Options
Should dipped coins be labeled as such on the slab?
dizzyfoxx
Posts: 9,823 ✭✭✭
I think so, and I think the degree of dipping should be noted. The complete originality of a coin is of the utmost importance IMHO, and when a new collector enters the hobby and views what they think is a really nice and clean "white" coin that is slabbed, I think they should be made aware if it has been dipped and the severity of it. Otherwise they just think they are buying a beautiful white original coin. Any other thoughts on this?
...There's always time for coin collecting. 
0
Comments
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>One would have to believe that dipping is always detectable. It is not.
Russ, NCNE >>
Understood. But I feel if a dipped coin is detected while being graded, then it should be labeled as such. If it's detectable, I assume it must be somewhat severe.
<< <i>But I feel if a dipped coin is detected while being graded, then it should be labeled as such. >>
And throw yet another arbitrary decision in to the grading mix? Bad idea. You place too much faith in the ability of the grading services.
Russ, NCNE
-- Adam Duritz, of Counting Crows
My Ebay Auctions
<< <i>Personally, I don't think a dipped coin should be slabbed at all. If a cleaned coin can't be slabbed, how do you justify slabbing a dipped one? >>
Again -- market acceptability for the grade.
The market has mostly accepted that a coin can be dipped and still be "passable" for the grade. It has not done so for cleaned coins (with the possible exception of light and/or old-time cleanings on Bust coinage).
If the market decided that a dipped coin was a "problem" coin, you'd be onto something. But even though "original" and "toned" are the hot thing today, *most* of the market is not as discriminating in that regard and for most collectors, a dipped coin isn't usually a "problem" coin unless the dipping was severe or was done on a coin below AU (which looks ridiculous).
<< <i>If a cleaned coin can't be slabbed, how do you justify slabbing a dipped one? >>
Again, you would have to believe that it is always possible to detect a dip. It is not. In fact, many collectors who rail against dipping own dipped coins and don't even realize it.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>Again, you would have to believe that it is always possible to detect a dip. It is not. In fact, many collectors who rail against dipping own dipped coins and don't even realize it.
Russ, NCNE >>
I understand that it's not always detectable. I'm talking about when it is detected, though. I've seen some Walkers on Ebay that would make an honest seller blush -- blast white but with obvious wear. Technically, they could still be slabbed, even though they were obviously dipped.
-- Adam Duritz, of Counting Crows
My Ebay Auctions
1) I think conserved modern coins such as those processed by Russ/Marty/etal. are a positive improvement. These diiped
coins are actually being saved from sloppy mint contamination and further degradation
2) Many Morgans are supposed to be white anyway--it's hard for graders to be sure if they're dipped
3) I think they actually do BB copper coins that are dipped, so nothing to label. In this case actually it might be good to
add labels for rare dates as you suggest - but then the TPG's don't do old copper too well anyway.
<< <i>I've seen some Walkers on Ebay that would make an honest seller blush -- blast white but with obvious wear. Technically, they could still be slabbed, even though they were obviously dipped. >>
Agreed. I think dipped circulated coins look pretty silly.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>You place too much faith in the ability of the grading services.
Russ, NCNE >>
Russ, check out some of the prices realized at auction, private sale, etc. for slabbed coins bought and sold, as opposed to raw coins.
I think you'll find that I'm not the only one who puts faith in the grading services.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
For example, a coin with MS-65 surfaces might be graded MS-63 if the luster is impaired by a light dip. Overdipped coins with severely impaired luster might get the ever-popular AU-58. Coins dipped to death (no luster) get the bodybag.
No!
When it's a pre-1840s coin, they don't even note that it's been cleaned.
<< <i>"Should dipped coins be labeled as such on the slab?"
No!
When it's a pre-1840s coin, they don't even note that it's been cleaned. >>
I beg to differ. I have a 1796 dollar that got bb'd for cleaning (aka "altered surfaces").
-- Adam Duritz, of Counting Crows
My Ebay Auctions
Absolutely. While they are unlikely to be able to detect the dipping of modern proofs (who buys that crap anyway?
I will also add that I would like to see a "full details" label (espoused by QDB) as well...Mike
link to recent thread on dipping.
For new collectors reading along, a lot of coins have been dipped. Any 19th century silver coin that is white is under suspicion. The older the coin, the higher the suspicion. Being in a slab is no guarantee of originality. The term often used is "market acceptable." Lightly dipped coins are sometimes net graded by the big two, lowering the grade instead of giving it the body bag.
Certain coins such as Morgan dollars were hoarded and did not circulate. The GSA hoard is one example where original coins are more the rule than the exception. Elsewhere, the odds vary as do opinions. However, no one disputes the concept that a large number of coins have been dipped. Some might say 10%, some might say 25%, some might say 50% or even 80% in certain populations, certain series. Whatever the reality there are a lot of dipped coins out in the market.
Since joining the forum I have been reading more about gold coins being processed. The benign term is "conserved," the not so nice term "stripped and dipped." Sometimes this is done with the blessing of a grading company, such as some of the shipwreck gold coins.
New collectors often favor shiny coins, whether it be blast white silver, or blooming gold. They are often the ones who end up with the obviously dipped raw coins, and the almost as obviously dipped slabbed coins. There is no right or wrong in this, however, any new collectors reading along please go in with your eyes open.
Toning fans have their own kettle of fish to boil, with more and more AT, often blatantly AT coins being holdered. From where I sit, there seem to be more and more AT coins in holders, even blatant AT coins. There is big, big money in some of these coins. Again, new collectors reading along, go in with your eyes open. Just as unlikely as noting "dipped" are the companies noting "accelerated toning." It isn't going to happen any time soon.
<< <i>Wasn't the King of Siam set polished regularly? >>
NO!
Russ is right that you can't always tell if a coin has been dipped, but sometimes it is obvious. Those should not be noted on the label, they are supposed to be bodybagged.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
The problem is not with the coins mentioned above, the problem lies with the over dipped, dull, lusterless, dying coins. And putting that on the label is senseless as it is obvious to anyone who would care.
The more productive decision would be to recognize those coins that have mostly original surfaces. By promoting the positive, you will get more people submitting for the designation, a plus for the TPGs. The TPGs will never go for the negative, because people would cut back on the crack out game in fear of the dipped designation.
CG
PAINTED on the coin.
<< <i>What I liked best about Farouk coins was his numbering system.
PAINTED on the coin.
Go BIG or GO HOME. ©Bill
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
And no one has answered my question as to the originality of that 1845-o dime.
CG
<< <i>Isn't it up to collectors to decide whether they want coins that are toned vs white? Why should the grading companies have anything to say about it? >>
"White" is one thing, white because of dipping is a totally different story IMHO.
<< <i>White" is one thing, white because of dipping is a totally different story IMHO >>
Again, if you are going to talk about original surfaces and be anti-dipped you need to tell me whether that 1845 dime is original or not.
CG
<< <i>
<< <i>White" is one thing, white because of dipping is a totally different story IMHO >>
Again, if you are going to talk about original surfaces and be anti-dipped you need to tell me whether that 1845 dime is original or not.
CG >>
It's possible I reckon, tough to tell for sure from the image though.
<< <i>tough to tell for sure from the image though. >>
How would you tell for sure with the coin in hand? And how would the grading service tell for sure so that they could certify it as original or designate it dipped?
CG
<< <i>
<< <i>tough to tell for sure from the image though. >>
How would you tell for sure with the coin in hand?
CG >>
By looking at it under a loop and rendering my own opinion.
CG
<< <i>Again, if you are going to talk about original surfaces and be anti-dipped you need to tell me whether that 1845 dime is original or not. >>
CG, I don't know if the coin has been dipped or not and I very well might have the same answer even if I could see it in person.
However, my best guess is that it has been dipped. I base that guess on the appearance of what looks like possible remnants of the (removed) toning, now manifesting itself as light, whitish, splotchy areas in both the left and right obverse field areas. It's possible, though, that what I'm seeing is merely evidence of un-dipped, light surface contaminants instead.
Either way, I do agree with what you (and some other posters) are getting at - in the case of MANY coins, there is no way to know whether they have been dipped or not. And, if some are designated as dipped, it could and would give a false impression about numerous others which do not receive that designation, but should.
<< <i>
<< <i>One would have to believe that dipping is always detectable. It is not.
Russ, NCNE >>
Understood. But I feel if a dipped coin is detected while being graded, then it should be labeled as such. If it's detectable, I assume it must be somewhat severe.
I was underthe assumption that if a dipped coin was detected durring grading that it would be BB'ed as cleaned or altered surfaces?
<< <i>
<< <i>Again, if you are going to talk about original surfaces and be anti-dipped you need to tell me whether that 1845 dime is original or not. >>
CG, I don't know if the coin has been dipped or not and I very well might have the same answer even if I could see it in person.
However, my best guess is that it has been dipped. I base that guess on the appearance of what looks like possible remnants of the (removed) toning, now manifesting itself as light, whitish, splotchy areas in both the left and right obverse field areas. It's possible, though, that what I'm seeing is merely evidence of un-dipped, light surface contaminants instead.
Either way, I do agree with what you (and some other posters) are getting at - in the case of MANY coins, there is no way to know whether they have been dipped or not. And, if some are designated as dipped, it could and would give a false impression about numerous others which do not receive that designation, but should. >>
Mark, once again, you prove to be the "apostle" of this forum.
CG
<< <i>I was under the assumption that if a dipped coin was detected durring grading that it would be BB'ed as cleaned or altered surfaces? >>
Unless the dipping is severe, that is usually not the case at all. In fact, there are countless dipped coins in holders, including many of very high grade (67 and higher).
By the way,"cleaned" and "altered surfaces" often denote that something other than dipping has been done to a coin. In the case of "altered surfaces" it usually means that something has been added to, rather than dipped off of the coin's surface.
Will they dock a point or two from an 18th century or early 19th coin that is blast white? Don't know the answer to that. Perhaps a question for David Hall in the Q&A forum.
CG
<< <i>Yeah, I misspoke, it was Farouk that liked them clean. >>
Farouk didn't clean his coins. (To a surprising large extent he didn't even take them out of the shipping packages.) Much of the cleaning of the Farouk coins was done after Farouk went into exile. And not all of the Farouk material was cleaned.
<< <i>What I liked best about Farouk coins was his numbering system.
PAINTED on the coin. >>
I'm not aware of Farouk doing that either. That WAS a common cataloging method used in the mid nineteenth century, especially on copper coins and it was done by boh collectors and museums. I have at least half a dozen Conder tokens with cataloging numbers written on them.
With all due respect, the hobby would be more enjoyable and TPG companies would have greater respect among collectors by designating those coins worthy of an original surfaces with such a designation. Will it be perfect and will they get it right all the time? The answer is no. Considering the amount of coins that have been cracked out and upgraded or even downgraded reflects that grading is not a prefect art or science. However, there is clearly room for significant improvement from what is currently being done in the grading rooms to accurately describe the state of preservation of coins. The TPG companies are just not where they need to be in terms of identifying original coins and I am not satisfied with that.
The bottom line is that grading will always have a subjective component to it and that is not likely to change. We have seen threads on this forum in connection with many original coins that have been butchered and it still seems no TPG Company is concerned or is willing to move in a direction to recognize originality. It seems that it easier to say how difficult the challEnge is as an excuse to do nothing. That is pathetic and unacceptible.
Moving to your question about the 1845-o DIME... I would feel much better seeing the coin in person before rendering an opinion. It looks as if at some point the coin was enhanced. Having said that, it still graded MS69 AND THAT IS FINE. It does not get an original surfaces designation. Does the mean this coin is any less desirable?
To some perhaps and to the majority, not bloodly likely... but then again, how many can afford this coin anyway?
My point is not well illustrated by your example, but by other threads that have been posted within the last 60 days... including various gold coins and an 1871-cc Seated Dollar that make it crystal clear such a designation is long overdue... and frankly, you can disagree all you want and site that there will be mistakes in applying the original surfaces designation. My response is simple... DOING SOMETHING TO ENCOURAGE THAT ORIGINAL COINS ARE SPECIAL AND ARE WORTHY OF BEING NOTED AS SUCH IS BETTER THAN DOING NOTHING. TPG GRADING ALREADY ASSIGNS GRADES TO COINS THAT CREATE DISPUTES AMONG THE BEST AND BRIGHTEST GRADERS AND EXPERTS... THIS IMPERFECTION IS SOMETHING THAT COLLECTORS ARE ALREADY DEALING WITH...it just that some of us are dealing with it better than others.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I am just trying to be realistic. There is no doubt that the services are awarding dipping by upgrading coins that have luster unveiled by the removal of patina. Only if collectors shun such coins will the practice stop. On the other hand, original does not mean pretty. Many collectors believe that there is nothing wrong with conserving a coin that has become unattractive due to antiquated or improper storage.
I have posed the question in the Q&A forum as to whether an early silver coin would be docked points for being blast white. We will see what the response is.
By the way, I do not know how you can definitvely say that the Eliasberg 1845-o dime was enhanced or that it does not merit an originality designation unless you have examined the original Eliasberg auction catalog and found that it was toned at that time, or you know that something was done to it many years ago. Otherwise you are just relying on the rule of thumb regarding 19th century silver, and there are always exceptions to the rules.
CG
Bass Sale
Conder, I don't doubt you're right, but then I never met Farouk.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
I appreciate the fact that you are trying to be realistic... I am too... It's just that our approaches are different. Educated collectors often reject dipped coins... however, I am of the view that TPG Companies are under an obligation to best describe the state of preservation of the coin that has been submitted. I am of the view that unless an original surfaces option exists and is used when warranted, that they are failing and failing miserably.
I do not dispute that some coins that are dipped either needed to be dipped because of PVC issues or perhaps other storage issues that threaten the surfaces of the coin. Conservation has its place... as does Originality. If a collector wants to dip... as much as I may be opposed to that, it would better better for that collector to buy an example that they find acceptible before entertaining the risk of harming an original coin. I think that are already enough dipped examples of many coins to choose from... my complaint is that the dipping is hurting the hobby for those of us that want the crusty coin or the orange peel on a gold coin that only a picture or a look at the coin can tell the story.
To those collectors that do not care about an original surface designation, life as a collector may not change... for those of us that do, there will be a greater recognition that original quality means something special. Frankly, I anticipate that only a small percentage of coins will get the designation of original surfaces and it clearly is worth the undertaking. Future generations of collectors will look at this time period and ask why it was not done. I really hope someone will have a good answer that passes the straight face test.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I think there's a place for this type of idea- good thread by the way!
Should ugly coins be labeled as such on the slab?
How about overgraded coins?
How about a "w" for easily replaceable coins?