What signs should we look for to help determine whether a coin has been dipped?

[MarkFeld]

Who'd like to start and help make a list?

[MikeInFL]

Here are a few characteristics off the top of my head:

 

Lack of/burned off/impared luster.

Even, white appearance.

Champagne toning.

Lack of "skin" on a coin old enough to have toning.

[MBA101]

Uneven toning with "white areas" in the details or splotches of white in fields.

 

 

[bsshog40]

Copper- Removes luster

Will create a pinkish tone

 

Silver- Dulls coin/removes luster

[MikeKing]

19th century silver coinage with bright luster and very thin colorful toning that people (including myself) pay megabucks for.

[MarkFeld]

19th century silver coinage with bright luster and very thin colorful toning that people (including myself) pay megabucks for.

Mike, are you implying that such toning is too colorful for a coin which hasn't been dipped and re-toned, too light ("thin"), or both?

[gmarguli]

Common sense.

[MarkFeld]

Common sense.

Greg, I think I know what you mean, but please elaborate, perhaps with an easy and a not-so-easy example?

[IGWT]

Common sense.

Greg, I think I know what you mean, but please elaborate, perhaps with an easy and a not-so-easy example?

 

Have any of these three coins been dipped? Which? None? How do you know for sure? Can you know for sure?

 

Edited to add: I had posted these coins for the purpose of educational discussion. I expected that people might have opinions that differ from my own, and I'm fine with that (really) for many reasons. Unfortunately, the educational discussion didn't materialize, and all we have is rather unflattering conjecture without any analyses. So, while I expected critical evaluation, I did not intend to start a guessing game that benefits nobody.

[bsshog40]

I think a quick dip of a coin would be hard to determine if dipped. But an over-dipped coin I think would be easily recognized as to dipping being very harsh on luster.

[MarkFeld]

Lou, thanks for some good examples to work with. My guess (and that's all it is at this point) is that both coins have been dipped (or otherwise had toning removed). I will explain why later, after others have had time to reply.

[IGWT]

Lou, thanks for some good examples to work with. My guess (and that's all it is at this point) is that both coins have been dipped (or otherwise had toning removed). I will explain why later, after others have had time to reply.

 

I threw another coin into the mix to add to the fun & learning. We now have three coins of the same year (varieties of reverse hub '68), with different appearances that might appeal (or not) to different collectors for different reasons.

[gmarguli]

Common sense.

Greg, I think I know what you mean, but please elaborate, perhaps with an easy and a not-so-easy example?

 

I liked my original answer, but I will add to it.

 

Common sense should come into play if you see an old coin that was minted in a highly reactive metal and the coin does not have any toning, it looks like it came fresh off the dies, there is no patina, etc. Practically any coin called "Blast White" that is more than a couple decades old.

 

There really isn't that much more to it. I could have gone for muted luster, off color, etc, but those are the easy answers for improperly dipped coins. For the properly dipped coins, common sense is the proper detection method.

[MikeInFL]

Have any of these three coins been dipped? Which? None? How do you know for sure? Can you know for sure?

 

My spidey-sense says that #1 and #2 have been dipped, and the third looks original.

 

But your last question is well taken, and I think the answer, in virtually all cases, is we can't know for sure...Mike

[Dcoin]

I always look around the lettering, especially in between individual letters like the loops of an S. Cleaners have a hard time reaching these areas and will often have some original toning in there.

 

 

Edit: Found a perfect example, especially in and around "United States Of America"

[James_OldeTowne]

If it is a non-hoard coin minted before 1915 and is white, it's immediately suspect.

 

And if it is the least bit circulated and white, then it's suspect.

 

Edited to add:

 

One more thing, don't ever expect to be able to determine whether a coin's been dipped from an image.

[pendragon1998]

If a coin is improperly dipped and a microdroplet of dip residue remains, you can get a small point of nasty corrosion eaten into a coin.

[123cents]

Some of the time you can tell a coin has been dipped by the edges. They will not come completely clean at times because of reeding, etc.

[jesbroken]

First, you must insure that the coin is inhand, if not you are only kidding yourself. Most people doctor(not meaning to deceive) photos by using various lighting methods which can make a photos color totally unbelieveable. With the best of intentions, this can only confuse the issue.

The rest is mostly repetitive so I'll resist rehashing the issue. I do agree with looking at the lettering/stars symbols as the fluids will usually not cleanse their smaller apertures and the rims(if reeded) may not be cleansed entirely.

Some coins develop a champagne lustre, such as shield nickels in the higher grades.

Nice variants, Lou. It will be interesting to see what everyone thinks in their regards as they are hard to be sure of. I would feel 1 & 2 dipped, but 3 not. This is nothing but a WAG from photos, but it will give all something to laugh about.

Very informative post, Mark.

 

[rons]

I am trying to learn this since I have been burnt several times so any information is helpful. My paranoid self says all three have been dipped because there seems to be no luster on the coins that appear to have uncirculated details. This is being said based on the photos so it is just a guess. Have mercy

[IGWT]

My paranoid self says all three have been dipped because there seems to be no luster on the coins that appear to have uncirculated details. This is being said based on the photos so it is just a guess. Have mercy

 

It's very difficult to judge luster by photographs. And it's also a little bit more difficult in this case because we're dealing with a series with which folks typically don't have a lot of experience. Shield Nickels are, well . . . different, and for many reasons. It would have been better to have some silver coinage to evaluate. As it is, you'll just have to take my word that these three examples have very nice luster as far as Shields go.

[TomB]

If I am interpreting this slightly overexposed image correctly, then you may want to look at this-

[IGWT]

If I am interpreting this slightly overexposed image correctly, then you may want to look at this

 

[James_OldeTowne]

'By the way, "dipped" has many connotations. A coin can be dipped in a lot of different liquids with different effect. Consider liquids such as acid, bleach, ammonia, salt water, windex, oil, liquid nitrogen, soapy water, and on and on.

[bsshog40]

Here is a perfect example of a dipped coin! I had tried to get the corrosion of this coin. In the process, took away the original color of the coin.

[just-john]

my guess none dipped 1 and 2 restored coin 3 looks natural

[IGWT]

I had posted these coins for the purpose of educational discussion. I expected that people might have opinions that differ from my own, and I'm fine with that (really) for many reasons. Unfortunately, the educational discussion didn't materialize, and all we have is rather unflattering conjecture without any analyses. So, while I expected critical evaluation, I did not intend to start a guessing game that benefits nobody.

[MikeInFL]

Did we wake up on the wrong side of the bed?

 

Here's my rationale...going from memory as I can't find the photos... The first coin is simply too pristine and skin free to be original. The second has the look of dipped an retoned nickel. The third looks to be a nice original skin coin -- a bit splotchy like the shield and liberty nickels tend to tone..

[MarkFeld]

I had posted these coins for the purpose of educational discussion. I expected that people might have opinions that differ from my own, and I'm fine with that (really) for many reasons. Unfortunately, the educational discussion didn't materialize, and all we have is rather unflattering conjecture without any analyses. So, while I expected critical evaluation, I did not intend to start a guessing game that benefits nobody.

Lou, in assessing coins from images, what can we do other than guess or speculate? Heck, even in person, it's often a matter of guessing whether a coin has been dipped.

 

I don't see your images now, but recall thinking the first two coins might have been dipped because there appeared to be some light colored splotches and or stains, the type of which often result from toning having been removed from a coin. They looked like very nice coins, but that wasn't the question/issue at hand.

 

If you care to re-post the images I'd be happy to point to those areas and you could let me/us know what they represent. Still, my analysis would/could be nothing other than a guess/conjecture and I don't understand why you would have a problem with that.

 

I think the discussion in this thread has been educational and am sorry you feel differently.

 

[Dcoin]

I had posted these coins for the purpose of educational discussion. I expected that people might have opinions that differ from my own, and I'm fine with that (really) for many reasons. Unfortunately, the educational discussion didn't materialize, and all we have is rather unflattering conjecture without any analyses. So, while I expected critical evaluation, I did not intend to start a guessing game that benefits nobody.

Lou, in assessing coins from images, what can we do other than guess or speculate? Heck, even in person, it's often a matter of guessing whether a coin has been dipped.

 

I don't see your images now, but recall thinking the first two coins might have been dipped because there appeared to be some light colored splotches and or stains, the type of which often result from toning having been removed from a coin. They looked like very nice coins, but that wasn't the question/issue at hand.

 

If you care to re-post the images I'd be happy to point to those areas and you could let me/us know what they represent. Still, my analysis would/could be nothing other than a guess/conjecture and I don't understand why you would have a problem with that.

 

I think the discussion in this thread has been educational and am sorry you feel differently.

 

I'm going to speculate (if I may be so bold) a little into what Lou might be getting at. Sometimes posters take quite a bit of time to formulate our responses and feel they really add to the conversation, yet are seemingly dismissed or unacknowledged (probably unintentionally). It’s a little frustrating when this happens.

 

Some posters could write anything and get many many responses and others could write something super and not even get a sniff. In that sense I can identify with Lou's post.