Is a dipped, blast white 1800 Bust Dollar just as acceptable/ok as a dipped, blast white 1900 Morgan

coinguy1

It is quite likely, that other, color-free Morgan Dollars from 1900 are un-dipped and look like essentially indistinguishable from the one you know has been dipped. But, in the case of a Bust Dollar from 1800, any and all that are color-free, have certainly been dipped.

Generally speaking, the older the coin/coin type and the less likely it is that an un-dipped color-free example could be found, the more it bothers me to see a dipped one.

Your thoughts on this subject?

ziggy29

<< <i>Generally speaking, the older the coin/coin type and the less likely it is that an un-dipped color-free example could be found, the more it bothers me to see a dipped one. >>

Word.

And it's not just age -- it's also knowledge of the coin and the history of a coin series.

Even within 1900, for example, I'd think a Morgan was more likely to be "original" blast white than a Barber coin because of the history of many Morgans being bagged, rolled up, and not exposed "to the elements" in a major way until their "liberation" as late as the 1960s. In that respect many of them should be toned (on average) about as much as say, a later-date Franklin. So since there are so many original white Morgans, a *carefully* dipped Morgan with little or no stripping of luster is, IMO, "acceptable," provided that it's largely indistinguishable from an "original" blast white Morgan with 100% unimpaired luster.

flaminio

I'd have to see the coins in question. But a blast white Bust dollar just looks weird....

nankraut

Well, Mark; In an ideal world of numismatics, I'd rather have an undipped coin...but I'm not necessarily against dipping in all cases. It all depends on the eye appeal of the coin. Natural toning can be downright ugly. I would rather have a dipped blast white coin than an ugly looking non-dipped one.

wam98

Maybe it's just me, but MS Morgans are the only coin I accept being blast white. I don't know why and I like them in colors also. Now as far as other US coins of the same era and before, no definately not. I look for original skin on all other coins.

morgannut2

Of course 95% of the 1900 Morgans left the Philly Mint LOOKING like they were overdipped----but aside from that fine point, I would be suprised if I ever saw a 1800 Bust Dollar that hadn't either retoned, or had toning added artifically quickly. So, the market says that a white 1800 is unacceptable, whereas the 1900 is acceptable "white" /dipped, even though true "white" Morgans are commonly distinguishable if they have their original "skin" by some experts.

RYK

Interesting topic for discussion, Mark. Initially, I agreed with you. Upon further thought, I still generally agree but would add that the scarcer the coin (old or new), the more it bothers me to see a "messed with" one. The best recent example of this for me is the 1885 Norweb Trade $1.

coinkat

It really bothers me...

anablep

I think we're just used to seeing blast white Morgans and have accepted it, as have the marketplace.
Dipping an 1800 dollar is like wiping away some history from its surface.

Longacre

I like original, undipped coins. But they seem harder to find.

Barry

Early dollars are .8924 silver/.1076 copper, and Morgans .9/.1. Does the difference in the alloy matter?
Also, what about impurities in the alloy? I may be wrong, but I would think the early dollars could have some trace elements mixed in, moreso than Morgans.

magikbilly

Hi,
I prefer the undipped examples - so much so that I traded my 1892 10c in PR63CAM for a 1906 PR63 mainly because the '92 had been dipped somewhere along the line and was acquiring the brown 'round the edges typical of retoning silver. I sought coins for both my little sets that were undipped and as original as I can find (even if considered ugly by many). Unnaturally bright coinage, especially earlier material, just looks odd and grates my eye - like an early peice of furniture. Sure, some have survived with original finishes in pristine condition with a minimum of patina on the brasses - but many peices just look refinished because thats what they are.

Billy

MrEureka

From the perspective of someone that collects on the Darkside, undipped and white early 19th century silver isn't that astounding.

But in general, I agree with Mark. The older a coin gets, the more an obvious dip bothers me.

michael

in my opinion

any dipped blast white
business strike
pre 1950 coin

is ugly and worth less and is extremely less desirable than its original thick skinned eye appealling white and/or toned coin

and any dipped blast white pre 1950 biz strike coin is ruined

michael

nwcs

I think Morgans are a special case. Many of them are preserved in blast condition. But the same can't be said for bust dollars. To me, I would prefer not to see blast white bust dollars. However, having been dipped makes them a bit cheaper and therefore more affordable for the likes of me. So it's possible I'll end up with a dipped one some day.

Wisconsin

No, in my opinion it is not a acceptable, but still rare to find otherwise. I think the grade of the coin also has to come into consideration. If it is a true mintstate coin, it can still look ok, but still not right, but when you see a VF-XF that has been dipped, it really looks strange.

Jay

greghansen

I agree 110%. The machinery and technique for making coins was quite different in the 100 years or so between Bust & Morgan Dollars and those differences have a profound effect on how an undisturbed coin should look IMO. You wouldn't except to see 'cartwheel luster' from flow lines on a Bust Dollar like you would on many Morgans. I have a strong affection for the dove/battleship grey that forms on some of the old Bust Dollars. At least in the grades I collect them (VF-XF), thats how I like them to look, and wouldn't even contemplate buying one that looked like it may have had that natural 200 year aging stripped off of it.

Stuart

I personally prefer toned Bust Dollars that look like this one.