Dippin' Fools Challenge

jacktheknife · September 22, 2003 9:58AM

I challenge any proponent of dipping to go to the Stack's web page and look at some of the beautiful coins in their upcoming auction. Original beauties, in particular the orignal Proof set from John Work Garrett in part II of the sale. If any of those coins show up dipped after the sale, the culprit should be jailed.

Russ · September 22, 2003 10:35AM

<< If any of those coins show up dipped after the sale, the culprit should be jailed. >>

Damn straight! Anybody who does with their private property as they see fit should go to jail!

Russ, NCNE

lordmarcovan · September 22, 2003 11:20AM

Umm, I think he was using a figure of speech, Mr. Sarcastic.

I agree- while I have no problem dipping coins with ugly toning, the "If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It" rule should definitely come first.

barberlover · September 22, 2003 11:40AM

Jack,

Since you talked about coming to the upcoming M.O.O.N show in the fall, I hope that means your from my neck of the woods in Minnesota.

I agree with what Russ said about people having the right to do with their own private property what they wish, but sometimes it would be nice if the people thought of themselves as custodiens for future generations of y.n's before they do what they have a legal right to do.

I just saw one of the most completly lusterous trade dollars I've ever seen, no kidding, this piece has 81 S morgan luster with very clean surfaces [and a dipp job!!!] I almost wanted to kick in my t.v. screen when I saw that!!! Of course the coin sold the same day it was listed but I would never do such a thing to a coin like that, not just for me, but for people who would own it later.

I know this is just idealistic dreaming, but I wish people thought of more then just themselves before they did things like this even if they have a right to.

Les

Russ · September 22, 2003 11:52AM

<< I just saw one of the most completly lusterous trade dollars I've ever seen, no kidding, this piece has 81 S morgan luster with very clean surfaces [and a dipp job!!!] I almost wanted to kick in my t.v. screen when I saw that!!! Of course the coin sold the same day it was listed >>

There are coin listings on your TV?

Russ, NCNE

jacktheknife · September 22, 2003 12:01PM

barberlover,
Yes, I am from Minnesota. I was born and raised in St. Cloud and now live in Orono, a western suburb of Minneapolis. I am one of the trauma surgeons at HCMC.

I like your point about being a custodian for future generations. Those that have the ability to own high caliber pieces of history should realize the responsibilty inherent in that ownership.

Russ · September 22, 2003 12:12PM

Do you vociferous anti-conservationists think future generations of those who collect SMS Kennedy halves would rather have this coin?

Or this one?

They are the same coin.

Russ, NCNE

CoinHunter2003 · September 22, 2003 12:20PM

It's a shame you can't trust the market what with dipping n' toning. It makes
it hard for a buyer like myself to purchase actual beautiful coins. You just don't
know.

That's a nice coin Russ but......its a lie. All the history gathered on that
coin is gone. Wiped cleaner n' a hard drive crashing.

Russ · September 22, 2003 12:23PM

<< All the history gathered on that coin is gone. >>

That wasn't "history". It was garbage accumulated because whomever owned the coin had no idea of how to properly store it. It now looks as it did when originally issued.

Russ, NCNE

lordmarcovan · September 22, 2003 2:10PM

Mr. Sarcastic scores a point, there.

Originality is best, but when "original" equals ugly, it's no sin to dip (well, not on a Kennedy half, anyway, LOL).

There is also the argument that the second coin in Russ' example looks more like it did when it originally came from the Mint. It might BE less original, but it LOOKS more original. So what's wrong with that?

(Mind you, we're discussing a Kennedy half and not a proof set from the Garrett collection...)

I reckon it really varies, from coin to coin and owner to owner.

puff · September 22, 2003 3:34PM

I don't like "ugly" toning..... But I'll take a "original" nicely toned coin anyday over a "BLAST" WHITE dipped coin.

Originallity will win out everytime.....IMHO

Baley · September 22, 2003 5:08PM

that sucked when the taliban blew up those ancient budda statues in afghanistan.

islemangu · September 22, 2003 5:54PM

Go directly to Coin Jail...do not pass go, do not collect PQs

coppercoins · September 22, 2003 6:50PM

I agree with Russ...when the coin needs to be dipped, it needs to be dipped...end of story. You purist zealots are going to let a coin sit around and have its surface eaten alive by acid because it's "pretty" (in your own opinion) while Russ and the gang will have healthy coins in the long run. Go ahead - shun dipping and be the fool.

ksteelheader · September 22, 2003 7:13PM

I agree wholeheartedly with Russ and Coppercoins.....Ken

1jester · September 22, 2003 7:26PM

"Originality is best, but when "original" equals ugly, it's no sin to dip (well, not on a Kennedy half, anyway, LOL)....

"(Mind you, we're discussing a Kennedy half and not a proof set from the Garrett collection...)" --meLord

Uh-oh!

Wait till Russ hears that!

Coins that are damaged, and being damaged, definitely deserve a dip.

LucyBop · September 22, 2003 9:57PM

what a bunch of dips!

barberlover · September 22, 2003 10:20PM

<< I agree with Russ...when the coin needs to be dipped, it needs to be dipped...end of story. You purist zealots are going to let a coin sit around and have its surface eaten alive by acid because it's "pretty" (in your own opinion) while Russ and the gang will have healthy coins in the long run. Go ahead - shun dipping and be the fool. >>

I wamted to think about what Russ said before putting down a reply, but what you said coppercoins was really over the top. "Shun dipping and be the fool"? Really, let me ask you something, do you think the hobby would be better off or worse off if no bust halves had ever been dipped ? Many of which look god awful!!!

Russ, yeah I saw the trade dollar on my web tv so quit making fun of it !!!

I understand what you mean about the proof Kennedy, clearly the dipped version looks better, the trouble is that dipping is a "slippery" slope, pun intended.

What I mean by slippery slope is that their are coins that benefit by "proper dipping" that don't turn out right and then it's a striped out piece of trash, and their are personnel preference dipped coins that really had nothing wrong with them except the owner prefers blast white, and their are historically important or rare coins that really should not be dipped even if they're ugly. My point about the slippery slope is where do you draw the line ?

Looking at many coins at local coin shows I see far more coins that have been ruined by dipping, then coins that have been improved by dipping, I think it is much worse in buisness strikes then the proofs.

Les

coppercoins · September 22, 2003 11:20PM

<< My point about the slippery slope is where do you draw the line ? >>

It's called "good judgement". My point is that there are many who simply toss out the baby with the bath water when it comes to this subject. NEVER DIP seems to be a motto around here, and it's, well, simply foolish. Coins like the one that Russ showed are very clearly helped with dip (but ONLY done properly), especially proofs with chemicals on them from poor storage, including many of the "pretty toned" coins that were in acid cardboard for long enough to discolor them.

I am by no means saying "dip all coins" - that would be equally as foolish as saying "never dip". The point is to become educated regarding the specific cases and choose wisely if you decide to take on the responsibility of helping preserve some coins....but the blanket statement that all dipping is wrong is completely foolish.

DanC · September 22, 2003 11:26PM

Well put, Chuck.

puff · September 23, 2003 12:10AM

Uh-oh!

Wait till Russ hears that!

Coins that are damaged, and being damaged, definitely deserve a dip.

>>

Good God!!! I don't want to upset Russ!!!

barberlover · September 23, 2003 12:30AM

This is an issue that will probably never get fully settled. I respect the opionions of others wether they agree with me or not.

I wish I could post. pics cause I'd like to have a side by side comparrison of my 1861 quarter with tjkillians that he posted to my thread about a month ago when someone posted a pic. of mine for me. T.J.'s was pretty [blast white] flashy luster, mine was golden grey thick skinned on the obverse with light purple and a thin half moon shaped streak of dark crust just off the rim on the reverse. I actually like both pieces, but the pic. [from Heritage] of the reverse especially of mine doesn't do mine justice [which is good cause it helped keep the bidding down].

I actually like mine better because the luster on my original coin is fuller, also the crusty area on the reverse pic was made to look worse by the angle of the pic because the luster looked washed out at the angle the pic. was taken at. I think if my piece were dipped [because of the lack of surface marks as well as the luster on both sides] it would be a shot 66 instead of the current 65 grade, but I love it the way it is so foolish stupid me, I'm not going to do it.

Les

Russ · September 23, 2003 2:09AM

Baley,

Just in case you were thinking it was lost, I got your point and it is excellent.

Russ, NCNE

Dippin' Fools Challenge

Comments

Leave a Comment