What is it about blast white coins?
MidLifeCrisis
Posts: 10,550 ✭✭✭✭✭
OK, it's late and I'm tired and I might get flamed, but...
Flashy, shiny, eye-catching...whatever.
The older the coin, the more a blast white appearance really turns me off.
But even 20th century coins do not appeal to me when they don't have any crust.
Flashy, shiny, eye-catching...whatever.
The older the coin, the more a blast white appearance really turns me off.
But even 20th century coins do not appeal to me when they don't have any crust.
0
Comments
But to each his/her own.
Go ahead y'all. rip me.
The short answer is, full of pure greed and deception. China fakes have really become a game changer for key dates. I'm hesitant to buy any key date now, regardless of what holder it may be in.
OGP
FWIW~ my avatar is the reverse of this coin.
<< <i>What's so wrong about a coin looking like the day it was minted? >>
Amen
- Marcus Tullius Cicero, 106-43 BC
<< <i>What's so wrong about a coin looking like the day it was minted? >>
If I wanted coins that looked like they did the day they were minted, I'd collect moderns.
In my opinion, there is something very unnatural about a blast white 19th century coin.
<< <i>In my opinion, there is something very unnatural about a blast white 19th century coin. >>
No offense, MidLife, as I respect all your posts, and look forward to your newps, but if a coin was well cared for, and managed to keep it's 'white as the day it was minted' look, whats making it unnatural? Lots of the GSA Morgans that are being graded in the GSA holder ATS are blasty white (even those that our hosts crack out and print GSA on the cert, are white). Did Nixon have these blast white CC $'s taken from 'the lost vault', dipped because they were toned, then placed into the GSA holder?
<< <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?? >>
Maybe the blast white coins cost more because they are more " mint state" ie they look more like the day they left the mint?
I'm however not keen on any pre 1840's coinage that's been dipped as to me they look like Gallery Mint creations.
Some of my favorite albinos.
1920-D AU58FH
1929-S Uncentered Broadstrike
<< <i>In my opinion, there is something very unnatural about a blast white 19th century coin. >>
You are damn straight, there! Coins tone over time, they don't get whiter. That's why "acid dips" should be looked upon with much more criticism than, dare I say it, a "sulfur dip." I'm not advocating dipping of any kind. But, at least if a coin is a questionable sulfur dip, the surface oxidation imparted, or, what we refer to as the toning, is a completely natural attribute, consistent with age. OTOH, if it's an acid dip, that's an imparted surface that's completely unnatural, and inconsistent with age. Think about it.
On your main question/issue, I do have a preference for whites, but, again, not acid dipped whites. A coin can naturally hold it's white, though. Case-in-point, look at many of the GSAs. The reason I prefer those is from an artistic standpoint, basically. I prefer to let the engraver's discriminating choices in his use of detail take my eye through the coin, and the less color is allowed to compete with that, in my view, anyway, the better.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Broadstruck why would you choose 1840 as the dividing line? I would move the line much later, perhaps 1878, which includes most seated coinage and trade dollars. >>
I don't have an issue seeing a white T$1 or seated material... It's the Bust material that gets me.
I held a NGC MS64 1799 $1 about 5 years ago at a show, it wasn't just dipped once as it was uber-dipped with totally dead surfaces which had a chome car bumper look... It was a encapsulated numismatic sin IMHO.
<< <i>
<< <i>What's so wrong about a coin looking like the day it was minted? >>
Amen
Nothing.
Except that you should realize than any silver coin minted in the 19th or early 20th century ,other than silver dollars, that is blast white almost certainly has been dipped to make it look that way.
<< <i>
<< <i>In my opinion, there is something very unnatural about a blast white 19th century coin. >>
No offense, MidLife, as I respect all your posts, and look forward to your newps, but if a coin was well cared for, and managed to keep it's 'white as the day it was minted' look, whats making it unnatural? Lots of the GSA Morgans that are being graded in the GSA holder ATS are blasty white (even those that our hosts crack out and print GSA on the cert, are white). Did Nixon have these blast white CC $'s taken from 'the lost vault', dipped because they were toned, then placed into the GSA holder? >>
There are usually exceptions to any rule and GSA dollars seem to me to be a reasonable exception to "unnatural" blast white 19th century coins. I believe GSA dollars came directly from storage in mint bags in a stable environment directly to the large plastic GSA cases used to encapsulate them. Very little exposure, if any, to the natural elements that would have caused them to tone.
However, I have seen nicely toned GSA dollars still in their GSA slabs.
<< <i>
<< <i>In my opinion, there is something very unnatural about a blast white 19th century coin. >>
No offense, MidLife, as I respect all your posts, and look forward to your newps, but if a coin was well cared for, and managed to keep it's 'white as the day it was minted' look, whats making it unnatural? Lots of the GSA Morgans that are being graded in the GSA holder ATS are blasty white (even those that our hosts crack out and print GSA on the cert, are white). Did Nixon have these blast white CC $'s taken from 'the lost vault', dipped because they were toned, then placed into the GSA holder? >>
IIRC some of the ugly tarnished coins were set aside and not put into the GSA holders. What happened to them after that I do not know.
If you choose to collect blast white coins, it's your choice and I'm happy for you.
I'm simply expressing a different opinion.
<< <i>What's so wrong about a coin looking like the day it was minted? >>
Nothing, as long as they can be maintained in that condition.
<< <i>
<< <i>In my opinion, there is something very unnatural about a blast white 19th century coin. >>
You are damn straight, there! Coins tone over time, they don't get whiter. That's why "acid dips" should be looked upon with much more criticism than, dare I say it, a "sulfur dip." I'm not advocating dipping of any kind. But, at least if a coin is a questionable sulfur dip, the surface oxidation imparted, or, what we refer to as the toning, is a completely natural attribute, consistent with age. OTOH, if it's an acid dip, that's an imparted surface that's completely unnatural, and inconsistent with age. Think about it.
On your main question/issue, I do have a preference for whites, but, again, not acid dipped whites. A coin can naturally hold it's white, though. Case-in-point, look at many of the GSAs. The reason I prefer those is from an artistic standpoint, basically. I prefer to let the engraver's discriminating choices in his use of detail take my eye through the coin, and the less color is allowed to compete with that, in my view, anyway, the better. >>
What exactly is a "sulfur dip"?
Ricko, you reinforce my statement regarding people like WW who have and continue to try and convince people that white is great, desirable, and the only state that a coin can be graded mint state. Unfortunately his logic is fatally flawed because he can not explain how the vast majority of early silver coins would have been stored in an environment that would have prevented oxidation/toning over many years. This is a simple fact that many new collectors over look. I find that the vast majority of seasoned numismatists embrace this fact whether they prefer toning or not.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>In my opinion, there is something very unnatural about a blast white 19th century coin. >>
You are damn straight, there! Coins tone over time, they don't get whiter. That's why "acid dips" should be looked upon with much more criticism than, dare I say it, a "sulfur dip." I'm not advocating dipping of any kind. But, at least if a coin is a questionable sulfur dip, the surface oxidation imparted, or, what we refer to as the toning, is a completely natural attribute, consistent with age. OTOH, if it's an acid dip, that's an imparted surface that's completely unnatural, and inconsistent with age. Think about it.
On your main question/issue, I do have a preference for whites, but, again, not acid dipped whites. A coin can naturally hold it's white, though. Case-in-point, look at many of the GSAs. The reason I prefer those is from an artistic standpoint, basically. I prefer to let the engraver's discriminating choices in his use of detail take my eye through the coin, and the less color is allowed to compete with that, in my view, anyway, the better. >>
What exactly is a "sulfur dip"? >>
Sounds like something used to AT coins.
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>I like them blast white..... as minted. It shows the art and beauty intended by the designer. Tarnish does nothing but obscure the metallic beauty and does damage the surface. Collect what you like, that is why it is called a hobby. Stop trying to convince people that tarnish is great and desirable. It is to those who collect tarnish, but it is not axiomatic. Damaged coins (tarnish) are what some people like - many of which, were led to such beliefs by others. People are easily led, especially those who enter a hobby with little knowledge. Cheers, RickO >>
So converting a surface silver atom Ag(0) to a surface silver ion Ag(1+) is damage in your opinion? But dipping the coin to remove the tarnish and the silver atom too, is not?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>In my opinion, there is something very unnatural about a blast white 19th century coin. >>
You are damn straight, there! Coins tone over time, they don't get whiter. That's why "acid dips" should be looked upon with much more criticism than, dare I say it, a "sulfur dip." I'm not advocating dipping of any kind. But, at least if a coin is a questionable sulfur dip, the surface oxidation imparted, or, what we refer to as the toning, is a completely natural attribute, consistent with age. OTOH, if it's an acid dip, that's an imparted surface that's completely unnatural, and inconsistent with age. Think about it.
On your main question/issue, I do have a preference for whites, but, again, not acid dipped whites. A coin can naturally hold it's white, though. Case-in-point, look at many of the GSAs. The reason I prefer those is from an artistic standpoint, basically. I prefer to let the engraver's discriminating choices in his use of detail take my eye through the coin, and the less color is allowed to compete with that, in my view, anyway, the better. >>
What exactly is a "sulfur dip"? >>
Sounds like something used to AT coins. >>
I know that but is it a dilute solution of sodium sulfide or something else. There are hundreds of thousands of sulfur containing compounds. Sulfuric acid contains sulfur but is as useless as puke in space helmet for toning coins.
<< <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?? >>
Grading and the resulting prices are an interesting angle on this.
Personally I find blast white coins appealing but on the other hand I think some coins with different colors of toning can enhance the appeal of a coin also.
Guess I like em all, kinda puts me down the middle of the road.
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??
And once this coin is eventually dipped by a future owner to achieve the much desired MS66 score, it will begin retoning once again because of the highly reactive surfaces and look worse than ever before....possibly grading MS64 on the next go around. The cycle will repeat until the coin is eventually ruined. It may take many decades but that's the eventual outcome.
It's one thing to have a mostly white 19th century type coin that is totally original. But at best those might be 75-85% white. The thin crust and color change that has occured is quite obvious when placed next to a recently dipped blazer. To the casual collector those coins might be called dipped when in fact they aren't. I recalling seeing a PCGS MS64 bust half a couple of years ago that was 90% white with some peripheral blue/champagne toning starting. The coin was so crusty with frost on frost on all the high points that I though it could actually be a totally original coin that was perfectly stored over the years.
roadrunner
<< <i>So converting a surface silver atom Ag(0) to a surface silver ion Ag(1+) is damage in your opinion? But dipping the coin to remove the tarnish and the silver atom too, is not? >>
That's what I was trying to say, but not in chemistry-speak. In fact, the latter is unnatural, not the former.
<< <i>What exactly is a "sulfur dip"? >>
Look up "Liver of Sulfur." It's used in solution to tarnish jewelry. My wife collects high-end, antique jewelry, that's how I heard about it. That is to say, she collects it, I pay for it. There are probably countless other methods, though, too...
<< <i>
Nothing.
Except that you should realize than any silver coin minted in the 19th or early 20th century ,other than silver dollars, that is blast white almost certainly has been dipped to make it look that way. >>
That's reality. Now do those that rail against dipped prefer the modern "lab toner" look or the post-modern "faux original" look? Those are other can of worms that are just as distressing to some. Or do they actually buy coins with warts and all, like many coins come with. Many of the old attractive coins may not be white, but have been dipped and then messed with to get a certain look. Old original non-messed with coins are few and far between, when they are attractive.
<< <i>What has this hobby become?? >>
You're implying that there was a time where collectors and graders favored darker, fully original coins. That's never really been the case.
<< <i>Just as soon as I buy this coin, I read this post????
Most BU Morgan Dollars have never been dipped.
<< <i>
<< <i>What exactly is a "sulfur dip"? >>
Look up "Liver of Sulfur." It's used in solution to tarnish jewelry. My wife collects high-end, antique jewelry, that's how I heard about it. That is to say, she collects it, I pay for it. There are probably countless other methods, though, too... >>
We have been over this before. You need to be more specific than the term "sulfur" dip. If you meant "liver of sulfur" then say that. Most of us are poor mind readers, but we understand plain English very well. That being said, show me how "liver of sulfur" or any other sulfur treatment will make me more of these.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>In my opinion, there is something very unnatural about a blast white 19th century coin. >>
No offense, MidLife, as I respect all your posts, and look forward to your newps, but if a coin was well cared for, and managed to keep it's 'white as the day it was minted' look, whats making it unnatural? Lots of the GSA Morgans that are being graded in the GSA holder ATS are blasty white (even those that our hosts crack out and print GSA on the cert, are white). Did Nixon have these blast white CC $'s taken from 'the lost vault', dipped because they were toned, then placed into the GSA holder? >>
There are usually exceptions to any rule and GSA dollars seem to me to be a reasonable exception to "unnatural" blast white 19th century coins. I believe GSA dollars came directly from storage in mint bags in a stable environment directly to the large plastic GSA cases used to encapsulate them. Very little exposure, if any, to the natural elements that would have caused them to tone.
However, I have seen nicely toned GSA dollars still in their GSA slabs. >>
Most common date BU Morgan Dollars have not been dipped. They're blast white simply because they went from bags, into collector rolls, then many into slabs.
<< <i>
OGP
FWIW~ my avatar is the reverse of this coin. >>
Looking for Top Pop Mercury Dime Varieties & High Grade Mercury Dime Toners.
I find roadrunner's post hits the mark.
There is nothing wrong with collecting shiny coins or rainbow coins. Personally, I like original coins, and some of the aforementioned coins are quite often not. It's not to say say a bright and shiny coin or one with a rainbow are not original, it's just that many are not.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>In my opinion, there is something very unnatural about a blast white 19th century coin. >>
No offense, MidLife, as I respect all your posts, and look forward to your newps, but if a coin was well cared for, and managed to keep it's 'white as the day it was minted' look, whats making it unnatural? Lots of the GSA Morgans that are being graded in the GSA holder ATS are blasty white (even those that our hosts crack out and print GSA on the cert, are white). Did Nixon have these blast white CC $'s taken from 'the lost vault', dipped because they were toned, then placed into the GSA holder? >>
There are usually exceptions to any rule and GSA dollars seem to me to be a reasonable exception to "unnatural" blast white 19th century coins. I believe GSA dollars came directly from storage in mint bags in a stable environment directly to the large plastic GSA cases used to encapsulate them. Very little exposure, if any, to the natural elements that would have caused them to tone.
However, I have seen nicely toned GSA dollars still in their GSA slabs. >>
Most common date BU Morgan Dollars have not been dipped. They're blast white simply because they went from bags, into collector rolls, then many into slabs. >>
I'd agree with that. If one was to come across an original mint sewn bag of Morgans, what percentage of them would be expected to still be blast white?
<< <i>We have been over this before. You need to be more specific than the term "sulfur" dip. If you meant "liver of sulfur" then say that. Most of us are poor mind readers, but we understand plain English very well. That being said, show me how "liver of sulfur" or any other sulfur treatment will make me more of these.
That's a beautiful coin. You don't have to get cute. You're not going to get a demonstration out of me. Here's my explanation on my use of the term, "sulfur dip," for what that might be worth to you. I'd think one wouldn't have to be a genius to be able to figure it out from the context in which I used it, which was, I was trying to subdivide dips into those that impart "white" (principally, through the use of acid compounds) and those that impart "tone" (principally, through the use of sulfur compounds). Thus, acid dips, and sulfur dips. My point, then, was, that a dip to impart white resulted in a more unnatural surface than a dip to impart tone.
<< <i>I like them blast white..... as minted. It shows the art and beauty intended by the designer. Tarnish does nothing but obscure the metallic beauty and does damage the surface. Collect what you like, that is why it is called a hobby. Stop trying to convince people that tarnish is great and desirable. It is to those who collect tarnish, but it is not axiomatic. Damaged coins (tarnish) are what some people like - many of which, were led to such beliefs by others. People are easily led, especially those who enter a hobby with little knowledge. Cheers, RickO >>
Well stated.
<< <i>I like them blast white..... as minted. It shows the art and beauty intended by the designer. Tarnish does nothing but obscure the metallic beauty and does damage the surface. Collect what you like, that is why it is called a hobby. Stop trying to convince people that tarnish is great and desirable. It is to those who collect tarnish, but it is not axiomatic. Damaged coins (tarnish) are what some people like - many of which, were led to such beliefs by others. People are easily led, especially those who enter a hobby with little knowledge. Cheers, RickO >>
And acid based dip compounds do nothing but alter the molecular structure of a silver coin FOREVER
But since the TPG's have chosen market grading over technical grading as their preferred mission, you're completely insulated in the hobby from "damaged" coins.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
<< <i> And acid based dip compounds do nothing but alter the molecular structure of a silver coin FOREVER >>
Doesn't tarnish "do nothing but alter the molecular structure of the silver coin"? Sounds like the surface of a tarnished silver coin has already been altered before the coin was ever dipped.
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>
<< <i> And acid based dip compounds do nothing but alter the molecular structure of a silver coin FOREVER >>
Doesn't tarnish "do nothing but alter the molecular structure of the silver coin"? Sounds like the surface of a tarnished silver coin has already been altered before the coin was ever dipped. >>
Yes that is the case!!
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
<< <i>
<< <i>We have been over this before. You need to be more specific than the term "sulfur" dip. If you meant "liver of sulfur" then say that. Most of us are poor mind readers, but we understand plain English very well. That being said, show me how "liver of sulfur" or any other sulfur treatment will make me more of these.
That's a beautiful coin. You don't have to get cute. You're not going to get a demonstration out of me. Here's my explanation on my use of the term, "sulfur dip," for what that might be worth to you. I'd think one wouldn't have to be a genius to be able to figure it out from the context in which I used it, which was, I was trying to subdivide dips into those that impart "white" (principally, through the use of acid compounds) and those that impart "tone" (principally, through the use of sulfur compounds). Thus, acid dips, and sulfur dips. My point, then, was, that a dip to impart white resulted in a more unnatural surface than a dip to impart tone. >>
Sulfur dips are fine if you don't care what the end toning looks like. Also the results will depend on if you pretreat the coin before you dip it. You could take a blast white coin from a freshly opened mint bag and sulfur dip it as is or you could take a second blast whiter from the same bag and clean the surface with acid dip before you put it in the sulfur solution. I expect you will get differing results depending. kind of like painting a house or a car; surface prep has a lot to do with the end result.
Personally, if I was in the AT business I'd get me a chemist's glove box, put the coins in it and establish an atmosphere of argon, a trace of oxygen and moisture, a few ppm of hydrogen sulfide and NOX and maybe a hint of hydrogen cyanide. If there was something I didn't want toned or just lightly toned, I'd coat it with vaseline.
It all boils down to people having different expectations for something that is new/unused than for something that is old or used. A new car with hail dents is still a new car as far as its intended use goes. But who will pay list price for what they perceive as damaged goods? A coin that comes back from PCGS in a scratched or cloudy slab might be returned even tho there is really nothing wrong with it. perhaps people expect uncirc coins to be new coins or at least like new coins. Too bad folks in 1878 weren't as concerned about our coins as we are and they shudda took pains to keep em looking like the day they were made.
<< <i>And acid based dip compounds do nothing but alter the molecular structure of a silver coin FOREVER
But since the TPG's have chosen market grading over technical grading as their preferred mission, you're completely insulated in the hobby from "damaged" coins.
That's right, and it's no joke. In fact, let us return, now, to those thrilling days of yesteryear, back when there was only technical grading, and see if we can't further make the point. Back then, it paid to acid dip. Why? Well, for one, it enhanced luster and concealed luster grazes. That's huge, when you're grading MS coins, incorporating those technical checkpoints. Today, market grading. Eye appeal is accepted, now, as a grading checkpoint, on par with those and the other technical checkpoints. Color enhances eye appeal. Enter, the age of the sulfur dippers.
Bottom-line, back then, "in the day," it simply didn't pay to impart color to a coin; in fact, rather, it paid to remove it. Today, with market grading, it's the polar opposite. Get used to it.