<< <i>I go for originality every time. Wasn't ugly before, just looked incredibly original and unmessed with, like one would hope a cbhd that is 200 years old or there abouts would look, and now it looks like a dipped coin, and if you dip it again it could possibly look blast white or closer to that and that would definitely be even more unoriginal. Wish you sold th eoriginal one to me. >>
<< <i>I don't see much of an improvement. The coin had heavy spotting which those who have had some experience with dipping would have deduced would not be removed by the procedure. You started off with a coin that was unattractive because of the spots and toning, and now you have a coin that is still unattractive with spots.
Contrary to what the purists might think, I'm not convinced that this coin was "original" before this was done. Quite often you see coins that have unattractive toning that resulted after the pieces were dipped because the dipping solution was not rinsed and neutralized from the coin. As a result the weak acids, which is what dipping solutions are, continued to react with the coin which resulted in toning and spots. The next question about this coin is will it be farily stable and continue to exhibit the current post dip appearance or will it re-tone to what will probably be an unattractive color? >>
This IS most accurate of all, IMHO. Buying a coin you like etc is also good
<< <i>I haven't read all the posts in this thread and will just comment based on the pics...
I feel this was a really risky coin to consider dipping, however the result looks like it was not dipped yesterday but 30 years ago.
Although I also like crusty originals I feel your post dipped example would not only fare better at TPG but also sell to greater collector base. >>
I agree, but I still prefer the original. I also admit the possibility that the coin is not original. It could even have environmental damage. I could not tell that without an in-hand inspection. However, from the post-dip photo, it looks like it survived OK.
What would have been even more interesting would have been if the OP has posted the toned pics and asked us to grade it, and then another thread spaced a couple weeks apart to ask us to grade the blast white version. I have a super sneaking suspicion the white coin would have fared much better.
By the way, I think the "scratch" some of you are seeing is a die crack on the face.
<< <i>In the end it will just tone again, another way. >>
I don't sell stuff like this often, first of all, I primarily sell circ coins, and I certainly won't be dipping those . This was more of an experiment than anything else. Like I said, I'm opposed to dipping 99% of the time. There were several reasons why I decided to dip this particular coin, and you can read them further back in the thread.
With this said, I probably won't try to dip anything ever again. I'll let the professionals handle it
Lurking and learning since 2010. Full-time professional numismatist based in SoCal.
<< <i>What would have been even more interesting would have been if the OP has posted the toned pics and asked us to grade it, and then another thread spaced a couple weeks apart to ask us to grade the blast white version. I have a super sneaking suspicion the white coin would have fared much better.
By the way, I think the "scratch" some of you are seeing is a die crack on the face. >>
<< <i>I really hope this thread will promote non-dipping in the future. Interestingly this thread is a also a great benefit, it shows you that there are so many dipped coins out there and you now have a before and after, and hopefully thi swill be the poster boy to all those coins many here originally thought were unmessed but were in fact dipped and then another point being made here is they are getting slabbed because it is market acceptable to the tpg's , >>
Realone I just wanted to let you know your admittedly amazing collection of coins you post from time to time in the old NGC holders have been dipped and retoned those pretty blues and what not. Most likely right before they were originally slabbed. While they are really some amazing coins not exactly in the same league with the OP's, lets not throw coins in a glass house. This advise goes to just about anyone with silver coins in theirs collection. >>
In reply Crypto, this is what I am always saying: I always try to find coins that are in the older holders that are thickly toned and hopefully original and eye appealing. i gravitate toward the older holders because at least it has been out of the coin doctor's hand for the last 25 years prior to that who knows. I also believe thick dark toning that mutes the luster a bit has a greater chance of being original because typically most collectors don't want the luster muted or covered up and thus this shouldn't be what the coin doctors are trying to produce over 25 years ago since they wouldn't be satisfying demand. Typically coin doctors are quickly toning the coins in vibrant colors so the toning is thin and colorful and on the lighter side so the luster still shows. In addition the thicker and crustier the toning the greater chance it is older toning form years and years sitting in its storage unmolested. Now this is all conjecture and all my coins could ahve been messed with but at least it is prior to the early '90's and hopefully a lot older than that. many of my coins are considered too dark, too darkly toned for collectors tastes and out hosts tastes and that is why they are entombed in the old NGC holders. NGC liked holdering darkly toned coins in the beginning where PCGS didn't, PCGS liked the lightly toned coins. Ever visit David Halls' website, you will see what he gravitiates too. >>
I agree with everything you said but you are falling for the same mistake many people do (including me) by getting originality mixed up with market preference. It is also a farce that most people want 100% originality when all they really want is eye appeal that doesn't turn off specialists which during the current market is non blast white with postive eye pop and no tall tell signs of tampering. Eye appeal is still paramount and so few coins are truly truly original that most people don't really know the difference. I have never seen a collection that all the coins were truly unmolested no matter how highend.
The op coin is much much more market acceptable now and in the right holder and the right sticker it will be proclaimed original and lustrous. Originality is like colorful toning; no one knows for sure and the really great prices and the really bad ones are easy to tell apart, the ones in the middle are really only classifyied by is there a buyer or not
Dipped coin is much better, although you always take a chance when dipping. I usually only use dip solution in rare cases and when I do I often dilute the concentration and use a 5 or 10 ml plastic pipet for spot application.
<< <i>Surprised no one has commented on the ugly scratch across the face on the obverse of the predipped coin. Ironically, by getting rid of the scratch the coin now has a chance of getting a decent grade instead of being returned as genuine due to "cleaning" because of the scratch. As to eye appeal otherwise pre and post dip that is a toss-up depending on one's likes or dislikes as evident by the varied responses above. >>
Unless that scratch only penetrated the grunge layer on the coin, I highly doubt a scratch could be "dipped out." More likely the camera picking up on a fine hairline that doesn't show in the second image. >>
Valid observation though my assumption is just that - the scratch was deep into the toning and the only way to get rid of it was to dissolve the toning. I suppose if it was actually deeper that some Q tip applied solution might make it disappear if not too deep into the metal. >>
My photo exaggerates the scratch a bit. It's really only a hairline... but a fresh one. It did contrast with the toning, and was quite distracting. Even with the scratch, the coin probably would have graded, but it was still a bit of an eye sore.
This was also a factor in my ultimate decision to dip the coin. I figured the scratch would blend better with white surfaces, and it does. >>
Thanks for filling us in on "the rest of the story." A hairline scratch on a face can be very distracting.
I didn't read all of the posts in the thread, but I'm sure you have half the folks saying what you did was horrible as you destroyed the originality of the piece while the other half are saying you improved it.
Based on the photos in the first post, I think you added value to the coin if you were planning on selling it online. If you were selling it in hand at a show, maybe not as much, but still probably added value or at least increased the liquidity as I think a larger pool of average collectors will prefer the dipped coin.
The next question I would have is how many people that have seen this thread will no longer buy a coin from you because they are afraid you may have dipped it???????? >>
I doubt you will lose many sales from poster on this site as there are not really many active posters. You probably lost Realone for sure but the rest of us???
Dip it again!!! Since you started might as well finish.
I like the dipped version
Mark NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!! working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
<< <i>But you don't see me working on my coins getting them all to look better, have less noticeable problems appearance wise. This is the essence of coin doctoring, sorry but I have to tell it like it is. The thread morphed from , just removing some ugly toning to trying to blend in a very noticeable and I assume bothersome scratch so as to make it unnoticeable because right now I can't see it but we are told it is still there. >>
Has doctoring become a carnal sin? I don't see why you're trying to guilt trip the OP over dipping a coin.
How is dipping any different from giving an acetone bath to a coin? Both are "doctoring" per se in the sense that they augment the appearance of the coin, and nobody gripes over acetone usage.
<< <i>But you don't see me working on my coins getting them all to look better, have less noticeable problems appearance wise. This is the essence of coin doctoring, sorry but I have to tell it like it is. The thread morphed from , just removing some ugly toning to trying to blend in a very noticeable and I assume bothersome scratch so as to make it unnoticeable because right now I can't see it but we are told it is still there. >>
Has doctoring become a carnal sin? I don't see why you're trying to guilt trip the OP over dipping a coin. >>
This Forum is about the sahring of opinions, and the discussion of all things coin related. Isn't this the essence of the recent PNG war over the def of coin doctoring. Isn't this what Laura is fighting to stop. >>
Yes, it is what she's fighting for, and what I don't agree with. Her messages make it seem like what she wants to do to doctors is akin to arraigning them. This is a hobby.
Rick, we'll see what PCGS has to say about it. Will post here when results are in. Maybe in a month or two.
I truly don't see how the dipping could have possibly caused the coin to drop in grade. If anything, the dip has increased the likelihood of the coin grading MS.
Lurking and learning since 2010. Full-time professional numismatist based in SoCal.
Rick, we'll see what PCGS has to say about it. Will post here when results are in. Maybe in a month or two. >>
I don't understand your reply. If PCGS decides to be tight that day and body bags it for cleaning, altered surfaces orscratch(es)/ hairline(s) then you will have a genuined coin in a pcgs holder. If PCGS decides to be loose that day then you will have a graded au+ or- coin with altered surfaces and scratch(es). What is that going to tell you, that in the first example if it didn't pass and I assume you will feel that you failed and in the second example it does pass are you going to feel that you you won.....what do you win, same coin just got past the graders, again the essence of coin doctoring. >>
Realone,
Take a deep breath, will ya?
You think I don't understand the risk involved with what I've done? I've had my fair share of dipped coins kicked back by PCGS.
So what if it gets body-bagged?! So what if it's been dipped, for God sakes. Let it go. What's done is done.
You act like I've committed a murder or something!
Lurking and learning since 2010. Full-time professional numismatist based in SoCal.
<< <i>I go for originality every time. Wasn't ugly before, just looked incredibly original and unmessed with, like one would hope a cbhd that is 200 years old or there abouts would look, and now it looks like a dipped coin, and if you dip it again it could possibly look blast white or closer to that and that would definitely be even more unoriginal. Wish you sold th eoriginal one to me. >>
Your use of "originality" and "unmessed with" are interesting with respect to this coin.
The type of toning on the coin can be natural, but it can also be "done." Decades in a dry leather wallet, or much less time in a moist, warm leather coin purse.
I'd put my money on somebody toning that coin to hide signs of circulation. It could have passed for MS before, while now it appears to be a slider.
Cool looks like you did get some heat but it's your coin. I would put it in a TBN and let it sit for a bit. You took the hi road or was it the low road oh well keep on driving. Have fun thats what it's all about.
Hey Brian, You did what you wanted to do with your coin. Just understand that those nice bright surfaces will be some wild shades of blue in a few months. Once the old patina is gone the new suface metal is going to get wild with fresh oxidation. I suggest if you want to get her in a slab, do it ASAP. If you hold her for a while please post a pic in a half year or so to show those that might not know what a dip on old surfaces looks like.
I truly don't see how the dipping could have possibly caused the coin to drop in grade. If anything, the dip has increased the likelihood of the coin grading MS.
I'd take that bet. I think Rick's spot on (no pun intended). This coin, though unattractively toned, looked mint state and likely would have holdered as such prior to the dip...which has now uncovered what look to be small hairlines in the field and a slightly rubbed appearance. And that's just what I can see from the pics.
Edit to add...IMO your best bet here would have been to have it professionally conserved. This piece now looks like a whitish coin that grew spots after a bad dip.
I'm usually as anti-dip as they come, but in this case I believe it's an improvement. The before pic shows absolutely no hint of lustre whatsoever and has the eye appeal of a dead XF45-AU53. The after pic is much more lustrous while not being too dipped out, and can see garnering 58-62 money depending on how it's presented online.
This is a case of "original" not necessarily being better, IMO.
JMHO, but I think if the OP had showed the post-dip picture in a "Look what I won on eBay" type of thread that many of the critics would be salivating and whistling a different tune.
In before the lockdown. "With this said, I probably won't try to dip anything ever again. I'll let the professionals handle it." With a coin like this, I would always look before leaping. I contend that NCS or PCGS would have done a better job, for whatever the motive may have been to "conserve" the coin. "Favorable results" needs a definition, even to the satisfaction of the OP.
<< <i>JMHO, but I think if the OP had showed the post-dip picture in a "Look what I won on eBay" type of thread that many of the critics would be salivating and whistling a different tune. >>
Very true keets as is often the case with a freshly dipped coin. But a 175+ year old silver coin that sees the inside of a dip container has to pay the piper his due....usually several months later. Now if she quickly goes into a slab or airtight, that changes the story a bit.
two points............... 1. the coin as it appears in the "pre-dip" pictures looks to my eyes like a coin which had been dipped white and then re-toned over a long period of time. 2. I don't think Silver possesses the "intelligence" to know how old it is and how long it has been in coin form. given a proper rinse and subsequent storage I wouldn't expect the OP's coin to tone any differently just because it's old.
-----in short, the coin probably wasn't any more "original" before the dip than it is now, though many claim/believe that to be the fact.
Hey keets, No silver is not intelligent. But it does acquire a skin after being subject to the coining process. Patina forms on this skin. The skin on a coin is effected by Father Time. This skin is also effected by an acid dip. I am assuming that the coin was rinsed properly but it will still tone differently on this new acid treated skin than it would on a non acid treated original skin.
I don't think it will tone at all if it's been rinsed properly and stored right and would welcome the suggestion you made to the OP. the results of a six-twelve month comparison would be informative to us all no matter what they are.
That would be good to see keets. Yo Brian, are you hearing this ?
You got 2 coin nuts waiting on that pic buddy. Now just remember to post it cause you know me and keets will forget all about this in about a half hour.
Comments
<< <i>I go for originality every time. Wasn't ugly before, just looked incredibly original and unmessed with, like one would hope a cbhd that is 200 years old or there abouts would look, and now it looks like a dipped coin, and if you dip it again it could possibly look blast white or closer to that and that would definitely be even more unoriginal. Wish you sold th eoriginal one to me. >>
Tom
<< <i>I don't see much of an improvement. The coin had heavy spotting which those who have had some experience with dipping would have deduced would not be removed by the procedure. You started off with a coin that was unattractive because of the spots and toning, and now you have a coin that is still unattractive with spots.
Contrary to what the purists might think, I'm not convinced that this coin was "original" before this was done. Quite often you see coins that have unattractive toning that resulted after the pieces were dipped because the dipping solution was not rinsed and neutralized from the coin. As a result the weak acids, which is what dipping solutions are, continued to react with the coin which resulted in toning and spots. The next question about this coin is will it be farily stable and continue to exhibit the current post dip appearance or will it re-tone to what will probably be an unattractive color? >>
This IS most accurate of all, IMHO. Buying a coin you like etc is also good
Eric
Tom
the coin looks somewhat better after the dip
offline for **serious **family issues
I feel this was a really risky coin to consider dipping, however the result looks like it was not dipped yesterday but 30 years ago.
Although I also like crusty originals I feel your post dipped example would not only fare better at TPG but also sell to greater collector base.
<< <i>I haven't read all the posts in this thread and will just comment based on the pics...
I feel this was a really risky coin to consider dipping, however the result looks like it was not dipped yesterday but 30 years ago.
Although I also like crusty originals I feel your post dipped example would not only fare better at TPG but also sell to greater collector base. >>
I agree, but I still prefer the original. I also admit the possibility that the coin is not original. It could even have environmental damage. I could not tell that without an in-hand inspection. However, from the post-dip photo, it looks like it survived OK.
Tom
If you plan to keep the coin for a long while do what you think you need to do,,, but know you are doing surface damage.
If the coin is for resale let the new owner decide for themself.
Maybe to some you may have increased value,,, but to others you have decreased it as a dipped coin.
<< <i>I think it looks MUCH better. In fact, I would probably try to just make it blast white, personally, I think the toning was ugly. >>
+1
By the way, I think the "scratch" some of you are seeing is a die crack on the face.
<< <i>In the end it will just tone again, another way. >>
I don't sell stuff like this often, first of all, I primarily sell circ coins, and I certainly won't be dipping those . This was more of an experiment than anything else. Like I said, I'm opposed to dipping 99% of the time. There were several reasons why I decided to dip this particular coin, and you can read them further back in the thread.
With this said, I probably won't try to dip anything ever again. I'll let the professionals handle it
<< <i>What would have been even more interesting would have been if the OP has posted the toned pics and asked us to grade it, and then another thread spaced a couple weeks apart to ask us to grade the blast white version. I have a super sneaking suspicion the white coin would have fared much better.
By the way, I think the "scratch" some of you are seeing is a die crack on the face. >>
Excellent point!
Taylor
I am a YN and I do not want anybody to question my IQ Level! I don't know everything and came here to learn!
<< <i>Most of the people poo pah-ing have collections full of coins like this. >>
Crypto, care to name names? I don't own anything that looks like this coin now and I'm pretty
sure Realone doesn't either...
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I really hope this thread will promote non-dipping in the future.
Interestingly this thread is a also a great benefit, it shows you that there are so many dipped coins out there and you now have a before and after, and hopefully thi swill be the poster boy to all those coins many here originally thought were unmessed but were in fact dipped and then another point being made here is they are getting slabbed because it is market acceptable to the tpg's , >>
Realone
I just wanted to let you know your admittedly amazing collection of coins you post from time to time in the old NGC holders have been dipped and retoned those pretty blues and what not. Most likely right before they were originally slabbed. While they are really some amazing coins not exactly in the same league with the OP's, lets not throw coins in a glass house. This advise goes to just about anyone with silver coins in theirs collection. >>
In reply Crypto,
this is what I am always saying:
I always try to find coins that are in the older holders that are thickly toned and hopefully original and eye appealing. i gravitate toward the older holders because at least it has been out of the coin doctor's hand for the last 25 years prior to that who knows. I also believe thick dark toning that mutes the luster a bit has a greater chance of being original because typically most collectors don't want the luster muted or covered up and thus this shouldn't be what the coin doctors are trying to produce over 25 years ago since they wouldn't be satisfying demand. Typically coin doctors are quickly toning the coins in vibrant colors so the toning is thin and colorful and on the lighter side so the luster still shows. In addition the thicker and crustier the toning the greater chance it is older toning form years and years sitting in its storage unmolested. Now this is all conjecture and all my coins could ahve been messed with but at least it is prior to the early '90's and hopefully a lot older than that. many of my coins are considered too dark, too darkly toned for collectors tastes and out hosts tastes and that is why they are entombed in the old NGC holders. NGC liked holdering darkly toned coins in the beginning where PCGS didn't, PCGS liked the lightly toned coins. Ever visit David Halls' website, you will see what he gravitiates too. >>
I agree with everything you said but you are falling for the same mistake many people do (including me) by getting originality mixed up with market preference. It is also a farce that most people want 100% originality when all they really want is eye appeal that doesn't turn off specialists which during the current market is non blast white with postive eye pop and no tall tell signs of tampering. Eye appeal is still paramount and so few coins are truly truly original that most people don't really know the difference. I have never seen a collection that all the coins were truly unmolested no matter how highend.
The op coin is much much more market acceptable now and in the right holder and the right sticker it will be proclaimed original and lustrous. Originality is like colorful toning; no one knows for sure and the really great prices and the really bad ones are easy to tell apart, the ones in the middle are really only classifyied by is there a buyer or not
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Surprised no one has commented on the ugly scratch across the face on the obverse of the predipped coin. Ironically, by getting rid of the scratch the coin now has a chance of getting a decent grade instead of being returned as genuine due to "cleaning" because of the scratch. As to eye appeal otherwise pre and post dip that is a toss-up depending on one's likes or dislikes as evident by the varied responses above. >>
Unless that scratch only penetrated the grunge layer on the coin, I highly doubt a scratch could be "dipped out." More likely the camera picking up on a fine hairline that doesn't show in the second image. >>
Valid observation though my assumption is just that - the scratch was deep into the toning and the only way to get rid of it was to dissolve the toning. I suppose if it was actually deeper that some Q tip applied solution might make it disappear if not too deep into the metal. >>
My photo exaggerates the scratch a bit. It's really only a hairline... but a fresh one. It did contrast with the toning, and was quite distracting. Even with the scratch, the coin probably would have graded, but it was still a bit of an eye sore.
This was also a factor in my ultimate decision to dip the coin. I figured the scratch would blend better with white surfaces, and it does. >>
Thanks for filling us in on "the rest of the story." A hairline scratch on a face can be very distracting.
Based on the photos in the first post, I think you added value to the coin if you were planning on selling it online. If you were selling it in hand at a show, maybe not as much, but still probably added value or at least increased the liquidity as I think a larger pool of average collectors will prefer the dipped coin.
Michael Kittle Rare Coins --- 1908-S Indian Head Cent Grading Set --- No. 1 1909 Mint Set --- Kittlecoins on Facebook --- Long Beach Table 448
<< <i>BustHalfBrian,
The next question I would have is how many people that have seen this thread will no longer buy a coin from you because they are afraid you may have dipped it???????? >>
I doubt you will lose many sales from poster on this site as there are not really many active posters. You probably lost Realone for sure but the rest of us???
Dip it again!!! Since you started might as well finish.
I like the dipped version
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
<< <i>But you don't see me working on my coins getting them all to look better, have less noticeable problems appearance wise.
This is the essence of coin doctoring, sorry but I have to tell it like it is. The thread morphed from , just removing some ugly toning to trying to blend in a very noticeable and I assume bothersome scratch so as to make it unnoticeable because right now I can't see it but we are told it is still there. >>
Has doctoring become a carnal sin? I don't see why you're trying to guilt trip the OP over dipping a coin.
How is dipping any different from giving an acetone bath to a coin? Both are "doctoring" per se in the sense that they augment the appearance of the coin, and nobody gripes over acetone usage.
After: Bright AU58
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>But you don't see me working on my coins getting them all to look better, have less noticeable problems appearance wise.
This is the essence of coin doctoring, sorry but I have to tell it like it is. The thread morphed from , just removing some ugly toning to trying to blend in a very noticeable and I assume bothersome scratch so as to make it unnoticeable because right now I can't see it but we are told it is still there. >>
Has doctoring become a carnal sin? I don't see why you're trying to guilt trip the OP over dipping a coin. >>
This Forum is about the sahring of opinions, and the discussion of all things coin related.
Isn't this the essence of the recent PNG war over the def of coin doctoring. Isn't this what Laura is fighting to stop. >>
Yes, it is what she's fighting for, and what I don't agree with. Her messages make it seem like what she wants to do to doctors is akin to arraigning them. This is a hobby.
<< <i>
<< <i>Before: Dull MS63
After: Bright AU58 >>
Rick, we'll see what PCGS has to say about it. Will post here when results are in. Maybe in a month or two.
I truly don't see how the dipping could have possibly caused the coin to drop in grade. If anything, the dip has increased the likelihood of the coin grading MS.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Rick, we'll see what PCGS has to say about it. Will post here when results are in. Maybe in a month or two. >>
I don't understand your reply. If PCGS decides to be tight that day and body bags it for cleaning, altered surfaces orscratch(es)/ hairline(s) then you will have a genuined coin in a pcgs holder. If PCGS decides to be loose that day then you will have a graded au+ or- coin with altered surfaces and scratch(es). What is that going to tell you, that in the first example if it didn't pass and I assume you will feel that you failed and in the second example it does pass are you going to feel that you you won.....what do you win, same coin just got past the graders, again the essence of coin doctoring. >>
Realone,
Take a deep breath, will ya?
You think I don't understand the risk involved with what I've done? I've had my fair share of dipped coins kicked back by PCGS.
So what if it gets body-bagged?! So what if it's been dipped, for God sakes. Let it go. What's done is done.
You act like I've committed a murder or something!
<< <i>I go for originality every time. Wasn't ugly before, just looked incredibly original and unmessed with, like one would hope a cbhd that is 200 years old or there abouts would look, and now it looks like a dipped coin, and if you dip it again it could possibly look blast white or closer to that and that would definitely be even more unoriginal. Wish you sold th eoriginal one to me. >>
Your use of "originality" and "unmessed with" are interesting with respect to this coin.
The type of toning on the coin can be natural, but it can also be "done." Decades in a dry leather wallet, or much less time in a moist, warm leather coin purse.
I'd put my money on somebody toning that coin to hide signs of circulation. It could have passed for MS before, while now it appears to be a slider.
eric
Hoard the keys.
<< <i>Neither look is particularly attractive, but the post-dip coin also looks unnatural. I'd have
left it alone, personally. >>
Why would you do that?
You did what you wanted to do with your coin.
Just understand that those nice bright surfaces will be some wild shades of blue in a few months.
Once the old patina is gone the new suface metal is going to get wild with fresh oxidation.
I suggest if you want to get her in a slab, do it ASAP.
If you hold her for a while please post a pic in a half year or so to show those that might not know
what a dip on old surfaces looks like.
I'd take that bet. I think Rick's spot on (no pun intended). This coin, though unattractively toned, looked mint state and likely would have holdered as such prior to the dip...which has now uncovered what look to be small hairlines in the field and a slightly rubbed appearance. And that's just what I can see from the pics.
Edit to add...IMO your best bet here would have been to have it professionally conserved. This piece now looks like a whitish coin that grew spots after a bad dip.
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
This is a case of "original" not necessarily being better, IMO.
1/2 Cents
U.S. Revenue Stamps
"With this said, I probably won't try to dip anything ever again. I'll let the professionals handle it."
With a coin like this, I would always look before leaping. I contend that NCS or PCGS would have done a better job, for whatever the motive may have been to "conserve" the coin. "Favorable results" needs a definition, even to the satisfaction of the OP.
"Everything is on its way to somewhere. Everything." - George Malley, Phenomenon
http://www.american-legacy-coins.com
<< <i>JMHO, but I think if the OP had showed the post-dip picture in a "Look what I won on eBay" type of thread that many of the critics would be salivating and whistling a different tune. >>
Very true keets as is often the case with a freshly dipped coin.
But a 175+ year old silver coin that sees the inside of a dip container has to pay the piper his due....usually several months later.
Now if she quickly goes into a slab or airtight, that changes the story a bit.
1. the coin as it appears in the "pre-dip" pictures looks to my eyes like a coin which had been dipped white and then re-toned over a long period of time.
2. I don't think Silver possesses the "intelligence" to know how old it is and how long it has been in coin form. given a proper rinse and subsequent storage I wouldn't expect the OP's coin to tone any differently just because it's old.
-----in short, the coin probably wasn't any more "original" before the dip than it is now, though many claim/believe that to be the fact.
I think it looks good after the dip, I have never dipped a coin, but I have dipped Skoal Long Cut!
Erik
No silver is not intelligent.
But it does acquire a skin after being subject to the coining process.
Patina forms on this skin.
The skin on a coin is effected by Father Time.
This skin is also effected by an acid dip.
I am assuming that the coin was rinsed properly but it will still tone differently on
this new acid treated skin than it would on a non acid treated original skin.
Yo Brian, are you hearing this ?
You got 2 coin nuts waiting on that pic buddy.
Now just remember to post it cause you know me and keets will forget all about this in about a half hour.
<< <i>Yo Brian, are you hearing this ? >>
Every word, but I've lost all interest.
Remember the bantering a couple of pages ago? I lost interest around there.