The current numismatic genocide is not so much a function of the demand for dipped coins as it is a function of the demand for numbers on plastic. Because grading services tend to reward "improved" coins with higher grades, most dealers are going to mess with their coins. So I blame the grading services more than anyone else. They are in a position to defend originality, yet they have to a great extent done just the opposite.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
<< <i>The current numismatic genocide is not so much a function of the demand for dipped coins as it is a function of the demand for numbers on plastic. Because grading services tend to reward "improved" coins with higher grades, most dealers are going to mess with their coins. So I blame the grading services more than anyone else. They are in a position to defend originality, yet they have to a great extent done just the opposite. >>
Finally after over 50 posts we have lurched into the truth. I have been surprised at the poll results so far as we seem to be giving the TPGs a pass. Yet in my mind they are at the center of the crime. The TPGs consciously award higher grades to "improved" coins to keep the submission flow coming. This is the root cause and everything else is a by-product. Dealers crack and dip, or submit for conservation, for the number bump and not the good of the coin or marketability. And collectors pay more for the higher numbers on the plastic. The TPGs could stop this travesty with a simple policy change, but that will never happen due to the profit motive, so the original coins will continue to disappear.
I do not believe that average collector really likes "dipped or improved" coins. The average collector likes numbers on labels. The TPGs have won the battle for the control of the market.
I do not believe that average collector really likes "dipped or improved" coins. The average collector likes numbers on labels. The TPGs have won the battle for the control of the market.
Fatman, I agree, but let me ask the obvious. If a coin is submitted that has been dipped, and it is a technical 66 with near full luster, what should the TPG net grade the coin?
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>I do not believe that average collector really likes "dipped or improved" coins. The average collector likes numbers on labels. The TPGs have won the battle for the control of the market.
Fatman, I agree, but let me ask the obvious. If a coin is submitted that has been dipped, and it is a technical 66 with near full luster, what should the TPG net grade the coin? >>
Don, it should be graded what it is. I'm not suggesting that a properly dipped coin is necessarily damaged goods. If it is a 66 then that is what it is. The problem is when the TPGs reward it with a 67 because the sister company is getting a percentage cut based upon its value for their "improvement" service. (or the coin is part of a huge submission of other bright shiny coins looking for a bump driving TPG profits)
<< <i>I do not believe that average collector really likes "dipped or improved" coins. The average collector likes numbers on labels. The TPGs have won the battle for the control of the market. >>
I have to disagree.
Most of the collectors I meet at the shows like their coins bright and shiny. Reactions differ when you explain to them that many silver coins that are “white” got that way through dipping. Sometimes they take it in stride. Other times they get incensed. I’ve lost sales a couple of times when I explained that a coin had been dipped to make it white. Usually they just go off and buy their dipped coin from someone else.
Everyone should get some perspective here. This is nothing wrong with a properly dipped coin. Sometimes the dipping is necessary because the toning is ugly. Too often it is done to make the coin more saleable. The toning might be perfectly acceptable to a collector who knows what he’s doing, but to a novice, they don’t want to see 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 ... ?
Let me also add that it would be very refreshing if TPGs would use technical grading. Technical grading could bring some sanity to the TPGs. The move to "Market Grading" has created this mess in the first place. Market Grading allows the "Rewards" to take place.
Yes, but the trouble with technical grading is that you can end up with some very ugly coins in high grade holders. As a collector who is very much drawn to eye appeal, I avoid ugly coins like the plague.
I don’t care how high grade might be and how cheap the price is, if it’s ugly chances are I won’t buy it for myself or for the business.
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>Most of the collectors I meet at the shows like their coins bright and shiny. Reactions differ when you explain to them that many silver coins that are “white” got that way through dipping. Sometimes they take it in stride. Other times they get incensed. I’ve lost sales a couple of times when I explained that a coin had been dipped to make it white. Usually they just go off and buy their dipped coin from someone else. Everyone should get some perspective here. This is nothing wrong with a properly dipped coin. Sometimes the dipping is necessary because the toning is ugly. >>
No argument from me on this point. The problem is where should the line be drawn. What is attractive to some, is butt ugly to others.
Lets move this closer to home. I recently purchased from you a beautiful original Robinson. I've looked close and hard at this coin and it is high end for the grade. I bet I could crack it, send it NCS, get that (in your customers opinion who only likes shiny bright coins) ugly toning removed, and it will come back in a higher graded slab. Is this justified? It is from a profit standpoint, but what about the good of the hobby? And again, the root cause lays with the TPGs bump of the grade. Without the bump for the dip, the dip would never happen.
Good illustration. So if profit is your focus, you NCS it, have it returned raw, and submit it to PCGS to maximize the $$$. For a submitter, NCS' fee is a percentage of the value the submitter assigns the coin, not the value of the finished product or any increase in grade. NGC might benefit from increased submissions/fees if they routinely overgrade NCS'd coins, but if true, surely the market will adjust and discount NGC holders severely. Doesn't that mean ALL TPG's would need to penalize dipped coins of a certain age?
Developing theory is what we are meant to do as academic researchers and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
The current numismatic genocide is not so much a function of the demand for dipped coins as it is a function of the demand for numbers on plastic. Because grading services tend to reward "improved" coins with higher grades, most dealers are going to mess with their coins. So I blame the grading services more than anyone else. They are in a position to defend originality, yet they have to a great extent done just the opposite.
That about hits the nail on the head. But at least PCGS has stopped crossing NCS'd coins that they can identify.
<< <i>Doesn't that mean ALL TPG's would need to penalize dipped coins of a certain age? >>
No, they just need to stop rewarding these. I suppose it is a chicken or the egg kind of thing. The other side is that "originality" should be rewarded. According to the previous poll on the topic here most collectors here are willing to pay a premium for originality so it only makes sense in the "Market Grading" scheme. Unfortunately, the TPGs know that they can not take that position after all these years. If they started rewarding the same coins for originality previously graded there would be screams of inconsistency. Therefore, that is not an option. But in the world of "Market Grading" they can justify different grades for different looks. One can subjectively grade the coin up a bump because in the grader's mind (per the unwritten policy) the coin is more "marketable" with the new appearance. No conflict, cause the coin does not have the same appearance as it did the last time it was graded. And the big plus is it keeps the submissions coming.
The ideal situation would be for all coins to be accurately technically graded and then let the market place determine the added or subtracted value for eye appeal. But dealers and collectors apparently don't have the acumen to handle such complex pricing and have decided to let the grading companies determine the coin value by accepting their move to "Market Grading". And it is the TPGs that have decided the bright and shiny coins are the ones everyone should collect.
<< <i>"originality" should be rewarded. According to the previous poll on the topic here most collectors here are willing to pay a premium for originality
Um, people pay more for ATTRACTIVE originality. I don't know anyone who pays extra for "ugly but original" >>
Agreed, and if anyone thought I was implying differently I am glad we could clear it up.
But the shrinking supply of original coins I am referring to in this thread are nice original coins. (obviously subjective) As a southern gold collector I have seen magnificent collections get "dipped, processed, improved" (whatever you want to call it) prior to going to auction because the TPGs are in the habit of awarding higher grades after the "improvement". I'm not talking dogs here, I'm talking census coins that have been stripped of their originality for nothing more than the grade on a holder.
And I have been first party to a discussion with a TPG founder regarding why an indisputable condition census coin is not presently in the highest graded TPG holder and what would need to be done to get it there.
<< <i>I bet I could crack it, send it NCS, get that (in your customers opinion who only likes shiny bright coins) ugly toning removed, and it will come back in a higher graded slab. Is this justified? It is from a profit standpoint, but what about the good of the hobby? >>
The answer is "NO" it's not good for the hobby and certainly not good for the coins, this stuff happens even to really important coins.
Here are two pictures of the SAME coins, a 1796 No Stars Quarter Eagle.
The picture on the left is the coin in an NGC AU-50 holder in its natural state. The picture on the right is the SAME coin after it had been "improved" (scrubbed up) to make it shiny. After it was runined IMO it was slabbed by PCGS as an AU-58, which is worth MORE MONEY to many people.
The sad part is I wish I had had the $85,000 that it would have taken for me to have bought this piece before it was messed up, but I'm just a middle class guy.
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 ... ?
The sad part is I wish I had had the $85,000 that it would have taken for me to have bought this piece before it was messed up,
And that's the key, isn't it? It's kind of hard to tell people what to do or not to do WITH THEIR OWN DAMNED PROPERTY, because most people have the idea that if they own something, it belongs to them, to do with as they wish.
Maybe the best that "collectors who value originality" can do is buy the coins and then not "mess them up."
<< <i>But the shrinking supply of original coins I am referring to in this thread are nice original coins. (obviously subjective) As a southern gold collector I have seen magnificent collections get "dipped, processed, improved" (whatever you want to call it) prior to going to auction because the TPGs are in the habit of awarding higher grades after the "improvement". I'm not talking dogs here, I'm talking census coins that have been stripped of their originality for nothing more than the grade on a holder.isgust >>
I have seen many gold coins in various states of preservation, both slabbed and raw. It is beyond me, how anyone could ever think of dipping a gold coin. IMO, even when gold coins have discoloration or dull luster, they still have tremendous aesthetic appeal.
<< <i>I have seen many gold coins in various states of preservation, both slabbed and raw. It is beyond me, how anyone could ever think of dipping a gold coin. IMO, even when gold coins have discoloration or dull luster, they still have tremendous aesthetic appeal. >>
I almost never dip coins, and the only time I ever had one worked on a NCS was a 1925-D quarter ealge that had a large dark capper stain on the Indian's neck. The coin was a solid MS-63, but I could not sell the coin anywhere because of that stain. I sent it in, and they dipped it off. The coin was then really too bright, but at least I could wholesale it to another dealer.
A very small number of coins do need work because no one will buy them otherwise. The problem is too many coins are "getting the treatment" which is sad.
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 ... ?
Isn't the real problem here the short supply of attractive original coins? We can argue over what is attractive and what isn't, but in general, the lack of quality original coins is the main issue. While it's true that dippers are going overboard, it would be educational to see what those coins looked like prior to dipping.
<< <i>I have seen many gold coins in various states of preservation, both slabbed and raw. It is beyond me, how anyone could ever think of dipping a gold coin. IMO, even when gold coins have discoloration or dull luster, they still have tremendous aesthetic appeal. >>
I almost never dip coins, and the only time I ever had one worked on a NCS was a 1925-D quarter ealge that had a large dark capper stain on the Indian's neck. The coin was a solid MS-63, but I could not sell the coin anywhere because of that stain. I sent it in, and they dipped it off. The coin was then really too bright, but at least I could wholesale it to another dealer.
A very small number of coins do need work because no one will buy them otherwise. The problem is too many coins are "getting the treatment" which is sad. >>
I think most of us us agree that something as distracting as a large stain would benefit from some conservation. However, dipping a gold coin for being dull and not shiny enough is a real tragedy. Now silver is a different story. When it goes bad, it's not a pretty sight. An original silver coin with dark blotchy toning MIGHT be worth a dip in the pool. The problem with original silver coins is that there are way too many unappealing examples out there.
<< <i>Isn't the real problem here the short supply of attractive original coins? >>
No, it's largely about greed. >>
I attended the last New York City show. There were a good number of original coins, mostly slabbed. Naturally, there were quite a few bright white ones as well. IMO, there was an abundance of original, but not too attractive mint state silver coins. On the other hand, there was the usual truckload of Morgan dollars, and I saw some decent original examples of these. I would reply to you by saying, it's a combination of short supply of NICE original coins AND greed.
<< Isn't the real problem here the short supply of attractive original coins? >>
Don't think for a minute, that large quantities of "attractive original coins" aren't being "conserved" too, in the hopes of getting higher grades and more $ for them.
<< <i> Here are two pictures of the SAME coins, a 1796 No Stars Quarter Eagle.
The picture on the left is the coin in an NGC AU-50 holder in its natural state. The picture on the right is the SAME coin after it had been "improved" (scrubbed up) to make it shiny. After it was runined IMO it was slabbed by PCGS as an AU-58, which is worth MORE MONEY to many people.
The sad part is I wish I had had the $85,000 that it would have taken for me to have bought this piece before it was messed up, but I'm just a middle class guy.
>>
Very shocking. The one on the left is beautiful but the other is a mess!
<< <i><< Isn't the real problem here the short supply of attractive original coins? >>
Don't think for a minute, that large quantities of "attractive original coins" aren't being "conserved" too, in the hopes of getting higher grades and more $ for them. >>
If that is true, then the hobby is in BIG TROUBLE.
<< <i>If that is true, then the hobby is in BIG TROUBLE. >>
DING! DING! DING!......it is true and what this thread is all about. >>
There are countless coins in collections that haven't seen the light of day for decades. That's why generalizations about these things are hardly accurate. As a child, I recall dealers gazing at one of my mint state silver dollars and saying "Boy, that would look real nice if it were dipped." The coin had a hint of toning and light cloudiness. Fortunately, I knew better and left it alone. The point is, there are many collectors out there who never did and never will dip their nice original coins. Yes, "bright and shiny" is increasing at an alarming rate, but there will always be plenty of original coins out there, because MANY of us demand it. As long as you realize that dipping that one dud of a coin SOMETIMES improves its appearance, then I know we are having a rational discussion. Never buying a dipped coin, no matter how hideous it was, is a fanatical and completely preposterous point of view. Judging from your earlier comments, you do not seem to be a fanatic.
<< <i>If that is true, then the hobby is in BIG TROUBLE. >>
DING! DING! DING!......it is true and what this thread is all about. >>
There are countless coins in collections that haven't seen the light of day for decades. That's why generalizations about these things are hardly accurate. As a child, I recall dealers gazing at one of my mint state silver dollars and saying "Boy, that would look real nice if it were dipped." The coin had a hint of toning and light cloudiness. Fortunately, I knew better and left it alone. The point is, there are many collectors out there who never did and never will dip their nice original coins. Yes, "bright and shiny" is increasing at an alarming rate, but there will always be plenty of original coins out there, because MANY of us demand it. As long as you realize that dipping that one dud of a coin SOMETIMES improves its appearance, then I know we are having a rational discussion. Never buying a dipped coin, no matter how hideous it was, is a fanatical and completely preposterous point of view. Judging from your earlier comments, you do not seem to be a fanatic. >>
Well then I must be a fanatic. I am simply a hobbyist who happens to coins that are undeniably original and preferrably nicely toned. For me, a dipped coin is something that is downright and I know that I will never spend a dime on one for my collection. Another thread, by the same "Fats" has touched on and brought up some great points and concerns regarding the so-called improving art of AT. I think that the "powers that be", i.e. the top grading companies, will no doubt continue to be more critical of the questionable coins that are submitted and more time and energy will be spent on detecting the fakes. I think to the trained eye, an AT coin for the most part can be spotted readily. One needs to know the many aspects of the natural toning process for certain coins and I am referring specifically to the coins I collect-early commems. One must know how these coins were generally stored, which colors are endemically natural to a specific issue and so on. A little knowledge (or a lot of knowledge) is worth its' weight in gold (or silver in this case) I don't mean to blast the world of dipped coins because I really am a true hobbyist at and I understand that there are many "tastes" and "flavors" that are enjoyed by different collectors. That being said, we all enjoy the hobby and have similar passions for these little flat spheres of history, and we each collect what makes us happy.
It is beyond me, how anyone could ever think of dipping a gold coin. IMO, even when gold coins have discoloration or dull luster, they still have tremendous aesthetic appeal.
<< Isn't the real problem here the short supply of attractive original coins? >>
Don't think for a minute, that large quantities of "attractive original coins" aren't being "conserved" too, in the hopes of getting higher grades and more $ for them.
Who's dipping these coins to maximize profit? The collectors? No, certain dealers.
I'm not sure what you mean by a "shrinking supply".
If you mean overall the exsistence of original coins, then they supply can only be reduced by altering a coin so it is no longer original. The profit motivation to "conserve" coins would be done by dealers and wannabe's.
If you mean a shrinking supply in the marketplace then that would be due to collectors holding on to original coins.
<< <i>I'm not sure what you mean by a "shrinking supply". >>
I mean the overall existence of original coins. I do recognize there was some confusion in reading several responses. Therefore the collector vote is somewhat skewed by the confusion.
dizzyfoxx It is all a matter of taste, but let's be realistic. The poorly toned coin may appeal to you over its dipped counterpart, but unless you have x-ray vision, you will never really know how pristine the surface is beneath the toning. If you are willing to pay full retail price for an expensive rare date with dark, spotty toning, then you have a much higher threshold for risk than I do. I wonder how many of you buy these deeply toned coins with marginal eye-appeal at discounted prices. If the price were significantly reduced, suddenly that ms-64 with the eye-appeal of an MS-60 becomes mighty attractive. It cracks me up when the collectors in here show us their beautifully toned specimens. For every one of those, there are many more clunkers. Would you want a dark, unevenly toned standing liberty quarter? Now, before you answer, I am aware of certain dates like the almost non-existent 27-s FH or overdate with a FH. Many would grab those coins with a thick layer of black tarnish. Let's use scarce, but attainable coins like the 1921 for example. Like all silver issues, a good number of toning variations exist. My instincts are good and I go for the light gold or rim toned specimen, provided the coin meets my other criteria for good eye-appeal. If there are no light gold but only dark spotty and dipped white coins, I either do not buy or go for the dipped white. I would never buy an expensive key date with ugly toning, no matter what grade is on the holder. So, I suppose once again, it comes down to different strokes. However, given my example, I have a hunch there are more collectors who agree with me than you might think.
<< <i>dizzyfoxx It is all a matter of taste, but let's be realistic. The poorly toned coin may appeal to you over its dipped counterpart, but unless you have x-ray vision, you will never really know how pristine the surface is beneath the toning. If you are willing to pay full retail price for an expensive rare date with dark, spotty toning, then you have a much higher threshold for risk than I do. I wonder how many of you buy these deeply toned coins with marginal eye-appeal at discounted prices. If the price were significantly reduced, suddenly that ms-64 with the eye-appeal of an MS-60 becomes mighty attractive. It cracks me up when the collectors in here show us their beautifully toned specimens. For every one of those, there are many more clunkers. Would you want a dark, unevenly toned standing liberty quarter? Now, before you answer, I am aware of certain dates like the almost non-existent 27-s FH or overdate with a FH. Many would grab those coins with a thick layer of black tarnish. Let's use scarce, but attainable coins like the 1921 for example. Like most silver issues, there are countless toning variations of this date. My instincts are good and I go for the light gold or rim toned specimen, provided the coin meets my other criteria for good eye-appeal. If there are no light gold but only dark spotty and dipped white coins, I either do not buy or go for the dipped white. I would never buy an expensive key date with ugly toning, no matter what grade is on the holder. So, I suppose once again, it comes down to different strokes. However, given my example, I have a hunch there are more collectors who agree with me than you might think. >>
veryfine, you bring up some good points but after all the "dust settles", I think there are more collectors who would spend their money on complete and undeniable originality over a dipped out specimen-JMHO. Although, I may be extreme in my view because I truly feel that a dipped coin, whether dipped once or ten times, is an altered coin. Not altered maliciously by any means and I know altered in such a way as to enhance its' appearance for some or possibly even to save the coin, but it nonetheless no longer has its' original surfaces which for me, is of the utmost importance.
The current numismatic genocide is not so much a function of the demand for dipped coins as it is a function of the demand for numbers on plastic. Because grading services tend to reward "improved" coins with higher grades, most dealers are going to mess with their coins. So I blame the grading services more than anyone else. They are in a position to defend originality, yet they have to a great extent done just the opposite.
thanks MrEureka... again your comments, as brief as this one is, speaks volumes as the problem and the poll results seem to reflect that there is an interest in originality. I still maintain that an Original Surfaces designation is long overdue and the TPG companies could do this. It would help preserve many original early type and gold coins. I think the before and after gold coin pictured in this thread says it all... those pictures tell a sad story of greed, plastic and at least as collectors we should be willing to commit to change and say its not too late to change this to help prevent the continuing slaughter of original coins... PCGS and NGC should recognize the potential for an original surfaces designation.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
<< <i>Um, people pay more for ATTRACTIVE originality. I don't know anyone who pays extra for "ugly but original" >>
I do What I feel and appreciate as an original looking coin 2/3 of this board would think it's either ugly, or just not understand the coin. But there aren't a whole bunch of Bust collectors on the board. Many will buy a couple as type I guess. What some folks don't understand is an original looking Bust half is not supposed to look like a toned Morgan PERIOD, or a white one for that matter. I buy what I like and appreciate. I actually laugh when folks hate some of my crusty Bust halves. As I continually snatch them up.
Please... Save The Stories, Just Answer My Questions, And Tell Me How Much!!!!!
PCGS and NGC should recognize the potential for an original surfaces designation.
I agree. (although, it would still be their opinion, based upon the appearance of the coin, not an absolute fact)
Baley... that is just it, the grade is just an opinion and not an absolute fact... providing an original surfaces designation is better than allowing original coins to be seen in the same light as dipped out crap... the gold coin on this thread says it all.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
You guys may have something here with the "Original" designation. I don't think NGC would buy into it since they are strongly pushing NCS. But PCGS could use this as a submission generator and also a slap in their primary competitors face. Good thinking. If done well the designation would likely produce a value added premium and create the incentive for previously slabbed coins to be submitted for designation reviews. I hope HRH is reading this and can see the profit potential.
I think the important folks that make these decisions have to be convinced that collectors want it and there is a need for it. The poll results from RYK's thread about paying more illustrates the interest and demand.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I will have to tell you guys that two of my most valuable gold New Orleans coins, one has been dipped and the other conserved, and I will guarantee that NOBODY but Doug Winter of Pinnacle can tell whitch ones they are!! In fact if anybody guesses correctly I will send them $500.!! My set is listed on the PCGS set registry under New Orleans gold set with varities. Sometimes dipping is good for a gold coin, I know that I am probably going to get bashed about this, but at least for me its the truth. Flame away
In fact if anybody guesses correctly I will send them $500.!!
Great giveaway, Reece.
I have a few conserved/dipped coins in my collection, as well. I also have one stripped coin that I purchased before I knew the difference between crusty and "dull and lifeless". All I can say in my defense is:
1. I am still learning. 2. I try to buy original when I can, but there are times that an expertly conserved coin is quite hard to turn down. 3. Originality is not 100% black-and-white. There is a lot of gray area between the crusty XF-45 No Motto $5 and the shiny AU-50 (the same coin after the dip). 4. I personally would not have a coin altered so that I can make more money selling it.
I agree that just dipping a coin to get a higher grade and waste the coin is not right, but conserving or dipping the gold coin to look better IS the right thing to do IMHO. Not all dipping or conserving is bad. Againg the two coins that I have that one has been dipped and the other conserved look better to anybody than they did BEFORE. Anybody take the challenge yet??
There are people who can tell other than DW. I would like to have taken you up on the offer (not for the money but the challenge) when the coins were in front of me. I won't even try by looking at images. I'm not suggesting I am expert enough to be certain, but I can assure you I know of people who could pick them out very quickly.
I didn't study your set all that closely, but at a quick overview it appeared quite original and quite impressive. I did not see any coins stick out like so many "improved" coins typically do. I don't think your collection qualifies as a dipped and stripped collection and not ready to add you to the dippers and strippers. And, there are rare examples where some conservation can add to the appeal of a coin or succesfully remove a damaging contaniment.
But I am curious though, you mentioned these were two of your most valuable which knowing what I know of your set translates to tough dates. Did DW dip/conserve these or were they already "improved" before DW acquired them? And if DW handled the "improvement" could you tell us why it was necessary. I would be very interested in understanding your trade-off here. I imagine that you probably did not have a choice of an original coin at the time these were purchased. If you had a nice orginal example to choose from would you still have selected the two "improved" coins.
I would be very interested in understanding your trade-off here. I imagine that you probably did not have a choice of an original coin at the time these were purchased. If you had a nice orginal example to choose from would you still have selected the two "improved" coins.
As someone who collects in the same pool as Reece (but in the shallow end ), I will say that there are many, many occasions when a coin becomes available that might not be 100% original but is among the nicest known and its peers will not see the light of day for many years. Under the circumstances, I might purchase the coin.
I will also say that I have purchased coins from DW that he has told me explicitly that if the said coin ended up in the "wrong hands", it would most certainly be dipped and get a higher grade. DW, amongst dealers, is one of the strongest proponents of originality.
Oh, and I would take a nice, crusty XF-45 over a commerial AU any day of the week.
Comments
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Absolutely awesome coin, Oreville!!
How can you tell? >>
Because of the number on the plastic obviously!
"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." -Luke 11:9
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." -Deut. 6:4-5
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; He will save us." -Isaiah 33:22
<< <i>The current numismatic genocide is not so much a function of the demand for dipped coins as it is a function of the demand for numbers on plastic. Because grading services tend to reward "improved" coins with higher grades, most dealers are going to mess with their coins. So I blame the grading services more than anyone else. They are in a position to defend originality, yet they have to a great extent done just the opposite. >>
Finally after over 50 posts we have lurched into the truth. I have been surprised at the poll results so far as we seem to be giving the TPGs a pass. Yet in my mind they are at the center of the crime. The TPGs consciously award higher grades to "improved" coins to keep the submission flow coming. This is the root cause and everything else is a by-product. Dealers crack and dip, or submit for conservation, for the number bump and not the good of the coin or marketability. And collectors pay more for the higher numbers on the plastic. The TPGs could stop this travesty with a simple policy change, but that will never happen due to the profit motive, so the original coins will continue to disappear.
I do not believe that average collector really likes "dipped or improved" coins. The average collector likes numbers on labels. The TPGs have won the battle for the control of the market.
Fatman, I agree, but let me ask the obvious. If a coin is submitted that has been dipped, and it is a technical 66 with near full luster, what should the TPG net grade the coin?
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
<< <i>I do not believe that average collector really likes "dipped or improved" coins. The average collector likes numbers on labels. The TPGs have won the battle for the control of the market.
Fatman, I agree, but let me ask the obvious. If a coin is submitted that has been dipped, and it is a technical 66 with near full luster, what should the TPG net grade the coin? >>
Don, it should be graded what it is. I'm not suggesting that a properly dipped coin is necessarily damaged goods. If it is a 66 then that is what it is. The problem is when the TPGs reward it with a 67 because the sister company is getting a percentage cut based upon its value for their "improvement" service. (or the coin is part of a huge submission of other bright shiny coins looking for a bump driving TPG profits)
<< <i>I do not believe that average collector really likes "dipped or improved" coins. The average collector likes numbers on labels. The TPGs have won the battle for the control of the market. >>
I have to disagree.
Most of the collectors I meet at the shows like their coins bright and shiny. Reactions differ when you explain to them that many silver coins that are “white” got that way through dipping. Sometimes they take it in stride. Other times they get incensed. I’ve lost sales a couple of times when I explained that a coin had been dipped to make it white. Usually they just go off and buy their dipped coin from someone else.
Everyone should get some perspective here. This is nothing wrong with a properly dipped coin. Sometimes the dipping is necessary because the toning is ugly. Too often it is done to make the coin more saleable. The toning might be perfectly acceptable to a collector who knows what he’s doing, but to a novice, they don’t want to see it.
I don’t care how high grade might be and how cheap the price is, if it’s ugly chances are I won’t buy it for myself or for the business.
<< <i>Most of the collectors I meet at the shows like their coins bright and shiny. Reactions differ when you explain to them that many silver coins that are “white” got that way through dipping. Sometimes they take it in stride. Other times they get incensed. I’ve lost sales a couple of times when I explained that a coin had been dipped to make it white. Usually they just go off and buy their dipped coin from someone else.
Everyone should get some perspective here. This is nothing wrong with a properly dipped coin. Sometimes the dipping is necessary because the toning is ugly. >>
No argument from me on this point. The problem is where should the line be drawn. What is attractive to some, is butt ugly to others.
Lets move this closer to home. I recently purchased from you a beautiful original Robinson. I've looked close and hard at this coin and it is high end for the grade. I bet I could crack it, send it NCS, get that (in your customers opinion who only likes shiny bright coins) ugly toning removed, and it will come back in a higher graded slab. Is this justified? It is from a profit standpoint, but what about the good of the hobby? And again, the root cause lays with the TPGs bump of the grade. Without the bump for the dip, the dip would never happen.
Good illustration. So if profit is your focus, you NCS it, have it returned raw, and submit it to PCGS to maximize the $$$. For a submitter, NCS' fee is a percentage of the value the submitter assigns the coin, not the value of the finished product or any increase in grade. NGC might benefit from increased submissions/fees if they routinely overgrade NCS'd coins, but if true, surely the market will adjust and discount NGC holders severely. Doesn't that mean ALL TPG's would need to penalize dipped coins of a certain age?
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
That about hits the nail on the head. But at least PCGS has stopped crossing NCS'd coins that they can identify.
<< <i>Doesn't that mean ALL TPG's would need to penalize dipped coins of a certain age? >>
No, they just need to stop rewarding these. I suppose it is a chicken or the egg kind of thing. The other side is that "originality" should be rewarded. According to the previous poll on the topic here most collectors here are willing to pay a premium for originality so it only makes sense in the "Market Grading" scheme. Unfortunately, the TPGs know that they can not take that position after all these years. If they started rewarding the same coins for originality previously graded there would be screams of inconsistency. Therefore, that is not an option. But in the world of "Market Grading" they can justify different grades for different looks. One can subjectively grade the coin up a bump because in the grader's mind (per the unwritten policy) the coin is more "marketable" with the new appearance. No conflict, cause the coin does not have the same appearance as it did the last time it was graded. And the big plus is it keeps the submissions coming.
The ideal situation would be for all coins to be accurately technically graded and then let the market place determine the added or subtracted value for eye appeal. But dealers and collectors apparently don't have the acumen to handle such complex pricing and have decided to let the grading companies determine the coin value by accepting their move to "Market Grading". And it is the TPGs that have decided the bright and shiny coins are the ones everyone should collect.
Um, people pay more for ATTRACTIVE originality. I don't know anyone who pays extra for "ugly but original"
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>"originality" should be rewarded. According to the previous poll on the topic here most collectors here are willing to pay a premium for originality
Um, people pay more for ATTRACTIVE originality. I don't know anyone who pays extra for "ugly but original" >>
Agreed, and if anyone thought I was implying differently I am glad we could clear it up.
But the shrinking supply of original coins I am referring to in this thread are nice original coins. (obviously subjective) As a southern gold collector I have seen magnificent collections get "dipped, processed, improved" (whatever you want to call it) prior to going to auction because the TPGs are in the habit of awarding higher grades after the "improvement". I'm not talking dogs here, I'm talking census coins that have been stripped of their originality for nothing more than the grade on a holder.
And I have been first party to a discussion with a TPG founder regarding why an indisputable condition census coin is not presently in the highest graded TPG holder and what would need to be done to get it there.
<< <i>I bet I could crack it, send it NCS, get that (in your customers opinion who only likes shiny bright coins) ugly toning removed, and it will come back in a higher graded slab. Is this justified? It is from a profit standpoint, but what about the good of the hobby? >>
The answer is "NO" it's not good for the hobby and certainly not good for the coins, this stuff happens even to really important coins.
Here are two pictures of the SAME coins, a 1796 No Stars Quarter Eagle.
The picture on the left is the coin in an NGC AU-50 holder in its natural state. The picture on the right is the SAME coin after it had been "improved" (scrubbed up) to make it shiny. After it was runined IMO it was slabbed by PCGS as an AU-58, which is worth MORE MONEY to many people.
The sad part is I wish I had had the $85,000 that it would have taken for me to have bought this piece before it was messed up, but I'm just a middle class guy.
And that's the key, isn't it? It's kind of hard to tell people what to do or not to do WITH THEIR OWN DAMNED PROPERTY, because most people have the idea that if they own something, it belongs to them, to do with as they wish.
Maybe the best that "collectors who value originality" can do is buy the coins and then not "mess them up."
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>But the shrinking supply of original coins I am referring to in this thread are nice original coins. (obviously subjective) As a southern gold collector I have seen magnificent collections get "dipped, processed, improved" (whatever you want to call it) prior to going to auction because the TPGs are in the habit of awarding higher grades after the "improvement". I'm not talking dogs here, I'm talking census coins that have been stripped of their originality for nothing more than the grade on a holder.
I have seen many gold coins in various states of preservation, both slabbed and raw. It is beyond me, how anyone could ever think of dipping a gold coin. IMO, even when gold coins have discoloration or dull luster, they still have tremendous aesthetic appeal.
<< <i>I have seen many gold coins in various states of preservation, both slabbed and raw. It is beyond me, how anyone could ever think of dipping a gold coin. IMO, even when gold coins have discoloration or dull luster, they still have tremendous aesthetic appeal. >>
I almost never dip coins, and the only time I ever had one worked on a NCS was a 1925-D quarter ealge that had a large dark capper stain on the Indian's neck. The coin was a solid MS-63, but I could not sell the coin anywhere because of that stain. I sent it in, and they dipped it off. The coin was then really too bright, but at least I could wholesale it to another dealer.
A very small number of coins do need work because no one will buy them otherwise. The problem is too many coins are "getting the treatment" which is sad.
<< <i>
<< <i>I have seen many gold coins in various states of preservation, both slabbed and raw. It is beyond me, how anyone could ever think of dipping a gold coin. IMO, even when gold coins have discoloration or dull luster, they still have tremendous aesthetic appeal. >>
I almost never dip coins, and the only time I ever had one worked on a NCS was a 1925-D quarter ealge that had a large dark capper stain on the Indian's neck. The coin was a solid MS-63, but I could not sell the coin anywhere because of that stain. I sent it in, and they dipped it off. The coin was then really too bright, but at least I could wholesale it to another dealer.
A very small number of coins do need work because no one will buy them otherwise. The problem is too many coins are "getting the treatment" which is sad.
I think most of us us agree that something as distracting as a large stain would benefit from some conservation. However, dipping a gold coin for being dull and not shiny enough is a real tragedy. Now silver is a different story. When it goes bad, it's not a pretty sight. An original silver coin with dark blotchy toning MIGHT be worth a dip in the pool. The problem with original silver coins is that there are way too many unappealing examples out there.
<< <i>Isn't the real problem here the short supply of attractive original coins? >>
No, it's largely about greed.
<< <i>
<< <i>Isn't the real problem here the short supply of attractive original coins? >>
No, it's largely about greed. >>
I attended the last New York City show. There were a good number of original coins, mostly slabbed. Naturally, there were quite a few bright white ones as well. IMO, there was an abundance of original, but not too attractive mint state silver coins. On the other hand, there was the usual truckload of Morgan dollars, and I saw some decent original examples of these.
I would reply to you by saying, it's a combination of short supply of NICE original coins AND greed.
Don't think for a minute, that large quantities of "attractive original coins" aren't being "conserved" too, in the hopes of getting higher grades and more $ for them.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Here are two pictures of the SAME coins, a 1796 No Stars Quarter Eagle.
The picture on the left is the coin in an NGC AU-50 holder in its natural state. The picture on the right is the SAME coin after it had been "improved" (scrubbed up) to make it shiny. After it was runined IMO it was slabbed by PCGS as an AU-58, which is worth MORE MONEY to many people.
The sad part is I wish I had had the $85,000 that it would have taken for me to have bought this piece before it was messed up, but I'm just a middle class guy.
Very shocking. The one on the left is beautiful but the other is a mess!
<< <i><< Isn't the real problem here the short supply of attractive original coins? >>
Don't think for a minute, that large quantities of "attractive original coins" aren't being "conserved" too, in the hopes of getting higher grades and more $ for them. >>
If that is true, then the hobby is in BIG TROUBLE.
<< <i>If that is true, then the hobby is in BIG TROUBLE. >>
DING! DING! DING!......it is true and what this thread is all about.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Actually, the hobby will be just fine. It's the coins that are in trouble. >>
Try it this way: However many coins are damaged, however badly they are damaged, people will continue to have fun collecting coins.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>My elevator is having a problem making it to the top floor on this comment. Andy, please clarify this comment.
Try it this way: However many coins are damaged, however badly they are damaged, people will continue to have fun collecting coins. >>
Could be true, but then again might be a bit of wishful thinking. Thanks for the clarification.
<< <i>
<< <i>If that is true, then the hobby is in BIG TROUBLE. >>
DING! DING! DING!......it is true and what this thread is all about. >>
There are countless coins in collections that haven't seen the light of day for decades. That's why generalizations about these things are hardly accurate. As a child, I recall dealers gazing at one of my mint state silver dollars and saying "Boy, that would look real nice if it were dipped." The coin had a hint of toning and light cloudiness. Fortunately, I knew better and left it alone. The point is, there are many collectors out there who never did and never will dip their nice original coins. Yes, "bright and shiny" is increasing at an alarming rate, but there will always be plenty of original coins out there, because MANY of us demand it. As long as you realize that dipping that one dud of a coin SOMETIMES improves its appearance, then I know we are having a rational discussion. Never buying a dipped coin, no matter how hideous it was, is a fanatical and completely preposterous point of view. Judging from your earlier comments, you do not seem to be a fanatic.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>If that is true, then the hobby is in BIG TROUBLE. >>
DING! DING! DING!......it is true and what this thread is all about. >>
There are countless coins in collections that haven't seen the light of day for decades. That's why generalizations about these things are hardly accurate. As a child, I recall dealers gazing at one of my mint state silver dollars and saying "Boy, that would look real nice if it were dipped." The coin had a hint of toning and light cloudiness. Fortunately, I knew better and left it alone. The point is, there are many collectors out there who never did and never will dip their nice original coins. Yes, "bright and shiny" is increasing at an alarming rate, but there will always be plenty of original coins out there, because MANY of us demand it. As long as you realize that dipping that one dud of a coin SOMETIMES improves its appearance, then I know we are having a rational discussion. Never buying a dipped coin, no matter how hideous it was, is a fanatical and completely preposterous point of view. Judging from your earlier comments, you do not seem to be a fanatic. >>
Well then I must be a fanatic.
I don't mean to blast the world of dipped coins because I really am a true hobbyist at
<< Isn't the real problem here the short supply of attractive original coins? >>
Don't think for a minute, that large quantities of "attractive original coins" aren't being "conserved" too, in the hopes of getting higher grades and more $ for them.
Who's dipping these coins to maximize profit? The collectors? No, certain dealers.
I'm not sure what you mean by a "shrinking supply".
If you mean overall the exsistence of original coins, then they supply can only be reduced by altering a coin so it is no longer original. The profit motivation to "conserve" coins would be done by dealers and wannabe's.
If you mean a shrinking supply in the marketplace then that would be due to collectors holding on to original coins.
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
<< <i>I'm not sure what you mean by a "shrinking supply". >>
I mean the overall existence of original coins. I do recognize there was some confusion in reading several responses. Therefore the collector vote is somewhat skewed by the confusion.
It is all a matter of taste, but let's be realistic. The poorly toned coin may appeal to you over its dipped counterpart, but unless you have x-ray vision, you will never really know how pristine the surface is beneath the toning. If you are willing to pay full retail price for an expensive rare date with dark, spotty toning, then you have a much higher threshold for risk than I do. I wonder how many of you buy these deeply toned coins with marginal eye-appeal at discounted prices. If the price were significantly reduced, suddenly that ms-64 with the eye-appeal of an MS-60 becomes mighty attractive. It cracks me up when the collectors in here show us their beautifully toned specimens. For every one of those, there are many more clunkers.
Would you want a dark, unevenly toned standing liberty quarter? Now, before you answer, I am aware of certain dates like the almost non-existent 27-s FH or overdate with a FH. Many would grab those coins with a thick layer of black tarnish. Let's use scarce, but attainable coins like the 1921 for example. Like all silver issues, a good number of toning variations exist. My instincts are good and I go for the light gold or rim toned specimen, provided the coin meets my other criteria for good eye-appeal. If there are no light gold but only dark spotty and dipped white coins, I either do not buy or go for the dipped white. I would never buy an expensive key date with ugly toning, no matter what grade is on the holder. So, I suppose once again, it comes down to different strokes. However, given my example, I have a hunch there are more collectors who agree with me than you might think.
<< <i>dizzyfoxx
It is all a matter of taste, but let's be realistic. The poorly toned coin may appeal to you over its dipped counterpart, but unless you have x-ray vision, you will never really know how pristine the surface is beneath the toning. If you are willing to pay full retail price for an expensive rare date with dark, spotty toning, then you have a much higher threshold for risk than I do. I wonder how many of you buy these deeply toned coins with marginal eye-appeal at discounted prices. If the price were significantly reduced, suddenly that ms-64 with the eye-appeal of an MS-60 becomes mighty attractive. It cracks me up when the collectors in here show us their beautifully toned specimens. For every one of those, there are many more clunkers.
Would you want a dark, unevenly toned standing liberty quarter? Now, before you answer, I am aware of certain dates like the almost non-existent 27-s FH or overdate with a FH. Many would grab those coins with a thick layer of black tarnish. Let's use scarce, but attainable coins like the 1921 for example. Like most silver issues, there are countless toning variations of this date. My instincts are good and I go for the light gold or rim toned specimen, provided the coin meets my other criteria for good eye-appeal. If there are no light gold but only dark spotty and dipped white coins, I either do not buy or go for the dipped white. I would never buy an expensive key date with ugly toning, no matter what grade is on the holder. So, I suppose once again, it comes down to different strokes. However, given my example, I have a hunch there are more collectors who agree with me than you might think. >>
veryfine, you bring up some good points but after all the "dust settles", I think there are more collectors who would spend their money on complete and undeniable originality over a dipped out specimen-JMHO. Although, I may be extreme in my view because I truly feel that a dipped coin, whether dipped once or ten times, is an altered coin. Not altered maliciously by any means and I know altered in such a way as to enhance its' appearance for some or possibly even to save the coin, but it nonetheless no longer has its' original surfaces which for me, is of the utmost importance.
thanks MrEureka... again your comments, as brief as this one is, speaks volumes as the problem and the poll results seem to reflect that there is an interest in originality. I still maintain that an Original Surfaces designation is long overdue and the TPG companies could do this. It would help preserve many original early type and gold coins. I think the before and after gold coin pictured in this thread says it all... those pictures tell a sad story of greed, plastic and at least as collectors we should be willing to commit to change and say its not too late to change this to help prevent the continuing slaughter of original coins... PCGS and NGC should recognize the potential for an original surfaces designation.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I agree. (although, it would still be their opinion, based upon the appearance of the coin, not an absolute fact)
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>Um, people pay more for ATTRACTIVE originality. I don't know anyone who pays extra for "ugly but original" >>
I do
But there aren't a whole bunch of Bust collectors on the board. Many will buy a couple as type I guess. What some folks don't understand
is an original looking Bust half is not supposed to look like a toned Morgan PERIOD, or a white one for that matter.
I buy what I like and appreciate. I actually laugh when folks hate some of my crusty Bust halves. As I continually snatch them up.
I agree. (although, it would still be their opinion, based upon the appearance of the coin, not an absolute fact)
Baley... that is just it, the grade is just an opinion and not an absolute fact... providing an original surfaces designation is better than allowing original coins to be seen in the same light as dipped out crap... the gold coin on this thread says it all.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Great giveaway, Reece.
I have a few conserved/dipped coins in my collection, as well. I also have one stripped coin that I purchased before I knew the difference between crusty and "dull and lifeless". All I can say in my defense is:
1. I am still learning.
2. I try to buy original when I can, but there are times that an expertly conserved coin is quite hard to turn down.
3. Originality is not 100% black-and-white. There is a lot of gray area between the crusty XF-45 No Motto $5 and the shiny AU-50 (the same coin after the dip).
4. I personally would not have a coin altered so that I can make more money selling it.
<< <i>I would have to say ..... Iwog.
Most everything is his fault anyway. >>
I must agree either Iwog or the person LanLord mentioned.
Really as I browse the bay I often wonder where the "normal looking" coins are.
I like bright a purdy, but I'd rather have natural BU conditioned.
There are people who can tell other than DW. I would like to have taken you up on the offer (not for the money but the challenge) when the coins were in front of me. I won't even try by looking at images. I'm not suggesting I am expert enough to be certain, but I can assure you I know of people who could pick them out very quickly.
I didn't study your set all that closely, but at a quick overview it appeared quite original and quite impressive. I did not see any coins stick out like so many "improved" coins typically do. I don't think your collection qualifies as a dipped and stripped collection and not ready to add you to the dippers and strippers. And, there are rare examples where some conservation can add to the appeal of a coin or succesfully remove a damaging contaniment.
But I am curious though, you mentioned these were two of your most valuable which knowing what I know of your set translates to tough dates. Did DW dip/conserve these or were they already "improved" before DW acquired them? And if DW handled the "improvement" could you tell us why it was necessary. I would be very interested in understanding your trade-off here. I imagine that you probably did not have a choice of an original coin at the time these were purchased. If you had a nice orginal example to choose from would you still have selected the two "improved" coins.
Consider yourself FLAMED!
As someone who collects in the same pool as Reece (but in the shallow end
I will also say that I have purchased coins from DW that he has told me explicitly that if the said coin ended up in the "wrong hands", it would most certainly be dipped and get a higher grade. DW, amongst dealers, is one of the strongest proponents of originality.
Oh, and I would take a nice, crusty XF-45 over a commerial AU any day of the week.