MrEureka, no it does not. ANA defines luster on a coin as a cartwheel pattern of light created by flow lines on the surface of the coin. Please point out the cartwheel.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Do you think that establishing an impossible standard of proof proves your point?
And how does a minimal standard prove your point? You see, I do NOT have to prove my point. You do, because you're the one who made a hyperbolic assertion and are now being called on it.
And, now, for the big question of the day: why am I still debating with Iwog? So many others have come before me, and better too. Have I learned nothing from them?
Please stop for a minute and consider this point. IF a coin is graded MS68, and supposed to be the finest known example with a population of 10 (the wisconsin coin), the how could NGC POSSIBLY miss the fact that it was devoid of luster unless they wern't considering it when assigning a grade??? You really think they simply made a mistake when giving out the highest grade possible???
None of the major grading firms take luster into account when assigning grades. I welcome evidence to the contrary.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Heritage scans never show luster well, and it is quite apparent to me that the luster argument you are making is nothing but a red herring. Clearly you just flat out don't like toned coined. There are many toned coins that display much more luster than your 36 Boone. Why don't you just say you like white coins, dipped or not. Your hiding behind the luster argument just does not cut it. I too have some white coins in my collection that I know have been "dipped". Its no big deal, everyone should collect what they like. And that goes for you too, however, your insistence in telling all who prefer original coins that they are wrong is wearing thin and is boardering on trolling.
I prefer original coins. Yes, dirty and crusty to use words you might use in describing them. But I also love luster. Those attributes are not exclusive.
This York is the same vintage and grade as your Boone. The obverse is completely toned in champagne to deep golden color. The reverse ranges from untoned to champange. It is one of the more flashy coins in my collection with BOOMING luster. Much more so than in your dipped Boone. I rest my case.
Iwog is trolling by going to the Heritage websites where they are famous for dark photographs implying poor luster. They photographed 2 coins I sent them for auction and they both came out looking like turds. My best piece was a totally original 80% white coin that looked like it was dipped....until I had them redo the photo to show the coin as it truly appeared. Made all the difference. I'd say maybe 10-30% of the toned MS67 or 68 type coins out there have somewhat subdued surfaces. But there's no way the majority of them are as Iwog purports.
None of them use luster when determining a grade. I've seen thousands of examples and I can find thousands more....Luster is totally ignored by all the major grading services.
Pure and utter nonsense. Luster IS the major factor by far. What is a problem is the 2 and 3 times dipped/stripped coins that have a layer or two of luster burned off. These "Iwog acceptable" gems have a distinctly hazy or "fuzzy" look to their luster than once dipped or original surfaced coins. Frankly, I'll take an original "tarnished" coin with subdued luster over a triple stripped MS65 type coin. I was buying those long before grading services came about. One doesn't have to look far to see how cruddy a bust quarter or seated half looks when stripped....even with a grade as high as MS68 assigned. I've seen enough stripped seated coins in PCGS and NGC 65-68 holders to make me gag. And what will those triple-stripped MS65's look like in 10 years? Mottled brown with weak luster underneath. By then, they'll need a 4th stripping.
Not to jump into the frey .......... but Heritage pics s*ck for showing luster. Even with toning, there can still be booming luster underneath it. The 26-S toned Peace $ I posted is my best example of such. In Heritage's pics the coin looks dark and dead. In hand it just radiates.
I'm unfamiliar with the grading of Commems, but for Peace $, without luster, the coin isn't going higher than a 64/65. I've got a couple of toned Peace $ that have nice strikes and are relatively mark free, but they don't have that dripping with luster look so I'll never be able to get them into a higher grade. And by the way -- those are NGC graded.
I just don't see NGC or PCGS grading for originality.
That's not how it works. You made an assertion, and it's up to you to refute all claims against your assertion including the one about lousy imaging. It's a heavy burden, I know, but you're the one who stepped in it of your own volition.
Roadrunner, I'll identify several outright lies in your last message.
Dipping a coin doesn't burn and strip away a layer of the coin's surface, it only removes oxidized silver ions. In fact, oxidation in a very real sense burns away the top layer of the coin (fire is rapid oxidation) replacing it with tiny pits that destroy the flow lines and therefore the luster on the coin.
My "Iwog acceptable gems" are all in PCGS MS65-MS67 holders, therefore your implication that I'm in my own little world is simply stupid.
A bust quarter looks terrible when dipped because the flow lines are long gone. In an uncirculated coin, they were probably removed by......you guessed it, TONING! Dipping the coin only reveals what is underneath and wasn't what made it look that way.
I've posted numerous coins that I personally dipped more than 10 years ago and still look wonderful. Lying about how mottled and brown they will ultimately look doesn't help your case very much.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
EVP, I've presented evidence appropriate for a PCGS message board. Since I cannot bring actual coins into the forum and photographs are the best alternative, your demand for my PROOF that these Heritage coins are actually not the dogs that they appear to be is not only silly, but very childish. A proper rebuttal would be to force you to fly to Long Beach and inspect the coins yourself, but of course that's not going to happen is it........
I will state for the record that I've been to dozens of Heritage auctions and bought many coins from them. I'm very experienced in determining luster from a photograph and although it might be convenient for some of you to claim the photographs lie, I assure everyone they do not.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Hey Tradedollarnut, this is the medium we are using and I'm limited by what I can say and show here. At least I'm showing SOMETHING as opposed to most of you who aren't showing anything.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
this is the medium we are using and I'm limited by what I can say and show here. At least I'm showing SOMETHING as opposed to most of you who aren't showing anything.
The rest of us recognize that we can't grade, nor assess luster, off a scan. The rest of us know better than to make wild, unsupportable claims such as the grading services don't factor luster into their grade.
If YOU prefer coins that show luster even in second rate scans, so be it. But I, too, have bought and viewed enough coins in Heritage auctions to know what the scans look like compared to the coins. Showing us a few second rate scans does NOTHING to prove your assertion.
Things are so much calmer here when Iwog is away. You don't think Iwog could also be Catfish or Poe do you?
Dipping a coin doesn't burn and strip away a layer of the coin's surface, it only removes oxidized silver ions. In fact, oxidation in a very real sense burns away the top layer of the coin (fire is rapid oxidation) replacing it with tiny pits that destroy the flow lines and therefore the luster on the coin.
Sure it burns the luster away. What do you think the acid in dip does. Go ahead and leave a bright white lustrous walker overnight in the dip and let me know how nice it comes out.
My "Iwog acceptable gems" are all in PCGS MS65-MS67 holders, therefore your implication that I'm in my own little world is simply stupid.
And I'm sure your coins are all bright white dipped too. Your world is little and from what I can see, you have little company.
A bust quarter looks terrible when dipped because the flow lines are long gone. In an uncirculated coin, they were probably removed by......you guessed it, TONING! Dipping the coin only reveals what is underneath and wasn't what made it look that way.
Again, you ignore that fact that even dipping a lightly toned or tarnished coin will further degrade the luster. Every dip removes a layer of luster along with the toning. If there is not much toning, then straight silver comes off.
I've posted numerous coins that I personally dipped more than 10 years ago and still look wonderful. Lying about how mottled and brown they will ultimately look doesn't help your case very much.
Then you are a pro-dipper. My hat is off to you. NCS is always looking for a few good men. One of the coins I own (PCGS green tag MS66 1853 25c) was dipped around 15 years ago. It came out of the Ed Milas'1850-1855 mint sets. From what I heard these were very darkly toned...until dipped. My coin started turning golden brown at the peripherals around 10 years ago. This is just one example of what a "lying scum" I am.
Have a nice day Iwog. And for what it's worth, your dipped coins are going to tone eventually.
I haven't seen much NGC graded gold lately to offer an opinion. I will say that original gold can appear to be overgraded, but on the other hand if someone is going to buy a rare date, such as an 1852-O $10 Lib that is an original AU50 in anticipation of enhancing it to get a 55, and make $1000 or so, could it be that the coin was a 55 to begin with?
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
It does prove one thing.......that you wont even consider the possibility that those coins have damaged luster because it would disturb your preconceived notions, so you simply deny them.
Anyway I can't believe we're even having this discussion. PCGS and NGC have been holdering lusterless dogs with premium grades for years. It's common knowlege and often the topic of conversation on the bourse floor. I think the real reason the toneheads are reacting so violently is they don't want to consider the possibility that their dark coins are damaged, therefore they "see luster" under the toning even if it's totally missing, then blame the dull grey white coins on dipping after the real surface comes to light!!!
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
I have SOOOO many better things to do than deal with his luster issues...
Like drink about eight....teen beers...Which I am currently doing. I just got back on and saw the large growth in posts on this issue..
Commems have various individual qualities with luster as everyone knows...most are very "busy" which in some cases (Texas, Roanoke etc) kills luster...BUT..
I have never seen a MS68 coin that didnt have very nice luster on it... I also dont think that if luster is subdued, it means that the luster is poor...Luster under toning with full thick cartwheels is not "stripped" luster as Iwog would call it.
He sounds to me like a collector that likes everything bright white and flashy...a typical old school CROW!! Attracted to anything bright and shiny...
And Iwog, if you think dipping a coin doesnt kill luster, take a bright white morgan and dip it five times...see what you are left with...
Iwog, I never said that toning doesn't impair luster over time. Au contraire monsieur, what I stated was that dipping can also remove metal. And I'll take a toned coin with subdued surfaces (that means the luster is slightly impaired by definition) over one that has been multi-dipped and stripped it away giving a hazy silvery hue. Yuck.
Many old time collectors also thought that scrubbing their coins with brushes was a good thing. Fortunately a few folks like James Stack, Pittman, Clapp, and the Norwebs didn't adhere to the cleaning philosophy....and left us with some nice original coins that even though toned, kick the hell out of the blast white crowd.
Blast white? What the heck is that? For other than coins surviving in bags or OBW rolls, it means freshly dipped. I chuckle when I see a major retailer describe a coin as "blast white" as if it were a badge of honor or a great rarity. Sorry, freshly dipped type coins don't cut it for me. Any coin can become white with a dipping, what's special about that?
I have never posted a picture on the forum and hopefully this will work. This is a 1739 Crown... it is toned and appears to be original. I really don't see how the lustre has been impaired by the toning.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
To get back on point - I don't think the services reward originality as much as they do overall eye appeal. Eye appeal seems to be good for about 5 bonus pts. in the circulated grades. I can't say I've seen a lot of NGC or PCGS coins that got bumped for originality alone (unless they also happen to be pleasantly toned and have nice surfaces).
As for the Uncs, I will let TDN, EVP, Iwog, etc. continue to duke it out
btw...I agree with you that NGC is doing that on CIRC coins....I think that it is opposite on others...but on circ stuff, I think that you get a small boost...
coinlieutenant, you probably should get to work getting drunk and forget about the forum for awhile. Being an arrogant elitist who thinks that anyone who disagrees with you is a troll isn't very becoming.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Roadrunner, silver doesn't react with dilute sulphuric acid. Copper doesn't either. In fact silver only reacts with one acid at room temperature and that's Nitric acid. No matter how many times I try to teach you this simple fact, you don't seem to want to learn.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Hi MrEureka. I said; "After all, if the coin is NOT original it SHOULD not be holdered in the first place - right?" (bold emphasis is added) and then you said; "Wrong. In fact, most slabbed coins are not 100% original. A coin has to be pretty bad before it is not holdered..."
"Should not" be slabbed is not the same as "are" slabbed. It is true that many slabbed coins are not 100% original. This doesn't make it right. Unfortunately, that is the end result when slabbing services certify non-original coins in their holders. Non-Original coins should NOT be slabbed at all unless the net grade or problem is clearly described on the slab itself (like Anacs and Segs do for example).
Now, PCGS and NGC pride themselves (I thought) on ONLY slabbing 100% ORIGINAL coins. I have plenty of body bags from PCGS that seem to suggest this is true. Eureka, when you say that "most" of the coins slabbed are not 100% original, are you talking about services OTHER than PCGS and NGC? If not, then I'd be very surprised and very disappointed.
I agree entirely with IWOG that lustre should remain an important aspect of a coin's grade. It should not go unnoticed by professional graders when considering a grade. Lustre is what gives a coin its "life." An original coin without lustre should not grade higher than an ms64 - at best! There is good reason that luster is one of the classic standards of coin grading; surface presevation, strike, lustre. matteproof
Agree with RYK as I am seeing a smattering of relatively 'original' circulated branch mint gold surfacing in NGC holders that have not been processed. Not sure that they are being bumped by more than half a grade. Interestingly 2 or 3 of the coins I have seen recently were Dahlonega coins from the Richmond collection. But, I was told by dealers who saw all the branch mint gold collection that more were processed than not. Early limited observations only, time will tell.
Matteproof-you say non -origional coins should NOT be slabbed at all. Wow there would not be very much branch mint gold then and then you say I thot PCGS and NGC pride themselves on ONLY slabbing 100% origional coins. What a statement I was talking to Doug Winter about this the other day and he said, and he is one of the leading dealers in branch mint gold today that a good 80 to 85 % of ALL branch mint gold has been messed with and about 95% of early gold has been messed with, if the services didnt slab them there would hardly be any coins to buy!! I LOVE origional coin also but know reallity, I just bought probably the 3rd finest known, according to Doug Winter who wrote the book, 1847-0 $5 in PCGS AU55 out of the last ANR sale it was a nice processed coin but had a little luster left and probably would not be able to upgrade to a nicer coin because most of the others would have also been dipped. Since I am a date collector I could wait for years and maybe NEVER find a coin in a condition censes grade the was never messed with in some fashion!! It is too bad, but we just have to live with the reallity. I can recall one instance last May when I was at the Las Vegas Money show and I walked up to one of these coin booths like telemarketers that were selling coin at about the same prices as the home shopping networks and just trying to make conversation when the guy said to me that he had bought millions of NGC slabbed coins and that not ONE of them had ever been cleaned, I just stood there in amazement and said, what planet did you come from, and walked away not looking back, some people that cane give out this kind of information with a straight face is amazing!! Some people will just never GET IT.
Wow! Went out for the evening and never expected this thread to be still going, though perhaps off on another tangent.
I am heartened to learn that some of the forum members might in part agree with my observation, despite that many will not. Personally, I will continue to seek and pay up for "original-appearing" circulated and lower unc better date gold coins, no matter what the number on the holder says.
My only concern is that I am not especially ggod at recognizing the difference between "original" and "dipped 1000 years ago and since retoned." Hopefully, with time and the experience of looking at many coins, I will learn this
Of cource there are origional coins just go to the Pinnacle-rarities.com web site and click on the Dingler collection and you will see some of the most ORIOGIONAL coins, there are a FEW left.
Hi Reece. Thank you for the comments. I appreciate it. Let me just make a few more observations. You said; origional coins should NOT be slabbed at all. Wow there would not be very much branch mint gold then.."
It would only mean that branch mint gold would be slabbed less often (i.e. lower population). The same number of played with raw coins would still be available of course, only they would remain raw (or net graded). It would only mean that those coins which ARE original (and therefore slabbed) will be more desirable and probably more valuable (as they should be). Otherwise, of what value is the PCGS and NGC guarantee of originality? Why any bodybags at all? Isn't it fair to say that a problem coin in a PCGS or NGC slab is WORSE than it being raw? Buyers rely upon that guarantee. Doesn't a non-original coin in their holders create a false sense of security for those who rely upon the guarantee?
You said; "I was talking to Doug Winter about this the other day and he said, and he is one of the leading dealers in branch mint gold today that a good 80 to 85 % of ALL branch mint gold has been messed with and about 95% of early gold has been messed with, if the services didnt slab them there would hardly be any coins to buy!!"
There would be the same number of coins to buy, but there would be less CERTIFIED examples to buy (as it should be if they are not original coins). Original coins is what I expect from PCGS and NGC certified examples. Isn't this the essence of their guarantee? Why else would NGC have that "NCS" slabbing service as a seperate product? Isn't it because NGC only slabs "original coins?" as NCS does not?
You said; "I LOVE origional coin also but know reallity,..." Fair enough. But why should you pay for fantasy? Why pay for the PCGS or NGC guarnatee of originality if the coin inside the holder is not original? Is the guarantee an illusion? How could a buyer possibly make an informed decision when he is relying upon the slab's guarantee of originality? It causes confusion.
You said; "I can recall one instance last May when I was at the Las Vegas Money show and I walked up to one of these coin booths like telemarketers that were selling coin at about the same prices as the home shopping networks and just trying to make conversation when the guy said to me that he had bought millions of NGC slabbed coins and that not ONE of them had ever been cleaned,..."
Reece consider this, isn't it entirely reasonable for this salesman to make that comment since he probably was basing it upon the NGC guarantee that he paid for?
Last thought; if PCGS and NGC slab non-original coins as a matter of practice (rather than occassional human error) then how should the practice of body bagging be viewed? How many PCGS or NGC holdered coins were purchased (at premiums) for their stamp of approval that the coin is "all good"? If it turns out to be otherwise, of what substance is the guarantee? Wouldn't it just be smoke and mirrors? Expensive smoke and mirrors too. Thanks Reece. I very much appreciate your excellent comments. matteproof
"Dipping a coin doesn't burn and strip away a layer of the coin's surface, it only removes oxidized silver ions. In fact, oxidation in a very real sense burns away the top layer of the coin (fire is rapid oxidation) replacing it with tiny pits that destroy the flow lines and therefore the luster on the coin."
That's a factually inaccurate statement. Those oxidized silver ions contain atoms of the coins original metal so when you strip any of them away you ARE removing some of the coins original surface. Remove enough of them and at some point you will impair the coins luster to a point where it can be detected by the trained eye of an experienced collector.
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
"Originality" is often something that can be assumed, not absolutely determined. The word is often overused and in some cases, IMO, it can be overrated. It's usually assumed that some heavy toning that masks luster, for example, is "original" even if on a sufficiently old coin it could have been dipped (or even cleaned) and allowed to retone for a long time. Similarly, a old, very white coin, let's say a Bust or Seated half though it could be anything of that age -- is assumed to have been dipped regardless of the amount of luster on the coin. (I don't talk about old Morgans here, because they are largely a special case. Millions that were in bank vaults and sealed for 80 years could certainly be bright white and original.)
It's possible that the former has been messed with and retoned, and possible (at least in theory) that the latter was well protected almost since the day it was made and didn't tone very much. Yet the former would be "original" and the latter "dipped junk" in the eyes of some, just by making assumptions about what a coin of a particular age "should" look like based on typical examples.
All else being equal, yeah, original is better -- often much better, IMO. But there are plenty of *lightly* dipped coins which, to me, have far more eye appeal than some old grayish-brownish-blackish coins with luster all "locked in" under the toning. Yes, every now and then you see a coin that looks original, with attractive toning that still allows most of the original mint luster to come through, and those, IMO, are the most desirable...and probably the ones I'll lose a bidding war on just about every time! Some coins probably look better with a light, careful, professional dipping (no careless stuff or dipping the crud out of a coin until it lost most of its luster); others are nice enough that it I view it as a crime against numismatics to dip them at all.
There's no right or wrong answer here -- I think what is clear is that it's a good thing there's a decent market for both the "original" looking pieces and the "brilliant" stuff, and that collectors who prefer it either way can find attractive material. As always, collect what YOU like, not what others say is right. I like nice original stuff when I can find it and it's not a bank-breaker, but sometimes a lightly dipped coin which loses very little luster and still perhaps has some attractive peripheral toning can have pretty exceptional eye appeal, too.
Pmh, silver ions are not silver metal. The tarnish on a silver coin couldn't be more different chemically than the original metal surface. Therefore it is far more accurate to say that TONING, not dipping removed the top surface of the coin and dipping the coin simply removed the oxidation just as you remove rust from a car. I was being very factual although I guess my perspective isn't the same as yours because you consider something that wasn't originally on the coin to be part of the coin.
Anyway that's kind of beside the point. I was responding to the very frequently repeated lie that the acid in dipping solution removes a layer of the coin's silver surface. This is not what is happening when a coin is dipped and anyone with any intellectual honesty can look up the properties of silver on the web and find this out.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
That's true but where did the silver ions come from? It came from the coin originally. So if you strip off the silver ions using a dip you just stipped off sliver that was ORIGINALLY on the coin, no?
Silver metal and ionic silver are totally different. They have nothing in common chemically, visually, or any other way. I've never understood the argument that just because the original atoms are present, (minus a few electrons of course) that the coin is unaltered. Besides, your coin is now covered with bonded sulfur atoms. How original is that?
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
I'll define originality as "the state of showing no visible deleterious effects from previous attempts to alter the coin's appearance." Why should original coins be cherished? Simple. An original coin "feels"..........
hey EVP
evidentally you think you know what i think i think................i think. either that or you figure Andy needs help in explaining himself, which i don't think he does. but, whatever.
the pasted comments he made are what i understand and the 10 little dots represent the point at which we diverge. it's quite simple, really. a coin in my hand, materializing directly from it's era of origination would look "as minted" which is pretty close to what a properly dipped coin would look like. we've all seen properly dipped coins that we weren't able to descern as having been dipped. but, i digress............
as Andy said, close.
and as for some of Iwog's comments concerning luster, i would add that from what i see in holders, PCGS tends to view luster as being more important than NGC, who seems more willing to not downgrade for weak luster. JMHO.
<< <i>Silver metal and ionic silver are totally different. They have nothing in common chemically, visually, or any other way. I've never understood the argument that just because the original atoms are present, (minus a few electrons of course) that the coin is unaltered. Besides, your coin is now covered with bonded sulfur atoms. How original is that? >>
How did you manage to NOT answer my simple question. Aren't the silver ions you strip off when dipping ORIGINALLY from the coin? A simple yes or no would suffice.
As to the "originality" of my coins: Who cares? I liked them. I bought them. I enjoy them. End of discussion.
It's impossible to tell. Anyone who says they can tell for certain that a coin has never been dipped is deceiving themselves
Your statement is Not True. I guess I must be deceiving or lying to myself once again. I hate when I lie to myself. It's so pointless.
I've owned certain crusty, mostly white, 19th century type coins that were definitely not dipped at any time in their lives. That light crusty layer is the first thing to go. And that crusty layer is no doubt a light patina formed with the surface layer on the coin's original luster. My old gem 1867-s quarter was imo definitely not ever dipped. It was 80% white and it had that certain skin still intact. Your statement would be accurate if you said that for anything but "a select few," mostly white or pure white coins, it is essentially impossible to tell for sure if they have been dipped. And once that crust is gone, you cannot replace it. Re-toning will not restore it. And it is obvious when it is gone. However all we can say is that if it's there, the coin hasn't been dipped. Very few coins meet that criteria however. I've only owned 2 such coins ever.
The answer is NO. The silver ions removed from the coin were not there when the coin was minted. Absolutely not.
Then where did the silver ions come from if they weren't on the coin from the minting process? I guess they fell out of the atmosphere and ended up on the coin. Which text book can I read that theory in? We all better start gathering up all the crust and rust on anything metal because Iwog says it has silver in it. This is the first positive entropy reaction known to mankind. Base metal to silver if you will. Nobel prizes are awarded for less.
Maybe Iwog is tied up with the semantics or something. But if silver from the coin itself doesn't come off the coin, then why does a bright, lustrous coin dull up following prolonged immersion in dip?
Regardless of the answer we all know that a bright coin left in dip will dull. So the only possiblity, ATI, is either the coin's surface is continually oxidizing or there is nitric acid in the dip. Bottom line is that it doesn't matter. The coin gets ruined in the end so we don't do it. End of story. I'll leave the ionic equations for Iwog to ponder further. The end result is all that matters. Long Dip = Dull Coin, grasshoppa.
Comments
And how does a minimal standard prove your point? You see, I do NOT have to prove my point. You do, because you're the one who made a hyperbolic assertion and are now being called on it.
And, now, for the big question of the day: why am I still debating with Iwog? So many others have come before me, and better too. Have I learned nothing from them?
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
None of the major grading firms take luster into account when assigning grades. I welcome evidence to the contrary.
Heritage scans never show luster well, and it is quite apparent to me that the luster argument you are making is nothing but a red herring. Clearly you just flat out don't like toned coined. There are many toned coins that display much more luster than your 36 Boone. Why don't you just say you like white coins, dipped or not. Your hiding behind the luster argument just does not cut it. I too have some white coins in my collection that I know have been "dipped". Its no big deal, everyone should collect what they like. And that goes for you too, however, your insistence in telling all who prefer original coins that they are wrong is wearing thin and is boardering on trolling.
I prefer original coins. Yes, dirty and crusty to use words you might use in describing them. But I also love luster. Those attributes are not exclusive.
This York is the same vintage and grade as your Boone. The obverse is completely toned in champagne to deep golden color. The reverse ranges from untoned to champange. It is one of the more flashy coins in my collection with BOOMING luster. Much more so than in your dipped Boone.
I'd say maybe 10-30% of the toned MS67 or 68 type coins out there have somewhat subdued surfaces. But there's no way the majority of them are as Iwog purports.
None of them use luster when determining a grade. I've seen thousands of examples and I can find thousands more....Luster is totally ignored by all the major grading services.
Pure and utter nonsense. Luster IS the major factor by far. What is a problem is the 2 and 3 times dipped/stripped coins that have a layer or two of luster burned off. These "Iwog acceptable" gems
have a distinctly hazy or "fuzzy" look to their luster than once dipped or original surfaced coins. Frankly, I'll take an original "tarnished" coin with subdued luster over a triple stripped MS65 type coin. I was buying those long before grading services came about. One doesn't have to look far to see how cruddy a bust quarter or seated half looks when stripped....even with a grade as high as MS68 assigned. I've seen enough stripped seated coins in PCGS and NGC 65-68 holders to make me gag. And what will those triple-stripped MS65's look like in 10 years? Mottled brown with weak luster underneath. By then, they'll need a 4th stripping.
roadrunner
I'm unfamiliar with the grading of Commems, but for Peace $, without luster, the coin isn't going higher than a 64/65. I've got a couple of toned Peace $ that have nice strikes and are relatively mark free, but they don't have that dripping with luster look so I'll never be able to get them into a higher grade. And by the way -- those are NGC graded.
I just don't see NGC or PCGS grading for originality.
Michael
Iwog,
That's not how it works. You made an assertion, and it's up to you to refute all claims against your assertion including the one about lousy imaging. It's a heavy burden, I know, but you're the one who stepped in it of your own volition.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
Dipping a coin doesn't burn and strip away a layer of the coin's surface, it only removes oxidized silver ions. In fact, oxidation in a very real sense burns away the top layer of the coin (fire is rapid oxidation) replacing it with tiny pits that destroy the flow lines and therefore the luster on the coin.
My "Iwog acceptable gems" are all in PCGS MS65-MS67 holders, therefore your implication that I'm in my own little world is simply stupid.
A bust quarter looks terrible when dipped because the flow lines are long gone. In an uncirculated coin, they were probably removed by......you guessed it, TONING! Dipping the coin only reveals what is underneath and wasn't what made it look that way.
I've posted numerous coins that I personally dipped more than 10 years ago and still look wonderful. Lying about how mottled and brown they will ultimately look doesn't help your case very much.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Using scans to prove such an assertion is just as bad as claiming the ability to grade off scans - ain't happening!
Don't try to turn this back into a good and informational thread. How dare you?!?
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
I will state for the record that I've been to dozens of Heritage auctions and bought many coins from them. I'm very experienced in determining luster from a photograph and although it might be convenient for some of you to claim the photographs lie, I assure everyone they do not.
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
The rest of us recognize that we can't grade, nor assess luster, off a scan. The rest of us know better than to make wild, unsupportable claims such as the grading services don't factor luster into their grade.
If YOU prefer coins that show luster even in second rate scans, so be it. But I, too, have bought and viewed enough coins in Heritage auctions to know what the scans look like compared to the coins. Showing us a few second rate scans does NOTHING to prove your assertion.
Dipping a coin doesn't burn and strip away a layer of the coin's surface, it only removes oxidized silver ions. In fact, oxidation in a very real sense burns away the top layer of the coin (fire is rapid oxidation) replacing it with tiny pits that destroy the flow lines and therefore the luster on the coin.
Sure it burns the luster away. What do you think the acid in dip does. Go ahead and leave a bright white lustrous walker overnight in the dip and let me know how nice it comes out.
My "Iwog acceptable gems" are all in PCGS MS65-MS67 holders, therefore your implication that I'm in my own little world is simply stupid.
And I'm sure your coins are all bright white dipped too. Your world is little and from what I can see, you have little company.
A bust quarter looks terrible when dipped because the flow lines are long gone. In an uncirculated coin, they were probably removed by......you guessed it, TONING! Dipping the coin only reveals what is underneath and wasn't what made it look that way.
Again, you ignore that fact that even dipping a lightly toned or tarnished coin will further degrade the luster. Every dip removes a layer of luster along with the toning. If there is not much toning, then straight silver comes off.
I've posted numerous coins that I personally dipped more than 10 years ago and still look wonderful. Lying about how mottled and brown they will ultimately look doesn't help your case very much.
Then you are a pro-dipper. My hat is off to you. NCS is always looking for a few good men. One of the coins I own (PCGS green tag MS66 1853 25c) was dipped around 15 years ago. It came out of the Ed Milas'1850-1855 mint sets. From what I heard these were very darkly toned...until dipped. My coin started turning golden brown at the peripherals around 10 years ago. This is just one example of what a "lying scum" I am.
Have a nice day Iwog. And for what it's worth, your dipped coins are going to tone eventually.
roadrunner
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Anyway I can't believe we're even having this discussion. PCGS and NGC have been holdering lusterless dogs with premium grades for years. It's common knowlege and often the topic of conversation on the bourse floor. I think the real reason the toneheads are reacting so violently is they don't want to consider the possibility that their dark coins are damaged, therefore they "see luster" under the toning even if it's totally missing, then blame the dull grey white coins on dipping after the real surface comes to light!!!
I have SOOOO many better things to do than deal with his luster issues...
Like drink about eight....teen beers...Which I am currently doing. I just got back on and saw the large growth in posts on this issue..
Commems have various individual qualities with luster as everyone knows...most are very "busy" which in some cases (Texas, Roanoke etc) kills luster...BUT..
I have never seen a MS68 coin that didnt have very nice luster on it... I also dont think that if luster is subdued, it means that the luster is poor...Luster under toning with full thick cartwheels is not "stripped" luster as Iwog would call it.
He sounds to me like a collector that likes everything bright white and flashy...a typical old school CROW!! Attracted to anything bright and shiny...
And Iwog, if you think dipping a coin doesnt kill luster, take a bright white morgan and dip it five times...see what you are left with...
J
siliconvalleycoins.com
I wonder what IWOG would do with the commems I bought yesterday?
We had an excellent time yesterday doing coin stuff didnt we!! That is what it is all about!
siliconvalleycoins.com
Many old time collectors also thought that scrubbing their coins with brushes was a good thing. Fortunately a few folks like James Stack, Pittman, Clapp, and the Norwebs didn't adhere to the cleaning philosophy....and left us with some nice original coins that even though toned, kick the hell out of the blast white crowd.
Blast white? What the heck is that? For other than coins surviving in bags or OBW rolls, it means freshly dipped. I chuckle when I see a major retailer describe a coin as "blast white" as if it were a badge of honor or a great rarity. Sorry, freshly dipped type coins don't cut it for me. Any coin can become white with a dipping, what's special about that?
roadrunner
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
To get back on point - I don't think the services reward originality as much as they do overall eye appeal. Eye appeal seems to be good for about 5 bonus pts. in the circulated grades. I can't say I've seen a lot of NGC or PCGS coins that got bumped for originality alone (unless they also happen to be pleasantly toned and have nice surfaces).
As for the Uncs, I will let TDN, EVP, Iwog, etc. continue to duke it out
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
btw...I agree with you that NGC is doing that on CIRC coins....I think that it is opposite on others...but on circ stuff, I think that you get a small boost...
John
siliconvalleycoins.com
siliconvalleycoins.com
roadrunner
Cheers!!
siliconvalleycoins.com
"Should not" be slabbed is not the same as "are" slabbed. It is true that many slabbed coins are not 100% original. This doesn't make it right. Unfortunately, that is the end result when slabbing services certify non-original coins in their holders. Non-Original coins should NOT be slabbed at all unless the net grade or problem is clearly described on the slab itself (like Anacs and Segs do for example).
Now, PCGS and NGC pride themselves (I thought) on ONLY slabbing 100% ORIGINAL coins. I have plenty of body bags from PCGS that seem to suggest this is true. Eureka, when you say that "most" of the coins slabbed are not 100% original, are you talking about services OTHER than PCGS and NGC? If not, then I'd be very surprised and very disappointed.
I agree entirely with IWOG that lustre should remain an important aspect of a coin's grade. It should not go unnoticed by professional graders when considering a grade. Lustre is what gives a coin its "life." An original coin without lustre should not grade higher than an ms64 - at best! There is good reason that luster is one of the classic standards of coin grading; surface presevation, strike, lustre.
I am heartened to learn that some of the forum members might in part agree with my observation, despite that many will not. Personally, I will continue to seek and pay up for "original-appearing" circulated and lower unc better date gold coins, no matter what the number on the holder says.
My only concern is that I am not especially ggod at recognizing the difference between "original" and "dipped 1000 years ago and since retoned." Hopefully, with time and the experience of looking at many coins, I will learn this
Iwog is correct on this point. All you can do is buy the ones that look "more original" than the others. In the end, dipping is all relative.
It would only mean that branch mint gold would be slabbed less often (i.e. lower population). The same number of played with raw coins would still be available of course, only they would remain raw (or net graded). It would only mean that those coins which ARE original (and therefore slabbed) will be more desirable and probably more valuable (as they should be). Otherwise, of what value is the PCGS and NGC guarantee of originality? Why any bodybags at all? Isn't it fair to say that a problem coin in a PCGS or NGC slab is WORSE than it being raw? Buyers rely upon that guarantee. Doesn't a non-original coin in their holders create a false sense of security for those who rely upon the guarantee?
You said; "I was talking to Doug Winter about this the other day and he said, and he is one of the leading dealers in branch mint gold today that a good 80 to 85 % of ALL branch mint gold has been messed with and about 95% of early gold has been messed with, if the services didnt slab them there would hardly be any coins to buy!!"
There would be the same number of coins to buy, but there would be less CERTIFIED examples to buy (as it should be if they are not original coins). Original coins is what I expect from PCGS and NGC certified examples. Isn't this the essence of their guarantee? Why else would NGC have that "NCS" slabbing service as a seperate product? Isn't it because NGC only slabs "original coins?" as NCS does not?
You said; "I LOVE origional coin also but know reallity,..." Fair enough. But why should you pay for fantasy? Why pay for the PCGS or NGC guarnatee of originality if the coin inside the holder is not original? Is the guarantee an illusion? How could a buyer possibly make an informed decision when he is relying upon the slab's guarantee of originality? It causes confusion.
You said; "I can recall one instance last May when I was at the Las Vegas Money show and I walked up to one of these coin booths like telemarketers that were selling coin at about the same prices as the home shopping networks and just trying to make conversation when the guy said to me that he had bought millions of NGC slabbed coins and that not ONE of them had ever been cleaned,..."
Reece consider this, isn't it entirely reasonable for this salesman to make that comment since he probably was basing it upon the NGC guarantee that he paid for?
Last thought; if PCGS and NGC slab non-original coins as a matter of practice (rather than occassional human error) then how should the practice of body bagging be viewed? How many PCGS or NGC holdered coins were purchased (at premiums) for their stamp of approval that the coin is "all good"? If it turns out to be otherwise, of what substance is the guarantee? Wouldn't it just be smoke and mirrors? Expensive smoke and mirrors too. Thanks Reece. I very much appreciate your excellent comments.
"Dipping a coin doesn't burn and strip away a layer of the coin's surface, it only removes oxidized silver ions. In fact, oxidation in a very real sense burns away the top layer of the coin (fire is rapid oxidation) replacing it with tiny pits that destroy the flow lines and therefore the luster on the coin."
That's a factually inaccurate statement. Those oxidized silver ions contain atoms of the coins original metal so when you strip any of them away you ARE removing some of the coins original surface. Remove enough of them and at some point you will impair the coins luster to a point where it can be detected by the trained eye of an experienced collector.
It's possible that the former has been messed with and retoned, and possible (at least in theory) that the latter was well protected almost since the day it was made and didn't tone very much. Yet the former would be "original" and the latter "dipped junk" in the eyes of some, just by making assumptions about what a coin of a particular age "should" look like based on typical examples.
All else being equal, yeah, original is better -- often much better, IMO. But there are plenty of *lightly* dipped coins which, to me, have far more eye appeal than some old grayish-brownish-blackish coins with luster all "locked in" under the toning. Yes, every now and then you see a coin that looks original, with attractive toning that still allows most of the original mint luster to come through, and those, IMO, are the most desirable...and probably the ones I'll lose a bidding war on just about every time! Some coins probably look better with a light, careful, professional dipping (no careless stuff or dipping the crud out of a coin until it lost most of its luster); others are nice enough that it I view it as a crime against numismatics to dip them at all.
There's no right or wrong answer here -- I think what is clear is that it's a good thing there's a decent market for both the "original" looking pieces and the "brilliant" stuff, and that collectors who prefer it either way can find attractive material. As always, collect what YOU like, not what others say is right. I like nice original stuff when I can find it and it's not a bank-breaker, but sometimes a lightly dipped coin which loses very little luster and still perhaps has some attractive peripheral toning can have pretty exceptional eye appeal, too.
Anyway that's kind of beside the point. I was responding to the very frequently repeated lie that the acid in dipping solution removes a layer of the coin's silver surface. This is not what is happening when a coin is dipped and anyone with any intellectual honesty can look up the properties of silver on the web and find this out.
<< <i>Pmh, silver ions are not silver metal. >>
That's true but where did the silver ions come from? It came from the coin originally. So if you strip off the silver ions using a dip you just stipped off sliver that was ORIGINALLY on the coin, no?
jom
Why should original coins be cherished? Simple. An original coin "feels"..........
hey EVP
evidentally you think you know what i think i think................i think. either that or you figure Andy needs help in explaining himself, which i don't think he does. but, whatever.
the pasted comments he made are what i understand and the 10 little dots represent the point at which we diverge. it's quite simple, really. a coin in my hand, materializing directly from it's era of origination would look "as minted" which is pretty close to what a properly dipped coin would look like. we've all seen properly dipped coins that we weren't able to descern as having been dipped. but, i digress............
as Andy said, close.
and as for some of Iwog's comments concerning luster, i would add that from what i see in holders, PCGS tends to view luster as being more important than NGC, who seems more willing to not downgrade for weak luster. JMHO.
al h.
<< <i>Silver metal and ionic silver are totally different. They have nothing in common chemically, visually, or any other way. I've never understood the argument that just because the original atoms are present, (minus a few electrons of course) that the coin is unaltered. Besides, your coin is now covered with bonded sulfur atoms. How original is that? >>
How did you manage to NOT answer my simple question. Aren't the silver ions you strip off when dipping ORIGINALLY from the coin? A simple yes or no would suffice.
As to the "originality" of my coins: Who cares? I liked them. I bought them. I enjoy them. End of discussion.
jom
I said as much previously but I'll try to be more clear in the future.
Buy original gold coins that you like... and as you said, pay less attention to the plastic.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Your statement is Not True. I guess I must be deceiving or lying to myself once again. I hate when I lie to myself. It's so pointless.
I've owned certain crusty, mostly white, 19th century type coins that were definitely not dipped at any time in their lives. That light crusty layer is the first thing to go. And that crusty layer is no doubt a light patina formed with the surface layer on the coin's original luster. My old gem 1867-s quarter was imo definitely not ever dipped. It was 80% white and it had that certain skin still intact. Your statement would be accurate if you said that for anything but "a select few," mostly white or pure white coins, it is essentially impossible to tell for sure if they have been dipped. And once that crust is gone, you cannot replace it. Re-toning will not restore it. And it is obvious when it is gone. However all we can say is that if it's there, the coin hasn't been dipped. Very few coins meet that criteria however. I've only owned 2 such coins ever.
The answer is NO. The silver ions removed from the coin were not there when the coin was minted. Absolutely not.
Then where did the silver ions come from if they weren't on the coin from the minting process? I guess they fell out of the atmosphere and ended up on the coin. Which text book can I read that theory in? We all better start gathering up all the crust and rust on anything metal because Iwog says it has silver in it. This is the first positive entropy reaction known to mankind. Base metal to silver if you will. Nobel prizes are awarded for less.
Maybe Iwog is tied up with the semantics or something. But if silver from the coin itself doesn't come off the coin, then why does a bright, lustrous coin dull up following prolonged immersion in dip?
Regardless of the answer we all know that a bright coin left in dip will dull. So the only possiblity, ATI, is either the coin's surface is continually oxidizing or there is nitric acid in the dip. Bottom line is that it doesn't matter. The coin gets ruined in the end so we don't do it. End of story. I'll leave the ionic equations for Iwog to ponder further. The end result is all that matters. Long Dip = Dull Coin, grasshoppa.
roadrunner