins?
Dan
Check out a Vanguard Roth IRA.
That coin was spotless when submitted. A few months after it was graded, it turned to crap. I now conserve every one I'm going to submit and none of those has ever turned.
Russ, NCNE
Wow, thanks Russ, oh great coin guru!
Check out a Vanguard Roth IRA.
I am a believer that an original surfaces "o/s" designation should be offered by the grading services for original coins, especially early gold and type coins, and that designation would be a positive development for coins and collectors. Further, it would be a deterent for what we have seen on this thread.
Where do you draw the line? Only those coins worthy of the designation would get it. Is this a perfect solution? Probably not, but then again we all know what Winston Churchill said about Democracy.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Again, playing devil's advocate here, someone could argue that if you dip these, what's wrong with dipping anything else? >>
I guess the answer to that depends on whether or not you like your modern proofs with or without spots. Sorry, I know you're playing devil's advocate, but the question is ludicrous.
Russ, NCNE