Trade Dollar Dip results *see updated pic"

[SWNGC]

In my opinion there also exists a big disparity between those who choose to chemically remove impurities from the surface of their own coins for the sole purpose of meeting personal preferences yet continue to have an interest in conservation and preservation of the coin, and those whose actions are motivated by an attempt to artificially alter a coin for the purpose of enhancing perceived value/marketability or with an intent to decieve less informed prospective buyers.and harboring no concern for the conservation/preservation of the item.

 

One is a collector who likes his coin to look "original" and free from contaminants and the other is a scumbag whose only real interest is in making a buck regardless of the impact on the coins.

[gbsten]

Coin doctors ruin more coins than they improve.

 

Highly doubtful unless you are including their junk practice coins.

 

EVERY Doctored Coin IS A Ruined Coin. Regardless of whether you are whizzing/polishing/toning/take your pick, Your actions serve to DEGRADE the surface of the coin via mechanical or chemical means.

 

DEGRADE=Lessen Quality=>RUIN

 

Just Don't Do it!

 

Completely incorrect, but you're entitled to your opinion.

 

Too much is lumped into the term "doctored". Too much of a knee jerk reaction to the term.

 

I would be curious how you define the parameters?

 

 

Myself, I could allow one, maybe two, 2-second dips. Anything more than that ruins the luster in my opinion. Any other "service" should be out of question. I don't have a problem with people toning their coins by natural reaction. Any heat or chemical action to accelerate this is "doctoring". Hey, if you leave it sitting out exposed to the air, or wrap it and put it in the drawer, and it comes out with a nice golden toning I can deal with it. Anything more is out-of-bounds in my opinion.

[SWNGC]

This brings about a fantastic point, as time is really the issue here.

Let's say we have a coin minted in 1880 and it's now 130 years later, within your limits, and assuming that each generation of owners keeps the coin for 30 years, then you are now the 4th or 5th generation. Was it also acceptable for each of the previous owners to dip the coin twice? Are you now just as happy with a coin that's been dipped 10 times? If this becomes the industry standard for acceptance, do we have any coins left with original skin or any lustre at all in another 100 years? The reality is that every time a surface contaminant is atomically "bound" to the existing outer layer of the coin, a thin layer of the original surface will be damaged and if dipped, removed to expose the next less lustrous layer.

 

The best actions are those that serve to stabilize the existing surface and preserve it's current state in a prudent manner. Leaving a coin on a windowsill is not acting to protect or preserve the coin and is just a longer time-horizoned version of an attempt to manipulate/damage the coin.

 

YES - Some Toned coins are ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL, often because of the effects of the light diffracting from the flow lines in the original skin/lustre. These coins are VERY RARE, and the premium enjoyed by them is attributable to both their rarity and "natural" beauty and can be difficult to quantify.

 

It is the intent of coin doctor's who tone coins to immitate this occurance and reap monetary rewards through deceit of the less informed/ignorant coin buyer. If there were no intent to deceive involved, then why not inform the buyer/grading agency that the coin was artificially and intentionally manipulated?

 

[Tradedollarnut]

Personally, I have no problem with the dip as IMO the coin was AT to begin with.

[JIM F.]

To put things in context. I bought this to fill a slot in my type collection. It came in an ANACS AU-58 "Cleaned" holder. By being in a holder it gave me confidence it was at least genuine (especially for this series). So I cracked it out and got rid of the ugly toning. It looks a heck of a lot better now to the naked eye and has surface flash which I was unable to capture with the photos. I think the ugly toning was due to dip residue which if left alone would likely only make it get uglier with time.

 

I have no intentions to attempt to have this slabbed or to resell it.

 

For those who were kind enough to call my coin a POS, I assume you mean a piece of silver.

 

 

 

[gmarguli]

Coin doctors ruin more coins than they improve.

 

Highly doubtful unless you are including their junk practice coins.

 

EVERY Doctored Coin IS A Ruined Coin. Regardless of whether you are whizzing/polishing/toning/take your pick, Your actions serve to DEGRADE the surface of the coin via mechanical or chemical means.

 

DEGRADE=Lessen Quality=>RUIN

 

Just Don't Do it!

 

Completely incorrect, but you're entitled to your opinion.

 

Too much is lumped into the term "doctored". Too much of a knee jerk reaction to the term.

 

It's not an opinion IT IS A FACT!

 

Perhaps the meaning "fact" and "ruined" are not known to you. The FACT is that the vast majority of people in this business will not view a doctored coin as ruined. People are OK with dipped coins all the time. They are doctored.

 

 

Do you contend that whizzing/polishing and other mechanical alterations to coins DO NOT result in damage to the surface of the coin?

 

Alteration of the surface, yes. Damage to the surface is a case by case determination. It is very possible the work was done to lessen another greater problem.

 

 

Do you contend that toning/dipping/chemical processing does not alter the surface quality of the coin?

 

It can alter the quality of the surface both positively and negatively. A vast majority of these are not ruined. In fact, they are enhanced. Look at all the white Morgans in high grade holders. Are they ruined?

 

 

 

Do you contend that degrading the surface of a coin does not lessen the quality of that coin?

 

With your use of the term "degrade" there is only one answer to this. Try phrasing your questions a little less biased if you want an honest discussion.

 

 

Do you contend that the act of lessening the quality of a surface of a coin does not RUIN the coin?

 

See above. Also: Ruined is not the correct term.

 

 

You LOSE!

 

Yes, I lose. Should have never even bothered with you.

[SWNGC]

Perhaps the meaning "fact" and "ruined" are not known to you. The FACT is that the vast majority of people in this business will not view a doctored coin as ruined. People are OK with dipped coins all the time. They are doctored.

 

 

RUINED Defined - (Noun) the downfall, decay, or destruction of anything (verb) to injure (a thing) irretrievably

 

So you contend that the acts you defend do not contribute to the downfall, decay, or destruction of the surface of the coin or otherwise injure it in an irretrievable fashion? You can put that original outer skin back on the coin?

 

FACT Defined - A claim corresponding to objective reality, a provably true concept.

 

While I offer a rooted scientific explanation of the damage ACTUALLY imparted by the actions you defend, you offer your perception of other people's perceptions of what is or is not OK with no quantifiable supporting data in a generalized statement as a better usage of the term FACT?

 

I dispute the claim you were attempting to make with the following question:

 

Do you really believe that the people who you believe are OK with dipped coins would choose an all original bright white un-dipped coin over an otherwise identical dipped one without the original skin, when offered at the same price/terms?

 

Accordingly, I submit that they will in fact choose and thus prefer the original coin, but are regularly forced to "settle" for the modified version as a result of the scarcity of the former.

 

(Don't tell me that all white coins have been dipped, as original mint bags opened in the 60s contained bright white coins and many exist to this day in the same un-altered, un-dipped state) Proper storage is KEY!

 

OK - So you were wrong again on that one. Now on to your next statement

 

Alteration of the surface, yes. Damage to the surface is a case by case determination. It is very possible the work was done to lessen another greater problem.

 

So now your stance is it's ok to remove or alter the surface of a coin to obstruct or obscure other greater damage? And this, you feel, is then OK? Are you kidding?

 

When EXACTLY "in your opinion" can you alter/whizz/machine/polish the surface of a coin and it be OK?

 

It can alter the quality of the surface both positively and negatively. A vast majority of these are not ruined. In fact, they are enhanced. Look at all the white Morgans in high grade holders. Are they ruined?

 

How "exactly" does removing the outermost surface layer positively impact quality on an otherwise stable coin? Wouldn't the coin be of higher quality if that same surface that's now exposed was still protected beneath the layer you removed?

 

So are they ruined? - In the strictest sense, YES. Their quality has been intentionally altered/degraded from the original state, and as the TOTAL objective in coin collecting is to obtain the HIGHEST QUALITY, BEST & CLOSEST example of a true PERFECT mint-state example of a coin, your actions have served to ruin/lessen the coin.

 

Again, if given the choice between undipped white and dipped white, original wins.

 

With your use of the term "degrade" there is only one answer to this. Try phrasing your questions a little less biased if you want an honest discussion.

 

So I should not fully articulate my point so it is easier for you to respond?

From a scientific, provable, factual, standpoint, the surface has been degraded - It's that simple

 

See above. Also: Ruined is not the correct term.

Again, the logic is infallable so you attempt to dispute my choice of semantics, yet propose no other more suitable term?

 

Again! -> RUINED Defined - (Noun) the downfall, decay, or destruction of anything (verb) to injure (a thing) irretrievably

 

It FITS.

 

Yes, I lose. Should have never even bothered with you

 

I too would regret entering into a discussion based upon an indefensible stance.

 

 

 

The bottom line is that the decision to act in a manner which involves the altering or removal of original material from the surface of an item which we intend to preserve should not be taken so lightly. This is a practice that has resulted from prolonged attempts to entice consumers to settle for various problem or former problem coins and to reach a state of psychologic acceptance in doing so.

 

To that point, can anyone out there provide a real world example of another rare, collectible or valuable historic object that is commonly subjected to the removal of it's surface as an act of preservation or "enhancing marketability"? Should we tone our nations historic documents, leave them "on the windowsill", abraisively polish the copper domes on our buildings until paper thin, or rub down the surface of the national monument/statue of liberty. WEAR is WEAR, DAMAGE is DAMAGE

 

 

 

 

[JIM F.]

An owner of an object can do whatever they want to do with it.

[SWNGC]

Indeed, under most circumstances there are no laws or prohibitions that I am aware of that would prohibit such actions. Hell, you can drill a hole in it and wear it on a chain or make a nice beltbuckle out of it. This is the very reason that original high quality coins are so scarce today. Every time someone foolishly irreversibly damages another coin, there is one less such specimen in supply.

 

As an example, I have a fantastic 1897-o morgan in ms63/64 condition with the lightest swipe across the face of the coin - now unc details baby and worth 5 figures less. This coin survived in perfect shape for over 100 years until the heir of the man who owned it took it to a pawn shop and the guy wiped it to see if the dark area on the front would come off! One less in supply!

 

It is a shame that people show such little respect for their possessions and this is a trait that we now often see in so many other undisciplined aspects of their lives. Hence the fantastic world we live in today - Does it really matter? Probably not, perhaps it won't be long until the gov't takes all of our coins, puts them in a giant rock tumbler and hands one identical, equally crappy coin back out to each of us, just to be "fair".

 

 

 

 

[gbsten]

I agree with the concept you explained. Certainly the coin is "better" now that you have removed the dip residue and stabilized the surfaces. At least now the coin can begin to tone in a natural way again.

[JIM F.]

I've got the rock tumbler fired up. Never liked the dull matte proof surfaces on my Buffalo nickels anyway.

 

[gbsten]

Indeed, under most circumstances there are no laws or prohibitions that I am aware of that would prohibit such actions. Hell, you can drill a hole in it and wear it on a chain or make a nice beltbuckle out of it. This is the very reason that original high quality coins are so scarce today. Every time someone foolishly irreversibly damages another coin, there is one less such specimen in supply.

 

As an example, I have a fantastic 1897-o morgan in ms63/64 condition with the lightest swipe across the face of the coin - now unc details baby and worth 5 figures less. This coin survived in perfect shape for over 100 years until the heir of the man who owned it took it to a pawn shop and the guy wiped it to see if the dark area on the front would come off! One less in supply!

 

It is a shame that people show such little respect for their possessions and this is a trait that we now often see in so many other undisciplined aspects of their lives. Hence the fantastic world we live in today - Does it really matter? Probably not, perhaps it won't be long until the gov't takes all of our coins, puts them in a giant rock tumbler and hands one identical, equally crappy coin back out to each of us, just to be "fair".

 

 

 

 

Can you post the coin?

[JIM F.]

Yeah, these dull surfaces on this matte proof really bug me. Rock tumbler should fix it I think.

[SWNGC]

NICE Buffalo!,

 

As for the original TD posted, I have my share of coins that have had less than optimal past experiences, but have resolved myself to use reactive chemicals sparingly, and basically only in the case where I believe the surface is unstable as is. (This appears to be the case on your original post, and our expanded discussion had little to do with your particular case, but with the practice in general).

 

Yours appears to have been a catch-22, but at least you know the true condition of the coin and that the surface is now stable going forward. While I believe your earlier comment regarding doctoring the coin was in jest, it's your business where you go from here.

 

(The rock tumbler comment was a stab at our current administration/national policy of equality and mediocracy for all)

 

 

[rrantique]

(The rock tumbler comment was a stab at our current administration/national policy of equality and mediocracy for all)

 

 

[relicsncoins]

Get off your high horses. He dipped a coin that had terrible toning most likely from an impropper dip. The coin is no more "ruined" now then it was with that dip residue toning.

 

Stick the coin in an album and in a few years it will probably be mellowed out to and acceptable appearance.

[RareSov]

First pic has splotchy yuck on it.. even a green looking area ?

 

Ahh, dip residue. Looks horrible, would have to do something to it

[RareSov]

Do you contend that toning/dipping/chemical processing does not alter the surface quality of the coin?

 

Absolutely. If done right, dipping is conservation, not doctoring

 

Or NCS is a bunch of coin doctors ?

[SWNGC]

Get off your high horses. He dipped a coin that had terrible toning most likely from an impropper dip. The coin is no more "ruined" now then it was with that dip residue toning.

 

Stick the coin in an album and in a few years it will probably be mellowed out to and acceptable appearance.

 

Agreed - You'll notice I did not voice an opinion with respect to the initial dip of the coin, nor did I, unlike many others, offer unkind words with respect to either the before or after pics. My contention arose from the implication that coin doctors (not the original poster) do not damage the coins that they doctor and I assumed an Extreme opposite position for argumentative purposes only.

 

I do believe coin doctoring to be a plague on the hobby, propogated by the ease by which such coins can be passed off to gullable online auction buyers as natural/special/etc for a profit. However, there is a massive difference between removing unwanted contaminants from the surface of a coin and the extreme techniques practiced by "Doctors".

 

I have "dipped" coins and have no doubt that I will do so in the future. My point with respect to this is that it should be done as sparingly as possible, as the life-span of many of these coins has and will far surpass many generations of owners and opportunities for every little dip/touch/etc to add up - nothing more

[SWNGC]

Do you contend that toning/dipping/chemical processing does not alter the surface quality of the coin?

 

Absolutely. If done right, dipping is conservation, not doctoring

 

Or NCS is a bunch of coin doctors ?

 

Your statement does not support your claim (via Absolutely) that the process does not alter the surface quality of the coin - Dipping does, without a doubt, do this.

 

If your intent was to claim that in proper circumstances dipping can be empoyed to assist in conservation of the coin by removing potentially harmful surface contaminants then I will agree fully with that statement. This however does not change the fact that my original statement holds true.

 

As NCS's objective is to act to stabilize and preserve the coin, not give it a false dazzling rainbow surface or misrepresent its condition, they are acting in a conservation role, not as a "doctor".

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

[snip]

 

 

 

My word, you're a trying individual.

 

That said,

[SWNGC]

Keeps life interesting...

 

Would LOVE to see one of the big EBAY coin doctors just get charged under this one...

 

TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 25, 471

 

Whoever, with intent to defraud, falsely makes, forges, counterfeits, or alters any obligation or other security of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

 

BUT WOULD GLADLY SETTLE FOR:

 

"Anyone who manufactures a counterfeit U.S. coin in any denomination above five cents is subject to the same penalties as all other counterfeiters. Anyone who alters a genuine coin to increase its numismatic value is in violation of Title 18, Section 331 of the United States Code, which is punishable by a fine of up to $2,000, or imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both"

 

NOW THERE'S SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT Dr.

 

Do Doctors get "special" treatment in the Pokey?

[coinman1794]

Do you contend that toning/dipping/chemical processing does not alter the surface quality of the coin?

 

Absolutely. If done right, dipping is conservation, not doctoring

 

Or NCS is a bunch of coin doctors ?

 

Dipping is an irreversible reaction that strips metal from the surface. Dipping is not conservation because it breaks the first rule of conservation, which is do nothing that cannot be undone. That's the end the of story; it doesn't matter what NCS does.

 

That is not to say that an already bad coin, such as the Trade dollar in this post, can't be saved by removing the contaminated surfaces through dipping. The coin was already destroyed by a dip. The second dip was just to stabilize it and save what was left. Fat chance the coin ever certifies problem free

[gmarguli]

Do you really believe that the people who you believe are OK with dipped coins would choose an all original bright white un-dipped coin over an otherwise identical dipped one without the original skin, when offered at the same price/terms?

 

Accordingly, I submit that they will in fact choose and thus prefer the original coin, but are regularly forced to "settle" for the modified version as a result of the scarcity of the former.

 

I'm guessing that you've never tried to sell coins to an average collector. Blast white will be chosen over light original skin by a large majority of collectors.

 

BTW, "original skin" is meaningless. What is original? Did you own the coin since it was minted? Are you sure it hasn't been dipped 20 times and just skinned over the last few years before you acquired it?

[gmarguli]

Dipping is an irreversible reaction that strips metal from the surface. Dipping is not conservation because it breaks the first rule of conservation, which is do nothing that cannot be undone. That's the end the of story; it doesn't matter what NCS does.

 

Where exactly are these rules written?

 

If there really were a rule that said don't do anything that can't be undone, then no conservation work would be performed on anything ever. Conservation involves the altering of the object. Period.

[SWNGC]

Dipping is an irreversible reaction that strips metal from the surface. Dipping is not conservation because it breaks the first rule of conservation, which is do nothing that cannot be undone. That's the end the of story; it doesn't matter what NCS does.

 

Where exactly are these rules written?

 

If there really were a rule that said don't do anything that can't be undone, then no conservation work would be performed on anything ever. Conservation involves the altering of the object. Period.

 

This "rule" is obviously not a rule issued by an authoritative body, but the basic premise upon which conservation and preservation fundamentals are based.

 

Accordingly, Preservation refers to activities you carry out to minimize deterioration of your holdings and prevent loss of content. Conservation is a component of your preservation strategy and involves the examination and treatment of your material in order to preserve it. The golden rule of conservation treatment is never to do anything that can't be undone.

 

Once again, your statement is ill rooted and logically flawed as it relies upon a false supposition that "no conservation work would be performed on anything ever" because you falsely state/believe that "conservation involves the altering of the object"

 

Is controlling the environment in which an item is stored not a form of conservation?

Did this act alter the object?

 

Can I not remove a potentially dangerous or damaging substance or compound from the surface of or area surrounding the item being conserved without "altering the object"?

 

Or more simplistically, When a bird drops a gushy load on your car and you rinse it off, are you not acting to conserve the state of your vehicles paint. Do you alter the paint?

 

Obviously conservation does not necessarily involve the altering of the object, so there is no "period", your statement is flawed, and that's right folks - "He's wrong Aaaagain!"

 

 

[gmarguli]

I give up. You're not worth educating. Keep the blinders on.

[SWNGC]

Do you really believe that the people who you believe are OK with dipped coins would choose an all original bright white un-dipped coin over an otherwise identical dipped one without the original skin, when offered at the same price/terms?

 

Accordingly, I submit that they will in fact choose and thus prefer the original coin, but are regularly forced to "settle" for the modified version as a result of the scarcity of the former.

 

I'm guessing that you've never tried to sell coins to an average collector. Blast white will be chosen over light original skin by a large majority of collectors.

 

BTW, "original skin" is meaningless. What is original? Did you own the coin since it was minted? Are you sure it hasn't been dipped 20 times and just skinned over the last few years before you acquired it?

 

So your business model relies upon capitalizing upon the inherent faults of "the average collector". Nice!

 

Obviously your motivations rely solely in monetary exploits gained from your actions and not in the preservation, state, or future of the items which you purvey or health of the business/industry in which you operate. (Did the thought ever occur that you could "TEACH" the consumer about the difference and that it might, just might, pay off in the long run - or do you actually prefer your customers to be uninformed???)

 

As for your remaining question - You state that blast white will be chosen over light original skin by collectors and then, amazingly, once you've just openly admitting that you, in fact, can recognize/identify/distinguish "original skin" for this purpose, question whether it (original skin) exists, has meaning, or can be discerned... You sir have answered your own question and yet again provided self-conflicting, logically misconstrued discourse...

[coinman1794]

Dipping is an irreversible reaction that strips metal from the surface. Dipping is not conservation because it breaks the first rule of conservation, which is do nothing that cannot be undone. That's the end the of story; it doesn't matter what NCS does.

 

Where exactly are these rules written?

 

If there really were a rule that said don't do anything that can't be undone, then no conservation work would be performed on anything ever. Conservation involves the altering of the object. Period.

 

Conservation involves removing contamination from the surface of an object. Once the metal of the coin is moved, dissolved, etc, then you are no longer doing conservation. Representatives of NCS have used the "do no harm" language before on these boards. But Greg, I didnt say that you should never dip a coin, I gave an example of when a dip is preferable to other options, such as with this Trade dollar. I am actually on your side here I was merely removing the red herring of "what is or isn't conservation" from the discussion by clarifying the matter. Again, dipping is not conservation, but it is a preferrable form of cleaning in some cases.

[SWNGC]

I give up. You're not worth educating. Keep the blinders on.

 

If we must, we'll break this one down too...

 

I give up

 

This is arguably the most intelligent, coherent and well rooted statement that you have made as of yet, as you have yet to make a single statement that could not easily be dispatched/disproven or invalidated with the simplist of retorts.

 

You're not worth educating

 

Indeed, as you have so illustiously illustrated, you have nothing of educational value to provide for this purpose.

 

Your choice of this statement does however reflect that you intend to psychologically resolve your defeat via a false internal and self efficating belief that your internally perceived knowledge or education somehow exceeds that of your counterparty.

 

If it's what you need to do to reach inner peace, have at it, but your contributions provided in this discourse prove otherwise.

 

Keep the blinders on

 

We'll interpret this as an inwardly directed, motivational, and re-assuring message to yourself to not change - surprise!

 

Mush-on good sir!