If so, then most brilliant white, pre 1950 coins would be bodybagged.
Brilliant white coins were the rage in the 1970's.
I remember going to coin shows in the 70's and you could not find one toned coin amongst all the dealers. >>
This is my biggest problem with dipping. Just because its a trend, doesnt take away that you are changing the coin. For better or worse, you are changing it,.
<< <i>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. >>
No offense intended, but you're missing my point: it doesn't matter what the intent is or what the magnitude is. We can argue all day/week/year/decade/lifetime long about whether ATing a coin is a worse transgression than dipping or tooling a coin, and to what degree. Strip all that away and distill the question to its simplest form - is it (dipping/ATing/etc.) a deliberate act of altering a coin's appearance? yes or no.
The OP's question was a simple one and the answer is yes. Now if you then want to argue pros, cons, degree, and acceptability, that's a further discussion... and one that will never reach a definitive conclusion.
<< <i>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. >>
No offense intended, but you're missing my point: it doesn't matter what the intent is or what the magnitude is. We can argue all day/week/year/decade/lifetime long about whether ATing a coin is a worse transgression than dipping or tooling a coin, and to what degree. Strip all that away and distill the question to its simplest form - is it (dipping/ATing/etc.) a deliberate act of altering a coin's appearance? yes or no.
The OP's question was a simple one and the answer is yes. Now if you then want to argue pros, cons, degree, and acceptability, that's a further discussion... and one that will never reach a definitive conclusion. >>
Oh. Sorry. I thought sure I read where you said it was a "deliberate act intended to alter" implying that "intent" was the operative condition.
Whatever.
So let it be written...........so let it be done!
I decided to change calling the bathroom the John and renamed it the Jim. I feel so much better saying I went to the Jim this morning.
Most AU do not look good after a dip so yes dont do it just let it be. There your coins do what you want with them but it took a long time to put all that tone on them and it will take a long time to put it back, Only sec to remove it.
<< <i>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. >>
No offense intended, but you're missing my point: it doesn't matter what the intent is or what the magnitude is. We can argue all day/week/year/decade/lifetime long about whether ATing a coin is a worse transgression than dipping or tooling a coin, and to what degree. Strip all that away and distill the question to its simplest form - is it (dipping/ATing/etc.) a deliberate act of altering a coin's appearance? yes or no.
The OP's question was a simple one and the answer is yes. Now if you then want to argue pros, cons, degree, and acceptability, that's a further discussion... and one that will never reach a definitive conclusion. >>
Oh. Sorry. I thought sure I read where you said it was a "deliberate act intended to alter" implying that "intent" was the operative condition.
Whatever.
So let it be written...........so let it be done! >>
I don't usually butt in others' disagreements, but here goes...
Since I have never heard of anyone "accidently" dipping a coin, or dipping one for no reason, there must have been SOME "intent", for lack of a better word. Whatever the ultimate goal was, the intent of dipping it was to alter the coin's appearance. Dipping is doctoring, whether acceptable or not.
Someone else said that if it's done in a manner where it isn't noticeable, it's ok. Is plugging a hole, in a manner where it's not noticeable, ok? IMO, any intentional (there's that word again) modifying/changing of the coin's appearance to improve it ("improve" is a very subjective term), is considered doctoring.
Each is entitled to his/her own opinion. In the market, dipping is considered acceptable and is NOT considered part of the 'doctoring' category. That is the general state of numismatics today. Things change - as stated earlier - toning was once considered 'garbage' (and for good reason, IMO), and bright coins were sought after. Today, there are those that actually pay good money for toning. Amazing, but true. Each collector seeks what interests her/him.... and accepts that which attracts them. Remember, all of this is just OPINION - and that includes grades and beans. So, enjoy what you like, pass that which you do not like. Your coins, your collection - and you can do whatever you want to those coins - and other people's opinion be da*mned. Cheers, RickO
If it emits an odor, don the protective gear. (or you may need a real doctor) Be cautious when "conserving" or "helping" a coin as it passes through time. Confined spaces without ventilation is not safe. Jamie, the fact is : People want good coins and doctors make coins appear better. That's the bitter truth in the matter of coins. There are safety precautions to be taken in this endeavor and once a person "owns" a coin, it's that person's coin until he sells it to someone else who may appreciate the fact that a previous person took the care to "conserve" it. That person then has the right to seek professional opinions and even pay for them. Now, hopefully this person didn't overpay for the coin. ( retail + )
If a dipped or conserved coin passes the test at the TPGs and the coin is not affected, a grade may be assigned and this helps to assure the collector that he's received a "good" coin. The "touchy" belongs to the person who "feels" emotion over the deal and not passion in the hobby of collecting.
<< <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. >>
Puttied Gold is hard to discern if done properly and the doctoring was recent.
Concerning this entire dipping discussion, coinpictures hit it right on the head.
A lie told often enough becomes the truth. ~Vladimir Lenin
I would not consider quick dipping a coin doctoring. However, dipping obviously destroys the originality of a coin which to me is one of the most important characteristics of a coin. I would prefer a hobby where the primary objective is to keep the coins as original as possible. For me once a coin is dipped the coin loses much of its link to the past. But I recognize that many of you like your coins shiny and unoriginal. To each their own, but please understand that once you dip your coins you do ruin that coin for many of us.
This thread has turned into a very good discussion on dipping coins, I thank every poster here.
Also, Thank you for keeping it about the coins. Theres no name calling, snide back hand comments, or anything like that. Thank you.
TwoSides said: People want good coins and doctors make coins appear better. That's the bitter truth in the matter of coins. I agree. But thats my point, why is all that other stuff bad, when dipping is done so many times more than all the other alterations. If it improves the surface of the coin, how is it bad?
Its still not original, like a dipped coin.
I still hold to my thoughts on this though. I see alot of great points for both sides of this issue, but as a numismatist, I have to still consider dipping doctoring. Even though its not widely thought to be.
Like FatMan said: I would not consider quick dipping a coin doctoring. However, dipping obviously destroys the originality of a coin which to me is one of the most important characteristics of a coin. I would prefer a hobby where the primary objective is to keep the coins as original as possible. For me once a coin is dipped the coin loses much of its link to the past. But I recognize that many of you like your coins shiny and unoriginal. To each their own, but please understand that once you dip your coins you do ruin that coin for many of us.
I know some coins might need a dip to slab, or otherwise remove damage, but, once dipped, the coin is no longer original. If I have a modern proof that needs to be dipped to slab, or remove haze, that coin is not original. Shouldnt we as coin collectors look for another example where dipping is not needed? And if its needed on most of these coins, doesnt that make its dipped counterpart even that much rarer?
To me, If I dip a coin and change the surface of that coin, Im altering it. Even if its for the better.
Plugging a hole improves the coin and changes the surface for the better?
Where does that fine line end?
Personal opinions are one thing, but thats where all this grey area comes from. Either any changing of the surface is bad, or its not...
Lee is an Ike specialist (may I add he is very much an original himself?!?) and properly points out that these large dollars came out of the mint with assorted surface contaminants (all Ikes, silver and CuNi-clad), in part due to the water soluble oils (think WD-40) used to maintain lubrication in the presence of the inevitable misty condensates (water mist) that arise from the release of compressed air used to move planchets to the coining presses in the Ike era.
Most CuNi-clad circulation Ikes came through with brilliant clean surfaces, but many have swaths of unattractive gray toning: are these ugly Ikes "original"?
When a quick dip in EZest or a quick treatment with dilute MS-70 removes this ugly toning with no trace of damage to the surface (we've tested gentle dipping on Ike proofs and highly lustrous silver specimen Ikes with 10X normal time in the dip with no microscopic or in-hand sign of any damage), the best analogy is a painting that has become contaminated with dust and grime and receives a gentle cleaning to restore its originality.
Ike silver proofs were shipped in plastic coffins and if there was any crack in the fragile plastic these proofs could suffer the whole spectrum of corrosion from butt ugly to very rare spectatular florid coloration (see Wondercoin's thread). Conservation of these proofs (when not attractive, of course) is impossible unless done early but then can be remarkably effective in preserving the "original" appearance of the proof (and I would claim "original condition" of the proof).
Silver "Specimen" Ikes were sold in "Plyofilm" packaging: the plastics used tended to corrode the contained BS silver Ikes with splashes of thick white-yellow tenacious oxidative deposits. Caught early, dipping can remove the worst of these deposits, but, as Lee pointed out, when further developed, conservation is impossible without ruining the originality of the silver Ike.
Which brings up NCS. Ike experts like Lee have a wealth of experience judging which Ikes can be restored essentially to originality by diping and employ the minimum such treatment. NCS is paid to treat Ikes sent to it for conservation regardless if that treatment may damage originality. For example, EZest is a dilute acid: when used properly it will not damage the originality of any Ike, but one can purchase acids that are ten or hundreds of times stronger and these will remove enough of the surface metal to wash away almost any corrosion. The result, of course, is a dull, ruined Ike. Such treatment is not conservation with restoring originality the goal, it is treatment to obtain the best appearance possible.
Lee makes another great point. Ikes left the mint with a variety of chemically active surface contaminants. Unless one is so rigid as to deem these corrosion-prone contaminants an essential component of "originality", it only makes sense to use an acetone wash and possibly a gentle acid or alkaline dip to clean the surface of the Ike and then store the coin so it has minimal exposure to secondary contaminants, thus preserving its originality.
By the way, when I dip an Ike I heat it post-dip modestly to help create a minimal new (invisible) oxidative coating to help stabilize the coin's surface: freshly dipped metal is highly reactive as its outer veneer of oxidation has been stripped away.
"Classic Coins" have stable toning to the extent the outer layer of corrosion now is thick enough to protect the metal underneath from further corrosion. Dipping such coins is a proper subject for debate since dipping here is a matter of judgement to be guided by our roles as conservators of the coins in our possession. I agree whole-heartedly with Lee that the starting assumption when contemplating dipping a classic coins should be it is the antithesis of our responsibility as collectors. Rob
Modern dollars are like children - before you know it they'll be all grown up.....
Lee is an Ike specialist (may I add he is very much an original himself?!?) and properly points out that these large dollars came out of the mint with assorted surface contaminants (all Ikes, silver and CuNi-clad), in part due to the water soluble oils (think WD-40) used to maintain lubrication in the presence of the inevitable misty condensates (water mist) that arise from the release of compressed air used to move planchets to the coining presses in the Ike era.
Most CuNi-clad circulation Ikes came through with brilliant clean surfaces, but many have swaths of unattractive gray toning: are these ugly Ikes "original"?
When a quick dip in EZest or a quick treatment with dilute MS-70 removes this ugly toning with no trace of damage to the surface (we've tested gentle dipping on Ike proofs and highly lustrous silver specimen Ikes with 10X normal time in the dip with no microscopic or in-hand sign of any damage), the best analogy is a painting that has become contaminated with dust and grime and receives a gentle cleaning to restore its originality.
Ike silver proofs were shipped in plastic coffins and if there was any crack in the fragile plastic these proofs could suffer the whole spectrum of corrosion from butt ugly to very rare spectatular florid coloration (see Wondercoin's thread). Conservation of these proofs (when not attractive, of course) is impossible unless done early but then can be remarkably effective in preserving the "original" appearance of the proof (and I would claim "original condition" of the proof).
Silver "Specimen" Ikes were sold in "Plyofilm" packaging: the plastics used tended to corrode the contained BS silver Ikes with splashes of thick white-yellow tenacious oxidative deposits. Caught early, dipping can remove the worst of these deposits, but, as Lee pointed out, when further developed, conservation is impossible without ruining the originality of the silver Ike.
Which brings up NCS. Ike experts like Lee have a wealth of experience judging which Ikes can be restored essentially to originality by diping and employ the minimum such treatment. NCS is paid to treat Ikes sent to it for conservation regardless if that treatment may damage originality. For example, EZest is a dilute acid: when used properly it will not damage the originality of any Ike, but one can purchase acids that are ten or hundreds of times stronger and these will remove enough of the surface metal to wash away almost any corrosion. The result, of course, is a dull, ruined Ike. Such treatment is not conservation with restoring originality the goal, it is treatment to obtain the best appearance possible.
Lee makes another great point. Ikes left the mint with a variety of chemically active surface contaminants. Unless one is so rigid as to deem these corrosion-prone contaminants an essential component of "originality", it only makes sense to use an acetone wash and possibly a gentle acid or alkaline dip to clean the surface of the Ike and then store the coin so it has minimal exposure to secondary contaminants, thus preserving its originality.
By the way, when I dip an Ike I heat it post-dip modestly to help create a minimal new (invisible) oxidative coating to help stabilize the coin's surface: freshly dipped metal is highly reactive as its outer veneer of oxidation has been stripped away.
"Classic Coins" have stable toning to the extent the outer layer of corrosion now is thick enough to protect the metal underneath from further corrosion. Dipping such coins is a proper subject for debate since dipping here is a matter of judgement to be guided by our roles as conservators of the coins in our possession. I agree whole-heartedly with Lee that the starting assumption when contemplating dipping a classic coins should be it is the antithesis of our responsibility as collectors. Rob>>
Great post!
<<By the way, when I dip an Ike I heat it post-dip modestly to help create a minimal new (invisible) oxidative coating to help stabilize the coin's surface: freshly dipped metal is highly reactive as its outer veneer of oxidation has been stripped away.>>
How is that NOT doctoring a coin?
For whatever reason it is being done, you are altering the coin right?
It either is doctoring, or its not. It cant be sometimes and not always. Am I the only one seeing it like this? Or am I alone on an island by myself with no dip?
<<It may well be considered doctoring, but most people feel it is harmless; therefore no harm, no foul. >>
Very well said.
I can get behind that comment more so than the graders do it so its not doctoring. Its still doctoring, just not harmful to a coin when done properly like afew have said. But, it is still doctoring a coin.
I dont agree with dipping a coin myself, but I get why its needed for some coins. Im not trying to push my thoughts on others, just trying to see others opinions on the same topic.
Comments
If so, then most brilliant white, pre 1950 coins would be bodybagged.
Brilliant white coins were the rage in the 1970's.
I remember going to coin shows in the 70's and you could not find one toned coin amongst all the dealers.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
If so, then most brilliant white, pre 1950 coins would be bodybagged.
Brilliant white coins were the rage in the 1970's.
I remember going to coin shows in the 70's and you could not find one toned coin amongst all the dealers. >>
This is my biggest problem with dipping. Just because its a trend, doesnt take away that you are changing the coin. For better or worse, you are changing it,.
Wasnt dropping acid a big rage in the 70's too?
<< <i>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. >>
No offense intended, but you're missing my point: it doesn't matter what the intent is or what the magnitude is. We can argue all day/week/year/decade/lifetime long about whether ATing a coin is a worse transgression than dipping or tooling a coin, and to what degree. Strip all that away and distill the question to its simplest form - is it (dipping/ATing/etc.) a deliberate act of altering a coin's appearance? yes or no.
The OP's question was a simple one and the answer is yes. Now if you then want to argue pros, cons, degree, and acceptability, that's a further discussion... and one that will never reach a definitive conclusion.
1/2 Cents
U.S. Revenue Stamps
<< <i>
<< <i>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. >>
No offense intended, but you're missing my point: it doesn't matter what the intent is or what the magnitude is. We can argue all day/week/year/decade/lifetime long about whether ATing a coin is a worse transgression than dipping or tooling a coin, and to what degree. Strip all that away and distill the question to its simplest form - is it (dipping/ATing/etc.) a deliberate act of altering a coin's appearance? yes or no.
The OP's question was a simple one and the answer is yes. Now if you then want to argue pros, cons, degree, and acceptability, that's a further discussion... and one that will never reach a definitive conclusion. >>
Oh. Sorry. I thought sure I read where you said it was a "deliberate act intended to alter" implying that "intent" was the operative condition.
Whatever.
So let it be written...........so let it be done!
The name is LEE!
Hoard the keys.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>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. >>
No offense intended, but you're missing my point: it doesn't matter what the intent is or what the magnitude is. We can argue all day/week/year/decade/lifetime long about whether ATing a coin is a worse transgression than dipping or tooling a coin, and to what degree. Strip all that away and distill the question to its simplest form - is it (dipping/ATing/etc.) a deliberate act of altering a coin's appearance? yes or no.
The OP's question was a simple one and the answer is yes. Now if you then want to argue pros, cons, degree, and acceptability, that's a further discussion... and one that will never reach a definitive conclusion. >>
Oh. Sorry. I thought sure I read where you said it was a "deliberate act intended to alter" implying that "intent" was the operative condition.
Whatever.
So let it be written...........so let it be done! >>
I don't usually butt in others' disagreements, but here goes...
Since I have never heard of anyone "accidently" dipping a coin, or dipping one for no reason, there must have been SOME "intent", for lack of a better word. Whatever the ultimate goal was, the intent of dipping it was to alter the coin's appearance.
Dipping is doctoring, whether acceptable or not.
Someone else said that if it's done in a manner where it isn't noticeable, it's ok. Is plugging a hole, in a manner where it's not noticeable, ok? IMO, any intentional (there's that word again) modifying/changing of the coin's appearance to improve it ("improve" is a very subjective term), is considered doctoring.
That's just my opinion.
Be cautious when "conserving" or "helping" a coin as it passes through time. Confined spaces without ventilation is not safe.
Jamie, the fact is : People want good coins and doctors make coins appear better. That's the bitter truth in the matter of coins. There are safety precautions to be taken in this endeavor and once a person "owns" a coin, it's that person's coin until he sells it to someone else who may appreciate the fact that a previous person took the care to "conserve" it.
That person then has the right to seek professional opinions and even pay for them. Now, hopefully this person didn't overpay for the coin. ( retail + )
If a dipped or conserved coin passes the test at the TPGs and the coin is not affected, a grade may be assigned and this helps to assure the collector that he's received a "good" coin. The "touchy" belongs to the person who "feels" emotion over the deal and not passion in the hobby of collecting.
This is the world of orbs, man. It's old school.
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
Puttied Gold is hard to discern if done properly and the doctoring was recent.
Concerning this entire dipping discussion, coinpictures hit it right on the head.
Also, Thank you for keeping it about the coins. Theres no name calling, snide back hand comments, or anything like that.
TwoSides said: People want good coins and doctors make coins appear better. That's the bitter truth in the matter of coins.
I agree. But thats my point, why is all that other stuff bad, when dipping is done so many times more than all the other alterations. If it improves the surface of the coin, how is it bad?
Its still not original, like a dipped coin.
I still hold to my thoughts on this though. I see alot of great points for both sides of this issue, but as a numismatist, I have to still consider dipping doctoring. Even though its not widely thought to be.
Like FatMan said: I would not consider quick dipping a coin doctoring. However, dipping obviously destroys the originality of a coin which to me is one of the most important characteristics of a coin. I would prefer a hobby where the primary objective is to keep the coins as original as possible. For me once a coin is dipped the coin loses much of its link to the past. But I recognize that many of you like your coins shiny and unoriginal. To each their own, but please understand that once you dip your coins you do ruin that coin for many of us.
I know some coins might need a dip to slab, or otherwise remove damage, but, once dipped, the coin is no longer original.
If I have a modern proof that needs to be dipped to slab, or remove haze, that coin is not original. Shouldnt we as coin collectors look for another example where dipping is not needed? And if its needed on most of these coins, doesnt that make its dipped counterpart even that much rarer?
To me, If I dip a coin and change the surface of that coin, Im altering it. Even if its for the better.
Plugging a hole improves the coin and changes the surface for the better?
Where does that fine line end?
Personal opinions are one thing, but thats where all this grey area comes from. Either any changing of the surface is bad, or its not...
Just because some "service" doctors the coin does not alter the fact that the coin was doctored.
That said, I like some doctored coins...
But please, do not deny the obvious.
rainbowroosie April 1, 2003
Lee is an Ike specialist (may I add he is very much an original himself?!?) and properly points out that these large dollars came out of the mint with assorted surface contaminants (all Ikes, silver and CuNi-clad), in part due to the water soluble oils (think WD-40) used to maintain lubrication in the presence of the inevitable misty condensates (water mist) that arise from the release of compressed air used to move planchets to the coining presses in the Ike era.
Most CuNi-clad circulation Ikes came through with brilliant clean surfaces, but many have swaths of unattractive gray toning: are these ugly Ikes "original"?
When a quick dip in EZest or a quick treatment with dilute MS-70 removes this ugly toning with no trace of damage to the surface (we've tested gentle dipping on Ike proofs and highly lustrous silver specimen Ikes with 10X normal time in the dip with no microscopic or in-hand sign of any damage), the best analogy is a painting that has become contaminated with dust and grime and receives a gentle cleaning to restore its originality.
Ike silver proofs were shipped in plastic coffins and if there was any crack in the fragile plastic these proofs could suffer the whole spectrum of corrosion from butt ugly to very rare spectatular florid coloration (see Wondercoin's thread). Conservation of these proofs (when not attractive, of course) is impossible unless done early but then can be remarkably effective in preserving the "original" appearance of the proof (and I would claim "original condition" of the proof).
Silver "Specimen" Ikes were sold in "Plyofilm" packaging: the plastics used tended to corrode the contained BS silver Ikes with splashes of thick white-yellow tenacious oxidative deposits. Caught early, dipping can remove the worst of these deposits, but, as Lee pointed out, when further developed, conservation is impossible without ruining the originality of the silver Ike.
Which brings up NCS. Ike experts like Lee have a wealth of experience judging which Ikes can be restored essentially to originality by diping and employ the minimum such treatment. NCS is paid to treat Ikes sent to it for conservation regardless if that treatment may damage originality. For example, EZest is a dilute acid: when used properly it will not damage the originality of any Ike, but one can purchase acids that are ten or hundreds of times stronger and these will remove enough of the surface metal to wash away almost any corrosion. The result, of course, is a dull, ruined Ike. Such treatment is not conservation with restoring originality the goal, it is treatment to obtain the best appearance possible.
Lee makes another great point. Ikes left the mint with a variety of chemically active surface contaminants. Unless one is so rigid as to deem these corrosion-prone contaminants an essential component of "originality", it only makes sense to use an acetone wash and possibly a gentle acid or alkaline dip to clean the surface of the Ike and then store the coin so it has minimal exposure to secondary contaminants, thus preserving its originality.
By the way, when I dip an Ike I heat it post-dip modestly to help create a minimal new (invisible) oxidative coating to help stabilize the coin's surface: freshly dipped metal is highly reactive as its outer veneer of oxidation has been stripped away.
"Classic Coins" have stable toning to the extent the outer layer of corrosion now is thick enough to protect the metal underneath from further corrosion. Dipping such coins is a proper subject for debate since dipping here is a matter of judgement to be guided by our roles as conservators of the coins in our possession. I agree whole-heartedly with Lee that the starting assumption when contemplating dipping a classic coins should be it is the antithesis of our responsibility as collectors. Rob
Questions about Ikes? Go to The IKE GROUP WEB SITE
Lee is an Ike specialist (may I add he is very much an original himself?!?) and properly points out that these large dollars came out of the mint with assorted surface contaminants (all Ikes, silver and CuNi-clad), in part due to the water soluble oils (think WD-40) used to maintain lubrication in the presence of the inevitable misty condensates (water mist) that arise from the release of compressed air used to move planchets to the coining presses in the Ike era.
Most CuNi-clad circulation Ikes came through with brilliant clean surfaces, but many have swaths of unattractive gray toning: are these ugly Ikes "original"?
When a quick dip in EZest or a quick treatment with dilute MS-70 removes this ugly toning with no trace of damage to the surface (we've tested gentle dipping on Ike proofs and highly lustrous silver specimen Ikes with 10X normal time in the dip with no microscopic or in-hand sign of any damage), the best analogy is a painting that has become contaminated with dust and grime and receives a gentle cleaning to restore its originality.
Ike silver proofs were shipped in plastic coffins and if there was any crack in the fragile plastic these proofs could suffer the whole spectrum of corrosion from butt ugly to very rare spectatular florid coloration (see Wondercoin's thread). Conservation of these proofs (when not attractive, of course) is impossible unless done early but then can be remarkably effective in preserving the "original" appearance of the proof (and I would claim "original condition" of the proof).
Silver "Specimen" Ikes were sold in "Plyofilm" packaging: the plastics used tended to corrode the contained BS silver Ikes with splashes of thick white-yellow tenacious oxidative deposits. Caught early, dipping can remove the worst of these deposits, but, as Lee pointed out, when further developed, conservation is impossible without ruining the originality of the silver Ike.
Which brings up NCS. Ike experts like Lee have a wealth of experience judging which Ikes can be restored essentially to originality by diping and employ the minimum such treatment. NCS is paid to treat Ikes sent to it for conservation regardless if that treatment may damage originality. For example, EZest is a dilute acid: when used properly it will not damage the originality of any Ike, but one can purchase acids that are ten or hundreds of times stronger and these will remove enough of the surface metal to wash away almost any corrosion. The result, of course, is a dull, ruined Ike. Such treatment is not conservation with restoring originality the goal, it is treatment to obtain the best appearance possible.
Lee makes another great point. Ikes left the mint with a variety of chemically active surface contaminants. Unless one is so rigid as to deem these corrosion-prone contaminants an essential component of "originality", it only makes sense to use an acetone wash and possibly a gentle acid or alkaline dip to clean the surface of the Ike and then store the coin so it has minimal exposure to secondary contaminants, thus preserving its originality.
By the way, when I dip an Ike I heat it post-dip modestly to help create a minimal new (invisible) oxidative coating to help stabilize the coin's surface: freshly dipped metal is highly reactive as its outer veneer of oxidation has been stripped away.
"Classic Coins" have stable toning to the extent the outer layer of corrosion now is thick enough to protect the metal underneath from further corrosion. Dipping such coins is a proper subject for debate since dipping here is a matter of judgement to be guided by our roles as conservators of the coins in our possession. I agree whole-heartedly with Lee that the starting assumption when contemplating dipping a classic coins should be it is the antithesis of our responsibility as collectors. Rob>>
Great post!
<<By the way, when I dip an Ike I heat it post-dip modestly to help create a minimal new (invisible) oxidative coating to help stabilize the coin's surface: freshly dipped metal is highly reactive as its outer veneer of oxidation has been stripped away.>>
How is that NOT doctoring a coin?
For whatever reason it is being done, you are altering the coin right?
It either is doctoring, or its not. It cant be sometimes and not always. Am I the only one seeing it like this? Or am I alone on an island by myself with no dip?
Very well said.
I can get behind that comment more so than the graders do it so its not doctoring.
Its still doctoring, just not harmful to a coin when done properly like afew have said.
But, it is still doctoring a coin.
I dont agree with dipping a coin myself, but I get why its needed for some coins. Im not trying to push my thoughts on others, just trying to see others opinions on the same topic.
<< <i>Lee is an Ike specialist (may I add he is very much an original himself?!?) Rob >>
Trust me Rob, I have been dipped.............
.............or was that ripped?
I forget.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Remember that there's a fine line between conserving a coin and cleaning a coin. >>
You nailed it here and more often than not it is a cleaning!