Couple of questions regarding coin "doctoring"

My understanding is that puttying (which is really substances other than putty,) is particularly misleading as the appearance of the fix will deteriorate over time.
That gets to my question of dipping. Is the damage if any ( I believe that microscopic erosion of the metal occurs) is that apparent immediately after the procedure occurs or is it likely to alter the look of the coin months or years later?
0
Comments
....and please be gentle, I am neither a newbie or a chemist.
As long as properly rinsed, the coin should be stable. The possible exception is copper, and I have never dipped a copper coin for fear of spotting or future toning by stripping off the original skin..
Otherwise the effects are visible immediately.
Both. Immediate (varying degree of luster lost depending on how long (single and aggregate if more than once) & how strong. Later, there will nearly always be a golden color that forms down the road, and contrary to what some will say, no amount of rinsing will prevent this.
But the concensus is that dipping done properly is not doctoring.
watch out for dipped coins. European dealers do not have to declare that they dipped a coin, unless specifically asked.
then they still have the excuse: I never dipped. I got it this way.
many silver coins coming out of Europe are cleaned and dipped.
Dipping apparently is a fine art, too long and it is visible as a "white coin". not enough and it becomes spotty and is immediately visible even to inexperienced people. Dipping it to too long will probably ruin it and it still will not take off black spots. A few years ago I tried it with cheap coin.s... NEVER again...
"""But the concensus is that dipping done properly is not doctoring."""
So it is not about the intent to doctor, rather the result?
Intent is a whole different subject.
The term dipping really depends on what substance you are dipping the coin in. Dipping in acetone will remove dirt and other sorts of grime from the coins without removing any toning. I just soaked a dark purple toned 1881 IHC PR for two weeks in acetone in hopes of lightening the purple a little bit, but the acetone didn't touch it. However using MS70 will definitely modify the toning and the after effect may not be predictable. But I think that neither would be considered "doctoring". Adding color with chemical means is definitely doctoring.
OINK
Dipping in an acidic dip can definitely change the surface. Removal of tarnish will remove some of the metal, since tarnish is a chemical joining of the base metal and a contaminant (i.e. sulfur/silver). Acetone only removes organic materials and will not affect metal or accrued tarnish. Cheers, RickO
"""But I think that neither would be considered "doctoring". Adding color with chemical means is definitely doctoring."""
Unless it is a old Wayte Raymond folder.
This whole intent thing is confusing.
Many substances applied to a coin to enhance its appearance will deteriorate over time. Others do not. Key to detecting chemical or mechanical alterations is to know what a genuine surface should look like.
There are certain techniques used to dip a coin properly (no one can tell for sure that it was dipped). The Internet forums are probably full of information. Most damage occurs:
You can start one whale of a debate with your question, but if folks would simply listen to one another without attempting to "win" the argument then all should be fine.
Dipping removes a microscopic layer of metal so, in my opinion, dipping is doctoring. The affect is immediately noticed and can be stable over long periods of time; even indefinitely. However, the broader market generally accepts dipping on coins that are good candidates for the process (usually silver coins in at least AU grade and hopefully without burned-in toning or environmental damage).
Again, extremely few folks share my opinion on whether or not dipping is doctoring, but one can make a compelling case on either side of the fence.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson