<< <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. >>
I view dipping as "conservation" rather than cleaning. From my understanding the dipping chemicals actually transform the oxides and sulfides back into pure metallics, which is why folks look upon them kindly. The theory is they don't add or subtract metals from the surface. Not being a chemist, I have no idea if this is true or not, but it sure sounds good. "Cleaning" has a very specific definition, though "doctoring" does not and it can be argued that dipping is a form of doctoring, depending on how you define doctoring. My personal definition of doctoring is making modifications to the surface of a coin in order to remove or conceal unattractive aspects, or to improve existing aspects, of the coin. This is a broader definition than most numismatists use, especially since it includes all forms of conservation, including dipping.
I have a question for those who feel it's OK to dip...do you dip your own coins? Do you buy a coin that might have ugly toning, dip it, have it graded, then put it into your PERSONAL collection? I expect most would say "no way". But for those who dip coins, how many can say that they do this in order to make the coins in their PERSONAL collection look better? On the other hand, for those who dip coins, how many can say they sell the coins after dipping them, and for a profit of more than the cost of the chemicals and time to do the dipping? How many of these folks do you suppose specifically buy coins that are a bit on the ugly side, with the express intent of dipping them in order to achieve a higher grade and higher sales price? And of those folks who do it, how many disclose they have done so to their prospective customers? Yep, I thought so.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
Does a white Mint State Morgan dollar look "weird" to you?
they do unless they have booming luster.
since it was pointed out to me that Morgans stored in bags sometimes look like that if they were in the middle of the bag and left undisturbed for those many decades I have accepted that they are OK, just not coins I tend to chase or have in my collection. FWIW, I'm not trying to continue the argument, just making the simple point.
<< <i>There's nothing wrong with an old, brilliant white, dipped coin. >>
Coming back to the original question..."So What's the Problem?" I actually see two problems:
1) The coin itself. Why was the coin dipped in the first place? Almost for sure it was because the toning was ugly and lowered the coin's market grade, thus the original coin had a problem. Now that it is dipped, no one knows for sure what it looked like, or what sort of problems it had that required dipping.
2) The fact that a dipped coin is considered market acceptable with a grade on-par with similar coins having original surfaces.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
<< <i>The fact that a dipped coin is considered market acceptable with a grade on-par with similar coins having original surfaces. >>
Are there similar coins to this with original surfaces? >>
I don't collect 20 Cent pieces. Is this a unique or excessively rare coin or something? If so then dipping it was an even bigger travesty than I had imagined.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
<< <i>The fact that a dipped coin is considered market acceptable with a grade on-par with similar coins having original surfaces. >>
Are there similar coins to this with original surfaces? >>
Yes.
I have an 1876 Twenty Cent Piece in PCGS MS-65 with deeply toned original surfaces. When you swirl the 1876 and the 1875-S under an appropriate light, you get the same Mint State, mint luster cartwheel swirl.
But sadly you have to the coins in person to prove it.
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 ... ?
When you swirl the 1876 and the 1875-S under an appropriate light, you get the same Mint State, mint luster cartwheel swirl.
I go to the supermarket to buy a few apples.Some of the apples,though the same variety,look better to me than other apples.I select,pay for and take home the apples that look,and I think will taste,best to me.
I've got a perfect example with two of my 1922 Peace dollars.One is a totally original,never been dipped MS 64.The other 1922 is totally brilliant,dipped at one time (but not by me).
Same denomination,same type,same grade (Yes,same grade.I'm confident that the raw brilliant one would get MS 64 from either of my two preferred grading services.)
1922 Peace dollars.I keep the original,made by me in NGC MS 64,for my collection.The raw one I will trade away in a heartbeat to someone who thinks "brighter is better" and life goes on....
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>The fact that a dipped coin is considered market acceptable with a grade on-par with similar coins having original surfaces. >>
Are there similar coins to this with original surfaces? >>
Yes.
I have an 1876 Twenty Cent Piece in PCGS MS-65 with deeply toned original surfaces. When you swirl the 1876 and the 1875-S under an appropriate light, you get the same Mint State, mint luster cartwheel swirl. >>
I was actually including "white" in "similar" but I get your meaning with respect to toned coins.
<< <i>But sadly you have to the coins in person to prove it. >>
That is sad, especially given how often coins are stored in SDBs and other safe places.
<< <i>From my understanding the dipping chemicals actually transform the oxides and sulfides back into pure metallics, which is why folks look upon them kindly. The theory is they ]i]don't add or subtract metals from the surface. >>
<< <i>On the other hand, for those who dip coins, how many can say they sell the coins after dipping them, and for a profit of more than the cost of the chemicals and time to do the dipping? How many of these folks do you suppose specifically buy coins that are a bit on the ugly side, with the express intent of dipping them in order to achieve a higher grade and higher sales price? And of those folks who do it, how many disclose they have done so to their prospective customers? Yep, I thought so. >>
I know one for sure that identifies a coin being sold as dipped if it has been .... I do.
I don't seek out ugly toned coins with that intention at all. But I have purchased a coin or two that once it arrived it was not quite as nice as I thought it might be but I bought it at a good price so I kept it. When I went to try and sell it in the slab I had much better pictures presented than when I bought it. No one would touch it (the toning was on the hideous side to be honest). I cracked it out, dipped it, waited about three months and offered it raw with a before and after picture and explained clearly I had dipped it. I sold that coin very quickly and for a profit I believe.
I just sold another a couple days ago that I clearly stated that I had quickly dipped the coin and rinsed thoroughly. I hid nothing and offered pictures as detailed as I can get them. It sold and I did much better that I would have if it had remained in the slab.
My point is that I am sure that there has to be many others that would rather take the honest approach than to practice deception. If not then that definitely speaks volumes to the sad state of the hobby and seller practices. I would hope your assumptions are somewhat off base.
I would rather not sell a coin and take a loss and consider it a learning experience rather than to be dishonest and not up front.
<< <i>So what is the problem? Why would the purists reject a coin like this? >>
Maybe they are colorblind (or not).
I like that champagne tone myself and I would love that coin but I am colorblind and not "sophisticated" so I will buy just about anything simply because I like it.
I bought this one the other day and, like I said I am colorblind, but to me it has the same champagne tone as that, to a certain degree. Does that mean it was dipped as well to create that type of toning?
If so, I don't care in the least since I bought it because I like it.
After comparing the two, maybe mine does not have that same toning color as yours after all but it is hard for me to tell.
<< <i>I doubt Bills coin was horrible prior to dipping. I don't think the luster would be as nice as he describes if it was aggressively dipped. >>
Back in the 1960s and '70s, toned coins were not popular with collectors. Most collectors wanted white coins when it came to silver pieces. Perhaps this was true in the 1940s when Eric Newman was buying a lot of his pieces. Many coins in the recently concluded Newman sale had been dipped and have now re-toned over the years. Many coins were dipped back then because that was what the collectors wanted.
From my own experience, I had a few toned coins, and other collectors found it odd that I would buy such a thing. it's only be since the mid 1980s to the present that toned coins have become so popular.
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>From my understanding the dipping chemicals actually transform the oxides and sulfides back into pure metallics, which is why folks look upon them kindly. The theory is they ]i]don't add or subtract metals from the surface. >>
Eric >>
Many of them are acidic, and strip metal off the surface. Years ago, Anthony Swiatek had electron micrographs made of a mint state coin before and after dipping. These images are reproduced in Scott Travers' book 'The Coin Collector's Survival Manual, 7th Ed.' So no, there are lots of folks who don't kindly look upon dipping, precisely because repeated dipping will result in a serious diminution of luster (and hence a reduction in grade). I have seen mint-state coins with ZERO luster, due to over-dipping.
Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
To me, the key is actual preservation of the coin's surface. As a former engineer and a person who has been through enough chemistry to kill an elephant, I see it this way. When struck, the coin was imparted a particular suface which included flow lines and a certain texture. Sometimes this is described as mint bloom, frost, or whatever. If this surface is damaged or lost, the appeal of the coin is diminished. Tarnish, corrosion, toning is a chemical reaction of the surface. If mild, it can be quite attractive without damaging the skin too severely or too deeply. The coin can still be highly lustrous. When severe, the coin is beyond help. It is environmentally damaged and there is no way to bring it back.
Dipping serves to remove silver compounds, revealing the nature of the remaining surface. Toning can sometimes hide a brilliant surface or one that already has issues. When a coin like this one is dipped, what is left is still a a pretty darn nice coin. Most of the original surface is still there and the state of conservation can be regarded as quite good. When a badly corroded (deeply toned) coin is dipped, it's obvious that the damage was too extensive, etc. etc.
I'm partial to an attractively toned coin, but evidence of good surfaces has to still be there. If there is no luster on an MS or high AU coin, I don't like it.
I rank things like this:
1. Age-appropriate (original?) toning with excellent luster. 2. White (dipped?) coin with excellent luster. 3. Less-attractive toning with excellent luster. (most of these should be left alone as taste varies and someone might like it) 4. Ugly toning with excellent luster and detail. (these are good dipping candidates) 5. Beautiful toning with impaired luster. 6. White, with impaired luster. 7. Terminally toned coin. 8. White, corroded, dipped, nothing-left flat looking coin (what you get when you dip #7).
This coin, to me is either #2, or was preserved for over >100 years without ever developing toning, which is rare, but not impossible. It's a great coin!
<< <i>From my understanding the dipping chemicals actually transform the oxides and sulfides back into pure metallics, which is why folks look upon them kindly. The theory is they ]i]don't add or subtract metals from the surface. >>
Eric >>
Many of them are acidic, and strip metal off the surface. Years ago, Anthony Swiatek had electron micrographs made of a mint state coin before and after dipping. These images are reproduced in Scott Travers' book 'The Coin Collector's Survival Manual, 7th Ed.' So no, there are lots of folks who don't kindly look upon dipping, precisely because repeated dipping will result in a serious diminution of luster (and hence a reduction in grade). I have seen mint-state coins with ZERO luster, due to over-dipping. >>
I used thew wrong emoticon. It seemed there was contradiction in the quote.
<< <i>From my understanding the dipping chemicals actually transform the oxides and sulfides back into pure metallics, which is why folks look upon them kindly. The theory is they ]i]don't add or subtract metals from the surface.
I used thew wrong emoticon. It seemed there was contradiction in the quote.
Eric >>
Nope, no contradiction.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
<< <i>From my understanding the dipping chemicals actually transform the oxides and sulfides back into pure metallics, which is why folks look upon them kindly. The theory is they ]i]don't add or subtract metals from the surface.
I used thew wrong emoticon. It seemed there was contradiction in the quote.
Eric >>
Nope, no contradiction. >>
So the statement is factual? Quote was saying no metal is added or subtracted but altered back into silver. You are saying metal is removed? It is in the am here, be gentle I should be sleeping.
Dipping absolutely removes metal. In the case of 90% silver, it hopefully only removes silver compounds (silver atoms that have formed complexes with other chemicals). The exact chemistry involved can be complicated as we are usually dealing with silver/copper alloys and there can be a variety of different silver compounds. When a coin is dipped, all of these are removed, leaving behind raw, exposed surfaces. These are even more susecptible to further damage as the protective oxide layer is now gone.
<< <i>Dipping absolutely removes metal. In the case of 90% silver, it hopefully only removes silver compounds (silver atoms that have formed complexes with other chemicals). The exact chemistry involved can be complicated as we are usually dealing with silver/copper alloys and there can be a variety of different silver compounds. When a coin is dipped, all of these are removed, leaving behind raw, exposed surfaces. These are even more susecptible to further damage as the protective oxide layer is now gone. >>
Other post was saying dips were looked upon kindly because they did not remove any metal at all but transformed it back into silver. That is what confused me. You are saying it removes metal and or oxides. Just trying to understand a subject I do not grasp as well as I'd like.
<< <i>From my understanding the dipping chemicals actually transform the oxides and sulfides back into pure metallics, which is why folks look upon them kindly. The theory is they ]i]don't add or subtract metals from the surface.
I used thew wrong emoticon. It seemed there was contradiction in the quote.
Eric >>
Nope, no contradiction. >>
So the statement is factual? Quote was saying no metal is added or subtracted but altered back into silver. You are saying metal is removed? It is in the am here, be gentle I should be sleeping.
Eric >>
The statement that dipping does not change the surface of the coin, but rather simply takes off other elements or impurities is incorrect. As has been mentioned, oxides and sulfides formed with silver and other metals will be removed, too. Therefore, some of the original metallic surface of the coin will be taken away from a dip. Even though I have a degree in chemistry and have been a working chemist for many years, I held off on posting in the thread again because I did not want to make the thread veer further away from its stated purpose. Regardless, many folks are under the assumption that acidic dipping removes no metal, but they are incorrect. Please note I am making no value judgment regarding dipping for those that like to do so or that like the look and am only writing about science.
<< <i>From my understanding the dipping chemicals actually transform the oxides and sulfides back into pure metallics, which is why folks look upon them kindly. The theory is they ]i]don't add or subtract metals from the surface.
I used thew wrong emoticon. It seemed there was contradiction in the quote.
Eric >>
Nope, no contradiction. >>
So the statement is factual? Quote was saying no metal is added or subtracted but altered back into silver. You are saying metal is removed? It is in the am here, be gentle I should be sleeping.
Eric >>
The statement that dipping does not change the surface of the coin, but rather simply takes off other elements or impurities is incorrect. As has been mentioned, oxides and sulfides formed with silver and other metals will be removed, too. Therefore, some of the original metallic surface of the coin will be taken away from a dip. Even though I have a degree in chemistry and have been a working chemist for many years, I held off on posting in the thread again because I did not want to make the thread veer further away from its stated purpose. Regardless, many folks are under the assumption that acidic dipping removes no metal, but they are incorrect. Please note I am making no value judgment regarding dipping for those that like to do so or that like the look and am only writing about science. >>
Thank you TomB, Bryce and Sonorandesertrat for confirming what I think I thought in the first place.
<< <i> The statement that dipping does not change the surface of the coin, but rather simply takes off other elements or impurities is incorrect. As has been mentioned, oxides and sulfides formed with silver and other metals will be removed, too. Therefore, some of the original metallic surface of the coin will be taken away from a dip. Even though I have a degree in chemistry and have been a working chemist for many years, I held off on posting in the thread again because I did not want to make the thread veer further away from its stated purpose. Regardless, many folks are under the assumption that acidic dipping removes no metal, but they are incorrect. Please note I am making no value judgment regarding dipping for those that like to do so or that like the look and am only writing about science. >>
That is contrary to my understanding from the marketing literature, but I don't know if I believe the marketers. Acidic dipping would indeed remove metal, but I have always heard that "dips" are pH neutral and thus don't remove metal simply because of being acidic. Again, I have no real knowledge here, only what I've read. The bigger problem I see is that the dips always leave residues behind. I did an experiment years ago (published on this forum) where I dipped a half dollar and then rinsed it heavily in distilled water per instructions. I then splashed some more distilled water on the coin and let it drip on a mirror and dry. It left significant residues. Drops from the same distilled water source elsewhere on the mirror evaporated cleanly. So my conclusion was that even with careful rinsing, dipping leaves residues that will probably react with the coin over time, or possibly if ever the coin sees a high humidity environment, etc. Saying that a dipped coin is "stable" is very likely a temporary thing...
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
Bill's coin may have been dipped once but I'd have to see it in hand to better opine that. It's a VERY NICE coin and I like it----dipped or NOT and I would proudly display it in my collection, in any event.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
<< <i>Pehaps one different reason for it to be passed over is because it is easier to find matching "look" coins for a set with patina than without.
While, as a single coin, it may not be objectionable... It may be passed over because it would stand out in a collection of that period. >>
This coin does not match "the look" of the rest of the coins in my 20 cent piece set. The rest are toned to extents that range from dipped years ago to totally original. The point is the luster on this dipped piece is equal to the luster on the original pieces, and that is an unusual sitation. Many dipped pieces have been dulled by the process.
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 say dip it! Get rid of that ugly tarnish and give us the blast white coins we demand around here! How dare you display such a piece that doesn't match with the rest of the coins we see displayed in cases at coin shows, at auctions, and in the "back room" that smells of dip chemicals.
Oops, forgot to add...that coin is simply gorgeous.
PM me for coin photography equipment, or visit my website:
Comments
<< <i>
<< <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. >>
I view dipping as "conservation" rather than cleaning. From my understanding the dipping chemicals actually transform the oxides and sulfides back into pure metallics, which is why folks look upon them kindly. The theory is they don't add or subtract metals from the surface. Not being a chemist, I have no idea if this is true or not, but it sure sounds good. "Cleaning" has a very specific definition, though "doctoring" does not and it can be argued that dipping is a form of doctoring, depending on how you define doctoring. My personal definition of doctoring is making modifications to the surface of a coin in order to remove or conceal unattractive aspects, or to improve existing aspects, of the coin. This is a broader definition than most numismatists use, especially since it includes all forms of conservation, including dipping.
I have a question for those who feel it's OK to dip...do you dip your own coins? Do you buy a coin that might have ugly toning, dip it, have it graded, then put it into your PERSONAL collection? I expect most would say "no way". But for those who dip coins, how many can say that they do this in order to make the coins in their PERSONAL collection look better? On the other hand, for those who dip coins, how many can say they sell the coins after dipping them, and for a profit of more than the cost of the chemicals and time to do the dipping? How many of these folks do you suppose specifically buy coins that are a bit on the ugly side, with the express intent of dipping them in order to achieve a higher grade and higher sales price? And of those folks who do it, how many disclose they have done so to their prospective customers? Yep, I thought so.
http://macrocoins.com
they do unless they have booming luster.
since it was pointed out to me that Morgans stored in bags sometimes look like that if they were in the middle of the bag and left undisturbed for those many decades I have accepted that they are OK, just not coins I tend to chase or have in my collection. FWIW, I'm not trying to continue the argument, just making the simple point.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
<< <i>There's nothing wrong with an old, brilliant white, dipped coin. >>
Coming back to the original question..."So What's the Problem?" I actually see two problems:
1) The coin itself. Why was the coin dipped in the first place? Almost for sure it was because the toning was ugly and lowered the coin's market grade, thus the original coin had a problem. Now that it is dipped, no one knows for sure what it looked like, or what sort of problems it had that required dipping.
2) The fact that a dipped coin is considered market acceptable with a grade on-par with similar coins having original surfaces.
http://macrocoins.com
<< <i>The fact that a dipped coin is considered market acceptable with a grade on-par with similar coins having original surfaces. >>
Are there similar coins to this with original surfaces?
<< <i>
<< <i>The fact that a dipped coin is considered market acceptable with a grade on-par with similar coins having original surfaces. >>
Are there similar coins to this with original surfaces? >>
I don't collect 20 Cent pieces. Is this a unique or excessively rare coin or something? If so then dipping it was an even bigger travesty than I had imagined.
http://macrocoins.com
<< <i>
<< <i>The fact that a dipped coin is considered market acceptable with a grade on-par with similar coins having original surfaces. >>
Are there similar coins to this with original surfaces? >>
Yes.
I have an 1876 Twenty Cent Piece in PCGS MS-65 with deeply toned original surfaces. When you swirl the 1876 and the 1875-S under an appropriate light, you get the same Mint State, mint luster cartwheel swirl.
But sadly you have to the coins in person to prove it.
I go to the supermarket to buy a few apples.Some of the apples,though the same variety,look better to me than other apples.I select,pay for and take home the apples that look,and I think will taste,best to me.
I've got a perfect example with two of my 1922 Peace dollars.One is a totally original,never been dipped MS 64.The other 1922 is totally brilliant,dipped at one time (but not by me).
Same denomination,same type,same grade (Yes,same grade.I'm confident that the raw brilliant one would get MS 64 from either of my two preferred grading services.)
1922 Peace dollars.I keep the original,made by me in NGC MS 64,for my collection.The raw one I will trade away in a heartbeat to someone who thinks "brighter is better" and life goes on....
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The fact that a dipped coin is considered market acceptable with a grade on-par with similar coins having original surfaces. >>
Are there similar coins to this with original surfaces? >>
Yes.
I have an 1876 Twenty Cent Piece in PCGS MS-65 with deeply toned original surfaces. When you swirl the 1876 and the 1875-S under an appropriate light, you get the same Mint State, mint luster cartwheel swirl. >>
I was actually including "white" in "similar" but I get your meaning with respect to toned coins.
<< <i>But sadly you have to the coins in person to prove it.
That is sad, especially given how often coins are stored in SDBs and other safe places.
<< <i>From my understanding the dipping chemicals actually transform the oxides and sulfides back into pure metallics, which is why folks look upon them kindly. The theory is they ]i]don't add or subtract metals from the surface. >>
Eric
<< <i>On the other hand, for those who dip coins, how many can say they sell the coins after dipping them, and for a profit of more than the cost of the chemicals and time to do the dipping? How many of these folks do you suppose specifically buy coins that are a bit on the ugly side, with the express intent of dipping them in order to achieve a higher grade and higher sales price? And of those folks who do it, how many disclose they have done so to their prospective customers? Yep, I thought so. >>
I know one for sure that identifies a coin being sold as dipped if it has been .... I do.
I don't seek out ugly toned coins with that intention at all. But I have purchased a coin or two that once it arrived it was not quite as nice as I thought it might be but I bought it at a good price so I kept it. When I went to try and sell it in the slab I had much better pictures presented than when I bought it. No one would touch it (the toning was on the hideous side to be honest). I cracked it out, dipped it, waited about three months and offered it raw with a before and after picture and explained clearly I had dipped it. I sold that coin very quickly and for a profit I believe.
I just sold another a couple days ago that I clearly stated that I had quickly dipped the coin and rinsed thoroughly. I hid nothing and offered pictures as detailed as I can get them. It sold and I did much better that I would have if it had remained in the slab.
My point is that I am sure that there has to be many others that would rather take the honest approach than to practice deception. If not then that definitely speaks volumes to the sad state of the hobby and seller practices. I would hope your assumptions are somewhat off base.
I would rather not sell a coin and take a loss and consider it a learning experience rather than to be dishonest and not up front.
<< <i>So what is the problem? Why would the purists reject a coin like this? >>
Maybe they are colorblind (or not).
I like that champagne tone myself and I would love that coin but I am colorblind and not "sophisticated" so I will buy just about anything simply because I like it.
I bought this one the other day and, like I said I am colorblind, but to me it has the same champagne tone as that, to a certain degree. Does that mean it was dipped as well to create that type of toning?
If so, I don't care in the least since I bought it because I like it.
After comparing the two, maybe mine does not have that same toning color as yours after all but it is hard for me to tell.
I don't think the luster would be as nice as he describes if it was aggressively dipped.
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
"If I say something in the woods and my wife isn't there to hear it.....am I still wrong?"
My Washington Quarter Registry set...in progress
<< <i>I doubt Bills coin was horrible prior to dipping.
I don't think the luster would be as nice as he describes if it was aggressively dipped. >>
Back in the 1960s and '70s, toned coins were not popular with collectors. Most collectors wanted white coins when it came to silver pieces. Perhaps this was true in the 1940s when Eric Newman was buying a lot of his pieces. Many coins in the recently concluded Newman sale had been dipped and have now re-toned over the years. Many coins were dipped back then because that was what the collectors wanted.
From my own experience, I had a few toned coins, and other collectors found it odd that I would buy such a thing. it's only be since the mid 1980s to the present that toned coins have become so popular.
<< <i>
<< <i>From my understanding the dipping chemicals actually transform the oxides and sulfides back into pure metallics, which is why folks look upon them kindly. The theory is they ]i]don't add or subtract metals from the surface. >>
Eric >>
Many of them are acidic, and strip metal off the surface. Years ago, Anthony Swiatek had electron micrographs made of a mint state coin before and after dipping. These images are reproduced in Scott Travers' book 'The Coin Collector's Survival Manual, 7th Ed.' So no, there are lots of folks who don't kindly look upon dipping, precisely because repeated dipping will result in a serious diminution of luster (and hence a reduction in grade). I have seen mint-state coins with ZERO luster, due to over-dipping.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
Much of it comes down to preference.
To me, the key is actual preservation of the coin's surface. As a former engineer and a person who has been through enough chemistry to kill an elephant, I see it this way. When struck, the coin was imparted a particular suface which included flow lines and a certain texture. Sometimes this is described as mint bloom, frost, or whatever. If this surface is damaged or lost, the appeal of the coin is diminished. Tarnish, corrosion, toning is a chemical reaction of the surface. If mild, it can be quite attractive without damaging the skin too severely or too deeply. The coin can still be highly lustrous. When severe, the coin is beyond help. It is environmentally damaged and there is no way to bring it back.
Dipping serves to remove silver compounds, revealing the nature of the remaining surface. Toning can sometimes hide a brilliant surface or one that already has issues. When a coin like this one is dipped, what is left is still a a pretty darn nice coin. Most of the original surface is still there and the state of conservation can be regarded as quite good. When a badly corroded (deeply toned) coin is dipped, it's obvious that the damage was too extensive, etc. etc.
I'm partial to an attractively toned coin, but evidence of good surfaces has to still be there. If there is no luster on an MS or high AU coin, I don't like it.
I rank things like this:
1. Age-appropriate (original?) toning with excellent luster.
2. White (dipped?) coin with excellent luster.
3. Less-attractive toning with excellent luster. (most of these should be left alone as taste varies and someone might like it)
4. Ugly toning with excellent luster and detail. (these are good dipping candidates)
5. Beautiful toning with impaired luster.
6. White, with impaired luster.
7. Terminally toned coin.
8. White, corroded, dipped, nothing-left flat looking coin (what you get when you dip #7).
This coin, to me is either #2, or was preserved for over >100 years without ever developing toning, which is rare, but not impossible. It's a great coin!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>From my understanding the dipping chemicals actually transform the oxides and sulfides back into pure metallics, which is why folks look upon them kindly. The theory is they ]i]don't add or subtract metals from the surface. >>
Eric >>
Many of them are acidic, and strip metal off the surface. Years ago, Anthony Swiatek had electron micrographs made of a mint state coin before and after dipping. These images are reproduced in Scott Travers' book 'The Coin Collector's Survival Manual, 7th Ed.' So no, there are lots of folks who don't kindly look upon dipping, precisely because repeated dipping will result in a serious diminution of luster (and hence a reduction in grade). I have seen mint-state coins with ZERO luster, due to over-dipping. >>
I used thew wrong emoticon. It seemed there was contradiction in the quote.
Eric
<< <i>From my understanding the dipping chemicals actually transform the oxides and sulfides back into pure metallics, which is why folks look upon them kindly. The theory is they ]i]don't add or subtract metals from the surface.
I used thew wrong emoticon. It seemed there was contradiction in the quote.
Eric >>
Nope, no contradiction.
http://macrocoins.com
<< <i>
<< <i>From my understanding the dipping chemicals actually transform the oxides and sulfides back into pure metallics, which is why folks look upon them kindly. The theory is they ]i]don't add or subtract metals from the surface.
I used thew wrong emoticon. It seemed there was contradiction in the quote.
Eric >>
Nope, no contradiction. >>
So the statement is factual? Quote was saying no metal is added or subtracted but altered back into silver. You are saying metal is removed? It is in the am here, be gentle
Eric
<< <i>Dipping absolutely removes metal. In the case of 90% silver, it hopefully only removes silver compounds (silver atoms that have formed complexes with other chemicals). The exact chemistry involved can be complicated as we are usually dealing with silver/copper alloys and there can be a variety of different silver compounds. When a coin is dipped, all of these are removed, leaving behind raw, exposed surfaces. These are even more susecptible to further damage as the protective oxide layer is now gone. >>
Other post was saying dips were looked upon kindly because they did not remove any metal at all but transformed it back into silver. That is what confused me. You are saying it removes metal and or oxides. Just trying to understand a subject I do not grasp as well as I'd like.
Thanks.
Eric
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>From my understanding the dipping chemicals actually transform the oxides and sulfides back into pure metallics, which is why folks look upon them kindly. The theory is they ]i]don't add or subtract metals from the surface.
I used thew wrong emoticon. It seemed there was contradiction in the quote.
Eric >>
Nope, no contradiction. >>
So the statement is factual? Quote was saying no metal is added or subtracted but altered back into silver. You are saying metal is removed? It is in the am here, be gentle
Eric >>
The statement that dipping does not change the surface of the coin, but rather simply takes off other elements or impurities is incorrect. As has been mentioned, oxides and sulfides formed with silver and other metals will be removed, too. Therefore, some of the original metallic surface of the coin will be taken away from a dip. Even though I have a degree in chemistry and have been a working chemist for many years, I held off on posting in the thread again because I did not want to make the thread veer further away from its stated purpose. Regardless, many folks are under the assumption that acidic dipping removes no metal, but they are incorrect. Please note I am making no value judgment regarding dipping for those that like to do so or that like the look and am only writing about science.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>From my understanding the dipping chemicals actually transform the oxides and sulfides back into pure metallics, which is why folks look upon them kindly. The theory is they ]i]don't add or subtract metals from the surface.
I used thew wrong emoticon. It seemed there was contradiction in the quote.
Eric >>
Nope, no contradiction. >>
So the statement is factual? Quote was saying no metal is added or subtracted but altered back into silver. You are saying metal is removed? It is in the am here, be gentle
Eric >>
The statement that dipping does not change the surface of the coin, but rather simply takes off other elements or impurities is incorrect. As has been mentioned, oxides and sulfides formed with silver and other metals will be removed, too. Therefore, some of the original metallic surface of the coin will be taken away from a dip. Even though I have a degree in chemistry and have been a working chemist for many years, I held off on posting in the thread again because I did not want to make the thread veer further away from its stated purpose. Regardless, many folks are under the assumption that acidic dipping removes no metal, but they are incorrect. Please note I am making no value judgment regarding dipping for those that like to do so or that like the look and am only writing about science. >>
Thank you TomB, Bryce and Sonorandesertrat for confirming what I think I thought in the first place.
Eric
<< <i>
The statement that dipping does not change the surface of the coin, but rather simply takes off other elements or impurities is incorrect. As has been mentioned, oxides and sulfides formed with silver and other metals will be removed, too. Therefore, some of the original metallic surface of the coin will be taken away from a dip. Even though I have a degree in chemistry and have been a working chemist for many years, I held off on posting in the thread again because I did not want to make the thread veer further away from its stated purpose. Regardless, many folks are under the assumption that acidic dipping removes no metal, but they are incorrect. Please note I am making no value judgment regarding dipping for those that like to do so or that like the look and am only writing about science. >>
That is contrary to my understanding from the marketing literature, but I don't know if I believe the marketers. Acidic dipping would indeed remove metal, but I have always heard that "dips" are pH neutral and thus don't remove metal simply because of being acidic. Again, I have no real knowledge here, only what I've read. The bigger problem I see is that the dips always leave residues behind. I did an experiment years ago (published on this forum) where I dipped a half dollar and then rinsed it heavily in distilled water per instructions. I then splashed some more distilled water on the coin and let it drip on a mirror and dry. It left significant residues. Drops from the same distilled water source elsewhere on the mirror evaporated cleanly. So my conclusion was that even with careful rinsing, dipping leaves residues that will probably react with the coin over time, or possibly if ever the coin sees a high humidity environment, etc. Saying that a dipped coin is "stable" is very likely a temporary thing...
http://macrocoins.com
While, as a single coin, it may not be objectionable... It may be passed over because it would stand out in a collection of that period.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
GrandAm
<< <i>Pehaps one different reason for it to be passed over is because it is easier to find matching "look" coins for a set with patina than without.
While, as a single coin, it may not be objectionable... It may be passed over because it would stand out in a collection of that period. >>
This coin does not match "the look" of the rest of the coins in my 20 cent piece set. The rest are toned to extents that range from dipped years ago to totally original. The point is the luster on this dipped piece is equal to the luster on the original pieces, and that is an unusual sitation. Many dipped pieces have been dulled by the process.
<< <i>As a former engineer and a person who has been through enough chemistry to kill an elephant, I see it this way. >>
There is no such thing as a former engineer. Once an engineer, always an engineer! Your technical explanation reinforces this point.
Not dipped.
K
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
<< <i>
Not dipped.
K >>
I say dip it! Get rid of that ugly tarnish and give us the blast white coins we demand around here! How dare you display such a piece that doesn't match with the rest of the coins we see displayed in cases at coin shows, at auctions, and in the "back room" that smells of dip chemicals.
Oops, forgot to add...that coin is simply gorgeous.
http://macrocoins.com