A response to those who think that all dipped coins are no good…
BillJones
Posts: 33,964 ✭✭✭✭✭
Last week there were a lot of posts about how dipped coins are really doctored pieces, which probably should not be graded. I agree with most of the rebuttals that were presented here. First if one cannot tell that a coin has been dipped, what difference does it make? Second, if a coin has been dipped, but the luster remains basically unimpaired, one could argue that such a coin only deserves a minor reduction in grade. Here’s a case in point.
Last December I replaced the Type 2 silver three cent piece that had been in my collection. I found the coin that I had unattractive and really wanted to replace it, and yet I did not want to spend $1,100+ for an MS-64. An MS-63 costs about half that amount, and that was what I really wanted. Yet most MS-63 graded coins are pretty disappointing, as are many MS-64 graded coins IMO. After looking a number of pieces, including some MS-64 graded coins at well over $1,000 each, I spotted this piece, which suited me fine. It is a PCGS MS-63.
This coin is a full Mint State piece with all of the luster intact. It is pretty well struck for this type, which is often a problem with these coins. It greatest sin is that it has been dipped, and it shows. It is impossible to know what the coin looked like before it was dipped, but if the original toning was attractive, this coin would have easily graded MS-64 IMO. As it is, I purchased it for PQ MS-63 money, and was quite happy with the deal.
The Type 2 silver three cent piece was issued from 1854 to 1858. The coin was the first of its kind to be issued in standard coin silver (90% silver, 10% copper). The first (Type 1) silver three cent coins had been 75% silver and 25% copper.
In effort to deter counterfeiters, the Type 2 coins had a much more elaborate design. The observer had a larger five pointed star with three outlines surrounding it. The reverse had an olive branch and a bundle of arrows added to the design within the large “C.”
Unfortunately, like the Type 2 gold dollar, the metal flow was incorrect for these tiny coins. Most pieces were weakly struck, and the wafer thin planchets were not thick enough to hold the design. Quite often shadows of the reverse would show on the obverse, even though the dies had not been clashed. Lower mintages and weak strikes have made the Type 2 three cent piece a scarce type coin for collectors, especially in choice Mint State condition.
In 1859 the mint reduced the size of the star and the letters on the reverse. The designer also reduced the boarder lines around the star from three to two. The result, which is called the Type 3 three cent piece, was consistently well struck.
If you don’t want to buy dipped coins, you can certainly pass on them. BUT if a collector finds the coin attractive and can spend a considerably less amount of money to fill the hole in his set, what is the harm? I would like to read some comments about this.
Last December I replaced the Type 2 silver three cent piece that had been in my collection. I found the coin that I had unattractive and really wanted to replace it, and yet I did not want to spend $1,100+ for an MS-64. An MS-63 costs about half that amount, and that was what I really wanted. Yet most MS-63 graded coins are pretty disappointing, as are many MS-64 graded coins IMO. After looking a number of pieces, including some MS-64 graded coins at well over $1,000 each, I spotted this piece, which suited me fine. It is a PCGS MS-63.
This coin is a full Mint State piece with all of the luster intact. It is pretty well struck for this type, which is often a problem with these coins. It greatest sin is that it has been dipped, and it shows. It is impossible to know what the coin looked like before it was dipped, but if the original toning was attractive, this coin would have easily graded MS-64 IMO. As it is, I purchased it for PQ MS-63 money, and was quite happy with the deal.
The Type 2 silver three cent piece was issued from 1854 to 1858. The coin was the first of its kind to be issued in standard coin silver (90% silver, 10% copper). The first (Type 1) silver three cent coins had been 75% silver and 25% copper.
In effort to deter counterfeiters, the Type 2 coins had a much more elaborate design. The observer had a larger five pointed star with three outlines surrounding it. The reverse had an olive branch and a bundle of arrows added to the design within the large “C.”
Unfortunately, like the Type 2 gold dollar, the metal flow was incorrect for these tiny coins. Most pieces were weakly struck, and the wafer thin planchets were not thick enough to hold the design. Quite often shadows of the reverse would show on the obverse, even though the dies had not been clashed. Lower mintages and weak strikes have made the Type 2 three cent piece a scarce type coin for collectors, especially in choice Mint State condition.
In 1859 the mint reduced the size of the star and the letters on the reverse. The designer also reduced the boarder lines around the star from three to two. The result, which is called the Type 3 three cent piece, was consistently well struck.
If you don’t want to buy dipped coins, you can certainly pass on them. BUT if a collector finds the coin attractive and can spend a considerably less amount of money to fill the hole in his set, what is the harm? I would like to read some comments about this.
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 ... ?
0
Comments
roadrunner
-YN Currently Collecting & Researching Colonial World Coins, Especially Spanish Coins, With a Great Interest in WWII Militaria.
My Ebay!
I also love to go through rolls to find coins.
BST
MySlabbedCoins
I have no 3 cents, 2 cents or 1/2 cents, so seeing any of these is always a treat!!!
"Bongo hurtles along the rain soaked highway of life on underinflated bald retread tires."
~Wayne
<< <i>If you don’t want to buy dipped coins, you can certainly pass on them. BUT if a collector finds the coin attractive and can spend a considerably less amount of money to fill the hole in his set, what is the harm? I would like to read some comments about this. >>
I'll be the contrarian.
The scenario you have decribed seems reasonable and harmless - a coin that may have been unattractively toned gets dipped, it now looks more pleasing, a collector likes it and is able to buy it for a nice price and everybody is happy.
But your scenario isn't the normal case. Far, far from it. The normal case is that someone, probably a shister dealer, dips a nice original looking coin in an effort to reslab it at a higher grade, sells it for substantially more than he paid and then repeats the process on a few hundred or thousand other coins until he has paid for his large home and new yacht.
And because the slabbing companies have historically rewarded this behavior by allowing dipped bright white coins to upgrade, and there is evidently a market for them, the supply of nice original looking coins is dwindling.
And you know what? You can't undip a coin.
Thats the harm.
roadrunner
I looked at a lot of these coins in MS-64. A great many of them had unattractive toning, and I’ll let you in a dirty little secret. The unattractive toning that was on those coins was NOT original. It was the stuff that forms after the coin had been dipped either a few months ago or some years ago. Most 19th century silver coins are like this. Finding coins that are totally original and really attractive is very tough. Original toning DOES NOT and in fact OFTEN DOES NOT translate into "attractive."
Silver that is exposed to the air or stored in a device that has contaminates in it like sulfur will tone or tarnish. That’s just part of the laws of nature. Man makes something and nature goes to work on it to take it back to its natural state.
When I get the get chance I’ll post some original coins or coins that pass as original, the folks here can decide what they like. The results might be interesting.
I have thought that it would be interesting for NGC, who seems to be on the leading edge of the certification business, to identify especially original coins with an "O", similar to their "*" designation.
<< <i>A response to those who think that all dipped coins are no good… >>
I was a part of the previous weeks discussion, and I don't recall anyway saying all dipping is bad. CCU summed it up nicely, imo. I'm glad you have a coin that you like.
Ken
<< <i>
<< <i>A response to those who think that all dipped coins are no good… >>
I was a part of the previous weeks discussion, and I don't recall anyway saying all dipping is bad. CCU summed it up nicely, imo. I'm glad you have a coin that you like.
Ken >>
Check out DorkKarl's comments about half way down (eighth posting down) the page ...
DorkKarl
Ken
I collect Morgan dollars in MS-64 to 65 range with minimum bag marks and brilliant full luster. Not the bright white ones with the over dipped look. You know, the dull smoky looking ones. I know that most of the Morgans I collect in the uncirculated grades are dipped also. But, I like them. There is a large quantity of dipped Morgan dollars in the market place to choose and cherry pick from. I recently viewed a collection of uncirculated toned multicolor Morgans that I thought were attractive as well. I'll not enter that field of collecting, due to the lack of knowledge in knowing whats AT and Natural toning.
I also collect circulated Morgans in the VF to AU range in their natural circulated condition. This is tuff, because so many circulated Morgans have been shined, buffed or something. To me nothing looks worse than an AU coin that has been shined up or tampered with in some way. In my opinion the old circulated Morgans with brown or gray colors look natural to me and I like them that way. Like my Icon.
I have took a liking to uncirculated Morgans with just a hint of rim toning. I find them attractive also. I guess this all falls into the category of collecting what you like. If you find it attractive then collect it.
Now, I wouldn't want to mislead anyone. I'm just a collector. I know that some of the coins that I collect will probably never appreciate in value, thats OK. I just like em. I was lurking on a thread about buying the very best high grade, low pop coin available. To me this would be rare coin investing collecting. Way out of my price range. If I had to take a mortgage on the house or spend the retirement to buy a rare coin, I wouldn't be having fun. For the people that can afford the expensive coins, more power to them. I think there beautiful too and probably a good investment as their leading the upward trend in the market right now.
Hope I didn't get too off topic. Having fun collecting coins.
******
Elitest snobs. Stuck up. Weak egos. Losers.
50% luster remaining, conserved, NGC MS64 or MS65 bust quarter that just doesn't cut it for me? Any one else feel that way? I must be in the minority. I prefer 95-100% on my mint state 65 bust coins.
They're out there and worth the time to chase them down.
roadrunner
Once more the cost of "the real thing" in Mint State is quite high. The best one I've handled was an MS-64 that came from the Eliasberg Collection. It was pretty, but it had been dipped IMO.
Just my two cents.
On a completely different note, early matterial (pre 1850 to pick an arbitrary date) that has stupendous luster and has a golden patina will bring way more money than a darkly toned coin that has never been dipped, all things being equal.
And, the coin with the golden patina has almost surely been dipped once if not many times.
Hear me now and think about it later.
<< <i>I don't know, there is something about a dipped out, washed out,
50% luster remaining, conserved, NGC MS64 or MS65 bust quarter that just doesn't cut it for me? Any one else feel that way? I must be in the minority. I prefer 95-100% on my mint state 65 bust coins.
They're out there and worth the time to chase them down.
roadrunner >>
I guess that makes you a weak-ego'd, elitist, loser-snob.
******
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
I have to agree with your assesment.Even the Lincolns I've seen that were lightly dipped,especially the key dates are attractive.I have a 1914-D that was BB'd by PCGS for color.I knew it was dipped when I sent it in.However it was done a while ago and the fact that it was light and a key,I was hoping for a grade.I think it is an AU50 myself.
Registry 1909-1958 Proof Lincolns
Your story about the III Cent coins is interesting and I will share my story about this series at the appropriate time... its just that I don't have the coin here at the moment.
Bill Jones... I am still determined to raise the issue of originality in high end circulated coins as well as rare dates because in my view they are worth a premium. I still believe that collecting early and no motto gold has been very problematic because much of the surviving population has been enhanced for the purpose of getting a bump which can mean the difference in $$$. I still think that original bust and seated coinage is much tougher than most think, and I would rather have the original coin. Collectors that seek originality should get something for there effort, and I still maintain that the TPG companies should be willing to offer an original surface designation for such coins so at least there is some notation that not all AU50 coins are equal.
While many of us have a restricted budget, I am not ashamed to have a high end circulated example of a coin that I believe is original in place of a higher grade example that is not original.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
IMO, it is most important that we educate ourselves on the depth and breadth of this issue and then make a decision on a coin-by-coin basis. I think it is unwise to resort to absolutes regarding this issue.
The thing to remember is that no coin (in the classics arena) is perfect. There are always trade-offs regrading price, value, detractions, eye appeal, etc. Be educated and reasoned in what you want and will accept from a particular coin.
For example, one will be much more willing to accept a rare die marriage ED or an 1851 original $ that is BB-material than an 79S $. And, think of all the shades of grey to this, and with other examples of coins.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
<< <i>Bill
I have to agree with your assesment.Even the Lincolns I've seen that were lightly dipped,especially the key dates are attractive.I have a 1914-D that was BB'd by PCGS for color.I knew it was dipped when I sent it in.However it was done a while ago and the fact that it was light and a key,I was hoping for a grade.I think it is an AU50 myself. >>
Lincoln cents present a prime example of why dealers are more or less forced to play with coins to make them saleable.
I don't deal in Lincoln cents for the most part because so many Lincoln collectors are obsessed with red. One time a devoted Lincoln cent collector gave me a want list. This collector was upgrading his set from circulated to Mint State pieces. I asked him if R&B coins would be OK. He said he REALLY wanted red coins. I told him that red coins would be far more expensive for many of the dates that he needed. I also knew that this collector had fair sized, but not infinite budget.
Over time I got a few coins for him, but not many. I would sell him only original red coins. I had to pay for them, and so die he.
There one day he showed up with some coins he had just purchased. “See!” he said, “I found these coins all in red, and I bought them for less than the amounts that you were charging me.” Every one of the coins had been cleaned, but I didn’t have the heart to tell him. Although he had been collecting Lincolns for years, he could not tell the difference between original red and manufactured red.
I’ve noted the same thing with other Lincoln sets that I have seen. Original R&B Lincolns are hard sells for me. Original red pieces are in demand, but a lot of collectors can’t tell them from the cleaned pieces. And a lot of collectors think they are getting a bargain when they buy these coins at discounted prices. It’s losing battle for me and one that I’ve decided not to fight.
When comes to dipping, the only metal that really makes sense is silver. Gold coins usually are not improved by dipping, and in the vast majority of cases dipping copper coins usually ends up in a disaster.
my response, is that my point in those arguments of last weeks, & most other arguments about dipping = cleaning = doctoring is, if someone REALLY REALLY REALLY JUST GOTTA HAVE a blast-white double-dipped coin, then why not buy 1 that's already dipped?.
why buy 1 that's original, THEN DIP it???
there are not enough high-grade orignal older coins to go around, becuase the vast majority have been dipped. then you have some numb-nuts who WANTS a blast-white piece, so buys an original & dips the crap out of it.
WHY???
why not just pay for a coin that's ALREADY dipped?
FAR too many collector-wannabe's just seem to think that they know better, that they can "improve" on something that took 150 years to develop (original patina), & it takes mere seconds to undo what a natural process to decades to develop.
the worst is a DEALER who thinks "you know, if i just dip this coin, it'll be shiny & bright & i can probably get an extra 50 bucks for it in a pcgs holder". that's the most sickening, gut-wrenching, vomit-inducing kiss-my-a** attitude to me .... shiny-up the coin so it'll sell for more, then justify it becuase "dipping's been accepted for years".
you bought a coin that's already dipped. i say "yay" for you, that's great, you bought what you wanted. but had you bought a real nice original coin then dipped off the 150 year-old patina just to make it "match", that would make me sick.
now, i'll go back & read all the other posts.
K S
<< <i>If you don’t want to buy dipped coins, you can certainly pass on them. BUT if a collector finds the coin attractive and can spend a considerably less amount of money to fill the hole in his set, what is the harm? I would like to read some comments about this. >>
now that i've gone back & re-read everything, i'm dismayed about how little was really said in response to your original thesis. the point is really not who's right or wrong about what's attractive, etc. to me, the point is that you still have ignorant fools out there constantly depleting the supply of orignal coins for the benefit of the few extra bucks that they "think" shiny blast-white coins brings.
<< <i>Original toning DOES NOT and in fact OFTEN DOES NOT translate into "attractive." >>
i understand the point your making. but i'm definitely the exception. i LIKE coins w/ original toning that others frequently find unattractive. for example, i happen to LIKE carbon spots on lincoln cents. they don't detract to me at all, because they are part of the CHARACTER of the coin. they remind me that the coin's ORIGINAL. i don't mind dirt in the crevices of my 3 cent nick's at all, it's hard-earned dirt. i don't mind a bit of light corrosion on my 1795 half-cents - that's the nature of the coin! i enjoy a coin for what IT IS & not what it "could be".
<< <i>People who won't buy any coin that looks like it has been dipped are just elitist snobs who are just trying to get other people who see their collection or inventory to say "Wow, you have the most incredible eye for coins I think I've ever seen. You must be really patient to wait for just the right original gorgeous coins to come around." Elitest snobs. Stuck up. Weak egos. Losers. >>
really? you can really divide up "people" into 2 camps so easily? the elitist & the non-elitists? rather a simpleton-minded way to look at your fellow coin-collectors , isn't it?
for me, i WILL buy a dipped coin. i'll buy a whizzed coin. i'll even buy a holed & repaird coin. how many holed coins do you, the evidently self-proclaimed non-elitist non-stuckup non-weak ego non-loser own??? i know i can't afford an orignal, unimpaired 1797 half, so i bought what YOU would consider a POS. but to me, it's the probably the greatest coin i'll ever own, & i love it.
this issue so often gets dumped off to a debate of whether it's right or wrong to dip coins, but that's only a secondary argument. the main argument for me is why so many idiots continue to dip coins by the bucketful, when there are literally tons upon tons of coins already dipped & already in plastic holders for you to buy.
K S