The Dippers and Strippers are alive and well in the rare coin market. PHOTOS : before & after 18

SethChandler

First, my small editorial. I LOVE original coins, the patina, the coloration, crust. It took me awhile, but eventially I learned and now seek out supremely original looking coins. My first priority is originality, a close second is full mint blooming luster, and finally, marks. When you start collecting that order is reversed. It takes time, but once you understand, you appreciate the pureness of an original coin. Whether its Sunnywood's new 1901-S MS67 Quarter (congrats, pal) or a slightly worn Lincoln cent from the 1970's that you plucked from circulation because its got a gorgeous deep swirly copper color to it.

Every now and then, a great coin gets destroyed. Not destroyed to everyone's eyes, but to mine. We live in America, so you are free to do whatever you want, numismatists included. You can clean, scratch, carve your initials, stamp your initials (hey Mr. Dexter), you can wipe your you know what with an 1804 Dollar, Class III or course, Class I would be a sin. To each, his own. But when a coin that I truly like and care about gets messed with, I am sad. Especially rare low mintage business strikes that were workhorses for the American economy. Now, I'm not the coin collector watchdog guru, but I just wanted to share this and everyone can formulate, and hopefully share, their own opinion about it.

Here's the coin in question. A pretty darn original 1870-CC Seated Half Dollar NGC graded AU58+.











Now, here's the same coin in a PCGS MS61 holder:



One word come to mind : sad.

The coin in the NGC Holder sold in a Heritage auction in 2012 for 54k. Link to auction
The same coin in the PCGS Holder sold in a Heritage auction in Jan 2014 for 88k. Link to auction
The dip and strip guys are alive and well. They made 34k in under two years. Another great coin bites the dust and in my eyes becomes an unattractive washed out coin. Who is to blame? Is it appropriate that no one is to blame? Maybe the end user, a collector, likes the coin white. Their tastes are different than mine. Sometimes, I feel like screaming at the collector "don't buy this stuff, as the market facilitators will destroy great coins to create coins for you". Learn, appreciate originality. But its not my decision to make.

If a collector thats in the market for an awesome 70-CC half, seems like they would easily discover the before and after pictures of this coin. How do you think they would feel seeing the before picture (and price)? Would they still like the original version better or think its ugly? Would they say I'd rather pay 34k more and have the same coin, but "expertly restored" to a bright white uncirculated coin?

Here's another a completely different 1870-CC that PCGS has recently graded AU58. Yummy. I really like it. Its a very similar coin to the NGC AU58+. Will it survive the dipping factory? From the pics, does it have a shot at getting an uncirculated grade? A shot is all they need.



I hope everyone enjoyed the thread, and I'd really like to know your thoughts.....

Seth

Davideo

It would be interesting to know what PCGS would have graded it undipped. Maybe the dipping played a large role in the upgrade, maybe it didn't. Also tough to say if the price increase based solely on this grade bump or that someone liked it blast white.

Regardless, I can agree that the situation is unfortunate.

crypto79

That is a shame, some of the price bump is just pcgs plastic and the increases blue chip CC stuff had in the past couple years. The NGC version was very nice and well graded, shame.

Broadstruck

It's always amazing to see when dipping adds meat to a AU making it UNC!

That being said this half dollar IMHO in it's new albino mint state is about as desirable as stepping in gum.

bolivarshagnasty

I'll bet it was Ricko.

telephoto1

The first "AU58" looked unattractive IMO and I likely would have tried conservation myself. I think PCGS really helped this coin and though I'm not a fan of the heavy mark in the right hand field I think they hit the mark.
As to the other PCGS AU... I like the original tone but this coin is a definite undergrade at AU imo unless there's something I'm missing or hidden in the images. I see no wear based on the pics, and feel that this coin should at a minimum be sent in for grade review.

Overdate

I'm not a big fan of toning, but to me the second toned coin - the PCGS AU58 - is much more attractive than the former NGC AU58+. On the first coin, the obverse scratches around the head were very noticeable and detracting, as were the scratches on one arm, the dark spot on the other arm, the stain on the chest, and the dark splotchiness on the lower right side of the obverse. If I had owned the coin I would also have been tempted to "improve" it. The toning on the second coin is much more attractive and I would keep it as is rather than attempt to "conserve" it.

gypsylea

I might feel differently if I saw the coin in hand, but my reaction to the first coin is the same as overdates. I absolutely do not like it in its "improved" condition. The last coin shown in the OP looks like a keeper.

Timbuk3

Very sad !!!

Dave99B

Ick! Hideous!

Dave

DenverDave

What A Shame...!

MGLICKER

<< <i>I hope everyone enjoyed the thread, and I'd really like to know your thoughts..... >>



I think that it is time to take some money off the table.

....maybe all of it.

JJSingleton

Very sad indeed. The only folks to blame are the TPGs. Rewarding dipping and stripping is sadly part of their business plan. It drives submissions. The TPGs business plan has destroyed a ton of 19th century gold. The market is starting to get smarter though. Originality is now trumping the higher grade being offered to the dippers, at least with gold.

TwoSides2aCoin

Somebody fixed it for some reason.… 'Tweren't me. My reasoning is simple. Leave well enough alone.

BryceM

It's funny to me that the market should decide that an MS61 is always superior to an AU58. There's an enormous amount of room within the AU58 grade. Some of them have superior eye appeal, detail, and luster to many coins in BU holders. Coin like that should be worth more than a dipped-out, dull POS in a 61 holder.

....... shouldn't they?

EurekaGold

...

DIMEMAN

THAT IS CRIMINAL!!!!!! That WAS a beautiful coin.......now it looks like a POS!!!!!!

7over8

IMO, if the coin was graded appropriately by NGC as AU-58+, there was evidence of rub.

No way, no how, should that coin ever end up in a 61 holder.

Nic

Agree. I imagined it would stop 20 years ago though was wrong. The practice will continue as long as there are buyers.

K

Catbert

Seth - I'm with you on your observations. But if we are placing blame, perhaps it should go toward those collectors who seek old white coins and thus create the demand for the doctors to fulfill.

DIMEMAN

To answer your question ..... what should be done?........is anyone to blame? Yes, there is someone to blame! The person that owned the coin between the 2 auctions is to blame!

They should be outed and "Blacklisted" and everyone should refuse to do business with them forever.

This was CRIMINAL!!!!! We are supposed to be the caretakers of these precious rare coins......NOT the destroyers!!!!!!!

stealer

The coin appears truly mint state to me, and it seems far more criminal to call it a 58+ when it is UNC than to dip it.

Justacommeman

Someone really paid up for the registry points.

MJ

coinkat

This is nothing new and just another example of pointing to a coin that has been enhanced.

Nothing is ever going to change because those that have the ability to curb this activity have a proven track record of doing nothing to discourage it.

Originality is rarely rewarded. Sorry to be the bearer of sad news... that is the way it is and will remain.

And yes... this is exactly why I rarely bother even responding to these type of threads anymore.

crypto79

<< <i>It's funny to me that the market should decide that an MS61 is always superior to an AU58. There's an enormous amount of room within the AU58 grade. Some of them have superior eye appeal, detail, and luster to many coins in BU holders. Coin like that should be worth more than a dipped-out, dull POS in a 61 holder.

....... shouldn't they? >>



They are often but not as much as a original gem of a 61. There is a range in every grade, au58 is not unique

Lakesammman

I think the toning did a better job of hiding the man made marks under the eagles arm pits.

Browe

<< <i>The coin appears truly mint state to me, and it seems far more criminal to call it a 58+ when it is UNC than to dip it. >>



I completely agree with this. I also believe that if the owner was willing to dip the coin to try and go 58+ to 61 they would likely have done the same thing to try and get another point or two higher in MS if the coin had started out in MS61 holder in the first place. I am obviously speculating, but I think as longer as there are buyers out there that will always value a numerical difference on a holder versus the pieces themselves these situations are going to happen more and more. I think it's a shame that nearly 150 years of beautifully rich toning was removed in a matter of moments. I love the original look, and maybe in another 150 years some new toning will adhere to this historically significant piece.

jdimmick

I was the underbidder on the NGC 58+ in the sale 2 years ago. Now after words, I wish I had bid a little higher, but I was topped out with what I had to spend.

wouldn't touch the coin now.

Boy the pcgs 58 sure looks like a keeper?

TwoSides2aCoin

Crack that baby out and stick it in a Taco Bell Napkin.

Raybo

Guess who the Kool-Aid drinkers are.
Pretty sad when someone supports the "doctors" just because of the slab.

Rayman311

What a shame.

pennyannie

If a trip thru the carwash is worth 34k you are not going to stop them from doing it. If I had the balls to buy the coin, crack it and dip it for 34k I would do it. I do not see anything wrong with doing it.

You may not approve but then again you did not buy it the first time and a different buyer bought the upgraded model.

lava

That was some huge money that the owner had at risk. I don't find either coin attractive, before or after, so I can't get too worked up. You make it seem like someone was duped here. Maybe, but not likely. The owner made out, and there was obviously demand for the altered coins to get the prices as high as they went. So there are a bunch of people that frown on the process. There are apparently a bunch of people that don't. Do the two groups really need to bash one another? Buy the coins you like, avoid the ones you don't. Good luck getting everyone to like only the coins you like.

DIMEMAN

<< The coin appears truly mint state to me, and it seems far more criminal to call it a 58+ when it is UNC than to dip it. >>

I completely disagree. It wasn't unc before and it still isn't! It was a very nice coin .....now it is a POS!!!

I would have crossed it at any grade to PCGS and been happy with 55-58. Now it's garbage!

BAJJERFAN

<< <i>The first "AU58" looked unattractive IMO and I likely would have tried conservation myself. I think PCGS really helped this coin and though I'm not a fan of the heavy mark in the right hand field I think they hit the mark.
As to the other PCGS AU... I like the original tone but this coin is a definite undergrade at AU imo unless there's something I'm missing or hidden in the images. I see no wear based on the pics, and feel that this coin should at a minimum be sent in for grade review. >>



I don't think we know if PCGS dipped it or not, only that it was dipped by someone.

coin4sale

it probably wasn't the first time it was dipped/cleaned/conserved/improved/monkeyed with, and probably wont be the last.

anywho , IMHO, the original coin, was eh , looking, yes it was "original" in that it had a skin, but hardly likely it was "original skin" from 1870, and lets face it, it was no stunner.

I'd take the dipped version in a heart beat. It looks semi pl... then I'd CRACK IT, and put it in on old Wayte Raymond and forget about for a decade or two then ship it to our host for re grading! Who knows if the "new original" skin that forms by then is attractive enough, it may even grade ms 63!

ms70

That was a beautiful coin. Now it just sucks.

Broadstruck

Nope the surfaces were not original but it had re-toned, yet now after another dip it's chemically impaired and no natural toning progression will occur.

As there were 8 bidders on this it just proves that collectors tastes differ and some like coins that look like chrome trailer hitches.

Heck this coin just like some of the people of Walmart might have been lucky and found a soul mate?

shorecoll

My first thought was that it would have bagged (after the dip) if it was a common date, now I see people commenting on how nice it is...I must be missing something.

stealer

This thread is seriously giving me the giggles right now.

coinkat

One can attempt to argue that this coin may not be original. However, the look in key areas that are slightly protected tell a different story.

This was a coin worthy of an original surfaces designation. It was a special coin. Not because it was stunning but in view of the fact that it survived as long as it did without being enhanced. And this thread again raises a question that few want to tackle and most would rather just avoid. Unfortunately, its already too late as so many original coins have been hurt and this practice will continue unless and until TPG becomes involved.

keets

the picture of the coin in the PCGS holder looks "juiced" to exaggerate the brightness/color change. the picture just under that doesn't look bad at all, an improvement on the NGC pictured coin which is unattractive to my eye. to be honest, if I were spending this much money on a coin I would pass on the subject coin not due to the tone or lack thereof, I would pass because it looks to be impaired somehow in the field just above the arrows. I find that very distracting.

lostincoins

I would have liked to know peoples opinions on the coin without knowing it's history just to see what people had to say then show the evidence. I would bet some stories would change as having more knowledge does that most times. Most are saying it is a POS but it is an 88K POS and someone made a 34K profit in 2 years. I have seen many threads where it is recommended that a coin be dipped (conserved) especially common Morgans and Peace dollars, the same was done here. I do not like the look of either states that the coin was in and now is in but someone did and if I knew I could get 34K more for a coin I was going to sell by having it conserved I most likely would conserve it. Edit to add I would like to see a better pic of the coin as it is now as the pic posted is washed out across the entire pic. An in hand appearance pic may sway some people?

Wabbit2313

I wouldn't pay 54K for example 1, and I wouldn't pay 88K for example 2.

magikbilly

Notes to self:

Check definition of "conserve"
Remember the power of "eye appeal"

Eric

lostincoins

Eric it seems to be very different in the numismatic field hey?

123cents

<< <i>I wouldn't pay 54K for example 1, and I wouldn't pay 88K for example 2. >>



I wouldn't and couldn't!

magikbilly

<< <i>Eric it seems to be very different in the numismatic field hey? >>



Not so much actually. Cleaned woodwork and polished fittings from the old liners sells faster and for more $ than the same material with it's original dull and dusty finish, which I prefer. Fully refinished wood also sells well, but not to me. Rare/unique items appear, re-appear at auction completely refinished and no one says a thing.


Eric

lostincoins

Guess I am just old school in that I don't refinish antiques, coins or artifacts. I do understand the need for conservation though like a Van Gogh that needs the cigarette smoke removed from it, I guess that's the same as removing the patina from a coin and making it blast white or re varnishing a piece of the hand rail recovered from the Titanic. I think I am working on creating a paradox so should stop as our universe could go pooffffff

lordmarcovan

<< <i>the picture of the coin in the PCGS holder looks "juiced" to exaggerate the brightness/color change. the picture just under that doesn't look bad at all, an improvement on the NGC pictured coin which is unattractive to my eye. >>

This.

Sorry, but I'm kind of on the fence with this one. I thought the original toning had mildly negative eye appeal. On the right side of the obverse, anyway.

While I'm not thrilled that it got overstripped, I can sort of see why it happened.

Too bad there isn't some middle ground between the two extremes. That coin just needs a decade or two in an old Whitman folder now, to retone slowly and more attractively.

I used to own a '70-CC half when I was a teenager, in the early 1980s. Seems crazy now, but I got it for 50 bucks- can you believe that? (It was FR02-ish with a yellowish adhesive stain diagonally across the reverse from old cellophane tape.)

DollarAfterDollar

That thing as an MS 61 is as ugly as a Kardashian sister.