For those believe a light dipping is O.K., do you also believe that lightly AT'ing a coin is also al
For those believe a light dipping is O.K., do you also believe that lightly AT'ing a coin is also allright.
If you lightly dip a coin to remove some light negative toning, to make the coin more market friendly or, just make the coin more visually appealing to yourself then: wouldn't it be O.K. to lightly AT a coin to say hide some hairlines near the rim of a coin.
If not what is your reasoning why?
Just curious.
Ron
Edited to remove all the says
If you lightly dip a coin to remove some light negative toning, to make the coin more market friendly or, just make the coin more visually appealing to yourself then: wouldn't it be O.K. to lightly AT a coin to say hide some hairlines near the rim of a coin.
If not what is your reasoning why?
Just curious.
Ron
Edited to remove all the says
0
Comments
NSDR - Life Member
SSDC - Life Member
ANA - Pay As I Go Member
Dipping is removing something that is not sposed to be on the coin (toning) to put it back to near original "mint state" condition.
AT'ing is adding something that isn't sposed to be there in order to decieve someone, or as in your example, to hide something.
Dog hit it on the head, so I will not repeat.
<< <i>Dipping is removing something that is not sposed to be on the coin (toning) to put it back to near original "mint state" condition.
AT'ing is adding something that isn't sposed to be there in order to decieve someone, or as in your example, to hide something. >>
What he said. I think dipping is *usually* a mistake, but they aren't the same and they are usually done for different reasons. AT is never done, as far as I know, for reasons other than deception.
<< <i>
Dipping is removing something that is not sposed to be on the coin (toning) to put it back to near original "mint state" condition.
AT'ing is adding something that isn't sposed to be there in order to decieve someone, or as in your example, to hide something. >>
Sorry Dog but I disagree with you, Dipping is the same as ATing a coin to me, if ya mess with it its AT....
AL
<< <i>No.
Dipping is removing something that is not sposed to be on the coin (toning) to put it back to near original "mint state" condition.
AT'ing is adding something that isn't sposed to be there in order to decieve someone, or as in your example, to hide something. >>
So a 200 year old silver coin is not "sposed" to have toning? Dang! Learn sumthin new here every day.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Best,
Sunnywood
Sunnywood's Rainbow-Toned Morgans (Retired)
Sunnywood's Barber Quarters (Retired)
As much as I might wish for a different world, ferreting out all the expert dipped, or expert AT coins, unfortunately raises the red flag on lots and lots of honest coins. Certainly the grading services find a large grey area, where the same dipped or AT coin gets bagged one day, and gets through a month later. The average collector can learn to spot the worst of the holdered coins, and also use some common sense.
Common sense tells me that a 19th century non-Morgan is unlikely to be blast white and very likely dipped. Also the some blue unc Indian cents were made as an experiment and are now being holdered.
Common sense tells me that a bunch of monster toners that have been holdered during the past five years. These coins did not exist 20 to 25 years ago. The auction catalogs from back then had very few super toned coins and even then they were extremely desirable and bid up to high multiples. Only a fool would think they all came out of hiding. A much more likely scenario is that folks are making them.
These and other techniques have been around as long as there has been a hobby, much as a person might wish for a different world.
<< <i>Sorry Dog but I disagree with you, Dipping is the same as ATing a coin to me, if ya mess with it its AT.... >>
How can it be "AT" when the "T" in AT means "toning" and there is no toning?
Yes, both are messed with but again, sometimes the motivation is different.
When I first got into the hobby everyone said "dipping is bad mmmmmkay!". Now it's market acceptable? Bah! Didn't know the rules changed that much in two years.
Positive BST: WhiteThunder (x2), Ajaan, onefasttalon, mirabela, Wizard1, cucamongacoin, mccardguy1
Negative BST: NONE!
<< <i>Dipping to me is not as bad as AT'ing but I still frown on it.
When I first got into the hobby everyone said "dipping is bad mmmmmkay!". Now it's market acceptable? Bah! Didn't know the rules changed that much in two years. >>
The "rules" are always being changed by the collectors.
What ever they are spending money on is what will be.
Be it toned or "balst white"/
The collectors deceide, the doctors provide.
Dipping is removing something that is not sposed to be on the coin (toning) to put it back to near original "mint state" condition.
AT'ing is adding something that isn't sposed to be there in order to decieve someone, or as in your example, to hide something. >>
Sorry Dog but I disagree with you, Dipping is the same as ATing a coin to me, if ya mess with it its AT....
AL>>>
You don’t disagree with me as much as you think you do. Notice I said <<<to near original "mint state" condition.>>> I agree with YOU that if it’s messed with, then it’s messed with. Lesser of 2 evils type of thing.
Russ, NCNE
AT is deceiving.
I think it's wrong to apply paint, chemicals, heat, or anything else to dramatically accelerate toning.
I don't thing there's anything wrong at all with putting a white coin in an album or envelope and allowing toning to form over months or years.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>Dipping is "restoring".
AT is deceiving. >>
That's about it.
Al
<< <i>no unless its to remove PVC... >>
That's certainly a recognized and almost universally accepted reason for "conservation." The thing is, when you're "dipping" a coin to remove toning, you're not just dipping it in acetone (which is completely harmless to the coin if done and rinsed off properly), you're removing metal (actually, metal oxides and sulfides that formed with metal that was originally on the coin).
Toning that etches into a coins surface to dull the luster also works to lower its value.
Dipping a coin is sometimes acceptable. AT'ing never is. Sticking coins into albums to tone them is the lesser of all these evils, and imo is perfectly acceptable. If it worked for Clapp/Eliasberg then why not us?
roadrunner
<< <i>When properly done, dipping can restore the natural beauty to a hazed over crappy looking coin. Those of you who are anti-dipping are welcome to all the hazed over crappy looking coins. I'd rather have the natural beauty.
Russ, NCNE >>
Anyone who can say this and decry ATing is practicing moral relativism, and is obviously not a numismatic purist.
The fact that I happen to agree with the stated point of view changes nothing. The application of ethics is still situational. ANYTHING done to a coin with the intent to improve its' state of preservation or appearance is "messing" with it.
I'll probably never stop messing.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
<< <i><< When properly done, dipping can restore the natural beauty to a hazed over crappy looking coin. Those of you who are anti-dipping are welcome to all the hazed over crappy looking coins. I'd rather have the natural beauty.
Russ, NCNE >>
Anyone who can say this and decry ATing is practicing moral relativism, and is obviously not a numismatic purist.
The fact that I happen to agree with the stated point of view changes nothing. The application of ethics is still situational. ANYTHING done to a coin with the intent to improve its' state of preservation or appearance is "messing" with it.
I'll probably never stop messing. >>
Your assertion assumes there is something unethical about dipping a coin. There isn't. Coins didn't come from the mint with crap all over them. Conserving them to restore them to their original beauty is no more unethical than the restoration work currently being done on the Declaration Of Independence.
Russ, NCNE
If properly done, a dip can get rid of stuff that has accumulated on the surface of a coin and can restore it pretty close to its original state. OTOH, ATing a coin is intentionally and unnaturally making it something it never was in the first place.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
<< <i>
<< <i><< When properly done, dipping can restore the natural beauty to a hazed over crappy looking coin. Those of you who are anti-dipping are welcome to all the hazed over crappy looking coins. I'd rather have the natural beauty.
Russ, NCNE >>
Anyone who can say this and decry ATing is practicing moral relativism, and is obviously not a numismatic purist.
The fact that I happen to agree with the stated point of view changes nothing. The application of ethics is still situational. ANYTHING done to a coin with the intent to improve its' state of preservation or appearance is "messing" with it.
I'll probably never stop messing. >>
Your assertion assumes there is something unethical about dipping a coin. There isn't. Coins didn't come from the mint with crap all over them. Conserving them to restore them to their original beauty is no more unethical than the restoration work currently being done on the Declaration Of Independence.
Russ, NCNE >>
I know that you are right. I was just being obtuse and annoying, and working on my thesaurus skills
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1