Options
Guess I'm guilty...
Ricke
Posts: 677 ✭
Well, can't say I've never dipped a coin before, but it was the first slab I ever cracked to do it. Truth is, I generally like toning, but this one was different. I picked up this coin from NEN a while back, and to their credit, it was pictured quite well - the image was pretty accurate to what it looked like in hand.
The more I looked at it, the more I just didn't care for the tone. So today, I decided to crack it and give it a quick dip...
So what do you say - did I do this coin a favor, or should I have left it alone?
Before:
After:
The more I looked at it, the more I just didn't care for the tone. So today, I decided to crack it and give it a quick dip...
So what do you say - did I do this coin a favor, or should I have left it alone?
Before:
After:
0
Comments
both versions have liability....... a bit overdipped... next time dilute I guess?
It could be ruined, but I disagree. I think this one looks better than before - honestly, it is neither stripped nor over-dipped, so I'm guessing that it may be influenced by the different environments that the images were taken in. The first shot is NEN, the second it my own - under natural lighting (which may have been too close).
I agree, I would normally have passed on this coin to begin with, but the strike has interesting aspects to it, so I kept it. I figured I would take a shot and see what was beneath the ragged tone. I have to say, I'm surprised by the general opinion so far from a results standpoint, but I figured the process would be pretty unfavorable.
The dipped coin suffers by being immediately next to the original coin, I think....
WNC Coins, LLC
1987-C Hendersonville Road
Asheville, NC 28803
wnccoins.com
Some people just never learn.
EDIT: You should have posted the thread titled as "just back from NCS", just to get a kick out of the contradictory and asinine responses.
A coin that old just doesn't look right bright and silver.
Life member #369 of the Royal Canadian Numismatic Association
Member of Canadian Association of Token Collectors
Collector of:
Canadian coins and pre-confederation tokens
Darkside proof/mint sets dated 1960
My Ebay
<< <i>Put that thing in a craft envelope and hide it in your desk drawer for a couple of years. It may retone nicely.
A coin that old just doesn't look right bright and silver. >>
I'm with Gene. The way it sits now, it is far from "ruined", it just doesn't look natural to me. Some natural toning over a few years would help it out i'd be willing to bet.
1/2 Cents
U.S. Revenue Stamps
(It was getting quiet for a while there!)
My wantlist & references
<< <i>Now you can retone it with wild colors and the same people who are bashing you for dipping it will then pay stupid money to acquire it.
Some people just never learn.
EDIT: You should have posted the thread titled as "just back from NCS", just to get a kick out of the contradictory and asinine responses. >>
Yes, please retone it with wild colors and allow me to pay stupid money to acquire it...I'll never learn -Preussen
DPOTD-3
'Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery'
CU #3245 B.N.A. #428
Don
<< <i>did I do this coin a favor, or should I have left it alone? >>
The coin does not look 229 years old now, so you did not do the coin, or yourself, a favor. If you did not like its appearance, you might have been better off not buying it.
my early American coins & currency: -- http://yankeedoodlecoins.com/
The fields in the after pic are troubling to me.
I think the dipping in this case is just the first step in a longer process. Maybe the coin will retone more attractively than it did in the "before" pic. Whose to say this isn't the second or third good dipping this coin has had.
I saw a suggestion for a craft envelope. Maybe toss in a Taco Bell napkin as well and see what happens.
<< <i>Only because you asked, IMO the coin now looks near ruined . The toning might not have been beautiful, but I'd take that over "dipped & stripped" any day. When I dislike the toning on a particular coin, I pass unless it's a really hard one to find...In that case I'd live with the toning I didn't really love. JMO...it's your coin; if you like it better now, that's all that matters. -Preussen >>
Just curious - how do you feel about that coin in your avatar ? Based on your response I suppose it must be a ruined coin as well ?
<< <i>Just curious - how do you feel about that coin in your avatar ? Based on your response I suppose it must be a ruined coin as well ? >>
The coin in my avatar is booming with original mint luster, and is not even remotely "stripped." Had it been dipped at some time? I have no idea...I didn't dip it and saw no reason to think it had been, other than the fact that is was mostly untoned. Stripped coins have usually been dipped to death, but most certainly not all coins that have been dipped have been stripped such as the one posted by the OP. I'd would have expected you to be able to tell the difference. -Preussen
<< <i>
<< <i>Just curious - how do you feel about that coin in your avatar ? Based on your response I suppose it must be a ruined coin as well ? >>
The coin in my avatar is booming with original mint luster, and is not even remotely "stripped." Had it been dipped at some time? I have no idea...I didn't dip it and saw no reason to think it had been, other than the fact that is was mostly untoned. Stripped coins have usually been dipped to death, but most certainly not all coins that have been dipped have been stripped such as the one posted by the OP. I'd would have expected you to be able to tell the difference. -Preussen >>
Pretty sure I can tell the difference. Rick's coin appaears to have a good deal of luster, doesn't look stripped to me at all. But what luster is there does appear to be somewhat subdued not only by his pics, but by the hairlines and contact marks - not the dip he gave the coin. Those who know this series know that these coins often come with Proof like fields. So the coins don't have the usual cartwheel luster to begin with. Throw in some hairlines, contact marks and those Proof like fields can easily make it appear there is little luster remaining. But it is a deception. The luster is there, it's just a different kind of luster than most are used to seeing.
And I think it is rather a certainty that your avatar coin has been dipped, otherwise it most definitely would not look the way it does. And I'm not knocking it, it looks fantastic ! Doubt it did before it was dipped though.
But don't get me wrong, I am strongly in favor of originality for coins. But there are times when originality can be a bad thing. Heavy or splotchy toning can greatly detract from the beauty of a coin. Takes Rick's coin here - look at the obverse in the original pics, see those dark marks. Does anybody think those marks are a plus for this coin ? I certainly don't. The dipping removed those marks and that was a plus for this coin. Overall I think the dipping was very much a plus for this coin. Of course, other's opinions may differ.
You even had me looking for this similar coin (Salzburg 1777 20 kreuzer) to see what the condition of it looks like. I remember it was toned and looked very natural but I do not remember the amount of lustre. I bought it from a Numismatik Lanz Munchen Auction three years ago, and I have done nothing to it ... unfortunately it's in my bank box. but next time I'm there I bring it home and take some "home photos" for comparison
here is the auction scan ( I do remember the coin has much more life/spark to it than depicted in the scan and did not looked cleaned... I was very pleased with it !)
dipping may reveal. Furthermore, there are differing methods and solutions. Where
1-2 seconds of dipping may help, 5 seconds in the same solution may go too far and
ruin a coin.
Preussen's avatar does NOT look dipped to me. That looks like natural lustre bloom.
Sometimes though, a coin NEEDS help, otherwise it's just fugly.
The coin below was in an NGC PF62 holder, but it was just horrible. There's good toning,
and there's bad toning. This is BAD toning.
I sent it to NCS, where they dipped... err... "conserved" it. It's now a PF63 CAMEO. While
the after shots do look somewhat dipped out, I much prefer it to the before look.
Before:
After:
1/2 Cents
U.S. Revenue Stamps
<< <i>Rick see all the commotion you've started >>
who, me?
That's a nice one, Conrad. I like the look, even in the scan. You've got a great eye.
Well, here's my thoughts overall, I've really appreciated the feedback. I actually bounced back and forth on this one quite a bit, before I did anything. This is not a terribly high dollar coin, and I trust my hand as much as the next guy, so I didn't want to send this in to NCS. If it were significantly higher value, I probably would have done nothing or sent it in to the professionals... basically, my trust in my hand has a dollar limit.
I don't think the dip was a terrible success. I think it was an improvement, but if you see in the second image, some of the patches remained in the legend and significantly at the base of the obverse. Maybe I didn't dip it long enough, but I won't do it again for fear of damage. Someone had mentioned that I probably cut the value of this coin in half. I disagree, however you could be right - were I in the market to sell it. I'm not. This one is a collection piece to me. I'm hoping that the years to come will treat this coin well, under better storage - the patches that remain make me think it likely won't.
Now, why fool with this one, instead of looking for another? Strike issues - cool strike issues that I'm not familiar with - but maybe some people all. They are easiest to see in the original picture, online, but are still easy to see in hand now.
The circular patern at the top of the obverse - that's a raised line... die break? Personally, I dunno, never seen one like that before, myself. What looks like a bump at the bottom of the bust, I'm guessing is a planchet flaw... if you look close you'll see lines that lead to the outside at the top... again, those lines are raised on the coin, leading to some sort of flaw. To me, those are things that make this one a keeper over other examples.
<< <i>And I think it is rather a certainty that your avatar coin has been dipped, otherwise it most definitely would not look the way it does. >>
Wow; such an expert and definitive assessment of my coin, and all you needed to see was a pic resized to 1 3/8"...I can't imagine what you could do with the coin actually in hand; you must be a true coin genius . Some folks here just never cease to amaze me -Preussen
Edited to add:
<< <i>it looks fantastic ! Doubt it did before it was dipped though. >>
Wow again - not only are you certain it was dipped, you even know that it looks better now than before . You can tell all of this just from my avatar, huh? You are way too smart for me . -Preussen
Guess that kind of puts us both in the same boat doesn't it ?
<< <i>Guess that kind of puts us both in the same boat doesn't it ? >>
I seriously doubt it. -Preussen
<< <i>Another nice original coin ruined. >>
Can I ask you to elaborate on that? I mean, if this coin is housed properly, and developes a more appealing, natural, even tone over time, are you saying that your opinion would be that this is 'another nice orignial coin ruined'? Would you be able to tell the difference?
For that matter, what about this
This coin is one of my favorites. It's a fantastic coin with beautiful luster - probably one of the best examples you'll see of this type. It's also 260 years old, this year. Since we all know silver is a reactive metal, what are the chances that this coin was kept in an air tight environment, for the majority, since 1749? Or is this another nice original coin already ruined before it came to me.
<< <i>
<< <i>Another nice original coin ruined. >>
Can I ask you to elaborate on that? I mean, if this coin is housed properly, and developes a more appealing, natural, even tone over time, are you saying that your opinion would be that this is 'another nice orignial coin ruined'? Would you be able to tell the difference? >>
Coins that are never cleaned (and yes there are some, even 200-300 years old), develop a "skin", sort of like an ancient coin developing a patina. Once you strip away the "skin", the coin will never be the same again regardless if it retones. Toning and skin are not the same thing. Just like if you strip the patina from an ancient coin, it will retone, but it's never the same.
Experienced collectors can tell the difference in hand (pics are often hard to tell). Your coin might retone and look ok, even look good and be acceptable to the vast majority of collectors, but that wasn't the point. You stripped the original skin from a 260 year old coin. It will never be the same again and experienced collectors can always tell. Look at some of the discussions on Southern gold in the U.S. coin forum and read some of Doug Winter's articles. Gold is the hardest metal to tell if it has original "skin" because it's the least reactive, but an expert like Doug could tell you every time if a coin's been cleaned.
And keep in mind, when I say "ruined", I'm talking about the originality, not market acceptability. Due to the cleaning craze in the 60's and 70's there are very few coins that haven't been cleaned and most are still acceptable to the majority of collectors. Unfortunatly, you just added another one to the number of cleaned coins.