Why are dipped coins not considered as bad as AT coins?

BECOKA

I have been wondering about this. Why is it that AT coins get such bad press when (I may be wrong) AT does less to the surface of the coin than dipping which removes a small layer.

Dipped coins will get slabbed any time of the day.

I understand why people are against AT coins as I like Natural toning as well but it would seem that dipped coins should get the same Body Bag treatment as AT.

Bochiman

Overly dipped coins are (imho and from what I have seen from many here).
Difference between the 2 is that sometimes toning is applied to hide things (ie...increase the grade) and also, just as a badly dipped coin can turn, so can a badly toned one....really badly.

66RB

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

RYK

I do not know, and I do not understand why the grading cos. will slab (if not reward) dipped coins, but will not slab AT. Inconsistent, if you ask me.

Leiana

<< <i>I do not know, and I do not understand why the grading cos. will slab (if not reward) dipped coins, but will not slab AT. Inconsistent, if you ask me. >>





-Amanda

BlindedByEgo

I don't know - but a question in return: can a coin stay "white" for a hundred years? Have all "white" coins from the late 1800's, for example, been dipped?

I also don't know for certain that AT does less damage than a professional dip - how about if the AT process eats into the metal?

Still, your original question is a head-scratcher, and it does seem like a double standard.

ziggy29

It seems inconsistent, I agree.

The only plausible explanation I can think of is that the "market" thought dipping was acceptable for decades, and thus the TPGs thought it would be unfair to punish coins which were "conserved" according to decades of instruction and convention. In other words, a coin that was "market acceptable" for 100 years shouldn't suddenly become bodybag material.

AT, on the other hand, has never been a preservation "best practice," blatant AT coins have never been "market acceptable," and thus gets dinged.

DaveG

What 66RB said:

Toned coins can sell for a significant premium to a "regular" coin, while dipped coins usually don't (and in the case of an obviously dipped coin, can sell for less).

Russ

Because there are many coins that benefit from dipping by restoring them to their natural glory. I'd bet that plenty of you who are anti-dipping own coins that have been dipped, and you don't even know it. A properly conserved coin is nearly impossible to detect, despite all the claims to the contrary.

Russ, NCNE

artimus

well for one thing.....the premiums people pay for naturally toned coins make artificial toning a deliberate attempt to mislead the buyer for a profit......for what its worth i believe pcgs body bags quite a few coins for being cleaned......i have a few morgans that i bought from a dealer that were bb'ed for cleaning.....and like another poster said....i think there is a huge difference between covering up possible flaws and revealing them.....just my two cents......

jmj3esq

Its impossible to police dipping. Most of the time, when properly done, you cant tell.

Leiana

Well, I did just learn that Acetone does not eat into the coins surface. Nor does it remove toning.

But acetone is not considered dipping, it's considered soaking. Or am I incorrect?

-Amanda

ziggy29

<< <i>Its impossible to police dipping. Most of the time, when properly done, you cant tell. >>

Other than the assumption that a coin THAT old can't be THAT white, I agree.

"When properly done" is, of course, the key phrase here.

IGWT

Because the TPGs need something to slab. Edited to add: Dipping does not qualify as conservation unless it prevents further degradation of a coin without altering what remains of its original condition.

coinguy1

Dipping a coin removes film/patina/haze, etc. which wasn't on the coin when it was struck. AT'ing a coin adds something to the surfaces that wasn't there in the first place and can hide defects/flaws.

The former allows a good look at the current state/condition of the coin's surfaces, whether they are well preserved or not. The latter masks those surfaces. While both processes alter coins' appearances and are at least somewhat unnatural, I can certainly understand (and agree with) why they are treated differently by the grading companies.

RYK

Because there are many coins that benefit from dipping by restoring them to their natural glory. I'd bet that plenty of you who are anti-dipping own coins that have been dipped, and you don't even know it. A properly conserved coin is nearly impossible to detect, despite all the claims to the contrary.

I cannot disagree with most of your statement. In my collecting area, there are too many circulated coins that have an unnatural shine from dipping, and it is ruining my enjoyment of the hobby. Below are some examples from my collection.

Some examples from my collection.

I really doubt that these two coins have been dipped and is the look I try to get whenever possible:





This coin has been dipped, but expertly:



This coin has been dipped, and it is holding a place until I can find a more natural. This date is really tough:

Russ

<< <i>there are too many circulated coins that have an unnatural shine from dipping >>



I don't think dipping circulated coins falls within the parameters of what I consider "properly conserved". In most cases, dipping a circ makes it look like crap - or at least very silly.

Russ, NCNE

ziggy29

<< <i>This coin has been dipped, and it is holding a place until I can find a more natural. This date is really tough: >>

Yeah, but dipping circulated coins is pretty much always a mistake. I think even people who understand that a few fugly MS coins can be improved with an expert dipping would agree on that.

IGWT

-- "I don't think dipping circulated coins falls within the parameters of what I consider 'properly conserved.'"--

What do you mean by "conserved"?

notwilight

From what I've read, dipping was at first considered just as outrageous as toning. I predict toning will gain more acceptance in the future. --Jerry

pharmer

Dipped coins aren't restored to their "natural glory". Their appearance before dipping is their natural appearance. They are changed artificially, and there is no way to tell if the dipped appearance makes them look like they did at some vague point in their existence. Who knows, the planchet may have already had haze or spots before striking, so dipping to "restore" the coin to a condition it never had to begin with then occurs.

jmj3esq

I agree with Russ, a circulated coin that has been dipped is different than a MS coin that has been dipped. Plus, it is easy to tell when a circulated coin has been dipped. It usually looks like a POS. Its not like dipping makes a circulated coin look uncirculated.

Russ

<< <i>Dipped coins aren't restored to their "natural glory". Their appearance before dipping is their natural appearance. >>



Horse crap. Coins didn't come from the mint covered in haze or other contaminants, so there's nothing "natural" about it.



<< <i>Who knows, the planchet may have already had haze or spots before striking, so dipping to "restore" the coin to a condition it never had to begin with then occurs. >>



That was a silly statement. If the contaminants were on the planchet prior to striking, no amount of dipping will have any effect.

Russ, NCNE

pharmer

You've responded to a select portion of my post. So, your definition, which may no be someone else's, is that the point at which they are "restored" to is when they leave the mint. However, I said the planchet may have haze or spots before strikng. Then, at what point is the coin being "restored" to with dipping? A point that never existed.

Russ

<< <i>However, I said the planchet may have haze or spots before strikng. Then, at what point is the coin being "restored" to with dipping? >>



Any contaminants that were on the planchet prior to striking are not going to come off, no matter what method is used.

Russ, NCNE

dizzyfoxx

Who ever said they weren't as bad???