It's pretty easy to disprove the notion that coin doctoring = "adding something"

[James_OldeTowne]

... to a coin, and that dipping is therefore exempt from doctoring since it "subtracts". Simply look at all the so-called coin doctoring exercises that also "subtract":

 

When carbon spots are subtracted from a coin, that's called doctoring.

 

When copper spots are subtracted from gold, that's called doctoring.

 

When rim bumps are subtracted (filed) off the edge, that's called doctoring.

 

So I would propose that when the surface is subtracted from a coin by dipping, it is also called doctoring.

[zrlevin]

Good point, James.

[jesbroken]

Very true James.

The only thing that a person could do to a coin that is not doctoring is to rinse it in water to remove mud and then enjoy the coin for what it was and what it is, not what you can make it. If by that token you want a more perfect old coin, just get a Chinese fake that is a perfect example of a 200 year old coin without the history.

Jim

[James_OldeTowne]

Very true James.

The only thing that a person could do to a coin that is not doctoring is to rinse it in water to remove mud and then enjoy the coin for what it was and what it is, not what you can make it.

Well, I might include hitting a coin with compressed air prior to insertion in a safe, non-PVC flip .

[MarkFeld]

I don't think it's simply a matter of adding or removing something. But rather, hiding something vs. revealing it.

 

Technically, I agree that dipping amounts to doctoring. But it's a very different type compared to activities such as AT'ing, puttying, lasering, removing spots, etc.

[gmarguli]

Technically, I agree that dipping amounts to doctoring. But it's a very different type compared to activities such as AT'ing, puttying, lasering, removing spots, etc.

 

No, it's not. It's the use of an outside agent to change the appearance of the coin for the better.

 

Many people like to say it is different so they can pretend to be anti-doctoring without having to accept the fact that most coins are doctored and nearly everyone does it. It's all nice and tidy in their world.

[MarkFeld]

Technically, I agree that dipping amounts to doctoring. But it's a very different type compared to activities such as AT'ing, puttying, lasering, removing spots, etc.

 

No, it's not. It's the use of an outside agent to change the appearance of the coin for the better.

 

Many people like to say it is different so they can pretend to be anti-doctoring without having to accept the fact that most coins are doctored and nearly everyone does it. It's all nice and tidy in their world.

Many people like to say it's the same thing so they can pretend that other types of doctoring, which are aimed at hiding and deception, are OK. It's all nice and tidy in their world.

[gmarguli]

Technically, I agree that dipping amounts to doctoring. But it's a very different type compared to activities such as AT'ing, puttying, lasering, removing spots, etc.

 

No, it's not. It's the use of an outside agent to change the appearance of the coin for the better.

 

Many people like to say it is different so they can pretend to be anti-doctoring without having to accept the fact that most coins are doctored and nearly everyone does it. It's all nice and tidy in their world.

Many people like to say it's the same thing so they can pretend that other types of doctoring, which are aimed at hiding and deception, are OK. It's all nice and tidy in their world.

 

I guess some people (you) don't view dipping a coin in acid to give it the look of being mint fresh as deception? FYI, dipping is used to hide the fact that the coin is not mint fresh. It's used to give it the false (deceptive) appearance of what it looked like when it left the mint.

 

Deception is deception. Doctoring is doctoring. Some people like to pick and choose which deception is OK. Others like to understand that it is all the same.

[MarkFeld]

Technically, I agree that dipping amounts to doctoring. But it's a very different type compared to activities such as AT'ing, puttying, lasering, removing spots, etc.

 

No, it's not. It's the use of an outside agent to change the appearance of the coin for the better.

 

Many people like to say it is different so they can pretend to be anti-doctoring without having to accept the fact that most coins are doctored and nearly everyone does it. It's all nice and tidy in their world.

Many people like to say it's the same thing so they can pretend that other types of doctoring, which are aimed at hiding and deception, are OK. It's all nice and tidy in their world.

 

I guess some people (you) don't view dipping a coin in acid to give it the look of being mint fresh as deception? FYI, dipping is used to hide the fact that the coin is not mint fresh. It's used to give it the false (deceptive) appearance of what it looked like when it left the mint.

 

Deception is deception. Doctoring is doctoring. Some people like to pick and choose which deception is OK. Others like to understand that it is all the same.

Do you really equate dipping with activities such as lasering? If not, I'm glad to hear it. If so, I'm sorry, though not shocked.

[gmarguli]

Technically, I agree that dipping amounts to doctoring. But it's a very different type compared to activities such as AT'ing, puttying, lasering, removing spots, etc.

 

No, it's not. It's the use of an outside agent to change the appearance of the coin for the better.

 

Many people like to say it is different so they can pretend to be anti-doctoring without having to accept the fact that most coins are doctored and nearly everyone does it. It's all nice and tidy in their world.

Many people like to say it's the same thing so they can pretend that other types of doctoring, which are aimed at hiding and deception, are OK. It's all nice and tidy in their world.

 

I guess some people (you) don't view dipping a coin in acid to give it the look of being mint fresh as deception? FYI, dipping is used to hide the fact that the coin is not mint fresh. It's used to give it the false (deceptive) appearance of what it looked like when it left the mint.

 

Deception is deception. Doctoring is doctoring. Some people like to pick and choose which deception is OK. Others like to understand that it is all the same.

Do you really equate dipping with activities such as lasering? If not, I'm glad to hear it. If so, I'm sorry, though not shocked.

 

Yes, dipping and lasering are both doctoring. I can't give a free pass to one and vilify the other. I do view dipping at one end of the doctoring spectrum and lasering at the end, but both are still doctoring and both are done for the exact same reason.

[MarkFeld]

Technically, I agree that dipping amounts to doctoring. But it's a very different type compared to activities such as AT'ing, puttying, lasering, removing spots, etc.

 

No, it's not. It's the use of an outside agent to change the appearance of the coin for the better.

 

Many people like to say it is different so they can pretend to be anti-doctoring without having to accept the fact that most coins are doctored and nearly everyone does it. It's all nice and tidy in their world.

Many people like to say it's the same thing so they can pretend that other types of doctoring, which are aimed at hiding and deception, are OK. It's all nice and tidy in their world.

 

I guess some people (you) don't view dipping a coin in acid to give it the look of being mint fresh as deception? FYI, dipping is used to hide the fact that the coin is not mint fresh. It's used to give it the false (deceptive) appearance of what it looked like when it left the mint.

 

Deception is deception. Doctoring is doctoring. Some people like to pick and choose which deception is OK. Others like to understand that it is all the same.

Do you really equate dipping with activities such as lasering? If not, I'm glad to hear it. If so, I'm sorry, though not shocked.

 

Yes, dipping and lasering are both doctoring. I can't give a free pass to one and vilify the other. I do view dipping at one end of the doctoring spectrum and lasering at the end, but both are still doctoring and both are done for the exact same reason.

Thanks Greg. And whew!

[coinman1794]

Technically, I agree that dipping amounts to doctoring. But it's a very different type compared to activities such as AT'ing, puttying, lasering, removing spots, etc.

 

No, it's not. It's the use of an outside agent to change the appearance of the coin for the better.

 

Many people like to say it is different so they can pretend to be anti-doctoring without having to accept the fact that most coins are doctored and nearly everyone does it. It's all nice and tidy in their world.

Many people like to say it's the same thing so they can pretend that other types of doctoring, which are aimed at hiding and deception, are OK. It's all nice and tidy in their world.

 

I guess some people (you) don't view dipping a coin in acid to give it the look of being mint fresh as deception? FYI, dipping is used to hide the fact that the coin is not mint fresh. It's used to give it the false (deceptive) appearance of what it looked like when it left the mint.

 

Deception is deception. Doctoring is doctoring. Some people like to pick and choose which deception is OK. Others like to understand that it is all the same.

Do you really equate dipping with activities such as lasering? If not, I'm glad to hear it. If so, I'm sorry, though not shocked.

 

Yes, dipping and lasering are both doctoring. I can't give a free pass to one and vilify the other. I do view dipping at one end of the doctoring spectrum and lasering at the end, but both are still doctoring and both are done for the exact same reason.

 

Dipping a coin in acid to remove oxidized metal is most certainly a form of doctoring. Just because it doesnt always show to the unaided eye doesn't mean that a dramatic change has not occured. The only drawback is that MOST older coins were dipped at some point, even ones we think are original because of patina that has since developed on them.

[James_OldeTowne]

I don't think it's simply a matter of adding or removing something. But rather, hiding something vs. revealing it.

Mark, I do get where you are coming from. I think we would both agree that removing carbon spots, removing copper stains, removing patina, removing fingerprints and removing tone aid in "revealing" more of the underlying surface, right?

[$ilverHawk]

Come on, Mark, doctoring is doctoring. We are simply argueing over the extent or intent of the alteration. This is exactly why I have stated in previous threads that it is well past the time that ANA and the major TPG s come out with a statement of what is acceptable alteration and what is not. And absolutely no one agrees. Am I that far off base to seek a clear definition of what alterations are market acceptable? It's like don't ask don't tell.

 

Apparently, no one wants to let the genie out of the bottle. That would imply that "moderately" (read TPG accepted) altered coins have been knowingly introduced into the graded/collectible mainstream for decades. Any experienced collector knows this as a fact. We all comment on the fact that we know a slabbed coin has been processed. Whether dipped, puttied, lasered, AT'd whatever. The coin has been artifically altered from it's original condition. Many times repeatedly. Such a hush-hush situation.

 

Mark, doctoring is doctoring. Exactly where do you draw the line.

 

If the intent of doctoring by any method is to increase the value of a coin, what is the difference if the coin was dipped, puttied, lasered etc. It's still alteration done to improve the appearance of the coin.

 

Thank you PCGS for inadvertedly letting the genie out of the bottle. Perhaps, after this case actually goes to trial there will be a legal definition of what constitutes an unaltered coin. And perhaps, going forward, collectors will have clear definitions of what a TPG slabbed coin actually is.

 

Carl

[MarkFeld]

Come on, Mark, doctoring is doctoring. We are simply argueing over the extent or intent of the alteration. This is exactly why I have stated in previous threads that it is well past the time that ANA and the major TPG s come out with a statement of what is acceptable alteration and what is not. And absolutely no one agrees. Am I that far off base to seek a clear definition of what alterations are market acceptable? It's like don't ask don't tell.

 

Apparently, no one wants to let the genie out of the bottle. That would imply that "moderately" (read TPG accepted) altered coins have been knowingly introduced into the graded/collectible mainstream for decades. Any experienced collector knows this as a fact. We all comment on the fact that we know a slabbed coin has been processed. Whether dipped, puttied, lasered, AT'd whatever. The coin has been artifically altered from it's original condition. Many times repeatedly. Such a hush-hush situation.

 

Mark, doctoring is doctoring. Exactly were do you draw the line.

 

If the intent of doctoring by any method is to increase the value of a coin, what is the difference if the coin was dipped, puttied, lasered etc. It's still alteration done to improve the appearance of the coin.

 

Thank you PCGS for inadvertedly letting the genie out of the bottle. Perhaps, after this case actually goes to trial there will be a legal definition of what constitutes an unaltered coin. And perhaps, going forward, collectors will have clear definitions of what a TPG slabbed coin actually is.

 

Carl

I agree, we are "arguing over the extent or intent of the alteration." And to me, doctoring of the type detailed in the lawsuit (lasering, etc.) is a far cry from dipping. You obviously have every right to disagree.

[JJSingleton]

In my opinion and in my observations, dipping has ruined more coins than all the other so-called types of doctoring. I am troubled by those who try to differentiate the two.

[lehigh96]

In my opinion and in my observations, dipping has ruined more coins than all the other so-called types of doctoring. I am troubled by those who try to differentiate the two.

 

I agree 100%

[MarkFeld]

In my opinion and in my observations, dipping has ruined more coins than all the other so-called types of doctoring. I am troubled by those who try to differentiate the two.

 

I agree 100%

I'm sorry that I (and others) trouble you two with my attempts at differentiating dipping from other forms of doctoring. And I say that sincerely, as I respect each of you, greatly, as collectors.

 

While I generally do not approve of dipping, to me, it is more likely to be obvious to a potential buyer of a coin than is lasering and other more sophisticated types of doctoring. And, compared to other types of doctoring, dipping is also more likely to reveal, as opposed to hide imperfections. Taken together, those considerations make it worthy of distinction, in my book.

[JJSingleton]

In my opinion and in my observations, dipping has ruined more coins than all the other so-called types of doctoring. I am troubled by those who try to differentiate the two.

 

I agree 100%

I'm sorry that I (and others) trouble you two with my attempts at differentiating dipping from other forms of doctoring. And I say that sincerely, as I respect each of you, greatly, as collectors.

 

While I generally do not approve of dipping, to me, it is more likely to be obvious to a potential buyer of a coin than is lasering and other more sophisticated types of doctoring. And, compared to other types of doctoring, dipping is also more likely to reveal, as opposed to hide imperfections. Taken together, those considerations make it worthy of distinction, in my book.

Mark, I do recognize that dipping is much less deceptive than the "more sophisticated" doctoring techniques. Therefore I do not find dipping to be, or border on, a fraudulent activity. I suspect that is the distinction you are trying to make here. But I believe dipping has done just as much overall harm to the hobby as have the "more sophisticated" types of doctoring. It just seems to me that we give dipping a pass when we differentiate it from other doctoring techniques. And that is what troubles me.

 

And, of course, the respect is mutual.

 

 

[James_OldeTowne]

And, compared to other types of doctoring, dipping is also more likely to reveal, as opposed to hide imperfections.

Mark, is this a new twist on your stance? I hadn't noticed it before.

 

It does not make sense to me, since dipping is far more likely going to be used to remove imperfection (perceived or otherwise) rather than reveal imperfection.

 

By a considerable margin, the times that I've known coins to be dipped occurred when the subject was perceived to have unattractive tone, which is the "imperfection" in some peoples' eyes. Few people I know of would dip a coin that doesn't look toned to begin with under the assumption that doing so will reveal imperfections. Am I just totally confused ??

 

Why the heck would someone dip a coin under the belief that he is likely to reveal imperfection? Isn't the goal virtually always to remove allegedly undesirable toning, to improve the salability of a coin?

[lehigh96]

In my opinion and in my observations, dipping has ruined more coins than all the other so-called types of doctoring. I am troubled by those who try to differentiate the two.

 

I agree 100%

I'm sorry that I (and others) trouble you two with my attempts at differentiating dipping from other forms of doctoring. And I say that sincerely, as I respect each of you, greatly, as collectors.

 

While I generally do not approve of dipping, to me, it is more likely to be obvious to a potential buyer of a coin than is lasering and other more sophisticated types of doctoring. And, compared to other types of doctoring, dipping is also more likely to reveal, as opposed to hide imperfections. Taken together, those considerations make it worthy of distinction, in my book.

 

Mark,

 

For someone who rarely sells a dipped coin, you seem determined to defend the practice of dipping coins. It is easy to recognize that in a spectrum of coin doctoring that dipping is on the more benign end. That said, it is still a tumor on the numismatic industry.

 

In my experience there are very few toned coins that have toning so unappealing that they can't be appreciated by someone. I don't believe that it is necessary to dip coins. Everytime I ask why people dip coins, they tell me "to improve the eye appeal of the coin and remove harmful toning." My question is why is that collector buying an unappealing coin to begin with?

 

Dealers are only bound by the constraint that they must make a profit. They have no incentive to buy unattractive toned coins because they are difficult to sell. However, since they are allowed to simply dip these coins and instantly improve the eye appeal of the coin for the most part, they now have have all the incentive they need to dip coins and make a profit.

 

The only difference between dipping and other doctoring methods is that the numismatic community accepts the practice of dipping coins. The motive behind dipping is profit by deception and preservation is nothing more than a cover story. FWIW, I believe that impoper dipping is responsible for more ruined coins than all of the other doctoring methods combined.

 

My real problem with dipping is that it has created a huge segment of the numismatic community who think that coins are supposed to be blast white regardless of their age. Can you imagine the education and appreciation of toning in general if dipping was considered coin doctoring and not accepted in the numismatic community. Instead I am left to try an educate others about toning and constantly fighting against the Weimar White drones who advocate that every coin should be dipped for it's own good. So while I understand why you think dipping should be given special consideration, I submit that the effects of not giving it that consideration would be a great step forward for numismatics.

 

[MarkFeld]

And, compared to other types of doctoring, dipping is also more likely to reveal, as opposed to hide imperfections.

Mark, is this a new twist on your stance? I hadn't noticed it before.

 

It does not make sense to me, since dipping is far more likely going to be used to remove imperfection (perceived or otherwise) rather than reveal imperfection.

 

By a considerable margin, the times that I've known coins to be dipped occurred when the subject was perceived to have unattractive tone, which is the "imperfection" in some peoples' eyes. Few people I know of would dip a coin that doesn't look toned to begin with under the assumption that doing so will reveal imperfections. Am I just totally confused ??

 

Why the heck would someone dip a coin under the belief that he is likely to reveal imperfection? Isn't the goal virtually always to remove allegedly undesirable toning, to improve the salability of a coin?

James, removal of toning frequently reveals flaws which were not apparent or as apparent, due to the toning. I know you know that.

[MarkFeld]

In my opinion and in my observations, dipping has ruined more coins than all the other so-called types of doctoring. I am troubled by those who try to differentiate the two.

 

I agree 100%

I'm sorry that I (and others) trouble you two with my attempts at differentiating dipping from other forms of doctoring. And I say that sincerely, as I respect each of you, greatly, as collectors.

 

While I generally do not approve of dipping, to me, it is more likely to be obvious to a potential buyer of a coin than is lasering and other more sophisticated types of doctoring. And, compared to other types of doctoring, dipping is also more likely to reveal, as opposed to hide imperfections. Taken together, those considerations make it worthy of distinction, in my book.

 

Mark,

 

For someone who rarely sells a dipped coin, you seem determined to defend the practice of dipping coins. It is easy to recognize that in a spectrum of coin doctoring that dipping is on the more benign end. That said, it is still a tumor on the numismatic industry.

 

In my experience there are very few toned coins that have toning so unappealing that they can't be appreciated by someone. I don't believe that it is necessary to dip coins. Everytime I ask why people dip coins, they tell me "to improve the eye appeal of the coin and remove harmful toning." My question is why is that collector buying an unappealing coin to begin with?

 

Dealers are only bound by the constraint that they must make a profit. They have no incentive to buy unattractive toned coins because they are difficult to sell. However, since they are allowed to simply dip these coins and instantly improve the eye appeal of the coin for the most part, they now have have all the incentive they need to dip coins and make a profit.

 

The only difference between dipping and other doctoring methods is that the numismatic community accepts the practice of dipping coins. The motive behind dipping is profit by deception and preservation is nothing more than a cover story. FWIW, I believe that impoper dipping is responsible for more ruined coins than all of the other doctoring methods combined.

 

My real problem with dipping is that it has created a huge segment of the numismatic community who think that coins are supposed to be blast white regardless of their age. Can you imagine the education and appreciation of toning in general if dipping was considered coin doctoring and not accepted in the numismatic community. Instead I am left to try an educate others about toning and constantly fighting against the Weimar White drones who advocate that every coin should be dipped for it's own good. So while I understand why you think dipping should be given special consideration, I submit that the effects of not giving it that consideration would be a great step forward for numismatics.

Paul, I am generally against dipping coins, have not dipped one in the six years I have had my own business (again) and dipped about 3 coins in the six years prior to that. And, as you have observed, I usually handle undipped examples.

 

I defend the practice, primarily as a means of distinguishing it from other forms of coin doctoring, which, for reasons I have already stated, I believe are worse.

 

The above notwithstanding, I strongly agree with you on the subject of education regarding originality vs. dipped coins and try to do my part in that regard.

[James_OldeTowne]

James, removal of toning frequently reveals flaws which were not apparent or as apparent, due to the toning. I know you know that.

Know that? On the contrary, I absolutely do not agree. On the contrary, rarely in my experience does dipping a coin reveal flaws which weren't already present and known. One exception is hairlines, but that is an occasional exception. I believe that far, far more often, a coin is simply "brightened up" and shows no more flaws than before, but is just brighter than it was previously. If what you say is true - that frequently flaws are revealed by dipping - then there is no way in heck it would be such a common practice.

 

In my experience there are very few toned coins that have toning so unappealing that they can't be appreciated by someone. I don't believe that it is necessary to dip coins. Everytime I ask why people dip coins, they tell me "to improve the eye appeal of the coin and remove harmful toning." My question is why is that collector buying an unappealing coin to begin with?

(my bolds)

 

Lehigh, that is about as well stated as I have ever seen. Post of the month, in my opinion!

 

I absolutely, completely hate the way dealers buy a toned coin knowing full well they plan to dip it to make it "better", since all it does is reduce by one the number of coins available to me. It's dishonest. The honest thing to do would be to buy a coin that's already white and sell it as such.

[gmarguli]

James, removal of toning frequently reveals flaws which were not apparent or as apparent, due to the toning. I know you know that.

 

Spoken like someone who doesn't dip.

 

The #1 reason I hear from people as to why they didn't dip a coin before submitting it is that they didn't know what was hiding under the toning. I applaud these people. It allows me to buy these coins, crack them out, dip them, resubmit them and get a higher grade, and make a very good living. (thumbs u

 

You can generally tell what is under the toning by careful examination with magnification. Somethings you might miss, but overall you will not be too surprised with experience.

[MarkFeld]

James, removal of toning frequently reveals flaws which were not apparent or as apparent, due to the toning. I know you know that.

 

Spoken like someone who doesn't dip.

 

The #1 reason I hear from people as to why they didn't dip a coin before submitting it is that they didn't know what was hiding under the toning. I applaud these people. It allows me to buy these coins, crack them out, dip them, resubmit them and get a higher grade, and make a very good living. (thumbs u

 

You can generally tell what is under the toning by careful examination with magnification. Somethings you might miss, but overall you will not be too surprised with experience.

Knowing that there is a given flaw under the toning is not the same as revealing it by dipping the coin. And that doesn't include more subtle flaws that can't be seen as well, prior to dipping. But, I am not ashamed to admit/confirm that I don't have nearly the coin dipping experience that you do.

[$ilverHawk]

Solid posting. I agree on all of your points.

 

There is no difference between dipping and other forms of alteration. The intent of all alteration methods is to artifically increase the perceived value of a coin. Addition or Subtraction of material makes no difference. Deception is deception.

 

Carl

[James_OldeTowne]

There is no difference between dipping and other forms of alteration. The intent of all alteration methods is to artifically increase the perceived value of a coin. Addition or Subtraction of material makes no difference. Deception is deception.

 

Carl, great post, but I just had to laugh when I realized that by some wacky quirk of semantics, what we've decided is that most arithmetic ("addition or subtraction") applied to a coin is bad !

 

Interestingly, "division" of a coin (cutting it into pieces) wouldn't be very desirable either .

 

I guess MULTIPLICATION is the only arithmetic that astute collectors seek out .

 

Great points!

[dorkdog-migration]

I don't know, but to me it has a lot to do with intent, which of course cannot be proven.

 

If I stop at Mickey Dees and get something to eat, receive a 1932D quarter in change and wrap it in a napkin for safekeeping, take it home, throw it in a drawer and forget about it, only to discover 2 years later that it is toned in rainbow colors, is that coin doctoring?

 

As opposed to getting a 1917 Type 1 SLQ back in a body bag, running out to Taco Bell, getting a napkin and purposefully wrapping it within and then sending it back in after the "AT" has hidden the surfaces in order to sell it?

 

Unfortunately there is no telltale for 'intention to deceive' and I think that's the root of the whole argument.

 

Now that I know that a Dansco album will tone coins prematurely, am I guilty of coin doctoring if I put my coins in one?

 

dorkdog

[$ilverHawk]

Very good points. With the advent of new technology the history of alterations that a coin has undergone will supposedly be able to be clearly substantiated. Intent will not be able to be substantiated. Was it, as you outlined, a casual occurence? Did you know that putting that SLQ in a napkin would be a source of toning or was it intentional to profit from an alteration?

 

As I have stated in previous threads, ANA and all of the top TPG s could remove any questions by coming out with a clear policy that stated exactly what if any alterations are acceptable.

 

BTW, with the lawsuit in progress PCGS is attempting to define intent.

 

Carl