Which do you consider to be the better choice???
keets
Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
First of all, this is the same coin and I no longer own it. I found the images while I was cleaning out some old picture CD's and I'd forgotten I even had saved them. But here's the story and the question.
I purchased a 1940 Capital Holdered Set from a collector who had set-up at a local show to sell his collection. The set as a whole looked nice but my main interest was the Jefferson Nickel which was a Reverse of 1938. I originally planned to switch Nickels and resell the set but the Half-Dollar grabbed my curiosity. I decided to dip it and hoped the removal of the haze would reveal what appeared to be pristine fields and clean devices. Unfortunately there were a few hairlines which I felt would have made it a wash, so I just resold the set as planned and ended up with a nice Jefferson variety.
Nothing was changed or manipulated to enhance either picture. I simply took a "before" picture and then the "after" picture about 10 minutes apart without changing anything with the set-up, downloaded the images and cropped/sized them.
Do you think the quick dip improved the coin??
Do you think the quick dip robbed it of it's originality??
Do you think the quick dip stripped the surfaces and left them lifeless??
Do you think the quick dip ruined a coin??
Do you think I deceived someone by selling a dipped coin??
Am I a bad person??
Al H.
I purchased a 1940 Capital Holdered Set from a collector who had set-up at a local show to sell his collection. The set as a whole looked nice but my main interest was the Jefferson Nickel which was a Reverse of 1938. I originally planned to switch Nickels and resell the set but the Half-Dollar grabbed my curiosity. I decided to dip it and hoped the removal of the haze would reveal what appeared to be pristine fields and clean devices. Unfortunately there were a few hairlines which I felt would have made it a wash, so I just resold the set as planned and ended up with a nice Jefferson variety.
Nothing was changed or manipulated to enhance either picture. I simply took a "before" picture and then the "after" picture about 10 minutes apart without changing anything with the set-up, downloaded the images and cropped/sized them.
Do you think the quick dip improved the coin??
Do you think the quick dip robbed it of it's originality??
Do you think the quick dip stripped the surfaces and left them lifeless??
Do you think the quick dip ruined a coin??
Do you think I deceived someone by selling a dipped coin??
Am I a bad person??
Al H.
0
Comments
Nick
<< <i>I like the second coins better based on the pictures. IMO, I think it brought out more of the "life" in the coin and seems to have brought out some of the toning around the rims. I like it and if I were the purchaser I would not feel deceived by the fact that you dipped the coin. And if everything is the same between the two I think you might be understating the amount of haze on the first picture.
Nick >>
and yes, you are a bad person. Just kidding, the dip definently help bring out the luster and sharp strike in the coin. If you had just posted the obverse of the hazy coin and hidden the date, I would have guessed it to be hazy silver eagle.
Do you think the quick dip robbed it of it's originality?? Yes
Do you think the quick dip stripped the surfaces and left them lifeless?? Hard to tell from the pics, but yes.
Do you think the quick dip ruined a coin?? Yes
Do you think I deceived someone by selling a dipped coin?? I dunno. Do you think you deceived them?
Am I a bad person?? Yes - but I've known worse.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
The light seemed to distribute more evenly over the coin before the dip ???
Hoard the keys.
Steve
Do you think the quick dip robbed it of it's originality?? NO
Do you think the quick dip stripped the surfaces and left them lifeless?? NO
Do you think the quick dip ruined a coin?? NO
Do you think I deceived someone by selling a dipped coin?? NO
Am I a bad person?? Define Bad??
Looks far better after the quick dip. What did you dip it in? Cheers, RickO
In general however, I like toning and what I call original patina (most others call it original). I am OK with a quick dip to remove light hazing, although I personally never have done it.
On the "Am I a bad person?" question i am with Ricko, define "bad"
The trouble with hazy coins from this era is that they are not attractive. The haze dulls the mirror surfaces, and provides none of the esthetic advantages that come from some forms of toning.
A few years ago I hid a Mercury dime that was in a PR-66 holder. The coin was totally original with the haze, and it no hairlines that I could see. Yet I could not sell the coin because of the haze, which affected the eye appeal. I ultimately blew off the coin at a loss to another dealer. His comment was, “This should have been dipped before it went into this holder.” I had to agree with him.
If the purists believe that hazy Proof coins should be left alone, they need to back up that opinion by creating a market for these coins. If they were to do that then more hazy Proof coins would survive, but as it is now hazy Proof coins are something that needs to be “fixed” if the owners of such pieces are to get fair prices for them.
this is a good point and one worthy of a thread in and of itself.
haze is a really tricky thing while it can and does grow thick enough on a coin surface to obscure what's underneath, it can often times enhance the appearance if it affects the color in a positive way. what you speak of no doubt is somehow related to the amount of time stored in a particular way, and of course, the storage materials themselves. as an example, Proof coins from the 1950's can acquire haze which is nice if they have been removed from the Mint cello and stored in something like a Capital holder while those left in the original pouches are almost always dull and unattractive. as you say, coins from the 1936-1942 era tend to have unattractive haze. i presume that coins prior to 1916 have mostly been dipped already to remove what would be unattractive haze from improper storage.
the only "positive" thing i can think of about haze on Proof coins is that it lends a sense of originality to the coins(even though i don't really like the term) only because i don't believe that sort of thing can be replicated. on the downside, finding a nice hazed Proof means it needs to have the haze removed and too many frown on that.
done to remove toning on business-strike coins and the inevitable result of repetitive dipping is attenuated luster. Once the luster is impaired, there is no
way to restore it.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]