A touchy quesion...
stinkinlincoln
Posts: 2,733 ✭
Ok, so we have all read the threads about grading standards & Cac.
Also, we've all read threads that were about coin doctoring and dipping.
My question, is dipping a coin doctoring a coin?
My personal thought on the issue is that it is doctoring a coin.
Your thoughts?
Also, we've all read threads that were about coin doctoring and dipping.
My question, is dipping a coin doctoring a coin?
My personal thought on the issue is that it is doctoring a coin.
Your thoughts?
0
Comments
Just my opinion.
So basically, there's not a ton of logic to my thought, but I still don't consider it doctoring.
I know NCS helps some coins, but I really dont care for them at all, or the services they provide. Just being honest here.
Every Silver Eagle I own gets dipped to eliminate or at the very minimum "reduce" the possibility of Milk Spotting. Unlike toning, once an SAE spots, the coin is ruined.
Some Silver Kennedy Proofs as well as some Eisenhower Proof and BU Silver coins are also prone to milk spotting which totally devalues the coin from a collectibility standpoint. Dipping is almost always a required step prior to having them professionally graded.
Having said that, I would also never, ever consider dipping one of the classic coins. After a hundred years, if the coin has survived that long without some type of chemical blemishing, then nothing needs to be done.
The name is LEE!
US and British coin collector, and creator of The Ultimate Chuck E. Cheese's and Showbiz Pizza Place Token & Ticket Guide
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
.......i think a coin that is about to be slabbed should get an anointing of something to ward off spotting, or anything else that may develop in the future. or at least be offered the option (of course with a disclaimer)
So, in 40 years from now there is no telling what the trend will be for coins. Maybe the encapsulation in plastic slabs will turn out to be a horrible thing to do to a coin and a "previously slabbed" coin will trade at a reduced value because of what ever chemical reaction occurred during the years it was in the slab. Reminds me of the Harco Brand of coin albums that were all the rage. They had plastic pages with slide out holders on each row. Tons of people jumped on them and put their coins in without knowing or even having ever heard of PVC. So many coins went out and were stored in those albums and then brought back a year later with nasty green stuff all over them. Nobody knew that the chemicals in the pages would hurt the coins.
So, for doctoring, we fairly readily accept rare coins that have been filled or plugged when the filling was done in the era of the coin. Perhaps the future will be that doctored coins will be recognized as such but the "stigma" of a coin being worked on will be gone.
World Collection
British Collection
German States Collection
The term "doctoring" should only encompass subjects such as scratch repair/removal, lasering (if thats even possible), whizzing, polishing, puttying, the adding of mintmarks and in general "altering" the metal of the coin to eliminate hits, dings, and marks such that the coin technically grades higher than it actually should.
The name is LEE!
But, if theres lite haze on a coin and you submit it undipped, will it get a lower grade than its dipped counterpart?
GrandAm
Thats not the question. Just because they say its ok, that doesnt make it ok.
Not saying they are wrong, just that its not really an argument.
My point exactly... Dipping a coin takes away its originality. That to me is doctoring a coin in the most simple sense of the word.
<< <i>Your thoughts? >>
OK, then no
GrandAm
Then why isnt metal movement via filling, tooling, or anything else done correctly ok?
Dipping a coin enough causes metal movement does it not?
Even though once may be ok by some, how is it not considered doctoring a coin?
To me, this question shouldnt be this hard to answer, unlike the great AT vs NT debate.
Example, I have a coin from the late 1800's that went from the Mint to a collector. Then to several other collectors that never messed with it. It tones slightly, yet attractively. I buy it, all original. I then dip it one time and change the entire look of the coin.
Thats not coin doctoring?
I realize not every example or case is the same as I mentioned, but you get my point...
A little dipping or cleaning might be market acceptable for many coins. Still they aren't totaly original and probably not graded as high as a totaly original coin.
Then we have over-dipped coins and harshly or improperly cleaned coins that are not market acceptable.
Everyone including TPGs draws their own line.
What if you strictly collect blast white coins? Doesnt that improve the look of the coin for you? If so, the coin looks better after you messed with it. From your comment, isnt that doctoring?
Why does it have to add something to be considered doctoring?
I did not have this one dipped as it is an original coin with color and compass point reverse as well as nice luster Graded AU55. When I sell it someone somewhere would be happy I never dipped it.
<< <i><<Dipping is considered "Market Acceptable" by the TPG companies.>>
Thats not the question. Just because they say its ok, that doesnt make it ok.
Not saying they are wrong, just that its not really an argument. >>
A lot of knowledgeable people don't consider it to be doctoring, most likely because if it's properly done it's hard to tell. However, you are free to disagree and consider it to be doctoring if you like.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i><<Doctoring is moving, or filling metal. Dipping if done correctly. It not considered doctoring. You may not want to buy a dipped coin, but that is another matter. >>
Then why isnt metal movement via filling, tooling, or anything else done correctly ok?
Dipping a coin enough causes metal movement does it not?
Even though once may be ok by some, how is it not considered doctoring a coin?
To me, this question shouldnt be this hard to answer, unlike the great AT vs NT debate.
Example, I have a coin from the late 1800's that went from the Mint to a collector. Then to several other collectors that never messed with it. It tones slightly, yet attractively. I buy it, all original. I then dip it one time and change the entire look of the coin.
Thats not coin doctoring?
I realize not every example or case is the same as I mentioned, but you get my point... >>
No, it is not.
Linky do
Some very good points of argument everyone.
Even though Ill always consider dipping doctoring, I understand why its ok to some and the TPG's.
<< <i><<and marks such that the coin technically grades higher than it actually should. >>
But, if theres lite haze on a coin and you submit it undipped, will it get a lower grade than its dipped counterpart? >>
IMO yes! The exact same manner in which a Toned Silver Eisenhower Proof will grade lower and for that matter not even qualify for a DCAM designation. I have several smokey looking 1974-S Clad Proofs which graded way low due to the haze.
Getting a Target Toned IKE in MS69DCAM is very difficult anymore as some TPG's want to see all of the fields and not through either toning or haze.
As a result, if the coin is not too beautifully toned and is of a specific die variety, I will "conserve" it for its best possible presentation and I do not in any way consider this doctoring.
Coins tone and proofs haze depending upon the environment they are stored in. Some folks like it while others do not. TPG graders do not. At least for moderns they do not.
The name is LEE!
<< <i><<Dipping is considered "Market Acceptable" by the TPG companies.>>
Thats not the question. Just because they say its ok, that doesnt make it ok.
Not saying they are wrong, just that its not really an argument. >>
Not quite true friend. The TPG's MAKE the markets and they MAKE the rules over what is market acceptable and what is not. Its the entire point behind having coins professionally graded.
The original Sheldon scale was based upon "Market Price" and value and that concept has not changed. If anything at all, the TPG's bolster the concept.
The name is LEE!
I had a 1921 Peace dollar with tape?? on the face. It was ugly but BU.
I "carefully" dipped the thing, the residue came off and submitted it to PCGS.
They Body bagged the coin, as they should. It is now is the garage, exposed to all the elements and we will try again in a few years.
"Dipping a coin enough causes metal movement does it not?" - In a word, possibly but we're talking hours of dip time, not the typical 2 or 3 second dunk. Anybody that dips a coin for hours, should really have their heads examined to determine exactly how deep the stupidity runs. Not every coin is a candidate for dipping, even with modern issues. Experience will dictate those that are and those that are not.
Generally speaking, coins that appear "over-dipped" are AU coins that should never have been dipped in the first place. The definition of an AU coin can be a coin that has wear only on the high points. That wear is detected by a break in the coins natural luster. Dipping this type of coin does nothing except "highlight" the area which has no luster causing the coin to appear "over-dipped".
If any of the lurkers and newbies out there have any concerns over what to dip and what not to dip, then they had better not dip anything until they are sure and/or willing to accept the consequences of their actions. They could choose the wrong coin to dip by thinking the coin is BU when in fact its borderline AU.
For real life examples of what I just explained, grab a circulated 40% Silver Clad Kennedy Half and give it a bath. Choose a coin that looks a bit toned but generally dirty yet still has some original mint luster. The end result will show exactly what I am referring too.
"Example, I have a coin from the late 1800's that went from the Mint to a collector. Then to several other collectors that never messed with it. It tones slightly, yet attractively. I buy it, all original. I then dip it one time and change the entire look of the coin.
Thats not coin doctoring?"
No, that just plain dumb. Coins from the 1800's should not be dipped if their appearance is pleasing as you'll never know what type of damage the toning has done to the coin until you try to remove it. You could very well end up with a nice looking but DULL coin from the 1800's.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>My thought on this is that once a coin is dipped it is no longer original. But I do not think it is doctoring. More of a restoration process.
I did not have this one dipped as it is an original coin with color and compass point reverse as well as nice luster Graded AU55. When I sell it someone somewhere would be happy I never dipped it.
An AU55 coin is NOT a candidate for dipping. ANY AU coin is not a candidate for dipping regardless of the date it was made.
The name is LEE!
I dont know if I believe the TPG's make the market, push it in a certain direction? Yea, sure. But I dont buy what PCGS tells me too. I buy what I like. Just like most collectors should.
They can say they make the rules on what is market acceptable, but thats putting way to much power in their own hands. We as the buyers of these coins dictate which is acceptable by buying these coins do we not?
New collectors, please educate yourself before spending money on coins; there are people who believe that using numismatic knowledge to rip the naïve is what this hobby is all about.
BST Transactions: DonnyJf, MrOrganic, Justanothercoinaddict, Fivecents, Slq, Jdimmick,
Robb, Tee135, Ibzman350, Mercfan, Outhaul, Erickso1, Cugamongacoins, Indiananationals, Wayne Herndon
Negative BST Transactions:
<< <i>Not a not of logic to be had here (and this post has been done many times). I agree with tightbudget, lightening a black coin is OK, on the other hand, taking a nicely toned coin to "brilliant" should be a capital offense. It is doctoring, just permissible doctoring. Like capital punishment is permissible murder. >>
The anaology is somewhat a strectch-but generally speaking I agree.
I personally see nothing wrong with it, but I do consider it doctoring.
If you really like the coin and feel it has to be conserved, if you are not one of the experts, please send it off to one of those conservation companies, so it doesn't become ruined.
President, Racine Numismatic Society 2013-2014; Variety Resource Dimes; See 6/8/12 CDN for my article on Winged Liberty Dimes; Ebay
<< <i>If you like to dip read this.
I had a 1921 Peace dollar with tape?? on the face. It was ugly but BU.
I "carefully" dipped the thing, the residue came off and submitted it to PCGS.
They Body bagged the coin, as they should. It is now is the garage, exposed to all the elements and we will try again in a few years. >>
Tape is one of those items which must be dealt with very carefully as the adhesive on the edges of the tape can seep and often do accumulate abrasive particles and damaging contaminents. Dipping the coin in acetone may remove the adhesive but if the coin has become damaged do to abrasive contaminents then the coin is simply lost. Tape also can impart an aweful looking toning pattern that may or may not be removed with a coin dip like E-Z-Est. I've seen silver coins which have dark spots on them which simply will not come off.
BTW, many collectors used to "tape" their coins into the older albums so this is quite common to see on Silver Dollars. The art of coin collecting has a lot to do with buying the "right" coin as niot every coin, even though BU, is the "right" coin.
The name is LEE!
If I dip a coin, and I like that look, then its improved the coin, right?
Now, take a coin with a small imperfection. Its tooled, or otherwise altered, and now that coin is improved.
Right?
So whats the difference?
I still cant get behind the comments and views that its ok because most in this hobby do it.
Im not trying to be a smarta$$, but thats like saying all my friends smack crack...
I doubt you will ever try that again.
BTW I bought that coin when it was in a TPG holder, not PCGS but an acceptable group, and apparently did not see it. My mistake.
If you dip a coin, you can get hairlines. PCGS does not like hairlines and they see them, my guess, everyday.
I could have eBayed the coin, It is now pretty, 1921 is high relief and worth some money.
Simple.
Now at the same time, it just so happens to be perceived as "acceptable" in the eyes of the TPGs and most collectors and dealers. That doesn't change the fact that it is still a deliberate alteration of the coin.
I don't know why it needs to be parsed any farther than that.
*shrug*
EDIT: Moronic grammar on my part.
1/2 Cents
U.S. Revenue Stamps
<< <i>I'll fly in the face of prevailing sentiment here. I believe that dipping *IS* doctoring a coin for one simple reason: it is an intentional act intended to alter the appearance of the coin.
Simple.
Now at the same time, it just so happens to be perceived as "acceptable" in the eyes of the TPGs and most collectors and dealers. That doesn't change the fact that it is still a deliberate alteration of the coin.
I don't know why it needs to be parsed any farther than that.
*shrug* >>
Because it could also be an intentional act intended to conserve the coin from unsightly toning. Therein lies the debate as dipping is NOT always done to increase the value. No two coins will tone the same way and some toning, if left alone, literally ruins the coin.
The name is LEE!
It cost me maybe 400 bucks. The coin had been graded MS something.. But with tape. It is called "one trial learning." Or learning the hard and stupid way.
OT a tad. I looked at my GSA CC dollars. First time in 20 years. They now all have golden rim tones. They did not come that way so it is a result of the GSA plastic. I like the look. What will happen in a hundred years is anyone's guess.