"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."
My comment isn't crazy at all. It's actually the definition of damage (how soon we forget ).
"I haven't even discussed the topic of value, however I can accurately say that toning DAMAGES luster,"
Two points. Whether or not the toning is damage is in the eye of the beholder. In addition some might prefer and consider more valuable a coin with toning versus a coin that has been dipped to remove toning so dipping a coin might also be consider "damage" by some, diminishing the value of a coin.
"I've also never denied or put spin on the fact that silver atoms are removed by dipping a coin. (straw man argument)"
No strawman argument. You tried to claim in a round about way that dipping the coin doesn't remove any of the coins original material. You're wrong on that point and then you tried to spin your way out of it by saying "but leaves the silver metal untouched for the most part."
"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."
You could make that blanket statement but you'd be factually inaccurate (there are chemical similiarities) and you'd be butcher the meaning of the word "damage".
"Your house oxidizes (burns down) but retains many of the original atoms. The wrecking crew comes by and removes the charred remains."
Save the analogy. We're talking coins not houses. We're also not talking about a coin that has oxidized tot the point of having no luster and no one has made the arguement that all toning enhances the eye appeal or value of a coin.
But dipping a coin also doesn't necessarily enhance the eye appeal of a coin. There are situations where dipping does damage and in all cases dipping removes some of the coins original material. Dipping is an intentional alteration of the coins surfaces which IMHO diminishes the coins originality. You also can claim that ONLY silver sulfide is removed when you dip a coin an NONE of the coins original silver.
But let's not get caught up in the minute details. Coins that were minted 100+ years ago and as a byproduct of the times and places they were minted and stored are for the most part going to have some measure of toning. That toning is part of the coins history and evidence of its passage through time. It's a signature of the coin's originality. Removing it diminishes the coins originality.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
You tried to claim in a round about way that dipping the coin doesn't remove any of the coins original material.
This is simply a lie that cannot be supported by you at all.
"Those oxidized silver atoms have no chemical or visual similarities to the original coin's surface You could make that blanket statement but you'd be factually inaccurate (there are chemical similiarities)
Since I'm factually inaccurate name a single visual or chemical similarity between silver metal and silver sulfide. Please list them.
"I haven't even discussed the topic of value, however I can accurately say that toning DAMAGES luster," Two points. Whether or not the toning is damage is in the eye of the beholder. In addition some might prefer and consider more valuable a coin with toning versus a coin that has been dipped to remove toning so dipping a coin might also be consider "damage" by some, diminishing the value of a coin.
Damage of luster on the coin has absolutely nothing to do with the eye of the beholder. Luster is a physical and measurable entity that is not subjct to your interpretation.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
A better example of this toning and luster effects is our proclivity to get face lifts (well, women that is).
Is the wrinkled woman of 50 or 60 etc. less original than the one who had the face lift?
Coins naturally age over centuries and while we absolutely adore original lustrous red copper coins (you have ignored this comment so far), we also realize that after 100 plus years it becomes nearly impossible to maintain that way unless we embalm them.
You are arguing for the "as struck" look which in various aspects of the hobby such as luster laden DMPL dollars, 3c and 5c nickels, proof coins, copper coinage, gold coinage is more revered than ever.
If you confine your commentary to just Commems and no other area of coinage you would have a better shot in making some very valid points.
Indeed the grading services have gone a little too hog wild on color laden early commems.
The facelift analogy doesn't make any sense. You're taking a natural surface and modifying/changing it to look better and you're showing no parallels with oxidation or dipping of a coin. In my house analogy, the damage is being done by oxidation of the wood (fire) and the wrecking crew is just removing the remaining mess. Now you can argue that a burned down house isn't visually appealing while a tarnished coin is, but you can't argue the logic of a coin's luster being destroyed by oxidation of the silver (toning) and a coin dip simply cleaning up the resulting mess.
Once again, it seems like you're getting hung up on time. By the way, coins in no way "age over centuries" in any context. Silver is one of the most stable and non-reactive elements in the universe and 2000 year old Roman coins are still very presentable when cleaned up. Silver has one practical weakness, and that is when exposed to molecules containing sulphur it readily oxidizes. Now when it comes to luster, destroying it over the course of 50 years is no more valid or "natural" than destroying it over 5 minutes. This romantic nonsense is going to get a lot of people in financial trouble when the inevitable happens.
What is the inevitable? That some coin doctor figures out how to apply bullseye/end roll/tab/bag toning to dipped coins and can get them past PCGS and NGC. I know for an absolute fact that tab toning on commemoratives can be applied in a few days and certified, it's only a matter of time for the rest. (probably already being done) Just remember one thing. You can always put oxidation back on a coin, the only issue is making it look right. You can NEVER recreate luster which brings me back to the bottom line. (again) Luster is the only valid measure of how well a coin's surface is preserved and how ORIGINAL it is.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
No lie. You tried to spin your tail with statements like "Dipping a coin doesn't burn and strip away a layer of the coin's surface, it only removes oxidized silver ions." as if the fact that what constitutes those silver ions isn't in part the original silver on the surface of the coin.
"Since I'm factually inaccurate name a single visual or chemical similarity between silver metal and silver sulfide. "
I'll keep it simple for you, as far as a chemical connection is concerned you don't have "oxidized silver" WITHOUT the silver that's on the surface of the coin.
"Damage of luster on the coin has absolutely nothing to do with the eye of the beholder. Luster is a physical and measurable entity that is not subjct to your interpretation."
Luster and how it may be altered as a result of toning and the affect that change may have on the value of a coin AND whether that alteration is damage (reducing the value of the coin) IS in the eye of the beholder. Toning changes the appearance of a coin and it some cases that change enhances the eye appeal and value of the coin.
In addition, the oxide layer rather than being destructive "forms a skin or patina on the metal that acts to protect the underlying surface and actually inhibits further chemical reaction." (statement in quotes from our resident Ph.D chemist).
"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..."
Again, both toning and dipping alter a coin's surfaces. In the process of removing the toning you are in FACT removing material that was originally part of the coin's surfaces. I'm also not aware (and you're the dipping expert around here ) that you can dip with such precision that absolute no silver is removed along with the oxidation. Regardless, when you dip you're taking some of the coins original material.
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
"Name a single visual or chemical similarity between silver metal and silver sulfide. Please list them."
The fact that both substances contain silver atoms is totally irrelevant to the chemical properties of each, so the answer you provided is gibberish. YOU CLAIMED that there are similarities, are you going to list them or not?
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
In addition, the oxide layer rather than being destructive "forms a skin or patina on the metal that acts to protect the underlying surface and actually inhibits further chemical reaction." (statement in quotes from our resident Ph.D chemist).
I believe your resident Ph.D chemist is wrong. I see no evidence that silver is protected by a layer of patina. In fact, I have a lot of evidence to the contrary as ANYONE who's ever seen a silver pitcher or candlestick tarnished to pure black can confirm. Coins that are not protected will continue to get darker until they are also absolutely soot black. Furthermore, the speed at which this happens seems constant. I can usually tell the age of a piece of sterling holloware by how dark the tarnish is, and as far as I can determine it's a straight line function.
Now.....after presenting the reasons why I think TomB (well intentioned or not) is wrong, I have ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that this myth will NOT be challenged by contradictory evidence, and will simply be repeated as gospel fact the next time this issue comes up. Pmh, it would help your case if you had a shred of intellectual honesty.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
I will address your responses that you have posted later this evening.
However, You have not still addressed my comments namely; that you have indicated that PCGS and NGC now essentially ignores the luster on coins for grading in MS-67 and MS-68 grades which flies in the face of the luster laden untoned DMPL dollars, 3c and 5c nickels, proof coins, copper coinage, gold coinage which is is more revered than ever by both the third party grading services and the hobby in general.
If you confine your commentary to Commems and even Franklin half dollars and possibly a few other area of silver coinage you would be making some very valid points.
Let us first narrow down your concern to that of silverf coinage only and that you do not see the same concerns with coins minted in other metals.
I would like to resolve this specific point first and get an agreement that perhaps you were overgeneralizing your commentary about the grading services and their view of luster to include all areas of US coinage.
We all sometimes overgeneralize including me.
Not looking to "win" but instead to narrow down the specifics of your concerns about the TPG grading of coins.
<< <i>In addition, the oxide layer rather than being destructive "forms a skin or patina on the metal that acts to protect the underlying surface and actually inhibits further chemical reaction." (statement in quotes from our resident Ph.D chemist).
I believe your resident Ph.D chemist is wrong. I see no evidence that silver is protected by a layer of patina. In fact, I have a lot of evidence to the contrary as ANYONE who's ever seen a silver pitcher or candlestick tarnished to pure black can confirm. Coins that are not protected will continue to get darker until they are also absolutely soot black. Furthermore, the speed at which this happens seems constant. I can usually tell the age of a piece of sterling holloware by how dark the tarnish is, and as far as I can determine it's a straight line function.
Now.....after presenting the reasons why I think TomB (well intentioned or not) is wrong, I have ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that this myth will NOT be challenged by contradictory evidence, and will simply be repeated as gospel fact the next time this issue comes up. Pmh, it would help your case if you had a shred of intellectual honesty. >>
How much of your flatware is 0.900 fine silver, Iwog?
Anyway, show me the science and not the personal observation.
I don't believe I am overgeneralizing. Dollars are in the same catagory as Mercury dimes in that the huge majority of coins were preserved in bags and rolls, and very few examples were subjected to harsh toning. Even with blast white dollars outnumbering luster damaged coins by 100 to 1, there are still FAR too many certified dogs that have no business being in premium holders. Furthermore, it's common knowlege that dark toning hides light defects, (like luster scuffs) which would explain why so many of these coins are in high-end holders. Untoned coins are actually handicapped because the surface is completely visible without distractions.
So no, I'm not ready to admit PCGS and NGC take luster into account when giving grades. Just remember that the old ANA grading guidelines forbid a coin with impaired luster to grade any better than MS63. It's inconceivable that a grade of MS66 or higher can be given to ANY coin under ANY circumstance when the luster has been completely wiped from the coin!! Luster damage is so obvious that a single example in an MS66 slab SHOULD receive an explanation from the certification company. Sadly, there are thousands of these coins and their existance is utterly ignored and totally unexplained. Therefore I have no choice but to repeat my opinion that luster is totally ignored by all the major grading services.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Show ME the science. You made the assertion that toning protects the coin, and I explained several reasons why I think this is untrue including my own personal observations. I welcome evidence to the contrary.
Sterling flatware and holloware is 92.5% pure silver, and 7.5% copper. Most 18th and early 19th century American silver is called "coin silver" and 90%/10% just like American silver coinage. Please don't try to imply that this silver has different properties than US coins.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
You asked a question, I gave you an answer that was very factual and very direct. You asked for a single chemical similiarity and you got it. The relevance is you're removing that material when you dip the coin.
While your preference may be a coin that's had it's surfaces intentional altered to have the "appearance" of originality that coin is no more original (and I'd argue less so) then a coin that has acquired some toning as a result of historical happenstance.
Play with your chemicals to your hearts delight but lets keep the facts straight. When you dip a coin you're removing some of the original material. Period, end of story.
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
<<<<<<<<However, You have not still addressed my comments namely; that you have indicated that PCGS and NGC now essentially ignores the luster on coins for grading in MS-67 and MS-68 grades which flies in the face of the luster laden untoned DMPL dollars, 3c and 5c nickels, proof coins, copper coinage, gold coinage which is is more revered than ever by both the third party grading services and the hobby in general.
If you confine your commentary to Commems and even Franklin half dollars and possibly a few other area of silver coinage you would be making some very valid points.
Let us first narrow down your concern to that of silver coinage only and that you do not see the same concerns with coins minted in other metals.
I would like to resolve this specific point first and get an agreement that perhaps you were overgeneralizing your commentary about the grading services and their view of luster to include all areas of US coinage.
We all sometimes overgeneralize including me.
Not looking to "win" but instead to narrow down the specifics of your concerns about the TPG grading of coins. >>>>>>>>>>>
by stating the following:
<<<<<<<<I don't believe I am overgeneralizing. Dollars are in the same catagory as Mercury dimes in that the huge majority of coins were preserved in bags and rolls, and very few examples were subjected to harsh toning. Even with blast white dollars outnumbering luster damaged coins by 100 to 1, there are still FAR too many certified dogs that have no business being in premium holders. Furthermore, it's common knowlege that dark toning hides light defects, (like luster scuffs) which would explain why so many of these coins are in high-end holders. Untoned coins are actually handicapped because the surface is completely visible without distractions.>>>>>>>
Ok, your response only argued against my inclusion of Dollars when I only mentioned luster laden DMPL Morgan silver dollars and did not respond regarding copper coinage, copper/nickel 3c and 5c and gold plus other miscellaneous coinage metals. You seem to be focused only on silver coins. Does this mean that your argument is only regarding silver coinage. You have not indicated that any other metals were similarly afflicted with either the same degree of toning or that the grading services in fact rewarded toned copper coins more than blazing lustrous red copper coins.
Also I must ask an open question as I seem to recall that PCGS for at least the first 10 plus years of its existence was soundly criticized for being known as the grading service that very much preferred lustrous untoned coins over the toned coins. Whereas NGC seemed to reward toned coins.
Am I remembering this correctly or not?
This is partially why I am amazed at IWOG's assertion to the contrary as far as PCGS is concerned.
Pmh, you're a very dishonest person. I made a factual and accurate comment, that silver metal and silver sulfide have no chemical or visual similarities, and you said I was wrong. When asked what those similarities are however, you made a very stupid comment that boils down to "they both contain silver atoms so they are chemically similar". I'm going to assume that you're simply ignorant and try to help you understand. A chemical property is usually described as a physical constant which can be measured. Here are some examples of chemical properties:
Silver sulfide: Melting point 845 C. Density 7.234 g cm -3. Color Black. Reflectivity very poor. Silver metal: Meltin point 961 C. Density 10.5 g cm -3. Color White. Reflectivity highest known.
These are not chemical similarities, these are chemical DIFFERENCES. You don't even understand the terms being used, yet you have the arrogance to say I'm wrong???? I don't expect you to know chemistry, I do expect you not to act like a complete ass when you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Oreville, I don't think you understood my answer. If a series has a huge percentage of bright white untoned coins (Morgan dollars) and there is a huge percentage of bright white untoned coins at the MS67-MS68 range, then it says nothing about the question of luster being considered. If luster was totally ignored, your observation would be correct anyway!! Lets look at grading......
Marks - not related to preservation of luster. Strike - not related to preservation of luster.
10% of known coins in a series have impaired luster, 90% do not. Since strike and marks are independent, ALL of the MS67-68 coins SHOULD be blast white! Why? Because they will be given a bump based on luster while the screwed up coins are given a penalty. Is this the case? HELL NO!!!!
I am not ignoring the fact that there are some coin series where the top end is full of luster laden examples, I am saying it's irrelevant UNLESS you can show that the percentage of luster laden coins at the top is GREATER than the percentage of lusterous coins for the total series. Sadly, it's not even close. If 1 out of 20 MS67 Morgan dollars has impaired luster, than it actually proves my point completely. Regarding PCGS, I can say that they seem to have more bright coins in slabs than NGC does. This may only mean that they don't give dull toned coins the premium that NGC does. I've seen plenty of dogs in PCGS high grade holders, in fact I've posted quite a few in this thread.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
IWOG: In my estimation, less than 1/2 of 1% of the top 10% of PCGS MSDMPL's are toned. Much less than the overall percentage of toned DMPL's in mint state.
Copper, copper/nickel, and gold coins also have much higher % of untoned coins in the top 10% of the PCGS mint state grade echelon versus the overall percentage of toned coins in mint state.
I guess I missed the fact that we were talking about DMPL Morgans. Since toning is damaging to a coin's surface, and the mirrors on a DMPL must be clean to make DMPL in the first place, this is probably the worst possible example you can find. Although the grading services ignore luster when determining a coin's grade, they do NOT ignore mirrors when grading a DMPL.
If your example is correct however, and toned DMPL coins are almost unknown, then it further supports the fact that toning destroys a coin's surface.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
>>>>I've seen what TDN has seen - tons of coins pass through NCS and get upgraded, which is pretty much the opposite of what you are theorizing. And this is in addition to the requisitie huge pile of overgraded stuff churning out of NGCs offices.
Union
think about this!!!!
1) conservation...would you let a picasso deteriorate??? or preserve it??as collectors we have paid the seller for the right to act as the "temporary holder" of our coins before it is passed to the next collector....i still own my first coin i bought in 1973 and after 31 years i have had coins that if something wasnt done before i departed from this earth they would be passed on in a lesser state than i when i bought it...and to me that would make me negligent in my obligation...thus the pvc or spot had to go....better nip it in the bud....so i really agree with the ngc conservation system they have instituted......for the record pcgs has one too as with out it they would be remiss in their obligation as well...you just dont know about it..very few do
2) now for the ngc grading comment...as i said i have been here 31 years....and i have to tell you just about all of my pcgs coins that i have bought in the 90s have upgraded at pcgs....yep even my ngc 92-s in 66 upgraded to pcgs 67...how many do you want to know about..ever see nfl coins ( 100 of them ) on the bourse floor...you know why???the seller didnt want anyone to know its been upgraded...hello...so what does that prove...just that there is a thing called gradeflation where as the best coins migrate up....period..and thats a fact....now you should ask how did i do that...thats easy..suppose you had a great friend such as jim halprin ( btw he won the professional grading contest ) and he saw thousands of coins a week and if they worked he would sell them to jack lee...if they didnt he would sell them to me .... now its only a matter of time ( a year or two...sometimes 3 ) before they worked...its that simple
3) now lets visit the pcgs/ngc situation...there is a belief out there ( and one i subscrib to )...and this is in general terms.... that ngc properly grades coins and pcgs doesnt....they say pcgs is tuffer...aka undergrade coins....is the glass half empty or half full..( btw it does make you more money when you get the same coin submitted several times to get the right grade on it...and making more money makes stock holders very happy plus you get stock options too )....so tell me...exactly who does this help...the dealer like jim or you...i for one know jim will pick your box clean off.....and leave you with the "properly" graded coins ( properly graded in that particular point in time ) and he gets the upgrades ( and the money )....so who gets the short end of the stick when a service undergrades coins.....THE COLLECTOR....as the dealer has all the advantage...go look at all the big boys....they have more ngc coins than pcgs...that what i said....ALL THE BIG BOYS HAVE MORE NGC COINS THAN PCGS...know why???because they buy them cheaper....you know why...because there way too many pcgs clones out there who buy only pcgs coins...and pay a premium to do it...so they buy ngc cheaper...cross them and they get the premium...i see it everyday....here one for ya....2 morgan dollars in 66 in an auction....the pcgs goes for 3200 and the ngc goes for 2600....problem was the seller was a upgrader who HAD to settle with heritage ( as he owed them money ) so he gave them coins...problem was he thought the ngc was a 67...tried it and failed so he left it in the ngc holder ( no time to reinsert it inot a pcgs holder )...i bought it and now its in a pcgs 67 holder...it happens everyday...another case in point..ever wonder what an upgrader does when he is trying to break into a pop 1 situation and cant...keep in mind he thinks its the best there is ( and it probably is or he wont be an upgrader long )..he puts it into a ngc holder for the correct grade...now a smart guy would buy it...but not the clones....i know of one guy who bought the entire ngc pop of 4 ( pcgs 0)..a year later he sent 2 to pcgs both worked and he sold them to 2 different guys on the same day for 12,000 each..he only paid 12,000 for all 4 of them..nice days work......me i love buying ngc because i buy the coin not the plastic and i have a lot less guys chasing my purchases....
Sorry to be so blunt, but you really threw me with this one.
Would it help/make you feel better if I hypothesized that you grossly under-graded them, instead?
------------------------- Mark Feld >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
exactly what i was saying...and mark is a pro
as far as toning vrs white...i see white coins ( and i have owned hundreds ) as blank canvases waiting for natures paintbrush to do her majic.....so i have to say i am a clone too....as i am a toning freak and i have been hunting them for 30 years...the mark of a great set is when you show someone who knows nothing about coins and they say "that is really beautiful.... like the blues,greens and reds"
and no joe you cant be annointed as having the best all time set when you just pop in for 3 years and then boggie.....it a little insulting pcgs would even suggest that it is..or was....or what ever
think about it
my goal is to find the monsters and i go where they are but i sometimes miss some.... so if you have any and want to sell IM THE BUYER FOR THEM!!!
out of rockets ...out of bullets...switching to harsh language
No dishonesty on my part. The FACT is that when you dip a coin you are removing some of the original material from the coins. Bottomline, end of story. You can twist, spin and turn all you want about reflectivity, conductivity, density, melting point and color all you want. It doesn't change that fundamental fact. Here is another FACT for you, you don't have silver sulfide without the original silver that is part of the coin's surface.
As a consequence of those FACTS your dipped coin is no more original, and I'd argue less original, then a coin that has toning as a matter of historical happenstance.
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
No Pmh. The fundamental fact is you refuse to answer questions, change the topic when convenient, and call people wrong on points that they are absolutely correct on. Since you refuse to talk about anything other than your own private agenda, it's pointless to discuss this further.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
I call them as I see them and you wrong again. The FACT is you don't want to acknowledge my answer because it refutes the premise you've tried to making that dipping doesn't remove any of the coins original material. While you bash the change that takes place as a matter of history and environment (toning) you want to justify the intentional chemical alteration you're so fond of.
If you like white coins that's perfectly fine but don't obscure the facts regarding what takes place when you dip a coin to justify your preference. Obscuring the facts shouldn't be necessary for you to enjoy your dipped white coins and it's intellectually dishonest.
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
Wow, I leave for 3 day and Iwog is still spouting the same routine of lies and distortions. So what's new?
EVP, I tutored university level chemistry when I was at UC Davis. I'm only mentioning it because you're an idiot.
Whoopdee friggen do. I roomed with a guy once who had a Masters in Chemistry from UTexas. We both were taking a chemistry course together and he finished in the middle of the pack against a group who didn't have chem degrees. I'll take EVP and his Holiday Inn....more boost to that.
Iwog was spouting "absolutes" throughout the first half of this thread now I see he has been taken down on every issue. One of my favorites was that white coins don't lose silver during a dip. It didnt' matter how long the dipping took 3 days ago. Now he's changed his tune to see how can we possibly compare a few seconds to 8 hours! Give me friggen break Iwog. First you state absolutes, then you rant, then you get proven wrong, then you back off on your absolutes. And don't forget to call someone an idiot in there while you're at it.
Coinosaurus, roadrunner has said on numerous occasions that the acid in Jeweluster (dilute sulfuric acid) eats away the surface of the coin. He's obviously wrong but I have no doubt he'll keep repeating the lie and these "discussions" will keep coming up. tion.
Iwog, you were proven wrong on this. Once again you accused someone one of lying. What's new? I guess if the acid isn't working away at the surface of the coin, it must be the........water??
Iwog, king of the "absolutes" and then the back peddle, save face special. Thanks Tom for your inputs.
Monsterman, glad to see you strut your stuff again. We always need a good infusion of truth at times. Your posts are always refreshing to read. Iwog, take note.
Congratulations Roadrunner, you just finished an entire post full of blind assertions without a quote, photo, citation, or single supporting fact to back up any of your points. Not one!!!!
You said I claimed white coins didn't lose silver during a dip but failed to show where or what I said. You claimed I was proved wrong about sulfuric acid eating away the coin but failed to show any evidence or even explain how I was proven wrong. The fact remains that silver isn't affected by sulfuric acid and you're still lying. You repeatedly claim I was proven wrong (sometimes you don't even mention about what) and once again fail to even explain where or how. (or even what I was wrong about)
You actually sound very hysterical and agitated. Maybe you should try another character assassination as you've done in the past. Might work this time..........
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Comments
"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."
My comment isn't crazy at all. It's actually the definition of damage (how soon we forget
"I haven't even discussed the topic of value, however I can accurately say that toning DAMAGES luster,"
Two points. Whether or not the toning is damage is in the eye of the beholder. In addition some might prefer and consider more valuable a coin with toning versus a coin that has been dipped to remove toning so dipping a coin might also be consider "damage" by some, diminishing the value of a coin.
"I've also never denied or put spin on the fact that silver atoms are removed by dipping a coin. (straw man argument)"
No strawman argument. You tried to claim in a round about way that dipping the coin doesn't remove any of the coins original material. You're wrong on that point and then you tried to spin your way out of it by saying "but leaves the silver metal untouched for the most part."
"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."
You could make that blanket statement but you'd be factually inaccurate (there are chemical similiarities) and you'd be butcher the meaning of the word "damage".
"Your house oxidizes (burns down) but retains many of the original atoms. The wrecking crew comes by and removes the charred remains."
Save the analogy. We're talking coins not houses. We're also not talking about a coin that has oxidized tot the point of having no luster and no one has made the arguement that all toning enhances the eye appeal or value of a coin.
But dipping a coin also doesn't necessarily enhance the eye appeal of a coin. There are situations where dipping does damage and in all cases dipping removes some of the coins original material. Dipping is an intentional alteration of the coins surfaces which IMHO diminishes the coins originality. You also can claim that ONLY silver sulfide is removed when you dip a coin an NONE of the coins original silver.
But let's not get caught up in the minute details. Coins that were minted 100+ years ago and as a byproduct of the times and places they were minted and stored are for the most part going to have some measure of toning. That toning is part of the coins history and evidence of its passage through time. It's a signature of the coin's originality. Removing it diminishes the coins originality.
This is simply a lie that cannot be supported by you at all.
"Those oxidized silver atoms have no chemical or visual similarities to the original coin's surface
You could make that blanket statement but you'd be factually inaccurate (there are chemical similiarities)
Since I'm factually inaccurate name a single visual or chemical similarity between silver metal and silver sulfide. Please list them.
"I haven't even discussed the topic of value, however I can accurately say that toning DAMAGES luster,"
Two points. Whether or not the toning is damage is in the eye of the beholder. In addition some might prefer and consider more valuable a coin with toning versus a coin that has been dipped to remove toning so dipping a coin might also be consider "damage" by some, diminishing the value of a coin.
Damage of luster on the coin has absolutely nothing to do with the eye of the beholder. Luster is a physical and measurable entity that is not subjct to your interpretation.
A better example of this toning and luster effects is our proclivity to get face lifts (well, women that is).
Is the wrinkled woman of 50 or 60 etc. less original than the one who had the face lift?
Coins naturally age over centuries and while we absolutely adore original lustrous red copper coins (you have ignored this comment so far), we also realize that after 100 plus years it becomes nearly impossible to maintain that way unless we embalm them.
You are arguing for the "as struck" look which in various aspects of the hobby such as luster laden DMPL dollars, 3c and 5c nickels, proof coins, copper coinage, gold coinage is more revered than ever.
If you confine your commentary to just Commems and no other area of coinage you would have a better shot in making some very valid points.
Indeed the grading services have gone a little too hog wild on color laden early commems.
Once again, it seems like you're getting hung up on time. By the way, coins in no way "age over centuries" in any context. Silver is one of the most stable and non-reactive elements in the universe and 2000 year old Roman coins are still very presentable when cleaned up. Silver has one practical weakness, and that is when exposed to molecules containing sulphur it readily oxidizes. Now when it comes to luster, destroying it over the course of 50 years is no more valid or "natural" than destroying it over 5 minutes. This romantic nonsense is going to get a lot of people in financial trouble when the inevitable happens.
What is the inevitable? That some coin doctor figures out how to apply bullseye/end roll/tab/bag toning to dipped coins and can get them past PCGS and NGC. I know for an absolute fact that tab toning on commemoratives can be applied in a few days and certified, it's only a matter of time for the rest. (probably already being done) Just remember one thing. You can always put oxidation back on a coin, the only issue is making it look right. You can NEVER recreate luster which brings me back to the bottom line. (again) Luster is the only valid measure of how well a coin's surface is preserved and how ORIGINAL it is.
No lie. You tried to spin your tail with statements like "Dipping a coin doesn't burn and strip away a layer of the coin's surface, it only removes oxidized silver ions." as if the fact that what constitutes those silver ions isn't in part the original silver on the surface of the coin.
"Since I'm factually inaccurate name a single visual or chemical similarity between silver metal and silver sulfide. "
I'll keep it simple for you, as far as a chemical connection is concerned you don't have "oxidized silver" WITHOUT the silver that's on the surface of the coin.
"Damage of luster on the coin has absolutely nothing to do with the eye of the beholder. Luster is a physical and measurable entity that is not subjct to your interpretation."
Luster and how it may be altered as a result of toning and the affect that change may have on the value of a coin AND whether that alteration is damage (reducing the value of the coin) IS in the eye of the beholder. Toning changes the appearance of a coin and it some cases that change enhances the eye appeal and value of the coin.
In addition, the oxide layer rather than being destructive "forms a skin or patina on the metal that acts to protect the underlying surface and actually inhibits further chemical reaction." (statement in quotes from our resident Ph.D chemist).
"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..."
Again, both toning and dipping alter a coin's surfaces. In the process of removing the toning you are in FACT removing material that was originally part of the coin's surfaces. I'm also not aware (and you're the dipping expert around here
"Name a single visual or chemical similarity between silver metal and silver sulfide. Please list them."
The fact that both substances contain silver atoms is totally irrelevant to the chemical properties of each, so the answer you provided is gibberish. YOU CLAIMED that there are similarities, are you going to list them or not?
I believe your resident Ph.D chemist is wrong. I see no evidence that silver is protected by a layer of patina. In fact, I have a lot of evidence to the contrary as ANYONE who's ever seen a silver pitcher or candlestick tarnished to pure black can confirm. Coins that are not protected will continue to get darker until they are also absolutely soot black. Furthermore, the speed at which this happens seems constant. I can usually tell the age of a piece of sterling holloware by how dark the tarnish is, and as far as I can determine it's a straight line function.
Now.....after presenting the reasons why I think TomB (well intentioned or not) is wrong, I have ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that this myth will NOT be challenged by contradictory evidence, and will simply be repeated as gospel fact the next time this issue comes up. Pmh, it would help your case if you had a shred of intellectual honesty.
I will address your responses that you have posted later this evening.
However, You have not still addressed my comments namely; that you have indicated that PCGS and NGC now essentially ignores the luster on coins for grading in MS-67 and MS-68 grades which flies in the face of the luster laden untoned DMPL dollars, 3c and 5c nickels, proof coins, copper coinage, gold coinage which is is more revered than ever by both the third party grading services and the hobby in general.
If you confine your commentary to Commems and even Franklin half dollars and possibly a few other area of silver coinage you would be making some very valid points.
Let us first narrow down your concern to that of silverf coinage only and that you do not see the same concerns with coins minted in other metals.
I would like to resolve this specific point first and get an agreement that perhaps you were overgeneralizing your commentary about the grading services and their view of luster to include all areas of US coinage.
We all sometimes overgeneralize including me.
Not looking to "win" but instead to narrow down the specifics of your concerns about the TPG grading of coins.
<< <i>In addition, the oxide layer rather than being destructive "forms a skin or patina on the metal that acts to protect the underlying surface and actually inhibits further chemical reaction." (statement in quotes from our resident Ph.D chemist).
I believe your resident Ph.D chemist is wrong. I see no evidence that silver is protected by a layer of patina. In fact, I have a lot of evidence to the contrary as ANYONE who's ever seen a silver pitcher or candlestick tarnished to pure black can confirm. Coins that are not protected will continue to get darker until they are also absolutely soot black. Furthermore, the speed at which this happens seems constant. I can usually tell the age of a piece of sterling holloware by how dark the tarnish is, and as far as I can determine it's a straight line function.
Now.....after presenting the reasons why I think TomB (well intentioned or not) is wrong, I have ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT that this myth will NOT be challenged by contradictory evidence, and will simply be repeated as gospel fact the next time this issue comes up. Pmh, it would help your case if you had a shred of intellectual honesty. >>
How much of your flatware is 0.900 fine silver, Iwog?
Anyway, show me the science and not the personal observation.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
So no, I'm not ready to admit PCGS and NGC take luster into account when giving grades. Just remember that the old ANA grading guidelines forbid a coin with impaired luster to grade any better than MS63. It's inconceivable that a grade of MS66 or higher can be given to ANY coin under ANY circumstance when the luster has been completely wiped from the coin!! Luster damage is so obvious that a single example in an MS66 slab SHOULD receive an explanation from the certification company. Sadly, there are thousands of these coins and their existance is utterly ignored and totally unexplained. Therefore I have no choice but to repeat my opinion that luster is totally ignored by all the major grading services.
Sterling flatware and holloware is 92.5% pure silver, and 7.5% copper. Most 18th and early 19th century American silver is called "coin silver" and 90%/10% just like American silver coinage. Please don't try to imply that this silver has different properties than US coins.
You asked a question, I gave you an answer that was very factual and very direct. You asked for a single chemical similiarity and you got it. The relevance is you're removing that material when you dip the coin.
While your preference may be a coin that's had it's surfaces intentional altered to have the "appearance" of originality that coin is no more original (and I'd argue less so) then a coin that has acquired some toning as a result of historical happenstance.
Play with your chemicals to your hearts delight but lets keep the facts straight. When you dip a coin you're removing some of the original material. Period, end of story.
You responded to my question of:
<<<<<<<<However, You have not still addressed my comments namely; that you have indicated that PCGS and NGC now essentially ignores the luster on coins for grading in MS-67 and MS-68 grades which flies in the face of the luster laden untoned DMPL dollars, 3c and 5c nickels, proof coins, copper coinage, gold coinage which is is more revered than ever by both the third party grading services and the hobby in general.
If you confine your commentary to Commems and even Franklin half dollars and possibly a few other area of silver coinage you would be making some very valid points.
Let us first narrow down your concern to that of silver coinage only and that you do not see the same concerns with coins minted in other metals.
I would like to resolve this specific point first and get an agreement that perhaps you were overgeneralizing your commentary about the grading services and their view of luster to include all areas of US coinage.
We all sometimes overgeneralize including me.
Not looking to "win" but instead to narrow down the specifics of your concerns about the TPG grading of coins. >>>>>>>>>>>
by stating the following:
<<<<<<<<I don't believe I am overgeneralizing. Dollars are in the same catagory as Mercury dimes in that the huge majority of coins were preserved in bags and rolls, and very few examples were subjected to harsh toning. Even with blast white dollars outnumbering luster damaged coins by 100 to 1, there are still FAR too many certified dogs that have no business being in premium holders. Furthermore, it's common knowlege that dark toning hides light defects, (like luster scuffs) which would explain why so many of these coins are in high-end holders. Untoned coins are actually handicapped because the surface is completely visible without distractions.>>>>>>>
Ok, your response only argued against my inclusion of Dollars when I only mentioned luster laden DMPL Morgan silver dollars and did not respond regarding copper coinage, copper/nickel 3c and 5c and gold plus other miscellaneous coinage metals. You seem to be focused only on silver coins. Does this mean that your argument is only regarding silver coinage. You have not indicated that any other metals were similarly afflicted with either the same degree of toning or that the grading services in fact rewarded toned copper coins more than blazing lustrous red copper coins.
Am I remembering this correctly or not?
This is partially why I am amazed at IWOG's assertion to the contrary as far as PCGS is concerned.
Silver sulfide: Melting point 845 C. Density 7.234 g cm -3. Color Black. Reflectivity very poor.
Silver metal: Meltin point 961 C. Density 10.5 g cm -3. Color White. Reflectivity highest known.
These are not chemical similarities, these are chemical DIFFERENCES. You don't even understand the terms being used, yet you have the arrogance to say I'm wrong???? I don't expect you to know chemistry, I do expect you not to act like a complete ass when you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
Marks - not related to preservation of luster.
Strike - not related to preservation of luster.
10% of known coins in a series have impaired luster, 90% do not. Since strike and marks are independent, ALL of the MS67-68 coins SHOULD be blast white! Why? Because they will be given a bump based on luster while the screwed up coins are given a penalty. Is this the case? HELL NO!!!!
I am not ignoring the fact that there are some coin series where the top end is full of luster laden examples, I am saying it's irrelevant UNLESS you can show that the percentage of luster laden coins at the top is GREATER than the percentage of lusterous coins for the total series. Sadly, it's not even close. If 1 out of 20 MS67 Morgan dollars has impaired luster, than it actually proves my point completely. Regarding PCGS, I can say that they seem to have more bright coins in slabs than NGC does. This may only mean that they don't give dull toned coins the premium that NGC does. I've seen plenty of dogs in PCGS high grade holders, in fact I've posted quite a few in this thread.
Copper, copper/nickel, and gold coins also have much higher % of untoned coins in the top 10% of the PCGS mint state grade echelon versus the overall percentage of toned coins in mint state.
Of course, gold is a special breed unto itself.
If your example is correct however, and toned DMPL coins are almost unknown, then it further supports the fact that toning destroys a coin's surface.
Union
think about this!!!!
1) conservation...would you let a picasso deteriorate??? or preserve it??as collectors we have paid the seller for the right to act as the "temporary holder" of our coins before it is passed to the next collector....i still own my first coin i bought in 1973 and after 31 years i have had coins that if something wasnt done before i departed from this earth they would be passed on in a lesser state than i when i bought it...and to me that would make me negligent in my obligation...thus the pvc or spot had to go....better nip it in the bud....so i really agree with the ngc conservation system they have instituted......for the record pcgs has one too as with out it they would be remiss in their obligation as well...you just dont know about it..very few do
2) now for the ngc grading comment...as i said i have been here 31 years....and i have to tell you just about all of my pcgs coins that i have bought in the 90s have upgraded at pcgs....yep even my ngc 92-s in 66 upgraded to pcgs 67...how many do you want to know about..ever see nfl coins ( 100 of them ) on the bourse floor...you know why???the seller didnt want anyone to know its been upgraded...hello...so what does that prove...just that there is a thing called gradeflation where as the best coins migrate up....period..and thats a fact....now you should ask how did i do that...thats easy..suppose you had a great friend such as jim halprin ( btw he won the professional grading contest ) and he saw thousands of coins a week and if they worked he would sell them to jack lee...if they didnt he would sell them to me .... now its only a matter of time ( a year or two...sometimes 3 ) before they worked...its that simple
3) now lets visit the pcgs/ngc situation...there is a belief out there ( and one i subscrib to )...and this is in general terms.... that ngc properly grades coins and pcgs doesnt....they say pcgs is tuffer...aka undergrade coins....is the glass half empty or half full..( btw it does make you more money when you get the same coin submitted several times to get the right grade on it...and making more money makes stock holders very happy plus you get stock options too )....so tell me...exactly who does this help...the dealer like jim or you...i for one know jim will pick your box clean off.....and leave you with the "properly" graded coins ( properly graded in that particular point in time ) and he gets the upgrades ( and the money )....so who gets the short end of the stick when a service undergrades coins.....THE COLLECTOR....as the dealer has all the advantage...go look at all the big boys....they have more ngc coins than pcgs...that what i said....ALL THE BIG BOYS HAVE MORE NGC COINS THAN PCGS...know why???because they buy them cheaper....you know why...because there way too many pcgs clones out there who buy only pcgs coins...and pay a premium to do it...so they buy ngc cheaper...cross them and they get the premium...i see it everyday....here one for ya....2 morgan dollars in 66 in an auction....the pcgs goes for 3200 and the ngc goes for 2600....problem was the seller was a upgrader who HAD to settle with heritage ( as he owed them money ) so he gave them coins...problem was he thought the ngc was a 67...tried it and failed so he left it in the ngc holder ( no time to reinsert it inot a pcgs holder )...i bought it and now its in a pcgs 67 holder...it happens everyday...another case in point..ever wonder what an upgrader does when he is trying to break into a pop 1 situation and cant...keep in mind he thinks its the best there is ( and it probably is or he wont be an upgrader long )..he puts it into a ngc holder for the correct grade...now a smart guy would buy it...but not the clones....i know of one guy who bought the entire ngc pop of 4 ( pcgs 0)..a year later he sent 2 to pcgs both worked and he sold them to 2 different guys on the same day for 12,000 each..he only paid 12,000 for all 4 of them..nice days work......me i love buying ngc because i buy the coin not the plastic and i have a lot less guys chasing my purchases....
Sorry to be so blunt, but you really threw me with this one.
Would it help/make you feel better if I hypothesized that you grossly under-graded them, instead?
-------------------------
Mark Feld
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
exactly what i was saying...and mark is a pro
as far as toning vrs white...i see white coins ( and i have owned hundreds ) as blank canvases waiting for natures paintbrush to do her majic.....so i have to say i am a clone too....as i am a toning freak and i have been hunting them for 30 years...the mark of a great set is when you show someone who knows nothing about coins and they say "that is really beautiful.... like the blues,greens and reds"
and no joe you cant be annointed as having the best all time set when you just pop in for 3 years and then boggie.....it a little insulting pcgs would even suggest that it is..or was....or what ever
think about it
out of rockets ...out of bullets...switching to harsh language
No dishonesty on my part. The FACT is that when you dip a coin you are removing some of the original material from the coins. Bottomline, end of story. You can twist, spin and turn all you want about reflectivity, conductivity, density, melting point and color all you want. It doesn't change that fundamental fact. Here is another FACT for you, you don't have silver sulfide without the original silver that is part of the coin's surface.
As a consequence of those FACTS your dipped coin is no more original, and I'd argue less original, then a coin that has toning as a matter of historical happenstance.
I call them as I see them and you wrong again. The FACT is you don't want to acknowledge my answer because it refutes the premise you've tried to making that dipping doesn't remove any of the coins original material. While you bash the change that takes place as a matter of history and environment (toning) you want to justify the intentional chemical alteration you're so fond of.
If you like white coins that's perfectly fine but don't obscure the facts regarding what takes place when you dip a coin to justify your preference. Obscuring the facts shouldn't be necessary for you to enjoy your dipped white coins and it's intellectually dishonest.
EVP, I tutored university level chemistry when I was at UC Davis. I'm only mentioning it because you're an idiot.
Whoopdee friggen do. I roomed with a guy once who had a Masters in Chemistry from UTexas. We both were taking a chemistry course together and he finished in the middle of the pack against a group who didn't have chem degrees. I'll take EVP and his Holiday Inn....more boost to that.
Iwog was spouting "absolutes" throughout the first half of this thread now I see he has been taken down on every issue. One of my favorites was that white coins don't lose silver during a dip. It didnt' matter how long the dipping took 3 days ago. Now he's changed his tune to see how can we possibly compare a few seconds to 8 hours! Give me friggen break Iwog. First you state absolutes, then you rant, then you get proven wrong, then you back off on your absolutes. And don't forget to call someone an idiot in there while you're at it.
Coinosaurus, roadrunner has said on numerous occasions that the acid in Jeweluster (dilute sulfuric acid) eats away the surface of the coin. He's obviously wrong but I have no doubt he'll keep repeating the lie and these "discussions" will keep coming up. tion.
Iwog, you were proven wrong on this. Once again you accused someone one of lying. What's new? I guess if the acid isn't working away at the surface of the coin, it must be the........water??
Iwog, king of the "absolutes" and then the back peddle, save face special. Thanks Tom for your inputs.
Monsterman, glad to see you strut your stuff again. We always need a good infusion of truth at times. Your posts are always refreshing to read. Iwog, take note.
roadrunner
You said I claimed white coins didn't lose silver during a dip but failed to show where or what I said.
You claimed I was proved wrong about sulfuric acid eating away the coin but failed to show any evidence or even explain how I was proven wrong. The fact remains that silver isn't affected by sulfuric acid and you're still lying.
You repeatedly claim I was proven wrong (sometimes you don't even mention about what) and once again fail to even explain where or how. (or even what I was wrong about)
You actually sound very hysterical and agitated. Maybe you should try another character assassination as you've done in the past. Might work this time..........