Eagle, I agree with what you said but I don't think NGC or PCGS gives bumps for outstanding luster. When I see a blast white MS67 coin with MS65-MS66 bagmarks/strike I'll let you know.
Luster is the best measurment of damage on a coin's surface. The flow lines that make up luster are the most fragile and the first thing to leave the coin when it's mishandled.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
<< <i>The only reason leaving a coin in the dip overnight ruins it is because of an extremely slow reaction involving leftover sulphur in the dipping solution. >>
So you are saying putting a WHITE coin in CLEAN Jeweluster for a LONG time will not destroy the luster? Interesting....
Luster is the best measurment of damage on a coin's surface. The flow lines that make up luster are the most fragile and the first thing to leave the coin when it's mishandled.
I agree 100%.
I don't think NGC or PCGS gives bumps for outstanding luster. When I see a blast white MS67 coin with MS65-MS66 bagmarks/strike I'll let you know.
It doesn't work that way. Without sufficient luster, a very clean coin maxes out at MS64 or so. With sufficient luster, the sky is the limit. But a coin with MS65/66 bagmarks or strike is still an MS65/66.
IWOG: I will see if I can get TomB back in here to debate those points you have raised.
By the way, there is the copper coinage series in which lustrous red copper is treasured far beyond red-brown and brown copper coins. Toned copper is not desired as much as the red "as struck" copper coins. In fact, luster on red copper coins is KING. Toned copper coins is relegated to RB and BR/BN.
The market financially desires red copper cents dripping with luster.
By the way, there are two kinds of luster, frosty luster and the brilliant luster.
The term satiny luster has been used to describe frosty luster 80% of the time and brilliant luster 20% of the time based on my observation!
Tom and I have already had it out over that post, if I remember correctly nothing was resolved. Regarding satin vs. brilliant luster, both types are bright and reflective when the coin is undamaged. A Huguenot commemorative is an excellent example of satin luster while an Oregon is usually brilliant. However, what some dealers call satin luster isn't luster at all. When a coin is dull and looks like it has been sandblasted, it's really the result of years of oxidation eating tiny pits into the surface before it was dipped. I found this silliness out when I posted the picture of my formerly darkly toned Boone commem, and a number of members on this board started calling the hazy crud on the surface "luster". This is the same look that most Arkansas coins have and I think wishful thinking is responsible for this myth. Here's the photo again, the coin on the right was characterized as having original frost by many on this board.
No Jom, the voices in your head told you that, not I. Jeweluster contains sulfuric acid as a buffer and there is always some residual sulphur present in solution to oxidize the coin with, even if it is new. Used coin dip will affect the coin faster because it also has some of the sulphur it disolved off previous coins. By the way, the difference in reaction time between a momentary dip and leaving a coin in overnight is about 50,000 to 1. (.5 seconds vs 8 hours) Drawing conclusions based on an all night dip is absurd.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
"He states that dipping a coin, white or otherwise, removes the top few layers of silver atoms from the surface of the coin. The truth is that dipping a white coin might as a consequence of being in contact with an oxidizing agent remove a few atoms thickness of silver metal from the coin, HOWEVER dipping a heavily toned coin removes a HUGE amount of oxidized silver;..."
The bottomline is dipping a coin removes some of the coins original material. It's an intentional alteration of the coins surfaces to restore the "appearance" of the coins original luster. I put appearance in quotation marks to highlight the fact that dipping does remove some of the original material and therefore cannot fully restore the original appearance of the coin.
Again, which alteration you prefer (toning versus a coin that has been dipped) is anyones choice but to claim the dipped coin is more original after having been intentional altered is a matter of personal preference rather than a matter of fact.
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
Pmh, I agree with you that both dipping and allowing a coin to tone are both alterations to the coin. I think dipping a coin is a very minor alteration while heavy toning is a huge alteration. Neither is original although I'll continue to argue that a coin with almost all of its luster left is far more original than a coin that has been corroded into darkness.
You should realize that dipping isn't really the issue, the state of the coin's surface is the issue. A dipped coin necessarily has good luster or it will be heavily discounted when sold. Blast white coins, whether dipped or not, are preserved the best. The surface on a toned coin is often dark and the luster is usually trashed. The coin may have been dipped previously and retoned, or it might have simply been poorly stored and allowed to tarnish but either way the microscopic flow lines have been removed. Therefore you either use luster as a test of originality or you abandon the concept altogether.
Now the common misconception is that dipping a coin simulates luster. This is false, the most dipping a coin can do is reveal what is underneath. You can never bring luster back to a coin once it is destroyed. Luster is far more than a coin being shiny.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
“The oxidation product of silver is a physical entity, that is, it has mass. Toning, however, is not a physical entity that has mass.”
No matter how you explain this statement, it is misleading. The toning is the oxidation, and it is the light refraction through the oxidation that causes the colors. Once the oxidation is removed there is no prism effect to diffract the light, and gentleman everything inside the confines of the atmosphere has mass. There are no perfect vacuums here on planet earth not even in laboratories.
Back to the original premise, “ Perhaps, we are finally seeing that collectors are willing to pay a premium for originality, and NGC is bumping the coins up a grade ("market grading") for originality.”
My opinion of this is that collectors will buy the grades that the certifiers put on the plastic in most cases rather than the coins. This is particularly the case in high dollar investment coins. If sophisticated collectors were convinced of their grading skills there would be little use for certifiers. I think that the graders have a built in believable factor in their heads when it comes to grading certain series. They just don’t believe that coins from the 1794 to 1850 should be bright white. In their minds there is no possible way for a coin to exist through that much time with out being oxidized.
To add a little OT, Whether it is graders, dealers or collectors a certain amount of Men collectors just cannot see the color in coins that have “great toning” one thing that generally never enters many collectors minds while they are putting together their beautiful “ original toned” sets is that ten percent of all men are color blind to the colors of red and green and additional men are blind to yellow and blue. To many of our fellow collectors these “toned” coins just look nasty.
So far I've heard IWOG make some amazing detailed points not 100% I would agree with, but very informative at the least. As far as the responses they have ranged from some good educated information to the usual , "you spelled wrong" and "I'm gonna go get Tom".
Why can't some of you just admit that his opinions may not be in agreement with yours but they are based on a hell of a lot more facts than some of you have come up with.
Why can't some of you just admit that his opinions may not be in agreement with yours but they are based on a hell of a lot more facts than some of you have come up with.
I have stated that his chemistry certainly could be correct [???]. But he's out to lunch on stating that the services "totally and completely" ignore luster in the MS67 and MS68 grades. It's simply not true.... and pulling a few examples of crappy scans off the Heritage archives does nothing to prove it.
Perhaps if he didn't try to ram such "complete and total" BS down our throats we might be more receptive to what other points he is trying to make???
That's why I said I can't agree with him 100%. Luster, or at least that glitter (not shine) that I call luster seems to be what carries a coin over the hump and I will admit I've taken more than one coin up a notch when I dipped out the dull originality and let the luster (or whatever you want to call it) shine through. Maybe the issue is the definition of term luster, what I call Luster may not be what he claims the techical (chemical) term to be, I don't know.
However, It seems though that there is more contention with how he is presenting his information than with the information itself.
I do thank you all who presented information and refrained from personal attacks for a very educational thread.
Wow. I had read the first few posts of this thread and then ignored it until someone sent me a message asking a question. Then it turns out that some of what I wrote on my web site is being debated. I guess that could be taken as either good or bad.
As I've written many times; I don't care if someone likes toned coins, I don't care if someone likes blast white coins, I don't care if someone dips coins and I don't care if someone likes "original" coins. I do, however, care about science. Perhaps some of you may notice that I use the term "original" in quotes. This is because some might embrace the term to mean "as visually close to appearing as it did coming off the dies as can be imagined" while others might prefer "in a state of preservation such that the surfaces have not been intentionally manipulated since the piece was removed from commerce or placed in a collection". Either way, I think both are correct on a certain level and it is ultimately up to the individual to decide what it is they want to spend their money on to acquire.
There are a few things that Iwog has written that I do not believe the majority of scientists would agree with, as stated and to the degree that Iwog claims, though that I also do not believe are completely inaccurate. I also realize that Iwog tutored chemistry while at UC Davis, but that does not mean that he has either earned a degree in science nor is he a practicing scientist. That's not a bad thing, it's just a statement of fact as I understand it. If I am wrong, I would be delighted to admit it.
Silver metal, in a non-ionic state, and ionic silver aren't the same thing, but neither are they totally different. The ionic form of silver or of a silver-containing molecule has a net gain or loss of electrons and so, on a mass scale they are nearly the same while on an electrostatic scale they are much more different. I don't see the point in debating the shades of grey on this as it depends greatly on what one is trying to show.
The earlier insistance, though it may have softened, about the silver ions that are dipped off not being related to the silver in the coin when struck seems very odd. Of course the silver in the coin as stuck is the source of any subsequent silver ion, however, if the coin is struck with metal that is sufficiently devoid of any oxidation product then the silver ions actually were not present as struck, though the silver atoms that produced such ions must definitely were.
The sodium metal analogy was kind of odd as it can, but does not always, catch fire in air. Please don't try to contradict me on this one as I have used pure sodium metal many times in lab and am aware of conditions that will make it combust. As an aside, a cool thing to do in lab is to get behind a transparent blast shield and drop a small piece of sodium metal into a beaker of water. The sodium metal generates so much heat that is bursts into flames and you can watch it race around the inner surface of the beaker while skating along the water. In a twist of irony, sodium metal is silver-like in appearance.
I would think that silver metal might contain a fair number of silver ions if for no other reason than for impurities in the metal that might oxidize the silver atoms. The term "a fair number" is also rather grey as I certainly don't mean 10% of the metal, but I could imagine it being in the part per million (ppm) range. Metallurgists would be better at answering this as I don't have intimate knowledge of silver refinement.
Silver metal is certainly largely converted to silver sulfide upon toning, no question about that, and one might even properly call an oxidation reaction a form of corrosion, but corrosion such as rust generally results in the destruction of the metal as an endpoint. Not just the surface of the metal, but the entire "entity", if one will allow. If one were to leave a coin in a sulfide-rich environment that occassionally received a thiourea-based rain, then there would definitely be corrosion of any coins left exposed. The alternating production of silver ions and their removal would destroy the metal. This generally does not happen with the coins that we collect, and the layer of silver sulfide will also generally only get to a certain thickness before it stops growing. If left alone the coin may be ugly as all heck to some, but it also won't continue to tone, or corrode if one prefers, thereby acting to preserve the underlying metal.
There has been some discussion that I am wrong in what I have written on my web site. Please keep in mind that I have an earned PhD in biology and chemistry and have been a practicing scientist for years; I can also spot several science-BS artists on these boards. My being wrong might be the case in some specifics but the part about toning removing some atoms off of toned or white coins is not one of them. Unless a newly minted silver coin is kept in a totally sulfide-free environment, which is not likely though may be possible, there will be some level of oxidation on it. The coin may appear blast white to the eye, no doubt, but there will still be some silver atoms that have converted to silver ions through association with sulfide ions. It just happens and is no one's fault. So, that dip that a blast white coin might receive should remove those few areas of oxidation. The coin may appear no different after the dip than it did before, and that is not my point, the point is that some silver will be removed.
I don't believe that I have ever written that silver sulfide has no mass, rather, I write that silver sulfide does have mass. I will quote myself directly (pretty cool, isn't it) and this quote follows-
<< <i>The oxidation product of silver is a physical entity, that is, it has mass. Toning, however, is not a physical entity that has mass. >>
As far as I can tell, that is the area that is causing some confusion. One will note that I specifically state that the oxidation product of silver, be it a silver ion or silver sulfide or whatever, does have mass, and the mass of silver sulfide is 247.83. This means that one mole of silver sulfide (a mole being a standard unit of measure in chemistry) will weigh 247.83 grams. That is definitely mass. Stating that toning is not a physical entity is stating that the light refraction that we perceive to be toning will not have mass. The silver sulfide isn't the toning, however, the silver sulfide is a prime cause of toning. The idea that light would have mass follows de Broglie's theory and is well beyond the scope of this discussion. Let's just admit that energy and matter in the quantum chemistry field behaves in a manner not always consistent with that observed in our own, macroscopic world.
I think that takes care of things directly related to my web site.
Excellent arguments! I love science myself being a Mechanical Engineer. So here's my questons:
1. Does a coin increase in mass with toning, i.e. the addition of oxygen atoms? 2. Does dip remove silver atoms or just silver oxide? 3. Does dipping remove mass from the coin?
1. Yes the coin increases with mass as sulphur oxidizes the silver metal. 2. The dip removes silver sulfide (most toning on a coin is silver sulfide, not silver oxide) but leaves the silver metal untouched for the most part. Because of other chemicals in coin dip, a very very small amount of silver metal may be oxidized then removed. 3. Yes dipping removes mass from the coin. Specifically the oxidized silver.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Unlike the previous quote from Tom's site, I don't disagree with what he's saying this time other than degree. The damage toning does to luster on a coin is gigantic compared to the effect a split second dip has.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
The damage toning does to luster on a coin is gigantic compared to the effect a split second dip has.
You're speaking in absolutes again! 100 years worth of toning could be a lot or a little depending upon the environment. A split second worth of toning in a reasonable environment is certainly less destructive than even a split second worth of dip.
So, it all depends on the circumstances. A daylong dip is worse than light, iridescent toning. A few second dip is better than many years in a sulfur impregnated envelope. It just depends.....
I'm not speaking in absolutes. Most coins that are "damaged" by dipping were made undippable by the oxidation which screwed up the surface in the first place. If you want me to be more specific, a split second dip is always less damaging to the luster than a coin subjected to dark tarnish. Better?
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
I hope that you will follow your instincts and buy original, quality for the grade gold... and consider expanding your horizons beyond just branch mint gold because now is the time to score on better date Philadelphia issues that continue to be ignored. Best of luck and enjoy the hobby...
Iwog:
I posted a picture of an English Crown of a reverse of an English Crown dated 1739 that has lustre and toning and is nice and original. In due time, I will post pictures of coins that are significantly older that are toned that are not damaged as you claim... these coins will have lustre that is impressive... what exactly are you attempting to prove here?
There are differing views that are quite obvious in this thread... there is the option of dipping coins (an option... which you believe is appropriate for many coins and I must respectfully disagree) and originality which you believe is distructive because toning is the root of all evil within the coin collecting relm... and I am of the view that stripping a coin of its original surface is the root of all evil in this hobby(unless it has been improperly stored in PVC flips and has developed issues that require preservation)... Frankly, your view of originality and mine are quite different which is unfortunate... because as we write and contribute to this thread and as we have seen, many original coins have lost the privilege of being called original. At least I can sleep well tonight knowing that I have not contributed to this problem and have actually gone on the record on this forum as trying to prevent this problem, as many other contributors to this thread have.
BTW, didn't anyone like the 1739 Crown? That's okay... I have many more that I will post and I am not afraid to use them...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
If you want me to be more specific, a split second dip is always less damaging to the luster than a coin subjected to dark tarnish.
Yes, I can agree with that. However, over the period of time that it took to dark tarnish the coin, how many 'split second dips' would be required to keep it bright and shiny? Would not the cumulative effect of all those dips meet or exceed the effect of the dark tarnish? After all, the moment the initial light toning forms it creates a protective boundary layer that slows further toning - making the journey to dark tarnish a long and slow one. Dipping, even for a split second, removes this protective layer from the coin's surface and exposes it to the full effects of the environment. Again and again and again.
Thus, it could be readily stated, that repeated dipping is worse for the coin than allowing it to tone naturally - over the same period of time and in the same storage environment.
If you like heavily toned coins, great. If you prefer the blazing luster of a lightly and quickly dipped coin, wonderful. There are both in the market, so everyone should be happy.
A wonderfully toned coin can be a beautiful thing appreciated even by those who prefer the "blast white" look. A lightly dipped and nearly fully lustrous coin can, by almost all accounts, look far better than at least *some* of the repulsively toned pieces that have had -- or could be improved with -- such dipping. I just don't see this as an absolute -- I see this as an "agree to disagree" thing and move on. I don't see preference for one over the other as an absolute. The choice of toning or dipping depends some on the personal taste of the collector, but also on what the toning looks like. It can be beautiful and it can be rather vomitrocious-looking.
As I said before, personally I think nothing beats an unmessed-with, lightly toned coin with pretty colors. But a light dipper -- think dipped once, dipped competently and dipped quickly -- is not much of a "damaged coin" in my opinion. I'll take a *light* dipper with basically full luster over fugly toning, and I'll take a reasonably attractive toned piece over a repeatedly stripped-and-dipped, luster-free coin. And frankly, I think the hobby would be better off if people respected the choices others make in their collecting endeavours.
Think about it: Do you really WANT everyone to like the same things you like, driving up the prices of what you want to collect? If not, we should be GLAD that others like different things. They don't compete with us for the "right coin" or fuel a bidding war on the coin you want to make YOURS.
Why is this beginning to read like the Seinfeld episode of when George dips the same chip twice? Lets end this one now and I extend my apologies to RYK...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
"The dip removes silver sulfide (most toning on a coin is silver sulfide, not silver oxide) but leaves the silver metal untouched for the most part."
Just say it Iwog. Stop the spinning. It really won't hurt. When you dip a coin you're removing some the coins original material. Period. End of story. And it is an intentional alteration of the coins surfaces not just a matter of historical happenstance. And toning is only damage if it diminishes the value of a coin which doesn't necessarily mean that all toning is damage.
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
<< <i>And frankly, I think the hobby would be better off if people respected the choices others make in their collecting endeavours. >>
Unfortunately the choice to dip is not consistent with respecting others. Once a coin is dipped it can never be un-dipped. My choice to collect that toned coin in the future has been voided for forever. Just my two cents worth.
This thread was started by RYK as a comment (or, question) regarding what is going in the marketplace. In that vein, I think the more important issue (over the toning vs dipping debate) about the coin market is eye appeal. Go after eye appeal, and you'll seldome ever go wrong. What is eye appeal? I'll define eye appeal in a circular way as that which the general public would consider attractive.
In the real world, the vast majority of collectors like pretty colors. And, in the real world, the toning vs untoned fight is mostly done on a series by series and grade by grade basis.
For example, collectors of circ silver bust coinage don't like white. They like patina, and that heavy preference in the market defines eye appeal for that sector. Collectors of gem DMPL Morgans predominately like blast white; that is the eye appeal for that sector.
Fight all we want, but unless the best among us is bigger than the market, then this is all academic. The market is what the market is. The people at large have spoken on what they deem is eye appeal, and there is no single definition.
Why am I talking about eye appeal? Because I feel that the concept of market grading is centered around eye appeal. If market grading is used, it certainly would be an attempt by the TPG to reward a coin because they feel it is worth more than the average specimen of that date and technical grade. And, if market grading is used a la originality, then it is the TPG's way of saying that the market has dictated that a certain type of originality is considered positive eye appeal.
And toning is only damage if it diminishes the value of a coin which doesn't necessarily mean that all toning is damage.
This comment is crazy talk. I haven't even discussed the topic of value, however I can accurately say that toning DAMAGES luster, and dark toning will always DAMAGE luster far more than a quick dip. I've also never denied or put spin on the fact that silver atoms are removed by dipping a coin. (straw man argument)Those oxidized silver atoms have no chemical or visual similarities to the original coin's surface and one can quite accurately say the silver metal was destroyed by oxidation before the coin even saw a dipping solution.
If you want an analogy, try this. Your house oxidizes (burns down) but retains many of the original atoms. The wrecking crew comes by and removes the charred remains. You then accuse the wreckers of destroying the house because they removed atoms that were originally part of the house. Kinda absurd isn't it, but identical to the point you're trying to make.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Unfortunately the choice to dip is not consistent with respecting others. Once a coin is dipped it can never be un-dipped. My choice to collect that toned coin in the future has been voided for forever.
Speaking of insane.......
I can do whatever I want with my shiny pieces of metal, but if you want to cry about it go ahead. I'm going to dip a Barber quarter tonight and post it to the board tomorrow morning to show my obvious disrespect for you. <rolls eyes>
How about your respect for my property rights?
EVP, once again I feel the need to remind you that in the 50s and 60s the vast majority of coin collectors preferred clean white coins and took considerable steps to remove any sign of toning. They would have scoffed at your definition of eye appeal and asked why you could possibly want to collect dirty coins.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
EVP, once again I feel the need to remind you that in the 50s and 60s the vast majority of coin collectors preferred clean white coins and took considerable steps to remove any sign of toning. They would have scoffed at your definition of eye appeal and asked why you could possibly want to collect dirty coins.
Yes, and we have them to thank for numerous scrubbed, dipped out, cleaned and impaired specimens with minimal traces of original mint bloom. Thanks a lot!
<< <i>Unfortunately the choice to dip is not consistent with respecting others. Once a coin is dipped it can never be un-dipped. My choice to collect that toned coin in the future has been voided for forever.
Speaking of insane....... I can do whatever I want with my shiny pieces of metal, but if you want to cry about it go ahead. I'm going to dip a Barber quarter tonight and post it to the board tomorrow morning to show my obvious disrespect for you. <ROLLS eyes>How about your respect for my property rights? >>
<< <i>Unfortunately the choice to dip is not consistent with respecting others. Once a coin is dipped it can never be un-dipped. My choice to collect that toned coin in the future has been voided for forever. Just my two cents worth. >>
Offset by all the shake-and-bakers who take nice coins and ruin them in the ovens with AT.
It cuts both ways. The current craze for toned coins is causing a lot of nice coins to be ruined just as a quest for some "brighter" coins leads some people to dip. It depends on whose ox is getting gored, methinks.
EVP, once again I feel the need to remind you that in the 50s and 60s the vast majority of coin collectors preferred clean white coins and took considerable steps to remove any sign of toning. They would have scoffed at your definition of eye appeal and asked why you could possibly want to collect dirty coins.
Times, and preferences, change. Maybe not for every single person and maybe not uniformly, but for the general marketplace it does change.
<< <i>Offset by all the shake-and-bakers who take nice coins and ruin them in the ovens with AT.
It cuts both ways. The current craze for toned coins is causing a lot of nice coins to be ruined just as a quest for some "brighter" coins leads some people to dip. It depends on whose ox is getting gored, methinks. >>
I know you don't believe I support this behavoir any more than I support dipping. How about we just leave them be.
<< <i>]I know you don't believe I support this behavoir any more than I support dipping. How about we just leave them be. >>
I know you don't, and I hope you don't think I was accusing you of such -- I'm just pointing out it's not just the "brighter is better" school of thought which is ruining originality of coins. The mania for brilliance led coin doctors to damage a lot of coins, and now the mania for toning is doing the same. It's just a matter of putting balance and perspective on the matter.
With respect to US coins AND COINS IN GENERAL, why don't you just buy coins that have already been dipped and spare me the trouble of responding to this thread? Please consider this is a reasonable alternative to my earlier post and threat to use photos of coins that are nearly 1,000 years old that appear to be original and have lustre that has not been damaged as you claim?
I believe that your claim that original toned coins have damaged lustre extends well beyond the borders of the United States and dates back well beyond the period of when US coins were minted so why do you continue to post pictures that serve little purpose? Please be advised that I will make every effort to show that there are coins that are significantly older that have not been damaged in the manner that you claim.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>This is EXACTLY the reason why you cannot dip a heavily toned coin and end up with something attractive. The toning has already destroyed the luster. >>
Iwog, that is incorrect. I have seen many "heavily toned" business strike and proof coins dipped, yet ended up looking extremely attractive AND lustrous.
Some "heavily toned" coins have very little luster beneath/showing through the toning and others possess full, radiant luster. I have viewed many thousands of each type, as, I am sure, have a good number of other forum members who have posted here. You are in error in a number of your overly generalized assertions and, in some cases, at least, seem to be speaking in theory, rather than through actual experience.
EVP, once again I feel the need to remind you that in the 50s and 60s the vast majority of coin collectors preferred clean white coins and took considerable steps to remove any sign of toning. They would have scoffed at your definition of eye appeal and asked why you could possibly want to collect dirty coins.
I am certainly glad there was a minority that did not share this view. Otherwise we would never be able to see the trade dollar in TDN's sig line. Every so often the minority is right.
The TD in TDN's sig is AT and with no luster whatsoever. It's really a POS. In fact, the real reason you see the color is because I tweaked the image and added the color. Pretty good, ain't I?
I am proud to have started a thread that, while perhaps on a tangent from my original (pun intended) topic, remains largely focused on coins and far less so on personal attacks. It is good to see the passion that some of my fellow collectors have for their coins and collecting preferences.
As for me, the best argument to buy original surface coins (define it however you wish) is that these coins will stand the test of time and fashion. If I dip a coin like this:
it will likely never look dirty (and original) again. If I leave it alone, I forever have the possibility of having it just like the Mississippi farmer who dug it back out of the ground in late 1865 after the Civil War ended. Or should it suit my fancy, I can have it as shiny as a button on my sportcoat.
<< <i>The market is what the market is. The people at large have spoken on what they deem is eye appeal, and there is no single definition. >>
Has the market spoken such that the TPGs follow the market in grading coins, taking into account grading or value standards set by dealers/collectors? Or do the TPGs set the standards by deciding what kind of toning or how much luster is worth grading points?
Its no secret that coins get cracked out and dipped to gain a grading point bump. I believe that early in this thread TDN cited a number of real world examples of this. And it is no secret that virtually all DCAM silver proofs are white or have toning limited to the peripheries.
So if the TPGs stopped bumping grades for luster and graded coins with luster subdued by patina on the same scale, how would the market react? Would a dipped blast white seated half sell at a premium over its "original skin" but not monster toned counterpart at the same grade?
In theory, the TPGs do not set the standards but totally go by what the market is doing. If they think a coin will sell for gem money, they call it a gem. At least, this is how "market grading" was explained to me at the ANA/NGC grading class. In reality, the grading services are a little bit more like the fed, "tightening" and "loosening" as they see fit. They just don't announce to it the world like Greenspan does
You should be proud...very proud for starting this thread. The only reason I even suggested that you consider better date Philadelphia gold is because it is not appreciated for its true scarcity.
I am pleased to know that you own the 1859-O $10 Lib in the picture and nothing will happen to it in the immediate future... As for other "No Motto" Lib Gold... buy original coins now before it is too late...
While this thread expanded well beyond your intent... I have this feeling that you will not object if original coins have the potential to be saved from an untimely enhancement leading to the demise of originality.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>If they think a coin will sell for gem money, they call it a gem. >>
Certainly that goes on to a degree, but in itself that is an overstatement. They do not put monster toned MS63 Morgans in gem holders even they may bring nore than gem prices. On the other hand I recall an interesting thread (don't recall whether it was here or accross the street) regarding a toned half dime offered at an ANR sale earlier this year. It was in an MS62 holder and sold for strong money, even though it appeared to have a not insignificant amount of rub, leading many commentators to call it AU (perhaps properly so). Seems to me that that kind of grading can victimize the unwary buyer--it is one thing to knowingly pay 62 money for an AU coin and quite another thing to buy believing that the piece is really MS. And while one can say "buy the coin not the holder" sliders can be tough to diffentiate from true MS pieces in many series.
But back to the point I was trying to make. What would happen to the price of patinated coins if they were graded favorably for originality on the same basis that blast white coins are graded for their luster?
coinguy, I've dipped enough coins to make your hair turn white. To say I'm not speaking from experience is absurd.
The number of darkly toned coins that can be dipped to look an attractivce blast white might be a very small fraction of the total. My assumptions are not overly broad, they are very specific and accurate. Saying that the examples I've posted possess very attractive luster if only we could view them in person is simply make believe and not based in reality. The huge overwhelming majority of darkly toned coins have damaged or entirely missing luster. The few exceptions bring premium money BECAUSE they are so rare and actually support my point.
coinkat, I've found there are some people who don't understand what luster is. This can be the only explanation for why people protest my pictures of coins with luster that is obviously and unquestionably ENTIRELY DESTROYED. By the way, I find it hard to believe that a 1000 year old coin can have nice luster. Not only because avoiding oxidation would be impossible in that period of time, but also because hand minting methods didn't allow for much metal flow and therefore flow lines to create it in the first place. If you want to prove me wrong, show me a 1000 year old coin with a nice cartwheel.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
<< <i>Or should it suit my fancy, I can have it as shiny as a button on my sportcoat >>
Oh no, FatMan says you need to be respectful of his rights and treat YOUR coins so that they will look the way HE likes them when and If HE decides someday to buy it.
I subscribe simply to this theory that I made up. Silver coins newer than 1917 should look nice and white since they are still relatively new coins (at least new when I started collecting in the early 1960's).
Silver coins that are older than 1917 should start acting their age and grow up! Sure there are exceptions like the 1834 Lovejoy dime that is a stunner even though mostly white but that is a miracle of preservation.
Do you really expect our early dollars such as the ones cardinal own to be pristine and white? Heck, they are old enough to be my great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother!
Yet in our warped way of thinking, we adore blast white Morgan silver dollars just as much as gorgeous toned ones, adore dripping red lustrous copper coinage back to the large cents of the 1850's, and so forth.
Comments
Luster is the best measurment of damage on a coin's surface. The flow lines that make up luster are the most fragile and the first thing to leave the coin when it's mishandled.
<< <i>The only reason leaving a coin in the dip overnight ruins it is because of an extremely slow reaction involving leftover sulphur in the dipping solution. >>
So you are saying putting a WHITE coin in CLEAN Jeweluster for a LONG time will not destroy the luster? Interesting....
jom
siliconvalleycoins.com
I agree 100%.
I don't think NGC or PCGS gives bumps for outstanding luster. When I see a blast white MS67 coin with MS65-MS66 bagmarks/strike I'll let you know.
It doesn't work that way. Without sufficient luster, a very clean coin maxes out at MS64 or so. With sufficient luster, the sky is the limit. But a coin with MS65/66 bagmarks or strike is still an MS65/66.
By the way, there is the copper coinage series in which lustrous red copper is treasured far beyond red-brown and brown copper coins. Toned copper is not desired as much as the red "as struck" copper coins. In fact, luster on red copper coins is KING. Toned copper coins is relegated to RB and BR/BN.
The market financially desires red copper cents dripping with luster.
By the way, there are two kinds of luster, frosty luster and the brilliant luster.
The term satiny luster has been used to describe frosty luster 80% of the time and brilliant luster 20% of the time based on my observation!
No Jom, the voices in your head told you that, not I. Jeweluster contains sulfuric acid as a buffer and there is always some residual sulphur present in solution to oxidize the coin with, even if it is new. Used coin dip will affect the coin faster because it also has some of the sulphur it disolved off previous coins. By the way, the difference in reaction time between a momentary dip and leaving a coin in overnight is about 50,000 to 1. (.5 seconds vs 8 hours) Drawing conclusions based on an all night dip is absurd.
"He states that dipping a coin, white or otherwise, removes the top few layers of silver atoms from the surface of the coin. The truth is that dipping a white coin might as a consequence of being in contact with an oxidizing agent remove a few atoms thickness of silver metal from the coin, HOWEVER dipping a heavily toned coin removes a HUGE amount of oxidized silver;..."
The bottomline is dipping a coin removes some of the coins original material. It's an intentional alteration of the coins surfaces to restore the "appearance" of the coins original luster. I put appearance in quotation marks to highlight the fact that dipping does remove some of the original material and therefore cannot fully restore the original appearance of the coin.
Again, which alteration you prefer (toning versus a coin that has been dipped) is anyones choice but to claim the dipped coin is more original after having been intentional altered is a matter of personal preference rather than a matter of fact.
Luster is ALL that matters!! Nothing else!! Cant you see that? Gashes in cheeks, weak strikes, ugly eye appeal, it doesnt matter!!!
Give me luster or give me death!!!
J
siliconvalleycoins.com
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
You should realize that dipping isn't really the issue, the state of the coin's surface is the issue. A dipped coin necessarily has good luster or it will be heavily discounted when sold. Blast white coins, whether dipped or not, are preserved the best. The surface on a toned coin is often dark and the luster is usually trashed. The coin may have been dipped previously and retoned, or it might have simply been poorly stored and allowed to tarnish but either way the microscopic flow lines have been removed. Therefore you either use luster as a test of originality or you abandon the concept altogether.
Now the common misconception is that dipping a coin simulates luster. This is false, the most dipping a coin can do is reveal what is underneath. You can never bring luster back to a coin once it is destroyed. Luster is far more than a coin being shiny.
No matter how you explain this statement, it is misleading. The toning is the oxidation, and it is the light refraction through the oxidation that causes the colors. Once the oxidation is removed there is no prism effect to diffract the light, and gentleman everything inside the confines of the atmosphere has mass. There are no perfect vacuums here on planet earth not even in laboratories.
Back to the original premise,
“ Perhaps, we are finally seeing that collectors are willing to pay a premium for originality, and NGC is bumping the coins up a grade ("market grading") for originality.”
My opinion of this is that collectors will buy the grades that the certifiers put on the plastic in most cases rather than the coins. This is particularly the case in high dollar investment coins. If sophisticated collectors were convinced of their grading skills there would be little use for certifiers.
I think that the graders have a built in believable factor in their heads when it comes to grading certain series. They just don’t believe that coins from the 1794 to 1850 should be bright white. In their minds there is no possible way for a coin to exist through that much time with out being oxidized.
To add a little OT,
Whether it is graders, dealers or collectors a certain amount of Men collectors just cannot see the color in coins that have “great toning” one thing that generally never enters many collectors minds while they are putting together their beautiful “ original toned” sets is that ten percent of all men are color blind to the colors of red and green and additional men are blind to yellow and blue. To many of our fellow collectors these “toned” coins just look nasty.
Why can't some of you just admit that his opinions may not be in agreement with yours but they are based on a hell of a lot more facts than some of you have come up with.
I think a large amount of experience and facts have been shared. If anyone is being obtuse, I would say that it is IWOG...
That being said, I am just an elitist arrogant @#$ so take me with a grain of salt.
John
siliconvalleycoins.com
I have stated that his chemistry certainly could be correct [???]. But he's out to lunch on stating that the services "totally and completely" ignore luster in the MS67 and MS68 grades. It's simply not true.... and pulling a few examples of crappy scans off the Heritage archives does nothing to prove it.
Perhaps if he didn't try to ram such "complete and total" BS down our throats we might be more receptive to what other points he is trying to make???
However, It seems though that there is more contention with how he is presenting his information than with the information itself.
I do thank you all who presented information and refrained from personal attacks for a very educational thread.
As I've written many times; I don't care if someone likes toned coins, I don't care if someone likes blast white coins, I don't care if someone dips coins and I don't care if someone likes "original" coins. I do, however, care about science. Perhaps some of you may notice that I use the term "original" in quotes. This is because some might embrace the term to mean "as visually close to appearing as it did coming off the dies as can be imagined" while others might prefer "in a state of preservation such that the surfaces have not been intentionally manipulated since the piece was removed from commerce or placed in a collection". Either way, I think both are correct on a certain level and it is ultimately up to the individual to decide what it is they want to spend their money on to acquire.
There are a few things that Iwog has written that I do not believe the majority of scientists would agree with, as stated and to the degree that Iwog claims, though that I also do not believe are completely inaccurate. I also realize that Iwog tutored chemistry while at UC Davis, but that does not mean that he has either earned a degree in science nor is he a practicing scientist. That's not a bad thing, it's just a statement of fact as I understand it. If I am wrong, I would be delighted to admit it.
Silver metal, in a non-ionic state, and ionic silver aren't the same thing, but neither are they totally different. The ionic form of silver or of a silver-containing molecule has a net gain or loss of electrons and so, on a mass scale they are nearly the same while on an electrostatic scale they are much more different. I don't see the point in debating the shades of grey on this as it depends greatly on what one is trying to show.
The earlier insistance, though it may have softened, about the silver ions that are dipped off not being related to the silver in the coin when struck seems very odd. Of course the silver in the coin as stuck is the source of any subsequent silver ion, however, if the coin is struck with metal that is sufficiently devoid of any oxidation product then the silver ions actually were not present as struck, though the silver atoms that produced such ions must definitely were.
The sodium metal analogy was kind of odd as it can, but does not always, catch fire in air. Please don't try to contradict me on this one as I have used pure sodium metal many times in lab and am aware of conditions that will make it combust. As an aside, a cool thing to do in lab is to get behind a transparent blast shield and drop a small piece of sodium metal into a beaker of water. The sodium metal generates so much heat that is bursts into flames and you can watch it race around the inner surface of the beaker while skating along the water. In a twist of irony, sodium metal is silver-like in appearance.
I would think that silver metal might contain a fair number of silver ions if for no other reason than for impurities in the metal that might oxidize the silver atoms. The term "a fair number" is also rather grey as I certainly don't mean 10% of the metal, but I could imagine it being in the part per million (ppm) range. Metallurgists would be better at answering this as I don't have intimate knowledge of silver refinement.
Silver metal is certainly largely converted to silver sulfide upon toning, no question about that, and one might even properly call an oxidation reaction a form of corrosion, but corrosion such as rust generally results in the destruction of the metal as an endpoint. Not just the surface of the metal, but the entire "entity", if one will allow. If one were to leave a coin in a sulfide-rich environment that occassionally received a thiourea-based rain, then there would definitely be corrosion of any coins left exposed. The alternating production of silver ions and their removal would destroy the metal. This generally does not happen with the coins that we collect, and the layer of silver sulfide will also generally only get to a certain thickness before it stops growing. If left alone the coin may be ugly as all heck to some, but it also won't continue to tone, or corrode if one prefers, thereby acting to preserve the underlying metal.
There has been some discussion that I am wrong in what I have written on my web site. Please keep in mind that I have an earned PhD in biology and chemistry and have been a practicing scientist for years; I can also spot several science-BS artists on these boards. My being wrong might be the case in some specifics but the part about toning removing some atoms off of toned or white coins is not one of them. Unless a newly minted silver coin is kept in a totally sulfide-free environment, which is not likely though may be possible, there will be some level of oxidation on it. The coin may appear blast white to the eye, no doubt, but there will still be some silver atoms that have converted to silver ions through association with sulfide ions. It just happens and is no one's fault. So, that dip that a blast white coin might receive should remove those few areas of oxidation. The coin may appear no different after the dip than it did before, and that is not my point, the point is that some silver will be removed.
I don't believe that I have ever written that silver sulfide has no mass, rather, I write that silver sulfide does have mass. I will quote myself directly (pretty cool, isn't it) and this quote follows-
<< <i>The oxidation product of silver is a physical entity, that is, it has mass. Toning, however, is not a physical entity that has mass. >>
As far as I can tell, that is the area that is causing some confusion. One will note that I specifically state that the oxidation product of silver, be it a silver ion or silver sulfide or whatever, does have mass, and the mass of silver sulfide is 247.83. This means that one mole of silver sulfide (a mole being a standard unit of measure in chemistry) will weigh 247.83 grams. That is definitely mass. Stating that toning is not a physical entity is stating that the light refraction that we perceive to be toning will not have mass. The silver sulfide isn't the toning, however, the silver sulfide is a prime cause of toning. The idea that light would have mass follows de Broglie's theory and is well beyond the scope of this discussion. Let's just admit that energy and matter in the quantum chemistry field behaves in a manner not always consistent with that observed in our own, macroscopic world.
I think that takes care of things directly related to my web site.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
1. Does a coin increase in mass with toning, i.e. the addition of oxygen atoms?
2. Does dip remove silver atoms or just silver oxide?
3. Does dipping remove mass from the coin?
Tom
2. The dip removes silver sulfide (most toning on a coin is silver sulfide, not silver oxide) but leaves the silver metal untouched for the most part. Because of other chemicals in coin dip, a very very small amount of silver metal may be oxidized then removed.
3. Yes dipping removes mass from the coin. Specifically the oxidized silver.
You're speaking in absolutes again! 100 years worth of toning could be a lot or a little depending upon the environment. A split second worth of toning in a reasonable environment is certainly less destructive than even a split second worth of dip.
So, it all depends on the circumstances. A daylong dip is worse than light, iridescent toning. A few second dip is better than many years in a sulfur impregnated envelope. It just depends.....
I hope that you will follow your instincts and buy original, quality for the grade gold... and consider expanding your horizons beyond just branch mint gold because now is the time to score on better date Philadelphia issues that continue to be ignored. Best of luck and enjoy the hobby...
Iwog:
I posted a picture of an English Crown of a reverse of an English Crown dated 1739 that has lustre and toning and is nice and original. In due time, I will post pictures of coins that are significantly older that are toned that are not damaged as you claim... these coins will have lustre that is impressive... what exactly are you attempting to prove here?
There are differing views that are quite obvious in this thread... there is the option of dipping coins (an option... which you believe is appropriate for many coins and I must respectfully disagree) and originality which you believe is distructive because toning is the root of all evil within the coin collecting relm... and I am of the view that stripping a coin of its original surface is the root of all evil in this hobby(unless it has been improperly stored in PVC flips and has developed issues that require preservation)... Frankly, your view of originality and mine are quite different which is unfortunate... because as we write and contribute to this thread and as we have seen, many original coins have lost the privilege of being called original. At least I can sleep well tonight knowing that I have not contributed to this problem and have actually gone on the record on this forum as trying to prevent this problem, as many other contributors to this thread have.
BTW, didn't anyone like the 1739 Crown? That's okay... I have many more that I will post and I am not afraid to use them...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Yes, I can agree with that. However, over the period of time that it took to dark tarnish the coin, how many 'split second dips' would be required to keep it bright and shiny? Would not the cumulative effect of all those dips meet or exceed the effect of the dark tarnish? After all, the moment the initial light toning forms it creates a protective boundary layer that slows further toning - making the journey to dark tarnish a long and slow one. Dipping, even for a split second, removes this protective layer from the coin's surface and exposes it to the full effects of the environment. Again and again and again.
Thus, it could be readily stated, that repeated dipping is worse for the coin than allowing it to tone naturally - over the same period of time and in the same storage environment.
If you like heavily toned coins, great. If you prefer the blazing luster of a lightly and quickly dipped coin, wonderful. There are both in the market, so everyone should be happy.
A wonderfully toned coin can be a beautiful thing appreciated even by those who prefer the "blast white" look. A lightly dipped and nearly fully lustrous coin can, by almost all accounts, look far better than at least *some* of the repulsively toned pieces that have had -- or could be improved with -- such dipping. I just don't see this as an absolute -- I see this as an "agree to disagree" thing and move on. I don't see preference for one over the other as an absolute. The choice of toning or dipping depends some on the personal taste of the collector, but also on what the toning looks like. It can be beautiful and it can be rather vomitrocious-looking.
As I said before, personally I think nothing beats an unmessed-with, lightly toned coin with pretty colors. But a light dipper -- think dipped once, dipped competently and dipped quickly -- is not much of a "damaged coin" in my opinion. I'll take a *light* dipper with basically full luster over fugly toning, and I'll take a reasonably attractive toned piece over a repeatedly stripped-and-dipped, luster-free coin. And frankly, I think the hobby would be better off if people respected the choices others make in their collecting endeavours.
Think about it: Do you really WANT everyone to like the same things you like, driving up the prices of what you want to collect? If not, we should be GLAD that others like different things. They don't compete with us for the "right coin" or fuel a bidding war on the coin you want to make YOURS.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
"The dip removes silver sulfide (most toning on a coin is silver sulfide, not silver oxide) but leaves the silver metal untouched for the most part."
Just say it Iwog. Stop the spinning. It really won't hurt. When you dip a coin you're removing some the coins original material. Period. End of story. And it is an intentional alteration of the coins surfaces not just a matter of historical happenstance. And toning is only damage if it diminishes the value of a coin which doesn't necessarily mean that all toning is damage.
<< <i>And frankly, I think the hobby would be better off if people respected the choices others make in their collecting endeavours. >>
Unfortunately the choice to dip is not consistent with respecting others. Once a coin is dipped it can never be un-dipped. My choice to collect that toned coin in the future has been voided for forever. Just my two cents worth.
In the real world, the vast majority of collectors like pretty colors. And, in the real world, the toning vs untoned fight is mostly done on a series by series and grade by grade basis.
For example, collectors of circ silver bust coinage don't like white. They like patina, and that heavy preference in the market defines eye appeal for that sector. Collectors of gem DMPL Morgans predominately like blast white; that is the eye appeal for that sector.
Fight all we want, but unless the best among us is bigger than the market, then this is all academic. The market is what the market is. The people at large have spoken on what they deem is eye appeal, and there is no single definition.
Why am I talking about eye appeal? Because I feel that the concept of market grading is centered around eye appeal. If market grading is used, it certainly would be an attempt by the TPG to reward a coin because they feel it is worth more than the average specimen of that date and technical grade. And, if market grading is used a la originality, then it is the TPG's way of saying that the market has dictated that a certain type of originality is considered positive eye appeal.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
This comment is crazy talk. I haven't even discussed the topic of value, however I can accurately say that toning DAMAGES luster, and dark toning will always DAMAGE luster far more than a quick dip. I've also never denied or put spin on the fact that silver atoms are removed by dipping a coin. (straw man argument)Those oxidized silver atoms have no chemical or visual similarities to the original coin's surface and one can quite accurately say the silver metal was destroyed by oxidation before the coin even saw a dipping solution.
If you want an analogy, try this. Your house oxidizes (burns down) but retains many of the original atoms. The wrecking crew comes by and removes the charred remains. You then accuse the wreckers of destroying the house because they removed atoms that were originally part of the house. Kinda absurd isn't it, but identical to the point you're trying to make.
Speaking of insane.......
I can do whatever I want with my shiny pieces of metal, but if you want to cry about it go ahead. I'm going to dip a Barber quarter tonight and post it to the board tomorrow morning to show my obvious disrespect for you. <rolls eyes>
How about your respect for my property rights?
EVP, once again I feel the need to remind you that in the 50s and 60s the vast majority of coin collectors preferred clean white coins and took considerable steps to remove any sign of toning. They would have scoffed at your definition of eye appeal and asked why you could possibly want to collect dirty coins.
Yes, and we have them to thank for numerous scrubbed, dipped out, cleaned and impaired specimens with minimal traces of original mint bloom. Thanks a lot!
<< <i>Unfortunately the choice to dip is not consistent with respecting others. Once a coin is dipped it can never be un-dipped. My choice to collect that toned coin in the future has been voided for forever.
Speaking of insane....... I can do whatever I want with my shiny pieces of metal, but if you want to cry about it go ahead. I'm going to dip a Barber quarter tonight and post it to the board tomorrow morning to show my obvious disrespect for you. <ROLLS eyes>How about your respect for my property rights? >>
I expected this exact reply. I rest my case.
<< <i>Unfortunately the choice to dip is not consistent with respecting others. Once a coin is dipped it can never be un-dipped. My choice to collect that toned coin in the future has been voided for forever. Just my two cents worth. >>
Offset by all the shake-and-bakers who take nice coins and ruin them in the ovens with AT.
It cuts both ways. The current craze for toned coins is causing a lot of nice coins to be ruined just as a quest for some "brighter" coins leads some people to dip. It depends on whose ox is getting gored, methinks.
Times, and preferences, change. Maybe not for every single person and maybe not uniformly, but for the general marketplace it does change.
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
<< <i>Offset by all the shake-and-bakers who take nice coins and ruin them in the ovens with AT.
It cuts both ways. The current craze for toned coins is causing a lot of nice coins to be ruined just as a quest for some "brighter" coins leads some people to dip. It depends on whose ox is getting gored, methinks. >>
I know you don't believe I support this behavoir any more than I support dipping. How about we just leave them be.
<< <i>]I know you don't believe I support this behavoir any more than I support dipping. How about we just leave them be. >>
I know you don't, and I hope you don't think I was accusing you of such -- I'm just pointing out it's not just the "brighter is better" school of thought which is ruining originality of coins. The mania for brilliance led coin doctors to damage a lot of coins, and now the mania for toning is doing the same. It's just a matter of putting balance and perspective on the matter.
With respect to US coins AND COINS IN GENERAL, why don't you just buy coins that have already been dipped and spare me the trouble of responding to this thread? Please consider this is a reasonable alternative to my earlier post and threat to use photos of coins that are nearly 1,000 years old that appear to be original and have lustre that has not been damaged as you claim?
I believe that your claim that original toned coins have damaged lustre extends well beyond the borders of the United States and dates back well beyond the period of when US coins were minted so why do you continue to post pictures that serve little purpose? Please be advised that I will make every effort to show that there are coins that are significantly older that have not been damaged in the manner that you claim.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>This is EXACTLY the reason why you cannot dip a heavily toned coin and end up with something attractive. The toning has already destroyed the luster. >>
Iwog, that is incorrect. I have seen many "heavily toned" business strike and proof coins dipped, yet ended up looking extremely attractive AND lustrous.
Some "heavily toned" coins have very little luster beneath/showing through the toning and others possess full, radiant luster. I have viewed many thousands of each type, as, I am sure, have a good number of other forum members who have posted here. You are in error in a number of your overly generalized assertions and, in some cases, at least, seem to be speaking in theory, rather than through actual experience.
I am certainly glad there was a minority that did not share this view. Otherwise we would never be able to see the trade dollar in TDN's sig line. Every so often the minority is right.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
EVP
How does one get a hater to stop hating?
I can be reached at evillageprowler@gmail.com
I am proud to have started a thread that, while perhaps on a tangent from my original (pun intended) topic, remains largely focused on coins and far less so on personal attacks. It is good to see the passion that some of my fellow collectors have for their coins and collecting preferences.
As for me, the best argument to buy original surface coins (define it however you wish) is that these coins will stand the test of time and fashion. If I dip a coin like this:
it will likely never look dirty (and original) again. If I leave it alone, I forever have the possibility of having it just like the Mississippi farmer who dug it back out of the ground in late 1865 after the Civil War ended. Or should it suit my fancy, I can have it as shiny as a button on my sportcoat.
<< <i>The market is what the market is. The people at large have spoken on what they deem is eye appeal, and there is no single definition. >>
Has the market spoken such that the TPGs follow the market in grading coins, taking into account grading or value standards set by dealers/collectors? Or do the TPGs set the standards by deciding what kind of toning or how much luster is worth grading points?
Its no secret that coins get cracked out and dipped to gain a grading point bump. I believe that early in this thread TDN cited a number of real world examples of this. And it is no secret that virtually all DCAM silver proofs are white or have toning limited to the peripheries.
So if the TPGs stopped bumping grades for luster and graded coins with luster subdued by patina on the same scale, how would the market react? Would a dipped blast white seated half sell at a premium over its "original skin" but not monster toned counterpart at the same grade?
CG
You should be proud...very proud for starting this thread. The only reason I even suggested that you consider better date Philadelphia gold is because it is not appreciated for its true scarcity.
I am pleased to know that you own the 1859-O $10 Lib in the picture and nothing will happen to it in the immediate future... As for other "No Motto" Lib Gold... buy original coins now before it is too late...
While this thread expanded well beyond your intent... I have this feeling that you will not object if original coins have the potential to be saved from an untimely enhancement leading to the demise of originality.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>If they think a coin will sell for gem money, they call it a gem. >>
Certainly that goes on to a degree, but in itself that is an overstatement. They do not put monster toned MS63 Morgans in gem holders even they may bring nore than gem prices. On the other hand I recall an interesting thread (don't recall whether it was here or accross the street) regarding a toned half dime offered at an ANR sale earlier this year. It was in an MS62 holder and sold for strong money, even though it appeared to have a not insignificant amount of rub, leading many commentators to call it AU (perhaps properly so). Seems to me that that kind of grading can victimize the unwary buyer--it is one thing to knowingly pay 62 money for an AU coin and quite another thing to buy believing that the piece is really MS. And while one can say "buy the coin not the holder" sliders can be tough to diffentiate from true MS pieces in many series.
But back to the point I was trying to make. What would happen to the price of patinated coins if they were graded favorably for originality on the same basis that blast white coins are graded for their luster?
CG
The number of darkly toned coins that can be dipped to look an attractivce blast white might be a very small fraction of the total. My assumptions are not overly broad, they are very specific and accurate. Saying that the examples I've posted possess very attractive luster if only we could view them in person is simply make believe and not based in reality. The huge overwhelming majority of darkly toned coins have damaged or entirely missing luster. The few exceptions bring premium money BECAUSE they are so rare and actually support my point.
coinkat, I've found there are some people who don't understand what luster is. This can be the only explanation for why people protest my pictures of coins with luster that is obviously and unquestionably ENTIRELY DESTROYED. By the way, I find it hard to believe that a 1000 year old coin can have nice luster. Not only because avoiding oxidation would be impossible in that period of time, but also because hand minting methods didn't allow for much metal flow and therefore flow lines to create it in the first place. If you want to prove me wrong, show me a 1000 year old coin with a nice cartwheel.
<< <i>Or should it suit my fancy, I can have it as shiny as a button on my sportcoat >>
Oh no, FatMan says you need to be respectful of his rights and treat YOUR coins so that they will look the way HE likes them when and If HE decides someday to buy it.
I subscribe simply to this theory that I made up. Silver coins newer than 1917 should look nice and white since they are still relatively new coins (at least new when I started collecting in the early 1960's).
Silver coins that are older than 1917 should start acting their age and grow up! Sure there are exceptions like the 1834 Lovejoy dime that is a stunner even though mostly white but that is a miracle of preservation.
Do you really expect our early dollars such as the ones cardinal own to be pristine and white? Heck, they are old enough to be my great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother!
Yet in our warped way of thinking, we adore blast white Morgan silver dollars just as much as gorgeous toned ones, adore dripping red lustrous copper coinage back to the large cents of the 1850's, and so forth.