Do you consider "dipping" to be a form of "coin doctoring" ?

[mommam17]

Yes, and some coins need to be dipped/doctored for their own good.

[James_OldeTowne]

I disagree with you, but hey, if you don't want any dipped coins, don't buy them. Given your position however, I don't know how you can catalog coins for your employer's auctions with a clear conscience and avoid labeling any piece that has been dipped as “doctored.” Of could such a description would have a negative affect upon the bidding.

Bill, you are ignoring the difference in my argument (which permits me to catalog with clear conscience). I accept the notion that some doctoring is ACCEPTABLE for coins, or is at least generally accepted. That's where I have a big disagreement with the paranoia that surrounds the concept of "doctored coins". I do not believe it is universally evil to doctor coins. There are many situations where folks in the numismatic community justifiably embrace coin doctors.... they are just paranoid-ly afraid to admit it.

 

Unlike many folks, I do not characterize "coin doctoring" as universally evil. For me:

 

MOST coin doctoring is UNACCEPTABLE.

 

SOME coin doctoring IS ACCEPTABLE.

 

(Dipping is one type of coin doctoring that is often deemed acceptable.)

[Hard Times]

I disagree with you, but hey, if you don't want any dipped coins, don't buy them. Given your position however, I don't know how you can catalog coins for your employer's auctions with a clear conscience and avoid labeling any piece that has been dipped as “doctored.” Of could such a description would have a negative affect upon the bidding.

Bill, you are ignoring the difference in my argument (which permits me to catalog with clear conscience). I accept the notion that some doctoring is ACCEPTABLE for coins, or is at least generally accepted. That's where I have a big disagreement with the paranoia that surrounds the concept of "doctored coins". I do not believe it is universally evil to doctor coins. There are many situations where folks in the numismatic community justifiably embrace coin doctors.... they are just paranoid-ly afraid to admit it.

 

Unlike many folks, I do not characterize "coin doctoring" as universally evil. For me:

 

MOST coin doctoring is UNACCEPTABLE.

 

SOME coin doctoring IS ACCEPTABLE.

 

(Dipping is one type of coin doctoring that is often deemed acceptable.)

 

James, well said. But, then when do we define dipping as acceptable? This is a question a committee formed by PNG is trying to define now so I hear, when is coin doctoring unacceptable(?). I believe the OP of the thread (Mark) is on that committee, which is perhaps why he started this thread for feedback to this issue?

[James_OldeTowne]

James, well said. But, then when do we define dipping as acceptable? This is a question a committee formed by PNG is trying to define now so I hear, when is coin doctoring unacceptable(?). I believe the OP of the thread (Mark) is on that committee, which is perhaps why he started this thread for feedback to this issue?

It's often an individual thing, but most of the types of activities characterized as "doctoring" are clearly unsavory, such as re-engraving details, puttying gold, whizzing AU coins, and creating fake DMPLs.

 

To be clear, I personally am against dipping coins, and I have never ever used nor owned nor borrowed any coin dip whatsoever (disclaimer: I have however paid a fee to have a single coin professionally dipped on two occasions).

[BillJones]

I’d like to divorce the term “acceptable dipping” from “doctoring.” In minds of most collectors “doctoring” has a very negative connotation no matter how you try to couch it.

 

I believe that absolutism on this subject runs the risk of doing a lot of damage to the hobby and the existing stock of coins. About 20 years ago a self-described “expert chemist” and “expert numismatic metallurgist” declared on the front page of Coin World that all toned coins were "corroded" and that they would all eventually tone to a color that was black as coal. He further claimed that dipping was the only way to “preserve” toned coins from their “enviable fate.” Dipping in his opinion was a “conservation practice.”

 

He got to present his views for three weeks running on the front page of the paper. Many of us disputed his opinions, which Coin World presented as a news story and not an opinion. The rebuttals to this “expert’s” opinion were all presented as letters to the editor on the editorial page., which those rebuttals look like opinions. Finally saner minds prevailed, and things returned to normal, but it took about a year for that to happen.

 

All I’m saying is that when it comes to coin preservation and collector preferences, this is not an area where the “right answer” in carved in stone. There are legitimate differences of opinion and stating that all dipped coins are “doctored” is a hash description that could cause a lot of harm to the hobby.

 

[MarkFeld]

I’d like to divorce the term “acceptable dipping” from “doctoring.” In minds of most collectors “doctoring” has a very negative connotation no matter how you try to couch it.

 

I believe that absolutism on this subject runs the risk of doing a lot of damage to the hobby and the existing stock of coins. About 20 years ago a self-described “expert chemist” and “expert numismatic metallurgist” declared on the front page of Coin World that all toned coins were "corroded" and that they would all eventually tone to a color that was black as coal. He further claimed that dipping was the only way to “preserve” toned coins from their “enviable fate.” Dipping in his opinion was a “conservation practice.”

 

He got to present his views for three weeks running on the front page of the paper. Many of us disputed his opinions, which Coin World presented as a news story and not an opinion. The rebuttals to this “expert’s” opinion were all presented as letters to the editor on the editorial page., which those rebuttals look like opinions. Finally saner minds prevailed, and things returned to normal, but it took about a year for that to happen.

 

All I’m saying is that when it comes to coin preservation and collector preferences, this is not an area where the “right answer” in carved in stone. There are legitimate differences of opinion and stating that all dipped coins are “doctored” is a hash description that could cause a lot of harm to the hobby.

 

While I agree with James that dipping (whether it be acceptable or not) is a form of doctoring, my preference is to use the term "alteration" instead of "doctoring". The former might not have the same negative connotation and is just as accurate. Thus, use of the word "alteration" might allow for less polarized and more constructive discussions and ideas.

[RGT]

Why do we have to call it "doctoring"? Doctors are fairly respectable professionals and "doctoring" shouldn't carry negative connotations.

 

Why don't we call it "lawyering"?

[Hard Times]

I’d like to divorce the term “acceptable dipping” from “doctoring.” In minds of most collectors “doctoring” has a very negative connotation no matter how you try to couch it.

 

I believe that absolutism on this subject runs the risk of doing a lot of damage to the hobby and the existing stock of coins. About 20 years ago a self-described “expert chemist” and “expert numismatic metallurgist” declared on the front page of Coin World that all toned coins were "corroded" and that they would all eventually tone to a color that was black as coal. He further claimed that dipping was the only way to “preserve” toned coins from their “enviable fate.” Dipping in his opinion was a “conservation practice.”

 

He got to present his views for three weeks running on the front page of the paper. Many of us disputed his opinions, which Coin World presented as a news story and not an opinion. The rebuttals to this “expert’s” opinion were all presented as letters to the editor on the editorial page., which those rebuttals look like opinions. Finally saner minds prevailed, and things returned to normal, but it took about a year for that to happen.

 

All I’m saying is that when it comes to coin preservation and collector preferences, this is not an area where the “right answer” in carved in stone. There are legitimate differences of opinion and stating that all dipped coins are “doctored” is a hash description that could cause a lot of harm to the hobby.

 

While I agree with James that dipping (whether it be acceptable or not) is a form of doctoring, my preference is to use the term "alteration" instead of "doctoring". The former might not have the same negative connotation and is just as accurate. Thus, use of the word "alteration" might allow for less polarized and more constructive discussions and ideas.

 

I gotta say that what Bill said above is the most sensible answer yet IMHO. Dipping can be conservation, or it can be doctoring, it has to be done on a case by case basis, by experts such as NCS that have experience enough to know the difference, and it is not carved in stone. Bill should be on that PNG committee working on this issue.....

[TonerGuy]

Im not sure changing what its called really makes a difference other then to make it more palatable to those that already feel dipping is okay...

 

Dipping is doctoring and doctoring is alteration and alteration of a coin's surface should not be acceptable...

 

'In a name a rose by any other name would smell as sweet' and this case, alteration would still smell as foul...

[coinman_23885]

Im not sure changing what its called really makes a difference other then to make it more palatable to those that already feel dipping is okay...

 

Dipping is doctoring and doctoring is alteration and alteration of a coin's surface should not be acceptable...

 

'In a name a rose by any other name would smell as sweet' and this case, alteration would still smell as foul...

 

+1

[MarkFeld]

Im not sure changing what its called really makes a difference other then to make it more palatable to those that already feel dipping is okay...

 

Dipping is doctoring and doctoring is alteration and alteration of a coin's surface should not be acceptable...

 

'In a name a rose by any other name would smell as sweet' and this case, alteration would still smell as foul...

 

+1

 

My guess is that a number of people who are loathe to be associated with the term "doctoring" might be more willing to admit that they have changed/"altered" the appearance of a coin. And that would be a good thing.

[Hard Times]

Mark and TonerGuy, Last time I checked, there was no formal or legal (?) definition of this doctoring which is why we are discussing it here. So statements like 'dipping is doctoring and doctoring is alteration' and 'Im not sure changing what its called really makes a difference other then to make it more palatable to those that already feel dipping is okay...' are fairly extreme views on the subject IMO. Also, no one is changing what dipping is, just some folk don't agree that dipping is always doctoring. Some folk appear to believe that dipping can also be conservation at least in some cases. Me? I prefer in most cases, coins with what appears to be original skin but I also recognize that even when a good patina has built up, there is no guarantee that the coin has not been dipped decades ago.

 

So I will repeat. According to Q David Bowers, the majority of 19th century AU and UNC silver coins minted at the US mint have been dipped. That means you are probably buying such coins. If you feel so strongly about being anti-dippers, then why are you buying these coins? There is no question you are as are we all. This is a reality of collecting in numismatic items. And most ignore this statement every time I make it......

 

Another salient well known fact. NCS dips coins. NCS is affiliated with NGC. Therefore the parent company for these boards according to your comments above, must be coin doctors and not agents of conservation. How you gonna deal with this? Do tell on both of these points...............

 

Bottom line is that dipping has been going on for centuries, you and I have dipped coins even when believing we don't, it is unavoidable. But don't take my word for this, take Q. David Bowers, he carries weight in these matters. So the blanket statement that all dipped coins are doctored, with negative connotations, is well, abit problematic in my view because you TonerGuy, and you Mark, are guaranteed to have dipped (doctored) coins as do I without a doubt, even when thinking we don't.

 

And TonerGuy, how do you know that your toned coins weren't dipped decades ago and are all NT and not helped by someone in all cases? Can you prove you don't have doctored toned coins? Were you around to shepherd your coins since they were minted so you can bear witness to natural toning? Hmmmm.....

 

And finally, GO DUCKS - Rose Bowl bound! (Blatant spam)

[TonerGuy]

I look at this issue as the future, not the past. What future will we steward for our children and other future collectors (notice I didnt mention dealers) ? Do we want to continue on the path of keeping the same practices that you mentioned - dipped 19th century coins, toned coins that might be dipped and/or AT'd & coins that were wiped - all because it WAS an accepted practice ?

 

I say no.

 

Perhaps if 19th and 20th century collectors didnt dip, wipe, scrub and polish their coins we would have better examples to set aside for posterity.

 

We, as a collective group, have to accept what we cant change, but we do have the ability to change what we know to be wrong.

 

IMHO there are two main reasons for dipping - 1) for a seller to improve the look of a coin so they he/she may charge more for it & 2) to improve the look of a coin so it may be submitted for a regrade for registry purposes with the hope it upgrades.

 

And IMHO neither justify dipping... however...

 

In the small majority of cases where an important numismatic piece has to be dipped for some reason to conserve it then I see no reason not too.

 

We do not own coins, we merely lease them.

[MarkFeld]

Mark and TonerGuy, Last time I checked, there was no formal or legal (?) definition of this doctoring which is why we are discussing it here. So statements like 'dipping is doctoring and doctoring is alteration' and 'Im not sure changing what its called really makes a difference other then to make it more palatable to those that already feel dipping is okay...' are fairly extreme views on the subject IMO. Also, no one is changing what dipping is, just some folk don't agree that dipping is always doctoring. Some folk appear to believe that dipping can also be conservation at least in some cases. Me? I prefer in most cases, coins with what appears to be original skin but I also recognize that even when a good patina has built up, there is no guarantee that the coin has not been dipped decades ago.

 

So I will repeat. According to Q David Bowers, the majority of 19th century AU and UNC silver coins minted at the US mint have been dipped. That means you are probably buying such coins. If you feel so strongly about being anti-dippers, then why are you buying these coins? There is no question you are as are we all. This is a reality of collecting in numismatic items. And most ignore this statement every time I make it......

 

Another salient well known fact. NCS dips coins. NCS is affiliated with NGC. Therefore the parent company for these boards according to your comments above, must be coin doctors and not agents of conservation. How you gonna deal with this? Do tell on both of these points...............

 

Bottom line is that dipping has been going on for centuries, you and I have dipped coins even when believing we don't, it is unavoidable. But don't take my word for this, take Q. David Bowers, he carries weight in these matters. So the blanket statement that all dipped coins are doctored, with negative connotations, is well, abit problematic in my view because you TonerGuy, and you Mark, are guaranteed to have dipped (doctored) coins as do I without a doubt, even when thinking we don't.

 

And TonerGuy, how do you know that your toned coins weren't dipped decades ago and are all NT and not helped by someone in all cases? Can you prove you don't have doctored toned coins? Were you around to shepherd your coins since they were minted so you can bear witness to natural toning? Hmmmm.....

 

And finally, GO DUCKS - Rose Bowl bound! (Blatant spam)

 

Just because I consider dipping to be a form of doctoring doesn't mean that I condemn it in all cases. I knowingly buy dipped coins if they are still up to my personal standards. And I have no doubt that I also unknowingly buy dipped coins.

 

But as James and others have said, not all forms of doctoring are equal and not all of them are necessarily evil. That doesn't mean we should pretend it (doctoring) is something other than what it is, however.

 

Regarding NCS - I think they practice conservation in many cases, but also coin doctoring in many others. In my view, if a coin is altered to make it look lighter or brighter or prettier, whatever, and not merely to protect it, I consider that to be doctoring, not conservation.

[James_OldeTowne]

Just because I consider dipping to be a form of doctoring doesn't mean that I condemn it in all cases. I knowingly buy dipped coins if they are still up to my personal standards. And I have no doubt that I also unknowingly buy dipped coins.

 

But as James and others have said, not all forms of doctoring are equal and not all of them are necessarily evil. That doesn't mean we should pretend it (doctoring) is something other than what it is, however.

And that is exactly my point.

 

The problem is that far far too much effort is put into portraying ALL "doctoring" as "evil".

 

That is foolish and a complete waste of effort, simply because it is FALSE.

 

Rather, the effort needs to be put into educating the masses on what degrees there are of coin doctoring, and why some doctoring is acceptable while most doctoring is not.

 

Then, we would be on a truthful playing field.

[lehigh96]

I’d like to divorce the term “acceptable dipping” from “doctoring.” In minds of most collectors “doctoring” has a very negative connotation no matter how you try to couch it.

 

I believe that absolutism on this subject runs the risk of doing a lot of damage to the hobby and the existing stock of coins. About 20 years ago a self-described “expert chemist” and “expert numismatic metallurgist” declared on the front page of Coin World that all toned coins were "corroded" and that they would all eventually tone to a color that was black as coal. He further claimed that dipping was the only way to “preserve” toned coins from their “enviable fate.” Dipping in his opinion was a “conservation practice.”

 

He got to present his views for three weeks running on the front page of the paper. Many of us disputed his opinions, which Coin World presented as a news story and not an opinion. The rebuttals to this “expert’s” opinion were all presented as letters to the editor on the editorial page., which those rebuttals look like opinions. Finally saner minds prevailed, and things returned to normal, but it took about a year for that to happen.

 

All I’m saying is that when it comes to coin preservation and collector preferences, this is not an area where the “right answer” in carved in stone. There are legitimate differences of opinion and stating that all dipped coins are “doctored” is a hash description that could cause a lot of harm to the hobby.

 

And IMO, Weimar White is a wacko!

[Kurtdog]

Mark and TonerGuy, Last time I checked, there was no formal or legal (?) definition of this doctoring which is why we are discussing it here. So statements like 'dipping is doctoring and doctoring is alteration' and 'Im not sure changing what its called really makes a difference other then to make it more palatable to those that already feel dipping is okay...' are fairly extreme views on the subject IMO. Also, no one is changing what dipping is, just some folk don't agree that dipping is always doctoring. Some folk appear to believe that dipping can also be conservation at least in some cases. Me? I prefer in most cases, coins with what appears to be original skin but I also recognize that even when a good patina has built up, there is no guarantee that the coin has not been dipped decades ago.

 

So I will repeat. According to Q David Bowers, the majority of 19th century AU and UNC silver coins minted at the US mint have been dipped. That means you are probably buying such coins. If you feel so strongly about being anti-dippers, then why are you buying these coins? There is no question you are as are we all. This is a reality of collecting in numismatic items. And most ignore this statement every time I make it......

 

Another salient well known fact. NCS dips coins. NCS is affiliated with NGC. Therefore the parent company for these boards according to your comments above, must be coin doctors and not agents of conservation. How you gonna deal with this? Do tell on both of these points...............

 

Bottom line is that dipping has been going on for centuries, you and I have dipped coins even when believing we don't, it is unavoidable. But don't take my word for this, take Q. David Bowers, he carries weight in these matters. So the blanket statement that all dipped coins are doctored, with negative connotations, is well, abit problematic in my view because you TonerGuy, and you Mark, are guaranteed to have dipped (doctored) coins as do I without a doubt, even when thinking we don't.

 

And TonerGuy, how do you know that your toned coins weren't dipped decades ago and are all NT and not helped by someone in all cases? Can you prove you don't have doctored toned coins? Were you around to shepherd your coins since they were minted so you can bear witness to natural toning? Hmmmm.....

 

And finally, GO DUCKS - Rose Bowl bound! (Blatant spam)

That's pretty good. "Originality," really, is an illusion. When you get down to the quantum mechanics of it, i.e., when you really think on it, it falls apart.

[Hard Times]

Good comments everyone. I fully agree with TonerGuy that we should be looking at this as the future - no more dipping now that we know what it does.

 

Mark thanks for your response to my questions and thanks for starting this thread, I believe we are all learning alot on this controversial issue.

 

Best, HT

[Frank Provasek]

Admittedly, (and Thanks to my Higher Power), I am not a Chemist/Metallurgist, etc.

 

But, (there is always a "but"), might the observation/lesson be slightly enhanced?

 

It would seem to me that if a Product turns sulfur- a non-metallic chemical element (I remember that much), into hydrogen sulfide- a gaseous, light weight element that is a compound of sulfer with another element or radical, then, while the element being removed is not metallic, it certainly is a compund element that is being removed to enhance visual acceptability.

 

John Curlis

 

Indeed, but what is being removed -- the sulfur -- is a CONTAMINANT -- and what is NOT being removed is the original coin silver. Thus the process clearly falls into the conservation/restoration category, even though repeated retoning/redipping cycles adversely affect the luster.

 

Much scientific study has been made on the chemistry of thiourea based silver cleaners in the restoration of daguerreotypes. Yet coin collectors polarairze around two camps -- that dipping eats up a layer of metal -- or - that whatever it does - it's "traditionally done" and needs no further study.

[coinman_23885]

Admittedly, (and Thanks to my Higher Power), I am not a Chemist/Metallurgist, etc.

 

But, (there is always a "but"), might the observation/lesson be slightly enhanced?

 

It would seem to me that if a Product turns sulfur- a non-metallic chemical element (I remember that much), into hydrogen sulfide- a gaseous, light weight element that is a compound of sulfer with another element or radical, then, while the element being removed is not metallic, it certainly is a compund element that is being removed to enhance visual acceptability.

 

John Curlis

 

Indeed, but what is being removed -- the sulfur -- is a CONTAMINANT -- and what is NOT being removed is the original coin silver. Thus the process clearly falls into the conservation/restoration category, even though repeated retoning/redipping cycles adversely affect the luster.

 

Much scientific study has been made on the chemistry of thiourea based silver cleaners in the restoration of daguerreotypes. Yet coin collectors polarairze around two camps -- that dipping eats up a layer of metal -- or - that whatever it does - it's "traditionally done" and needs no further study.

 

If no metal is removed in certain techniques/dips, then why is the luster still diminished?

[physics-fan3.14]

Admittedly, (and Thanks to my Higher Power), I am not a Chemist/Metallurgist, etc.

 

But, (there is always a "but"), might the observation/lesson be slightly enhanced?

 

It would seem to me that if a Product turns sulfur- a non-metallic chemical element (I remember that much), into hydrogen sulfide- a gaseous, light weight element that is a compound of sulfer with another element or radical, then, while the element being removed is not metallic, it certainly is a compund element that is being removed to enhance visual acceptability.

 

John Curlis

 

Indeed, but what is being removed -- the sulfur -- is a CONTAMINANT -- and what is NOT being removed is the original coin silver. Thus the process clearly falls into the conservation/restoration category, even though repeated retoning/redipping cycles adversely affect the luster.

 

Much scientific study has been made on the chemistry of thiourea based silver cleaners in the restoration of daguerreotypes. Yet coin collectors polarairze around two camps -- that dipping eats up a layer of metal -- or - that whatever it does - it's "traditionally done" and needs no further study.

 

Frank and John - you've got the science all wrong!!!!

 

The sulfur, in the form of hydrogen sulfide, certainly deposits on the surface of the coin. But once on the coin, it interacts with the silver to form silver sulfide. The top layer of silver actually changes to a new compound. When you use a dip, it is this silver sulfide that is being removed - some of the silver is being stripped away. It is for this reason that luster is affected.

 

You can take a silver coin, weigh it, and then subject it to an environment where it will tone very darkly. Then dip it, and weigh it again. The coin will be measurably lighter (if you use a precise enough scale). You are actually removing silver from the surface of the coin!

[James_OldeTowne]

Indeed, but what is being removed -- the sulfur -- is a CONTAMINANT -- and what is NOT being removed is the original coin silver. Thus the process clearly falls into the conservation/restoration category, even though repeated retoning/redipping cycles adversely affect the luster.

 

Much scientific study has been made on the chemistry of thiourea based silver cleaners in the restoration of daguerreotypes. Yet coin collectors polarairze around two camps -- that dipping eats up a layer of metal -- or - that whatever it does - it's "traditionally done" and needs no further study.

 

If no metal is removed in certain techniques/dips, then why is the luster still diminished?

Exactly.

 

Frank, your argument does not mesh with reality at all in my experience. I have witnessed coins left in dip too long (not by me - I have never dipped a single coin), and there is no question whatsoever - NONE - that the metal is somehow corrupted, because the coin loses its flowlines. Are you saying that dip ADDS something to the surface?? Because other than removal of "something", I don't understand why dip would remove the flowline luster from an already-white coin.

 

Furthermore, what definition states that "sulfur contaminates coins"? That's akin to saying "carbon dioxide is a poison (contaminant)" merely because we breathe it in and out all the time. It certainly can kill us in large quantity, but it is everywhere, as one expects.

 

As far as I know, sulfur in limited quantity is an integral part of virtually every practical environment, and therefore need not be considered a "contaminant".

[physics-fan3.14]

James, see my post directly above yours. I would also direct everyone to my thread found here: http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2975698&fpart=1

[TonerGuy]

So if dipping is moving (removing) metal on the surface and is done in the furtherance of returning the coin to its freshly minted state how is that really that different than moving metal on the surface of a coin to hide a hit in an effort to return that coin to its freshly minted state...

 

Call me a purist but I dont see the difference... The dipper is trying to improve the look of the coin and so is the metal doctor. Each has the intention of improving the grade/look of the coin in hopes of selling it for more.

 

Time and storage has caused the toning and time and storage has caused the mark/gouge.

 

Apples to apples... and I dont like them apples.

[MarkFeld]

So if dipping is moving (removing) metal on the surface and is done in the furtherance of returning the coin to its freshly minted state how is that really that different than moving metal on the surface of a coin to hide a hit in an effort to return that coin to its freshly minted state...

 

Call me a purist but I dont see the difference... The dipper is trying to improve the look of the coin and so is the metal doctor. Each has the intention of improving the grade/look of the coin in hopes of selling it for more.

 

Time and storage has caused the toning and time and storage has caused the mark/gouge.

 

Apples to apples... and I dont like them apples.

 

While I do think dipping is a form of doctoring, I certainly don't place it on the same level as moving metal. The former is essentially removing toning, while the latter is removing flaws. And the removal or hiding of flaws is very different from the removal of toning.

[James_OldeTowne]

James, see my post directly above yours. I would also direct everyone to my thread found here: http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2975698&fpart=1

Point well taken! Yours is an excellent post that should be required reading.

 

 

 

While I do think dipping is a form of doctoring, I certainly don't place it on the same level as moving metal. The former is essentially removing toning, while the latter is removing flaws. And the removal or hiding of flaws is very different from the removal of to toning.

Mark, I would have to amend your statement somewhat. The problem is that too many times in the past, toning WAS seen as a "flaw", i.e. "tarnish". And of course, no matter how original it is, spotty tone, or streaky toning, or unfortunate colors, or excessive darkness have been deemed undesirable and therefore a flaw.

 

Pretty much, any attempt to improve a coin by diminishing flaws is a doctoring process.

[TonerGuy]

Mark, I would have to amend your statement somewhat. The problem is that too many times in the past, toning WAS seen as a "flaw", i.e. "tarnish". And of course, no matter how original it is, spotty tone, or streaky toning, or unfortunate colors, or excessive darkness have been deemed undesirable and therefore a flaw.

 

Pretty much, any attempt to improve a coin by diminishing flaws is a doctoring process.

 

+1 ... and therein lies the problem. It is the intent to improve to the coin that differentiates doctoring from conservation... Dipping in acetone to remove PVC preserves the coin and protects it for future generations. It does not change the coin in any distinct manner.

 

Dipping is unnecessary to protect coins and therefore it is merely a way to improve and thus doctoring.

 

If I took a bunch of dipped slabbed Morgans and cracked them out and then placed them in Taco Bell napkins in an effort to add color to them and then resubmit them hoping for a * that act would be label "doctoring." Why is the reverse not true ?

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Admittedly, (and Thanks to my Higher Power), I am not a Chemist/Metallurgist, etc.

 

But, (there is always a "but"), might the observation/lesson be slightly enhanced?

 

It would seem to me that if a Product turns sulfur- a non-metallic chemical element (I remember that much), into hydrogen sulfide- a gaseous, light weight element that is a compound of sulfer with another element or radical, then, while the element being removed is not metallic, it certainly is a compund element that is being removed to enhance visual acceptability.

 

John Curlis

 

Indeed, but what is being removed -- the sulfur -- is a CONTAMINANT -- and what is NOT being removed is the original coin silver. Thus the process clearly falls into the conservation/restoration category, even though repeated retoning/redipping cycles adversely affect the luster.

 

Much scientific study has been made on the chemistry of thiourea based silver cleaners in the restoration of daguerreotypes. Yet coin collectors polarairze around two camps -- that dipping eats up a layer of metal -- or - that whatever it does - it's "traditionally done" and needs no further study.

 

Frank and John - you've got the science all wrong!!!!

 

The sulfur, in the form of hydrogen sulfide, certainly deposits on the surface of the coin. But once on the coin, it interacts with the silver to form silver sulfide. The top layer of silver actually changes to a new compound. When you use a dip, it is this silver sulfide that is being removed - some of the silver is being stripped away. It is for this reason that luster is affected.

 

You can take a silver coin, weigh it, and then subject it to an environment where it will tone very darkly. Then dip it, and weigh it again. The coin will be measurably lighter (if you use a precise enough scale). You are actually removing silver from the surface of the coin!

 

 

Good Morning to you and all.

 

I did attempt, by preface, to admit lack of knowledge and I did preface with "...it seems to me...", followed by a conclusion "...it certainly is a compound element that is being removed to enhance visual acceptability...".

 

I extend the highest form of apology allowed by Canon Law, via a Papal Mea Culpa.

 

I am not certain what Science I offended, but (blah-blah), Science does bring one closer to God, or so I was taught by the Good Jesuits.

 

They just did not know much about coins, and were not inclined to be "physics fans", I guess.

 

It may be the subject is best described by taking a slight literary quote license:

Every silver coin has a silver lining.....

 

Respectfully, of course.

John Curlis

 

PS: I speak and extend apology for myself, and do not speak for Mr. Provasek, nor would I be so bold as to do so.

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

Haha, no apology necessary, John! I'm just here to share my knowledge and experience, just the same as you.

[Hard Times]

Toner Guy, I pretty much agree with everything you are saying in this thread, that dipping is in almost all cases is not an acceptable practice. But, there may be exceptions out there, well actually there is no doubt there are because much of what we have to purchase has been dipped as pointed out in prior posts. So I am suggesting that it might be not as black and white as some here have argued. Now having said that, I would also argue that the practice of dipping that appears to have been so common the past, must stop now and in the future. If it does not, we will have too many rare coins that are dipped too many times. We must acknowledge the 'sins of our forebears' and recognize that in the past this was likely viewed differently, but move on with a more 'enlightened' perspective in these times. If this happens we have a better chance that future generations will have something left to collect.

 

This also must apply to human enhanced toning even in the case where TPG's consider it market acceptable.

 

Thoughts?

 

Best, HT