<< <i>Exactly my point. Toning or tarnish is a consequence of the laws of physics being effected in a natural way. What is natural or desirable about human interference with physics through chemical alteration, through some irrational desire to be induced into thinking that a physical object should look "new" no matter how that look is accomplished ? >>
It has almost nothing to do with physics. Physics are the laws of motion. What you're thinking of is chemistry.
I have no particular preference between toned vs. brilliant coins, but I can completely appreciate a coin which looks exactly the way it did the day it was minted (i.e. possibly dipped). It provides a very cool connection to history to hold something that looks no different than when it was fresh off the dies. On the contrary, I can appreciate the allure of something that has many years of undisturbed toning and chemical compound development.
Have you ever considered that the "originality" on your coin isn't actually original, but just applied by someone so that you pay a higher price, or that a problem is concealed?
<< <i>Exactly my point. Toning or tarnish is a consequence of the laws of physics being effected in a natural way. What is natural or desirable about human interference with physics through chemical alteration, through some irrational desire to be induced into thinking that a physical object should look "new" no matter how that look is accomplished ? >>
Some folks desire to keep their possessions as new or as pristine as possible while others obtain them for the utility they provide. Such actions are based on caring, apathy or ignorance.
Never has a horse been beat to death more then this subject matter.
Looking at the premiums toned coins bring I would have to conclude that this is where the action and concenus is currently on the subject. The ole money where your mouth is axiom. I have a hunch this is upsetting to the dipped/white camp as a lot of them have been calling for the demise of the toned coin market for a long time. However, I not sure why they would want that. Currently, they can buy their coins substantially lower then like toned coins. Advantage to them. More buying power. I have a piece or two of "flashy white coins" that I bought out of curiousity and I think they are pretty cool. However, my curousity has now been sated and they will remain a minority collecting interest. I cant get over that they are like blank canvases or even worse mulligans or do overs after dipping. Maybe, that's just me and my problem. I will admit that I'm intrigued by white/black cameo's on proof coins and I would be a buyer in the future.
Could this toning premium trend remain in tact? yes Could it change? yes
So nothing solved.
I suggest at the end of the day you collect what you like and respect the opinion of others along the way.
To each is own and above all: to thine ownself be true.............blah, blah but it is true
I always reserve the right to change my mind on all subject matter.
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I have no particular preference between toned vs. brilliant coins, but I can completely appreciate a coin which looks exactly the way it did the day it was minted (i.e. possibly dipped). It provides a very cool connection to history to hold something that looks no different than when it was fresh off the dies. On the contrary, I can appreciate the allure of something that has many years of undisturbed toning and chemical compound development.
I see things pretty much the same way, GoldenEye.
It's only when someone with criminal intent starts altering coins for the reason of duping an unwitting buyer into overpaying for a coin that's essentially being ruined, that I have a problem.
If there is full disclosure about a coin alteration, then the market can do whatever it wants. If there is no disclosure, then it's criminal. jmho.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
You're implying that there was a time where collectors and graders favored darker, fully original coins. That's never really been the case.
Yes! It's not an implication either. If you are only considering black or dark blue-black coins that is another entirely another question as many of those border on Env. Damage. I'll always take a decently toned type coin over a dipped blazer.
With the dealers, collectors, and TPG graders I hung with from 1986-1990 they did indeed favor fully original type coins. And pre-TPG this was even more the case. This is precisely how I got the view of coins that I have today. And before 1986 dealers like Halperin, Edwards, Holloway, Garrett, Mills, Browne, Danreuther, Miller, Tracey, Shamhart, Haber, Rosen, Paul, Bob Rose, Akers, Whitlow, O'Connor, Evan Gale, Feld, Bellisario, Lustig, Schmidt, Hendleson, Isaac, Kutcher, to name just a few all appreciated toned coins more. And at auction I usually had to try and fight them all off when anything nice and toned hit the blocks. Those guys weren't recommending dipped type coins nor where their inventories stocked with them. Maybe it's an east coast thing where west coast dealers were dipping stuff left and right, I don't know. A number of those guys all came out from under Jim Halperin in the 1970's. Yeah, David Hall and Bruce Dubin were probably exceptions to this rule but even they still appreciate wonderful toning. During that period the dipped blazer nearly always brought less money than an originally toned beauty if both were equivalent on all other factors. I remember showing Andy Lustig a pair of MS66 "S" mint seated quarters at the 1988 ANA (66-s and 67-s, both finest knowns). The 66-s was an incredible coin but overly bright because of a dipping probably done in the 1970's when it first appeared at auction. Andy had a problem with that coin as it appeared a tad unnatural even if the luster and blast were blinding...maybe too blinding. It was still a PCGS MS66 in an era where few rare dates received even a 65 grade. Today, that 66-s has unfortunately retoned unnaturally with some very nasty black carbon-like spots on both obv and reverse. It still fetched close to $100,000 in the past 2-3 years as it's the only real gem known but has nowhere near the desireability it did back in 1988. If the coin were never dipped in the first place those spots may have never become active.
I guess you can find pockets of opposite thinking across the country at any point in time as the dealers and collectors you run with tend to shape your philosophy. Coins that came out of great collections of that era like Stack, Norweb, Garrett, etc. didn't bring great prices on the dipped coins, but brought great prices for great original coins. It's no wonder most of them are still undipped today. But go ahead and be the first to dip the gem 73-cc na and 71-cc quarters if that is what buyers of today demand in their 19th century coinage. And fwiw both of those coins remained unchanged for the 11-12 yrs it took before they got slabbed and 35 yrs after the auction haven't changed a bit. When these coins start getting dipped to get an upgrade then I'll surrender to the dipped cause. As far as I can see, that since the formation of CAC, original gem coins have been on the rise. Maybe the tide of the last 20 years of brainwashing is turning? I've sort of seen the same trend in original musclecars from the 60's and early 70's. The nice, but flawed original paint/low mileage cars don't seem to be as popular as they once were while the glitzy over-restored and usually grossly incorrect cars seem to be fetching most of J6P's attention. Hopefully that changes as well but there's no CAC in classic cars to help it along.
Once a nice patina is imparted to a coin it will tend to stay that way unless placed back into a sulfer-laden environment. I had wonderfully toned type coins that didn't change one bit for decades because their nice natural toning has slown down the reaction process to essentially a standstill. The dipped coin is evolving all the time. At least in 20th century coinage it's very acceptable. But in 19th century type it just doesn't fit.
Have you ever considered that the "originality" on your coin isn't actually original, but just applied by someone so that you pay a higher price, or that a problem is concealed?
Have you ever considered that the blasty white "original" gem Morgan or Walker you just paid a big premium for was dipped out and puttied just a few months earlier and has not had the required 1-10 yrs to really start to turn that unattractive dull brown color and for the puttying/thumbing to start appearing? I used to own a very attractively toned rare date seated quarter in PCGS ogh MS64+ with blazing luster that was in the condition census for the date. I sold it back around 2006-7. The coin has since been dipped, puttied to hide tiny field marks, and upgraded to MS65. Yup, no problem with buying that brilliant unc coin...until the day it turns. I'm sure for now the current owner is quite pleased with their brilliant gem unc because so few of this date "comes" gem white. What an amazing find! The irony here was that I had tried the coin at least 4X (raw) over several years looking to get an MS65 as it was basically a high end coin....better me than the next guy. It never did come back anything but 64 each time. It's now finally a 65 but it took a Doc ruining the coin to do that. Every other 64+ example of this date now moves up the condition census pole.
...and to accentuate roadrunner's point, a particular 1876-CC Twenty Cent piece comes to mind for me. It makes me nauseous just thinking about the chemical abuse that coin has been subjected to. The coin has been compromised forever.
I remember going to one local show and passing by a table of a father and son with silver dollar coins.As I was approching the table on one side and the brightness of these huge silver pieces were amazing...!!!..The glow was blinding and so bright I could not bring myself to even inspect these magnificent gems.I kept my distance as I felt that some radiant source would deeply effect some part of body...I could not imagine what chemical or buffing would bring these coins to shine so bright.....!!!!......
<< <i>I agree, I have an expensive coin that I thought was a lock at MS-66, so it went in and came back MS-65. The coin is hammered and mark free, literally mark free. I was shocked that it cam back MS-65 so my buddy took it to the ANA show in Boston and showed it to Mr. Hall. The coin has never been messed with and is a solid dark blue/forest green/gun metal grey. Mr. Hall agreed that is was awesome and it would 66 if more luster was showing. So the same coin that someone dipped 50 years ago what what mostly white and had started to retone, but showed the original luster as the toning was stripped off is worth more. My coin that was properly stored and never messed with worth less. Dealer after dealer said dip it and it will MS-66. This is what p1sses me off about this hobby. I have a 6k coin now and if I dipped it I would have a 15k coin??? What has this hobby become?? >>
This above scenario isn't necessarily as black and white as you paint it. I know you say there's no marks on your coin, but that could change with a dip. "Solid dark blue/forest green/gun metal grey" toning could easily be masking otherwise unseen contact marks/hairlines. You could be right - the coin might still be mark free after a dip and have the luster blazing and go MS66 and be worth $9,000 more. But it is also a real possibility a dip could reveal marks and result in an immediate $2,000 loss, notwithstanding any black marks appearing 10 years down the road as stated throughout the rest of the thread by others.
I have existed since the creation of this world and will exist until its end. Only my form will change. For these 80 human life years, I have the benefit of having a functioning body and consciousness. I will not waste this opportunity.
<< <i>You're implying that there was a time where collectors and graders favored darker, fully original coins. That's never really been the case.
Yes! It's not an implication either. If you are only considering black or dark blue-black coins that is another entirely another question as many of those border on Env. Damage. I'll always take a decently toned type coin over a dipped blazer.
With the dealers, collectors, and TPG graders I hung with from 1986-1990 they did indeed favor fully original type coins. And pre-TPG this was even more the case. This is precisely how I got the view of coins that I have today. And before 1986 dealers like Halperin, Edwards, Holloway, Garrett, Mills, Browne, Danreuther, Miller, Tracey, Shamhart, Haber, Rosen, Paul, Bob Rose, Akers, Whitlow, O'Connor, Evan Gale, Feld, Bellisario, Lustig, Schmidt, Hendleson, Isaac, Kutcher, to name just a few all appreciated toned coins more. And at auction I usually had to try and fight them all off when anything nice and toned hit the blocks. Those guys weren't recommending dipped type coins nor where their inventories stocked with them. Maybe it's an east coast thing where west coast dealers were dipping stuff left and right, I don't know. A number of those guys all came out from under Jim Halperin in the 1970's. Yeah, David Hall and Bruce Dubin were probably exceptions to this rule but even they still appreciate wonderful toning. During that period the dipped blazer nearly always brought less money than an originally toned beauty if both were equivalent on all other factors. I remember showing Andy Lustig a pair of MS66 "S" mint seated quarters at the 1988 ANA (66-s and 67-s, both finest knowns). The 66-s was an incredible coin but overly bright because of a dipping probably done in the 1970's when it first appeared at auction. Andy had a problem with that coin as it appeared a tad unnatural even if the luster and blast were blinding...maybe too blinding. It was still a PCGS MS66 in an era where few rare dates received even a 65 grade. Today, that 66-s has unfortunately retoned unnaturally with some very nasty black carbon-like spots on both obv and reverse. It still fetched close to $100,000 in the past 2-3 years as it's the only real gem known but has nowhere near the desireability it did back in 1988. If the coin were never dipped in the first place those spots may have never become active.
I guess you can find pockets of opposite thinking across the country at any point in time as the dealers and collectors you run with tend to shape your philosophy. Coins that came out of great collections of that era like Stack, Norweb, Garrett, etc. didn't bring great prices on the dipped coins, but brought great prices for great original coins. It's no wonder most of them are still undipped today. But go ahead and be the first to dip the gem 73-cc na and 71-cc quarters if that is what buyers of today demand in their 19th century coinage. And fwiw both of those coins remained unchanged for the 11-12 yrs it took before they got slabbed and 35 yrs after the auction haven't changed a bit. When these coins start getting dipped to get an upgrade then I'll surrender to the dipped cause. As far as I can see, that since the formation of CAC, original gem coins have been on the rise. Maybe the tide of the last 20 years of brainwashing is turning? I've sort of seen the same trend in original musclecars from the 60's and early 70's. The nice, but flawed original paint/low mileage cars don't seem to be as popular as they once were while the glitzy over-restored and usually grossly incorrect cars seem to be fetching most of J6P's attention. Hopefully that changes as well but there's no CAC in classic cars to help it along.
Once a nice patina is imparted to a coin it will tend to stay that way unless placed back into a sulfer-laden environment. I had wonderfully toned type coins that didn't change one bit for decades because their nice natural toning has slown down the reaction process to essentially a standstill. The dipped coin is evolving all the time. At least in 20th century coinage it's very acceptable. But in 19th century type it just doesn't fit.
Have you ever considered that the "originality" on your coin isn't actually original, but just applied by someone so that you pay a higher price, or that a problem is concealed?
Have you ever considered that the blasty white "original" gem Morgan or Walker you just paid a big premium for was dipped out and puttied just a few months earlier and has not had the required 1-10 yrs to really start to turn that unattractive dull brown color and for the puttying/thumbing to start appearing? I used to own a very attractively toned rare date seated quarter in PCGS ogh MS64+ with blazing luster that was in the condition census for the date. I sold it back around 2006-7. The coin has since been dipped, puttied to hide tiny field marks, and upgraded to MS65. Yup, no problem with buying that brilliant unc coin...until the day it turns. I'm sure for now the current owner is quite pleased with their brilliant gem unc because so few of this date "comes" gem white. What an amazing find! The irony here was that I had tried the coin at least 4X (raw) over several years looking to get an MS65 as it was basically a high end coin....better me than the next guy. It never did come back anything but 64 each time. It's now finally a 65 but it took a Doc ruining the coin to do that. Every other 64+ example of this date now moves up the condition census pole.
roadrunner >>
You're discussing the absolute upper cusp of the market with some of the most experienced folks in the business. I'm referencing the middle of the market. Apples and oranges.
I never denied that many white coins are just dipped and screwed with. I just pointed out that there are many instances where originality, whether on an MS or circ coin, is completely applied.
This is not my area of primary interest, but I have a few comments:
1. For 20th century silver coins (say 1916 onward), I do enjoy blast white coins. For 19th century coins, I tend to avoid blast white.
2. I have not read the entire thread, but whenever this subject comes up, there seems to be a perception that either a coin is white or is a monster-electric toned and sells for a huge premium. There are many coins in between, and many of these are pleasing to the eye and also pleasing to the pocketbook.
3. Everyone has different tastes, and none are necessarily right or wrong. It would be dreadfully boring if everyone liked the same thing.
4. More sophisticated collectors tend to be the ones who appreciate natural surfaces, but this is not always true.
5. I personally believe that taking an attractively toned coin and dipping it white is undesirable, particularly when the motive is to get the coin into a higher grade holder to sell it for more money. Ultimately, he who owns the coin, calls the shots. But that's just my perspective...
<< Never has a horse been beat to death more then this subject matter. >>
<Maybe so, but it gives us all something to do on a lazy Sunday afternoon.>
True dat....White vs Dipped is our equivalent of the Bloods vs The Crypts..............Never fails to evoke emotions or a turf war
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Thank you MidLifeCrisis, roadrunner, and coindeuce, for sharing you wisdom on this important subject. As usual I find your opinions to be clear, logical, and refreshing. I have seen far too many originally toned early silver coins permanently ruined by improper dipping or conservation. Many numismatists including myself are compelled to share this knowledge with other collectors to help prevent this from occurring in the future. We believe that every coin that is preserved with it's natural surfaces is a victory for future collectors.
<< <i>I have a hunch this is upsetting to the dipped/white camp as a lot of them have been calling for the demise of the toned coin market for a long time. >>
He's right, that's exactly what I want!
PS: Characterizing us that way, I'd say you're not really thinking, MJ. Therefore, according to Voltaire, at least, you are not.
The fact that you worked Voltaire into this thread will earn your evil side bonus points. Well played
MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>The fact that you worked Voltaire into this thread will earn your evil side bonus points. Well played
MJ >>
MJ, being the gentleman and the scholar you are, please collect whatever you want. As for the rest of you, don't get the wrong idea, you must continue to collect what I tell you to collect!
I prefer silver that is silver in color. However, I don't mind natural toning and even have been tempted by color, God forgive me. As I read the various comments on here I went to the bible...ahhhh...the Red Book, but couldn't find any rainbow or Easter egg colored coins in it for view or consideration. Now I wonder why? Maybe there will be some in the 2012 book.
I didn't read most of the replies in this thread, but I like my coins to look like they looked when they were minted.
They are like tiny time machines that way.
I recently won on another forum's giveaway section, two quarters that were fresh from rolls. (57 and 58 Type . They had not been seen by human eyes in more than 50 years, and when I look at them, I can't help but feel like what it must have been like to live in the 1950s. That to me is history, and my love of history is why I collect these things to begin with!
I know, however, that that will be few and far between in my collection. There can't be many like that out there, and even the ones that are...I as a general rule cannot afford them.
So I try to get coins that look like this.
It's not as minted, but it's close enough for me. I believe this coin to be original, un-messed with.
To be honest, I do have some toned coins. I have a 1915 dime that I have no idea where I got it that is blues and browns...It is really not very attractive. I have a 1925 dime that is black and covered in some sort of crust. It looks hideous.
Both are in line for an upgrade some day, however I am still in the point of my collection where I'd rather buy a date/mintmark I don't already have an example of.
I also have an 1875 dime that I've had so long I don't remember where it came from. As I've learned more over time I realize it's been cleaned. very harshly. I presume it was a ground find because it's missing chunks from all over the place. But yet it's bright with no toning at all.
It too is due for an upgrade, at least to a dime with all it's parts still there...(lol).
Here are some pictures. I have not yet attempted photos of the two Quarters.
This Morgan was mint original when my dad got it, but he did not store it well and this happened to it.
I believe this Franklin to be original...am I correct? (The obverse came out blurry)
I know it's been beat to death ; but with PCGS and/or it's principles basically stating that higher grades can be achieved thru dipping -
and higher grades are what most look for ............
we can probably look forward to a heck of alot of dipping in the future
And this mentality is a bigger problem that FAKE SLABS from China
This is a very dangerous concession because - it is NOT okay to dip original coins to get a higher grade... Grading services have the ability to reward originality- sometimes it happens and sometimes their grade does not meet the expectations of the submitting collector. I am tired of the dipping solution-
There are mountains of dipped coins out there- go buy them if that is what you want.
LEAVE THE ORIGINAL COINS FOR THOSE THAT WANT THEM
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Comments
<< <i>Exactly my point. Toning or tarnish is a consequence of the laws of physics being effected in a natural way. What is natural or desirable about human interference with physics through chemical alteration, through some irrational desire to be induced into thinking that a physical object should look "new" no matter how that look is accomplished ? >>
It has almost nothing to do with physics. Physics are the laws of motion. What you're thinking of is chemistry.
I have no particular preference between toned vs. brilliant coins, but I can completely appreciate a coin which looks exactly the way it did the day it was minted (i.e. possibly dipped). It provides a very cool connection to history to hold something that looks no different than when it was fresh off the dies. On the contrary, I can appreciate the allure of something that has many years of undisturbed toning and chemical compound development.
Have you ever considered that the "originality" on your coin isn't actually original, but just applied by someone so that you pay a higher price, or that a problem is concealed?
<< <i>Exactly my point. Toning or tarnish is a consequence of the laws of physics being effected in a natural way. What is natural or desirable about human interference with physics through chemical alteration, through some irrational desire to be induced into thinking that a physical object should look "new" no matter how that look is accomplished ? >>
Some folks desire to keep their possessions as new or as pristine as possible while others obtain them for the utility they provide. Such actions are based on caring, apathy or ignorance.
Looking at the premiums toned coins bring I would have to conclude that this is where the action and concenus is currently on the subject. The ole money where your mouth is axiom. I have a hunch this is upsetting to the dipped/white camp as a lot of them have been calling for the demise of the toned coin market for a long time. However, I not sure why they would want that. Currently, they can buy their coins substantially lower then like toned coins. Advantage to them. More buying power. I have a piece or two of "flashy white coins" that I bought out of curiousity and I think they are pretty cool. However, my curousity has now been sated and they will remain a minority collecting interest. I cant get over that they are like blank canvases or even worse mulligans or do overs after dipping. Maybe, that's just me and my problem. I will admit that I'm intrigued by white/black cameo's on proof coins and I would be a buyer in the future.
Could this toning premium trend remain in tact? yes
Could it change? yes
So nothing solved.
I suggest at the end of the day you collect what you like and respect the opinion of others along the way.
To each is own and above all: to thine ownself be true.............blah, blah but it is true
I always reserve the right to change my mind on all subject matter.
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
I see things pretty much the same way, GoldenEye.
It's only when someone with criminal intent starts altering coins for the reason of duping an unwitting buyer into overpaying for a coin that's essentially being ruined, that I have a problem.
If there is full disclosure about a coin alteration, then the market can do whatever it wants. If there is no disclosure, then it's criminal. jmho.
I knew it would happen.
Yes! It's not an implication either. If you are only considering black or dark blue-black coins that is another entirely another question as many of those border on Env. Damage. I'll always take a decently toned type coin over a dipped blazer.
With the dealers, collectors, and TPG graders I hung with from 1986-1990 they did indeed favor fully original type coins. And pre-TPG this was even more the case. This is precisely how I got the view of coins that I have today. And before 1986 dealers like Halperin, Edwards, Holloway, Garrett, Mills, Browne, Danreuther, Miller, Tracey, Shamhart, Haber, Rosen, Paul, Bob Rose, Akers, Whitlow, O'Connor, Evan Gale, Feld, Bellisario, Lustig, Schmidt, Hendleson, Isaac, Kutcher, to name just a few all appreciated toned coins more. And at auction I usually had to try and fight them all off when anything nice and toned hit the blocks. Those guys weren't recommending dipped type coins nor where their inventories stocked with them. Maybe it's an east coast thing where west coast dealers were dipping stuff left and right, I don't know. A number of those guys all came out from under Jim Halperin in the 1970's. Yeah, David Hall and Bruce Dubin were probably exceptions to this rule but even they still appreciate wonderful toning. During that period the dipped blazer nearly always brought less money than an originally toned beauty if both were equivalent on all other factors. I remember showing Andy Lustig a pair of MS66 "S" mint seated quarters at the 1988 ANA (66-s and 67-s, both finest knowns). The 66-s was an incredible coin but overly bright because of a dipping probably done in the 1970's when it first appeared at auction. Andy had a problem with that coin as it appeared a tad unnatural even if the luster and blast were blinding...maybe too blinding. It was still a PCGS MS66 in an era where few rare dates received even a 65 grade. Today, that 66-s has unfortunately retoned unnaturally with some very nasty black carbon-like spots on both obv and reverse. It still fetched close to $100,000 in the past 2-3 years as it's the only real gem known but has nowhere near the desireability it did back in 1988. If the coin were never dipped in the first place those spots may have never become active.
I guess you can find pockets of opposite thinking across the country at any point in time as the dealers and collectors you run with tend to shape your philosophy. Coins that came out of great collections of that era like Stack, Norweb, Garrett, etc. didn't bring great prices on the dipped coins, but brought great prices for great original coins. It's no wonder most of them are still undipped today. But go ahead and be the first to dip the gem 73-cc na and 71-cc quarters if that is what buyers of today demand in their 19th century coinage. And fwiw both of those coins remained unchanged for the 11-12 yrs it took before they got slabbed and 35 yrs after the auction haven't changed a bit. When these coins start getting dipped to get an upgrade then I'll surrender to the dipped cause. As far as I can see, that since the formation of CAC, original gem coins have been on the rise. Maybe the tide of the last 20 years of brainwashing is turning? I've sort of seen the same trend in original musclecars from the 60's and early 70's. The nice, but flawed original paint/low mileage cars don't seem to be as popular as they once were while the glitzy over-restored and usually grossly incorrect cars seem to be fetching most of J6P's attention. Hopefully that changes as well but there's no CAC in classic cars to help it along.
Once a nice patina is imparted to a coin it will tend to stay that way unless placed back into a sulfer-laden environment. I had wonderfully toned type coins that didn't change one bit for decades because their nice natural toning has slown down the reaction process to essentially a standstill. The dipped coin is evolving all the time. At least in 20th century coinage it's very acceptable. But in 19th century type it just doesn't fit.
Have you ever considered that the "originality" on your coin isn't actually original, but just applied by someone so that you pay a higher price, or that a problem is concealed?
Have you ever considered that the blasty white "original" gem Morgan or Walker you just paid a big premium for was dipped out and puttied just a few months earlier and has not had the required 1-10 yrs to really start to turn that unattractive dull brown color and for the puttying/thumbing to start appearing? I used to own a very attractively toned rare date seated quarter in PCGS ogh MS64+ with blazing luster that was in the condition census for the date. I sold it back around 2006-7. The coin has since been dipped, puttied to hide tiny field marks, and upgraded to MS65. Yup, no problem with buying that brilliant unc coin...until the day it turns. I'm sure for now the current owner is quite pleased with their brilliant gem unc because so few of this date "comes" gem white. What an amazing find! The irony here was that I had tried the coin at least 4X (raw) over several years looking to get an MS65 as it was basically a high end coin....better me than the next guy. It never did come back anything but 64 each time. It's now finally a 65 but it took a Doc ruining the coin to do that. Every other 64+ example of this date now moves up the condition census pole.
roadrunner
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
<< <i>What is it about blast white coins? >>
I remember going to one local show and passing by a table of a father and son with silver dollar coins.As I was approching the table on one side and the brightness of these huge silver pieces were amazing...!!!..The glow was blinding and so bright I could not bring myself to even inspect these magnificent gems.I kept my distance as I felt that some radiant source would deeply effect some part of body...I could not imagine what chemical or buffing would bring these coins to shine so bright.....!!!!
<< <i>I agree, I have an expensive coin that I thought was a lock at MS-66, so it went in and came back MS-65. The coin is hammered and mark free, literally mark free. I was shocked that it cam back MS-65 so my buddy took it to the ANA show in Boston and showed it to Mr. Hall. The coin has never been messed with and is a solid dark blue/forest green/gun metal grey. Mr. Hall agreed that is was awesome and it would 66 if more luster was showing. So the same coin that someone dipped 50 years ago what what mostly white and had started to retone, but showed the original luster as the toning was stripped off is worth more. My coin that was properly stored and never messed with worth less. Dealer after dealer said dip it and it will MS-66. This is what p1sses me off about this hobby. I have a 6k coin now and if I dipped it I would have a 15k coin??? What has this hobby become?? >>
This above scenario isn't necessarily as black and white as you paint it. I know you say there's no marks on your coin, but that could change with a dip. "Solid dark blue/forest green/gun metal grey" toning could easily be masking otherwise unseen contact marks/hairlines. You could be right - the coin might still be mark free after a dip and have the luster blazing and go MS66 and be worth $9,000 more. But it is also a real possibility a dip could reveal marks and result in an immediate $2,000 loss, notwithstanding any black marks appearing 10 years down the road as stated throughout the rest of the thread by others.
<< <i>You're implying that there was a time where collectors and graders favored darker, fully original coins. That's never really been the case.
Yes! It's not an implication either. If you are only considering black or dark blue-black coins that is another entirely another question as many of those border on Env. Damage. I'll always take a decently toned type coin over a dipped blazer.
With the dealers, collectors, and TPG graders I hung with from 1986-1990 they did indeed favor fully original type coins. And pre-TPG this was even more the case. This is precisely how I got the view of coins that I have today. And before 1986 dealers like Halperin, Edwards, Holloway, Garrett, Mills, Browne, Danreuther, Miller, Tracey, Shamhart, Haber, Rosen, Paul, Bob Rose, Akers, Whitlow, O'Connor, Evan Gale, Feld, Bellisario, Lustig, Schmidt, Hendleson, Isaac, Kutcher, to name just a few all appreciated toned coins more. And at auction I usually had to try and fight them all off when anything nice and toned hit the blocks. Those guys weren't recommending dipped type coins nor where their inventories stocked with them. Maybe it's an east coast thing where west coast dealers were dipping stuff left and right, I don't know. A number of those guys all came out from under Jim Halperin in the 1970's. Yeah, David Hall and Bruce Dubin were probably exceptions to this rule but even they still appreciate wonderful toning. During that period the dipped blazer nearly always brought less money than an originally toned beauty if both were equivalent on all other factors. I remember showing Andy Lustig a pair of MS66 "S" mint seated quarters at the 1988 ANA (66-s and 67-s, both finest knowns). The 66-s was an incredible coin but overly bright because of a dipping probably done in the 1970's when it first appeared at auction. Andy had a problem with that coin as it appeared a tad unnatural even if the luster and blast were blinding...maybe too blinding. It was still a PCGS MS66 in an era where few rare dates received even a 65 grade. Today, that 66-s has unfortunately retoned unnaturally with some very nasty black carbon-like spots on both obv and reverse. It still fetched close to $100,000 in the past 2-3 years as it's the only real gem known but has nowhere near the desireability it did back in 1988. If the coin were never dipped in the first place those spots may have never become active.
I guess you can find pockets of opposite thinking across the country at any point in time as the dealers and collectors you run with tend to shape your philosophy. Coins that came out of great collections of that era like Stack, Norweb, Garrett, etc. didn't bring great prices on the dipped coins, but brought great prices for great original coins. It's no wonder most of them are still undipped today. But go ahead and be the first to dip the gem 73-cc na and 71-cc quarters if that is what buyers of today demand in their 19th century coinage. And fwiw both of those coins remained unchanged for the 11-12 yrs it took before they got slabbed and 35 yrs after the auction haven't changed a bit. When these coins start getting dipped to get an upgrade then I'll surrender to the dipped cause. As far as I can see, that since the formation of CAC, original gem coins have been on the rise. Maybe the tide of the last 20 years of brainwashing is turning? I've sort of seen the same trend in original musclecars from the 60's and early 70's. The nice, but flawed original paint/low mileage cars don't seem to be as popular as they once were while the glitzy over-restored and usually grossly incorrect cars seem to be fetching most of J6P's attention. Hopefully that changes as well but there's no CAC in classic cars to help it along.
Once a nice patina is imparted to a coin it will tend to stay that way unless placed back into a sulfer-laden environment. I had wonderfully toned type coins that didn't change one bit for decades because their nice natural toning has slown down the reaction process to essentially a standstill. The dipped coin is evolving all the time. At least in 20th century coinage it's very acceptable. But in 19th century type it just doesn't fit.
Have you ever considered that the "originality" on your coin isn't actually original, but just applied by someone so that you pay a higher price, or that a problem is concealed?
Have you ever considered that the blasty white "original" gem Morgan or Walker you just paid a big premium for was dipped out and puttied just a few months earlier and has not had the required 1-10 yrs to really start to turn that unattractive dull brown color and for the puttying/thumbing to start appearing? I used to own a very attractively toned rare date seated quarter in PCGS ogh MS64+ with blazing luster that was in the condition census for the date. I sold it back around 2006-7. The coin has since been dipped, puttied to hide tiny field marks, and upgraded to MS65. Yup, no problem with buying that brilliant unc coin...until the day it turns. I'm sure for now the current owner is quite pleased with their brilliant gem unc because so few of this date "comes" gem white. What an amazing find! The irony here was that I had tried the coin at least 4X (raw) over several years looking to get an MS65 as it was basically a high end coin....better me than the next guy. It never did come back anything but 64 each time. It's now finally a 65 but it took a Doc ruining the coin to do that. Every other 64+ example of this date now moves up the condition census pole.
roadrunner >>
You're discussing the absolute upper cusp of the market with some of the most experienced folks in the business. I'm referencing the middle of the market. Apples and oranges.
I never denied that many white coins are just dipped and screwed with. I just pointed out that there are many instances where originality, whether on an MS or circ coin, is completely applied.
<< <i>Never has a horse been beat to death more then this subject matter. >>
Maybe so, but it gives us all something to do on a lazy Sunday afternoon.
1. For 20th century silver coins (say 1916 onward), I do enjoy blast white coins. For 19th century coins, I tend to avoid blast white.
2. I have not read the entire thread, but whenever this subject comes up, there seems to be a perception that either a coin is white or is a monster-electric toned and sells for a huge premium. There are many coins in between, and many of these are pleasing to the eye and also pleasing to the pocketbook.
3. Everyone has different tastes, and none are necessarily right or wrong. It would be dreadfully boring if everyone liked the same thing.
4. More sophisticated collectors tend to be the ones who appreciate natural surfaces, but this is not always true.
5. I personally believe that taking an attractively toned coin and dipping it white is undesirable, particularly when the motive is to get the coin into a higher grade holder to sell it for more money. Ultimately, he who owns the coin, calls the shots. But that's just my perspective...
<Maybe so, but it gives us all something to do on a lazy Sunday afternoon.>
True dat....White vs Dipped is our equivalent of the Bloods vs The Crypts..............Never fails to evoke emotions or a turf war
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>I have a hunch this is upsetting to the dipped/white camp as a lot of them have been calling for the demise of the toned coin market for a long time. >>
He's right, that's exactly what I want!
PS: Characterizing us that way, I'd say you're not really thinking, MJ. Therefore, according to Voltaire, at least, you are not.
MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>The fact that you worked Voltaire into this thread will earn your evil side bonus points. Well played
MJ >>
MJ, being the gentleman and the scholar you are, please collect whatever you want. As for the rest of you, don't get the wrong idea, you must continue to collect what I tell you to collect!
There, I think that resolves everything.
and higher grades are what most look for ............
we can probably look forward to a heck of alot of dipping in the future
They are like tiny time machines that way.
I recently won on another forum's giveaway section, two quarters that were fresh from rolls. (57 and 58 Type
I know, however, that that will be few and far between in my collection. There can't be many like that out there, and even the ones that are...I as a general rule cannot afford them.
So I try to get coins that look like this.
It's not as minted, but it's close enough for me. I believe this coin to be original, un-messed with.
To be honest, I do have some toned coins. I have a 1915 dime that I have no idea where I got it that is blues and browns...It is really not very attractive. I have a 1925 dime that is black and covered in some sort of crust. It looks hideous.
Both are in line for an upgrade some day, however I am still in the point of my collection where I'd rather buy a date/mintmark I don't already have an example of.
I also have an 1875 dime that I've had so long I don't remember where it came from. As I've learned more over time I realize it's been cleaned. very harshly. I presume it was a ground find because it's missing chunks from all over the place. But yet it's bright with no toning at all.
It too is due for an upgrade, at least to a dime with all it's parts still there...(lol).
Here are some pictures. I have not yet attempted photos of the two Quarters.
This Morgan was mint original when my dad got it, but he did not store it well and this happened to it.
I believe this Franklin to be original...am I correct? (The obverse came out blurry)
and higher grades are what most look for ............
we can probably look forward to a heck of alot of dipping in the future
And this mentality is a bigger problem that FAKE SLABS from China
This is a very dangerous concession because - it is NOT okay to dip original coins to get a higher grade... Grading services have the ability to reward originality- sometimes it happens and sometimes their grade does not meet the expectations of the submitting collector. I am tired of the dipping solution-
There are mountains of dipped coins out there- go buy them if that is what you want.
LEAVE THE ORIGINAL COINS FOR THOSE THAT WANT THEM
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.