Options
Dipped, Stable and It Looks Like It Did the Day It Was Stuck ... So What's the Problem?
BillJones
Posts: 34,789 ✭✭✭✭✭
I purchased this 1875-S Twenty Cent Piece in December of 1995, which is almost 18 years ago. (Am I really that old ???)
It is in a PCGS green label holder, and it is very conservatively graded MS-63. The piece has full luster on both sides, with no breaks, and virtually no marks. The only reason one would assume that it has been dipped is that one would not expect a coin like this, which is not a Morgan silver dollar to look like this. So what is the problem? Why would the purists reject a coin like this?
Let's hear your comments.
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 ... ?
0
Comments
Coin Rarities Online
Beautiful coin.
I hate anything in life that demands I hold someones hand and have to follow their golden rules.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at a coin like this and determine themselves whether they like it or not.
This is one of the reasons I dislike the TPG's determining whether they will slab some coins that are white yet not others, or some coins that are toned while not others.
The decision by the TPG's to call a coin questionable toning once but not the next time it is sent in is a perfect example of why they should not be making the judgement in the first place. Unless a coin has been physically damaged it should be slabbed and the buyer should be able to determine whether they like it or not.
<< <i>I personally prefer the look of a naturally acquired and attractive patina, but there is obviously a market for a coin like yours and not all purists reject would reject it. >>
I agree....
I would be willing to bet there are more collectors that like the "From the Mint" look than there are that seek out patina.
Coin Club Benefit auctions ..... View the Lots
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
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Eric
There are collectors that like white coins and those that like toned coins. This is for the former and I think it looks good for a white coin.
What does a coin like this go for?
<< <i>What's the problem with a coin that's 138 years old looking its age? >>
Nothing.
But what's wrong with a 138 year old coin not looking its age if it looks the same it did when it was minted?
Let's face it, anything that survives from 138 years ago from a well circulated series is remarkable. The 1% rule says that 99% of the mintage no longer exists. Even with hoards, anything approaching a 5% survival ratio is very unusual.
Going into the circulated grades, I'd say that anything over VG doesn't really look its age. VF or better more many issues is really remarkable. As a type collector for over fifty years, I can tell that among the survivors there is a lot of low and problem stuff to wade through. Most of what we collect really does not look its age compared to the totally population of what is out there.
<< <i>Without knowing what the coin looked like before it was dipped, it seems it would be hard to make a judgment. In a lot of dipped before and after photos posted here, members here seem to chime in saying the post-dipped coin looked better. Of course, there may be some selection bias with posts being of better results.
There are collectors that like white coins and those that like toned coins. This is for the former and I think it looks good for a white coin.
What does a coin like this go for? >>
I've seen lightly to moderately toned examples that I might call "better" sell for $1,800 to $2,200 at auction. They were mostly graded MS-64 and were "B+" or "A" coins for the grade.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
"So what is the problem? Why would the purists reject a coin like this?"
This is just my perspective: an actual true purist would want the coin raw with it's age showing undipped/cleaned/etc....
A purists slab collector would want it in a slab showing it's age (patina/environmental damage)
A person who enjoys coins for the coin would have no problem with this coin because it is absolutely beautiful
<< <i>Are those patches of hairlines around the eagle's head on the reverse and the date on the obverse? If so, it might be the biggest determinant of the MS63 grade. As for the original question; I have no issues with you buying a coin you like just as I am certain you have no issues with me being a coin that I like. >>
My photography usually makes things look bigger than they are. My grade on this piece is MS-64 minus whatever you want to say about the dipping which has left the coin very stable.
(And see how I was able to do that without throwing down those who also enjoy attractively toned coins?)
peacockcoins
My Collection of Old Holders
Never a slave to one plastic brand will I ever be.
<< <i>Looks like a great coin and I too would be happy to have this coin in my collection. Someone mentioned the color as being brownish from an incomplete wash after the dip; does the coin have a brown tone or is that just the pic/lighting? >>
If that is me, that is not what I said. I just meant it is the most common retone color naturally.
Eric
I am not sure the coin is being rejected in as much as some collectors would choose another example that falls within their scope- could be predicated on the look, their budget or just or something else
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I think to be a "purist" you have to be a hippocrat at some level.
Good day sir!
<< <i>There is no problem, just a question of preference. >>
"White" coins just don't hold any visual interest for me.
<< <i>How come you can clean collectible cars but not coins? >>
You can do either, but the reason the former isn't controversial is because cleaning a car doesn't alter the car.
For the same reason, acetone baths are not controversial for coins.
EDIT: spelling
<< <i>Worrying about stuff like this takes the "fun" out of collecting. >>
An opinion was asked for and people are just responding with their opinion.
This is unlike other threads where opinions aren't asked for and they appear anyway
<< <i>
<< <i>How come you can clean collectible cars but not coins? >>
You can do either, but the reason the former isn't controversial is because cleaning a car doesn't alter the car.
For the same reason, acetone baths are not controversial for coins.
EDIT: spelling >>
There are also the expectations of the buyer of the car/coin.
None of this is static.
It was quite acceptable to clean coins in the past. Also, there is context.
I have in my possession an Admiralty brass porthole unscrewed from the Mauretania. Should it be polished? Should it not? Folks are divided on that one. Most feel yes, especially British collectors who love gleaming brass. I say no.
Brass turbine blade - polish it or not? After waiting years to find one and then waiting to find one uncleaned (most have been hit with an abrasive), I'd say no.
I have a section of the hull of Lusitania. Tiny, but genuine and recovered (legally). I saw another, much larger section, as rusted as mine, wire brushed and painted with glossy painted black enamel. The attached porthole was polished to a mirror. It looked absurd. I would not buy it for $100, even though the porthole dog mentioned above would thread right on. The entire cache of history and the awful story of the sinking - just brushed away. I could not get past the torch cuts myself - it was hacked off the hull.
Should a Vermeer with the original varnish be stripped and re-varnished? If the varnish is known to be original and applied by Vermeer? But it is slightly yellowed - obscuring the work a bit? But it is one of the few examples of original varnish from the 17th century? That painting still has its varnish on it.
An old coin, lacquered correctly, that appears stable and problem free. Strip? Or no? Is it a coin that need rescuing, or an older coin preservation technique that should be kept intact for future reference and teaching?
All different examples with potentially many arguments for both positions. Vantage, expectations, accepted practices, personal preference. We wind up back at - buy what you like.
Eric
<< <i>That coin looks great, I would be proud to have that in my collection. I much prefer that to the environmental damage so popular today......Cheers, RickO >>
The problem is that EVERYONE KNOWS (ask ANYBODY) that this coin is not original, and thus it was environmentally damaged in the past to an unknown extent, and then conserved through dipping. That conservation didn't put the coin back to its original mint state condition, in spite of the title of this post.
I'm also curious to know how "stable" this really is. Sure it has shown minimal tarnishing in the OGH over the last (20?) years, but what would happen if someone broke it out to go into a raw set and it was more exposed to the air. Would it tone naturally again? Or how about in 100 years even if kept in the slab? They aren't hermetic, you know. With original skin, it would probably have continued down the path it was on, with the natural progression of colors determined by the depth of the surface layers of sulfides and oxides, and would have been a prize for the folks that value original coins.
This coin is 138 years old. For a quick buck, this coin has been irretrievably lost to those future collectors who will KNOW that it has been conserved, just as we all do today. I suppose there will always be folks who don't mind this. Perhaps 138 years from now there will still be folks dipping their coins to satisfy their desire to not have to look at the inevitable evidence of time. But in my view, it is a delusion at best.
My only wish is that the "sniffer" which garnered so much hope to eliminate doctored coins (is it doing this, would love to see a report from our sponsors) would be used to identify coins that have been conserved through dipping or other means. Since everyone knows a coin like this has been conserved, why not state it on the label? I remember a recent discussion about the difference between Mint State and Uncirculated a while back, and most folks think of them the same, but perhaps there should be a two-tier system with coins that have been conserved, doctored, etc could still be called "Uncirculated", but only those which have not been messed with can be called "Mint State".
http://macrocoins.com
<< <i>
<< <i>That coin looks great, I would be proud to have that in my collection. I much prefer that to the environmental damage so popular today......Cheers, RickO >>
The problem is that EVERYONE KNOWS (ask ANYBODY) that this coin is not original, and thus it was environmentally damaged in the past to an unknown extent, and then conserved through dipping. >>
There may be some unspoken assumption that the coin looked fine before dipping. However, as we've seen in many cases where before pictures are available, many posters here end up approving of the dip. That's why I'm going to reserve judgement on the dip without seeing a before picture.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>That coin looks great, I would be proud to have that in my collection. I much prefer that to the environmental damage so popular today......Cheers, RickO >>
The problem is that EVERYONE KNOWS (ask ANYBODY) that this coin is not original, and thus it was environmentally damaged in the past to an unknown extent, and then conserved through dipping. >>
There may be some unspoken assumption that the coin looked fine before dipping. However, as we've seen in many cases where before pictures are available, many posters here end up approving of the dip. That's why I'm going to reserve judgement on the dip without seeing a before picture. >>
Like I said, this was probably done for a quick buck. The coin might have been "ugly" and the dipping made it look prettier, and thus more valuable. But from here on it must be traded as "MS63" with a "wink and a nod".
http://macrocoins.com
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>That coin looks great, I would be proud to have that in my collection. I much prefer that to the environmental damage so popular today......Cheers, RickO >>
The problem is that EVERYONE KNOWS (ask ANYBODY) that this coin is not original, and thus it was environmentally damaged in the past to an unknown extent, and then conserved through dipping. >>
There may be some unspoken assumption that the coin looked fine before dipping. However, as we've seen in many cases where before pictures are available, many posters here end up approving of the dip. That's why I'm going to reserve judgement on the dip without seeing a before picture. >>
Like I said, this was probably done for a quick buck. The coin might have been "ugly" and the dipping made it look prettier, and thus more valuable. But from here on it must be traded as "MS63" with a "wink and a nod". >>
For better or worse, that's the sort of hobby we're in, for example one where known dealers that AT won't be identified. There's a lot of winking and nodding in this hobby that seems hard to change.
The other thing is that while this coin is easy to identify, identifying this would do nothing for others such as Morgans. A long while back, I suggested a rating for originality but it was considered too difficult to achieve, even by ardent collectors that value originality.
Many collectors and grading services like white and light gold/yellow retone. Some collectors don't. Similar to buying a refinished piece of Early American furniture.
K
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
Hoard the keys.
<< <i>The majority of AU/Unc classic coins have been dipped, and some more than once. "Original" or close is harder to find.
Many collectors and grading services like white and light gold/yellow retone. Some collectors don't. Similar to buying a refinished piece of Early American furniture.
K >>
Is it? I believe most advanced collectors want original finishes on their Federal furniture, no? The premiums they bring certainly suggest so.
Eric
No Problem.
There are legions of buyers who would be thrilled with the OP coin at a fair price for buyer and seller based on the recent market for similar items.
The fact that there are some collectors whose tastes would not include this coin, hats off to them,
there is a market for "original" and "recently made to look original" and their coins will do fine trading there.
The 'problem' arrives when the latter type of collector is openly and vocally critical of this coin when someone else has it
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>The majority of AU/Unc classic coins have been dipped, and some more than once. "Original" or close is harder to find.
Many collectors and grading services like white and light gold/yellow retone. Some collectors don't. Similar to buying a refinished piece of Early American furniture.
K >>
True, but a refinished piece of furniture is valued at far less than the original piece, even if the piece is in poor condition. There is not much winking and nodding happening in the furniture business. Furniture dealers are blunt and to the point about originality. In my view the coin business should be just as blunt. With furniture, a $100k original piece that was refinished may be worth $5-10k. Sure there are lots of unsophisticated folks that still want that piece, and are willing to pay relatively big bucks for it. But the sophisticated furniture collector wants originality, and the more original the better. A single replaced bolt or support bracket can take that $100k down to $25-50k.
Perhaps I shouldn't be so quick to wish for this sort of blunt honesty in the coin market, as it would end up raising the value of original coins well beyond the levels they are at today. I suppose similar to those who are OK with the refinished Shaker or Chippendale sideboard, and glad to be able to afford it, having an above-board coin market would bring conserved coins within reach of a broader range of collectors after their value plummets. But at present, truly original coins bring only a small premium to their conserved counterparts, and this would not be the case in an above-board marketplace. I say take advantage while you can.
http://macrocoins.com
<< <i>Perhaps I shouldn't be so quick to wish for this sort of blunt honesty in the coin market, as it would end up raising the value of original coins well beyond the levels they are at today. I suppose similar to those who are OK with the refinished Shaker or Chippendale sideboard, and glad to be able to afford it, having an above-board coin market would bring conserved coins within reach of a broader range of collectors after their value plummets. But at present, truly original coins bring only a small premium to their conserved counterparts, and this would not be the case in an above-board marketplace. >>
There are people that feel as you do like Laura and Mark who have tried to bring more transparency to the coin market. Laura wanted the PNG to take action against doctoring and Mark wanted the PNG to include dipping in their definition of doctoring. So far, the "establishment" has been pretty good at fending off change.
<< <i>
<< <i>The majority of AU/Unc classic coins have been dipped, and some more than once. "Original" or close is harder to find.
Many collectors and grading services like white and light gold/yellow retone. Some collectors don't. Similar to buying a refinished piece of Early American furniture.
K >>
Is it? I believe most advanced collectors want original finishes on their Federal furniture, no? The premiums they bring certainly suggest so.
Eric >>
Yes. I believe most advanced collectors and dealers in coins want original finishes as well. I stated my point poorly.
K
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
<< <i>
Yes. I believe most advanced collectors and dealers in coins want original finishes as well. I stated my point poorly.
K >>
This has not always been the case. The tastes of collectors and dealers changes - why do you think so many coins were dipped a few decades ago?
<< <i>
<< <i>
Yes. I believe most advanced collectors and dealers in coins want original finishes as well. I stated my point poorly.
K >>
This has not always been the case. The tastes of collectors and dealers changes - why do you think so many coins were dipped a few decades ago? >>
For the same reason they are today...to make a quick buck.
http://macrocoins.com
<< <i>The 'problem' arrives when the latter type of collector is openly and vocally critical of this coin when someone else has it >>
Baley - To be clear on my post earlier...... the OP asked a question. I did say it's not a problem then I mentioned why it's not for me. I have seen this coin posted before and don't believe I commented. The OP asked, I answered.
<< <i>The 'problem' arrives when the latter type of collector is openly and vocally critical of this coin when someone else has it >>
Try to sell it, and see how openly and vocally critical of the coin the dealer will be. I think that might be a problem.
http://macrocoins.com
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
If you like your coin, you can keep your coin. Period.
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>What's the problem with a coin that's 138 years old looking its age? >>
yeah, what he said
<< <i>When a silver coin is that old and looks like it was made yesterday, it looks just plain weird and unnatural to me. Also, it looks like it was cleaned which is definitely a negative look among sophisticated coin collectors. >>
Does a white Mint State Morgan dollar look "weird" to you?
I assure you this coin has not been cleaned, unless you contend that any coin that had been dipped is cleaned. Therefore you and I will have to agree to disagree.