I don't care for this piece, and I would not buy it for my collection, but two points should be made.
First there are many collectors out there who like their coins to look this way, and there is no way that you can change their minds. I know because when I was a dealer I worked with some of them. Even time I sold them a piece like this, I told them it was dipped, and they bought the coin. If I had brought them a toned coin, or if I offered them a toned coin from inventory, they would passed, no sale. What are you supposed to do when you are running business? Decline to get what the customer wants when what he wants is market acceptable and admired by more than few people. Just look at the $50,000, 1797 silver dollar that many people have commented about this weekend.
Second this coin did not look a whole lot different from this when it was new. We know that there is no way that it should look like this NOW, but compare to a pristine untarnished Franklin half dollar. From the luster perspective there not a lot of difference.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
<< <i>Even time I sold them a piece like this, I told them it was dipped, and they bought the coin. >>
This follows my thinking that some collectors don't mind if their coins are dipped, and may even prefer it. They will like what they like. If this is the case, I don't see anything wrong with disclosure since collectors will still buy the coin, and some may even pay a premium.
Sorry Zoins. I'm not sure what point Bill is trying to make, but I don't think termites in your house is a good analogy because most people can only afford one house. If something happens to that house, it would be difficult to replace. So you want to do everything you can to protect it. However, as I stated previously in this thread, most coins are common and readily available.
If dipping were more widely recognized as doctoring, and if more collectors refused to accept doctored coins (except, maybe, on very rare coins), I think this would be a better hobby; coins with no evidence of doctoring would become more sought after and would increase in value; and coins with evidence of doctoring would dramatically decrease in value.
I'm not sure if this is the "self serving nonsense" to which Bill is referring. I already know he has a problem with the idea that his dipped coins may decrease in value. I suppose he wants me to keep my mouth shut so we can continue with the status quo.
<< <i>Even time I sold them a piece like this, I told them it was dipped, and they bought the coin. >>
This follows my thinking that some collectors don't mind if their coins are dipped, and may even prefer it. They will like what they like. If this is the case, I don't see anything wrong with disclosure since collectors will still buy the coin, and some may even pay a premium. >>
I agree with Zoins. Disclosure makes a big difference.
Comments
<< <i>All coins should be THIS original!
I don't care for this piece, and I would not buy it for my collection, but two points should be made.
First there are many collectors out there who like their coins to look this way, and there is no way that you can change their minds. I know because when I was a dealer I worked with some of them. Even time I sold them a piece like this, I told them it was dipped, and they bought the coin. If I had brought them a toned coin, or if I offered them a toned coin from inventory, they would passed, no sale. What are you supposed to do when you are running business? Decline to get what the customer wants when what he wants is market acceptable and admired by more than few people. Just look at the $50,000, 1797 silver dollar that many people have commented about this weekend.
Second this coin did not look a whole lot different from this when it was new. We know that there is no way that it should look like this NOW, but compare to a pristine untarnished Franklin half dollar. From the luster perspective there not a lot of difference.
<< <i>Even time I sold them a piece like this, I told them it was dipped, and they bought the coin. >>
This follows my thinking that some collectors don't mind if their coins are dipped, and may even prefer it. They will like what they like. If this is the case, I don't see anything wrong with disclosure since collectors will still buy the coin, and some may even pay a premium.
If dipping were more widely recognized as doctoring, and if more collectors refused to accept doctored coins (except, maybe, on very rare coins), I think this would be a better hobby; coins with no evidence of doctoring would become more sought after and would increase in value; and coins with evidence of doctoring would dramatically decrease in value.
I'm not sure if this is the "self serving nonsense" to which Bill is referring. I already know he has a problem with the idea that his dipped coins may decrease in value. I suppose he wants me to keep my mouth shut so we can continue with the status quo.
<< <i>
<< <i>Even time I sold them a piece like this, I told them it was dipped, and they bought the coin. >>
This follows my thinking that some collectors don't mind if their coins are dipped, and may even prefer it. They will like what they like. If this is the case, I don't see anything wrong with disclosure since collectors will still buy the coin, and some may even pay a premium. >>
I agree with Zoins. Disclosure makes a big difference.