Eric's General & Random Dipping Obersvations - Detailed. Reworded/complete
magikbilly
Posts: 6,780 ✭
Eric's First Hand (Observational) Knowledge of Coin Dipping on MS Silver - One Pr copper too! (With a limited but specific note about doctoring PL Cam Morgan’s gone very awry):
In view of the recent threads on this subject I thought I should share my own knowledge over nearly 30 years. My limited experiences with dipping (B&M back room observations)...and in no order (one mentions AT for example) follows: (Some names have been changed to protect the "innocent"
) I was allowed in the back room regularly back to sit and go through massive amount of "stuff" they had purchased for melt and just go though nice MS stock etc. Yes, sometimes I was "rinse boy". 
Intro Notes: All apply to Mint Sate coins of course. These anecdotes, and perhaps some posts in these threads...well mine anyway, fail to always specify which "dip" we are talking about among the many. Maybe they are very similar, but clarity of definition can't hurt. And the methods - I always saw varying percentages/strengths employed by the more careful (a different shop BTW than the "factory mentioned below), including my two "mentors" depending on the purpose of the job at hand (a very different shop BTW than the "factory" described below). With the right weak concentration I have seen some great things with certain dull tan MS Standing Liberty 25C for example, but always with very weak solutions ("You can never replace tone/skin - so "go slow" they said, with very weak solutions). However, I did not see as much thought as to "IF" a coin should be dipped though - but they were...in the end my mentors were business first, love for numismatics aside).
1) I have seen "over dipping" reduce, alter or impede luster (apart from removing the skins that I love). Usually on Morgan’s and Walking Liberty Halves. Inexplicably, back in the 80's the folks I saw were dipping un-toned coins almost always!)
2) I was shocked to see large vats for this activity in the back room, with reused "dirty" dip of unknown composition used for more than one metal! It looked dirty (this was said to “add realism").
3) Best story - and copper! Of course copper is a general no-no, but the following, mentioned for informational purposes, had incredible results. I saw a rather dirty looking unattractively "hazed?"(Dirty) 1942 "Pr62.5" (tech clean) Lincoln 1C from a set dipped for maybe 5 seconds in dichlorofluerthane(sp?) - it's the stuff used to clean dirt only from cassette heads ("back in day" as the saying goes). Slight agitation was used. Rinsed properly. The chemical was sold in RadioShack if I recall the boasted source; perhaps a bad substance and not available anymore - this was over 20 years ago). The results were astonishing with no hint of dipping.. Better than acetone. Perhaps less flammable too. No color change at all, just a simple disappearance of all dirt including the duller brown "dirt" "haze" which plagues some pre '55 Pr 1C. The '42 looked new - just the described "dirt" and removal of that semi-flaky looking orangey whitish stuff you sometimes see "smeared" on Pr 40's Lincolns shoulder or in the right field (finger marks? Grease?). Removal of all and a look of "fresh" that looked fully natural. Very minor surface only dark specks were also gone. No perceptible loss of mirrors of course, but no skin LOSS I could detect at all. The flash, deep mahogany and reddish glossy look of originality was still intact. Considering the chemical used (nearly perfect for this purpose) perhaps it was as close as you can get to such a result. Bump in grade easily apparent from eye appeal improvement - 63 to what would be today PCGS PR64+ CAC easily. Never saw this used on silver. I was told the 1C later slabbed. I image a strong 64.
4) REGARDING an AT disaster: I saw a very PL Morgan lose ALL its mirrors and become what could be called satin frosty. I do not now if it has been cleaned prior but it was not pre-treated in away way. You could almost hear the loss (apart from the normal hiss) as the coin was subsequently dipped in cold water. This was done in a gas flame - not heated dip liquid. It was amazing - fully dead matte totally even surfaces. Like it had been sandblasted with the finest material. It was cameo too Never understood the motivating factor behind that "work".
5) The coins that seemed to react the most from dipping on the scale/volume that I saw - BU 1940's Merc rolls (un-toned too! - just for adding "freshness” I was told); they always came bright and good but still looked a bit naked - these were done by the dumped roll into colanders and then vats (C. 1986; "Dealer" did not distinguish 63 from 65 or 67 - that was profitable!); Some Morgan’s seem to lose some luster faster, O Mints, S Mint PL's and 21 D's especially; if luster was lost in small amounts (was this a feature of the size I wonder- one might think it would be more apparent on smaller coins? Maybe not...). Washington 25C seems always a bit less for the dipping - it seemed to show more, and they looked flat. Most Franklins seemed and "even wash" (LOL)or slightly less than ideal. I remember VERY uniform results.
I think the only work I had done to a coin of mine was the crackout of a PCGS '41 Pr 63/64 Merc and removal of a black flyspeck with a thorn. It was distracting, near the faces- and yes, it did leave an ever so slightly brighter spot but the trade off was worth and the spot small. It was its location what was the real problem. Today, I know enough to leave it w/o thinking. For me.
I truly hope this was woth typing out - interesting, maybe informative, and of some practical use to some I hope. Some will disagree, which is good cause learning will result. I guess probably 2/3 of you already know this stuff, but some may not.
Best wishes for a good Sunday!
Eric
BTW - For those following my Hiroshima work it goes well indeed! And I have a new book I am assisting coming soon Yeah, a little more ocean liner stuff...and I retired "...but they keep pulling me back....!:
P.S. - My observations are just that - observations - no endorsement of any of these things are implied. If you choose to attempt anything, the operative words are "...you choose..."
Who was it said for every coin improved with dipping many have been destroyed...to paraphrase - Col. J - "...its not the dipping, but choosing the right coin..."
P.S.S. - I just recalled that MS Liberty 5C rarely turned out good as well- neural at best. Streaks rarely disappeared; often a loss of "life" resulting in a generic rather dead appearance. They don't always have sterling luster to begin with IMHO due to the hardness of the alloy, I expect. Frosty, yes. No Cents V5C seems to fair better for some reason and held their luster. Again, all degrees of dilute solutions, unused. Proof Jeff 5C, most especially Jeff 5c 1942P T2 - often looked good if a touch naked. These were flash dips - very quick with rinse water for thorough rinse right at hand.
Col. J., I think, recently iterated words a while back to the effect that, with regard to a certain service, "...with practice and common cents, the "majority" of truly warranted light work be done at home carefully and safely..." I believe he also said its not the dip - it is properly identifying the candidate coin that can truly benefit on a piece by piece basis.
Edit to correct title spelling.
In view of the recent threads on this subject I thought I should share my own knowledge over nearly 30 years. My limited experiences with dipping (B&M back room observations)...and in no order (one mentions AT for example) follows: (Some names have been changed to protect the "innocent"
) I was allowed in the back room regularly back to sit and go through massive amount of "stuff" they had purchased for melt and just go though nice MS stock etc. Yes, sometimes I was "rinse boy". Intro Notes: All apply to Mint Sate coins of course. These anecdotes, and perhaps some posts in these threads...well mine anyway, fail to always specify which "dip" we are talking about among the many. Maybe they are very similar, but clarity of definition can't hurt. And the methods - I always saw varying percentages/strengths employed by the more careful (a different shop BTW than the "factory mentioned below), including my two "mentors" depending on the purpose of the job at hand (a very different shop BTW than the "factory" described below). With the right weak concentration I have seen some great things with certain dull tan MS Standing Liberty 25C for example, but always with very weak solutions ("You can never replace tone/skin - so "go slow" they said, with very weak solutions). However, I did not see as much thought as to "IF" a coin should be dipped though - but they were...in the end my mentors were business first, love for numismatics aside).
1) I have seen "over dipping" reduce, alter or impede luster (apart from removing the skins that I love). Usually on Morgan’s and Walking Liberty Halves. Inexplicably, back in the 80's the folks I saw were dipping un-toned coins almost always!)
2) I was shocked to see large vats for this activity in the back room, with reused "dirty" dip of unknown composition used for more than one metal! It looked dirty (this was said to “add realism").
3) Best story - and copper! Of course copper is a general no-no, but the following, mentioned for informational purposes, had incredible results. I saw a rather dirty looking unattractively "hazed?"(Dirty) 1942 "Pr62.5" (tech clean) Lincoln 1C from a set dipped for maybe 5 seconds in dichlorofluerthane(sp?) - it's the stuff used to clean dirt only from cassette heads ("back in day" as the saying goes). Slight agitation was used. Rinsed properly. The chemical was sold in RadioShack if I recall the boasted source; perhaps a bad substance and not available anymore - this was over 20 years ago). The results were astonishing with no hint of dipping.. Better than acetone. Perhaps less flammable too. No color change at all, just a simple disappearance of all dirt including the duller brown "dirt" "haze" which plagues some pre '55 Pr 1C. The '42 looked new - just the described "dirt" and removal of that semi-flaky looking orangey whitish stuff you sometimes see "smeared" on Pr 40's Lincolns shoulder or in the right field (finger marks? Grease?). Removal of all and a look of "fresh" that looked fully natural. Very minor surface only dark specks were also gone. No perceptible loss of mirrors of course, but no skin LOSS I could detect at all. The flash, deep mahogany and reddish glossy look of originality was still intact. Considering the chemical used (nearly perfect for this purpose) perhaps it was as close as you can get to such a result. Bump in grade easily apparent from eye appeal improvement - 63 to what would be today PCGS PR64+ CAC easily. Never saw this used on silver. I was told the 1C later slabbed. I image a strong 64.
4) REGARDING an AT disaster: I saw a very PL Morgan lose ALL its mirrors and become what could be called satin frosty. I do not now if it has been cleaned prior but it was not pre-treated in away way. You could almost hear the loss (apart from the normal hiss) as the coin was subsequently dipped in cold water. This was done in a gas flame - not heated dip liquid. It was amazing - fully dead matte totally even surfaces. Like it had been sandblasted with the finest material. It was cameo too
Never understood the motivating factor behind that "work".5) The coins that seemed to react the most from dipping on the scale/volume that I saw - BU 1940's Merc rolls (un-toned too! - just for adding "freshness” I was told); they always came bright and good but still looked a bit naked - these were done by the dumped roll into colanders and then vats (C. 1986; "Dealer" did not distinguish 63 from 65 or 67 - that was profitable!); Some Morgan’s seem to lose some luster faster, O Mints, S Mint PL's and 21 D's especially; if luster was lost in small amounts (was this a feature of the size I wonder- one might think it would be more apparent on smaller coins? Maybe not...). Washington 25C seems always a bit less for the dipping - it seemed to show more, and they looked flat. Most Franklins seemed and "even wash" (LOL)or slightly less than ideal. I remember VERY uniform results.
I think the only work I had done to a coin of mine was the crackout of a PCGS '41 Pr 63/64 Merc and removal of a black flyspeck with a thorn. It was distracting, near the faces- and yes, it did leave an ever so slightly brighter spot but the trade off was worth and the spot small. It was its location what was the real problem. Today, I know enough to leave it w/o thinking. For me.
I truly hope this was woth typing out - interesting, maybe informative, and of some practical use to some I hope. Some will disagree, which is good cause learning will result. I guess probably 2/3 of you already know this stuff, but some may not.
Best wishes for a good Sunday!
Eric
BTW - For those following my Hiroshima work it goes well indeed! And I have a new book I am assisting coming soon
Yeah, a little more ocean liner stuff...and I retired "...but they keep pulling me back....!: P.S. - My observations are just that - observations - no endorsement of any of these things are implied. If you choose to attempt anything, the operative words are "...you choose..."
Who was it said for every coin improved with dipping many have been destroyed...to paraphrase - Col. J - "...its not the dipping, but choosing the right coin..."
P.S.S. - I just recalled that MS Liberty 5C rarely turned out good as well- neural at best. Streaks rarely disappeared; often a loss of "life" resulting in a generic rather dead appearance. They don't always have sterling luster to begin with IMHO due to the hardness of the alloy, I expect. Frosty, yes. No Cents V5C seems to fair better for some reason and held their luster. Again, all degrees of dilute solutions, unused. Proof Jeff 5C, most especially Jeff 5c 1942P T2 - often looked good if a touch naked. These were flash dips - very quick with rinse water for thorough rinse right at hand.
Col. J., I think, recently iterated words a while back to the effect that, with regard to a certain service, "...with practice and common cents, the "majority" of truly warranted light work be done at home carefully and safely..." I believe he also said its not the dip - it is properly identifying the candidate coin that can truly benefit on a piece by piece basis.
Edit to correct title spelling.
0
Comments
As to the ethics of dipping, I think we're probably on the same page. I've played around with some melt-value junk silver and not much else. Coins with real numismatic or historical value should have this done only as a last resort. Seeing the large quantity of Seated dollars that have been dipped is very sad. Maybe some of them look better now and maybe with some there was no real option. When I pick one for my type set I'll look hard for one with a claim to originality.
With respect to the AT you mention, I'd suggest that it might have been the forced corrosion of the coin (gas flame) that damaged the microscopic surface of the skin more than the attempted dip that followed. I don't there there is a general feeling that the deliberate application of a toning layer damages the skin of a coin. The subsequent dip always gets the blame.
Neither is acid. Neither is dip. Immersion is as close as one can come to calling it dipping.
Cheers, RickO
<< <i>"Dissolve" was "trichloro-trifluoro-ethane" (dashes inserted for readability). "Fast" evaporation rather than "slow". Wonderful stuff. Now, the best I can fine is trichloro-fluoro-ethane. Not at all cheap. I think EPA fines for ozone layer damage included in the price. Evaporates really fast and even when the jar is sealed what one would think is really tight. Both are better than acetone for a last phase. Acetone lasts longer and is more useful for a longer soak. Nothing to stop interspersed use of both in any order. YMMV
Neither is acid. Neither is dip. Immersion is as close as one can calling it a dipping. >>
Dear Col. J.
Yes! Trichloro-trifluoro-ethane! That was the stuff. Thanks!
Eric
Edited to spell that darn word at 7 am on a Sunday morning.
Enjoy your Sunday.
Eric