Do you consider a dipped surface "original?"

[Kurtdog]

How can you, when it removes original tarnish? That's what I don't understand. If you consider dipped surfaces "original," please don't hold back your rationale. Please be responsive to the question, however. I'm inquiring about "original," not "market acceptable," or anything like that. I can determine, for myself, whether I consider a particular dipped surface "acceptable." Anybody can do that. Thanks.

[Hard Times]

if something was removed, it is not original, thus dipped surfaces aren't original, are they market acceptable? Yes, when the luster has not been strongly impeded, which means that only a small amount of original surface metal reacted to produce sulfide/oxide which was then removed by dipping.

[Conder101]

No, but until it has been dipped enough to visually impair the luster it often can't said for sure to have been dipped so you can't tell if it is original or not.

[Walkerfan]

No, but until it has been dipped enough to visually impair the luster it often can't said for sure to have been dipped so you can't tell if it is original or not.

 

Agreed. It is NOT original but many dipped coins look FANTASTIC, while others look very UGLY and IMPAIRED. It is like night and day.

 

An impaired coin looks much worse than a badly toned one, IMHO, except in some rare cases.

[Mozin]

No, but until it has been dipped enough to visually impair the luster it often can't said for sure to have been dipped so you can't tell if it is original or not.

 

I go along with this thinking.

[James_OldeTowne]

Coins dipped at the mint are original. Aside from that, I can't imagine how anyone could ever consider a coin known to be dipped as being original.

 

Of course, if it cannot be determined whether or not a coin was dipped, then it is "original enough".

[MarkFeld]

No, but until it has been dipped enough to visually impair the luster it often can't said for sure to have been dipped so you can't tell if it is original or not.

 

I go along with this thinking.

 

I go along with the above, too, but will add the following:

 

There are many instances in which an "older" (color-free) coin exhibits vibrant luster, but the odds tell us,still, has almost certainly been dipped.

 

For example, there are many color-free Washington Quarters, which have not been dipped

.

There are, on a % basis, fewer color-free Standing Liberty Quarters than Washington Quarters which have not been dipped.

 

There are on a % basis, fewer color-free Barber Quarters than Standing Liberty Quarters which have not been dipped.

 

There are, on a % basis, fewer color-free Seated Quarters than Barber Quarters which have not been dipped. My guess (and I admit, I am guessing, by playing the odds) is that there are only a tiny number, if that, of un-dipped color-free Seated Quarters extant.

 

And I doubt that there are ANY color-free Bust Quarters which have not been dipped.

 

Bottom line - generally speaking, regardless of the presence of bold luster, the older the coin (type), the greater the chance it has been dipped if it is color-free.

 

 

[ldhair]

No, but until it has been dipped enough to visually impair the luster it often can't said for sure to have been dipped so you can't tell if it is original or not.

 

I go along with this thinking.

Same here.

[coinman_23885]

Coins dipped at the mint are original. Aside from that, I can't imagine how anyone could ever consider a coin known to be dipped as being original.

 

Of course, if it cannot be determined whether or not a coin was dipped, then it is "original enough".

 

+1

[TonerGuy]

Dipped = Restored and Restored can never be Original...

 

If James and Mark want a different term for dipping why not say that a coin has a "restored surface condition? "

 

 

[Keigwin]

Do you consider a toned surface original?

 

Hasn't something been added? Didn't come from the Mint that way.

Lance. (tongue in cheek)

[TonerGuy]

Do you consider a toned surface original?

 

Hasn't something been added? Didn't come from the Mint that way.

Lance. (tongue in cheek)

 

It can be... if its NT...

 

I look at this in the same light that other collectible industries do... If you strip away the original patina of an item you have restored it and it is no longer considered original.

 

Most museum scholars and experts would state that if an antique is to be worked on - as little as possible should be done to the piece in order for the piece to retain its value. With antique furniture a knowledgeable collector would never purchases a piece that was stripped and refinished. An "over-restored" item can lose value.

 

An original 1953 Corvette with matching serial numbers and original paint and an original leather interior will command a much higher price that a restored 1953 Corvette even if that original car might not be as "pretty" as the restored car.

 

Shouldnt numismatics be in line with the vast majority of other collectible industries ?

[physics-fan3.14]

I don't think you're going to find anyone that will argue a dipped surface is original except for maybe noow, that just doesn't make sense. The argument is whether dipped surfaces are market acceptable, doctoring, or conservation.

[DirtyGoldMan]

No.

[Walkerfan]

I don't think you're going to find anyone that will argue a dipped surface is original except for maybe noow, that just doesn't make sense. The argument is whether dipped surfaces are market acceptable, doctoring, or conservation.

 

Many, Many dipped surfaces are great and they have improved upon the coin and it has been deemed MUCH more 'market-acceptable' and aethsetically pleasing to look at. Still others that have been dipped IMPROPERLY and they look sick, hazy & dull! Yuch! Well, those latter coins don't belong in TPGS slabs BUT THEY STILL MANAGE TO GET IN THERE AND WITH CAC TO BOOT, ANYWAY!! I think that dipping is more of a conservation than doctoring is but some people out there are obviously doing it, incorrectly and WAAYY TOOO frequently. We the collecors are the FINAL Judges on EVERYTHING and certainly not the TPGS. IMHO. We use them (TPGS) as a reference point and to ensure larger ROI down the road, which we should be thankful for but ONLY if we use our qwn sense and look for the true PQ examples. Use what you know! Go for a well struck, lusterous, mark free coin with no spoting etc. Certain colloctors are willing to 'overlook' small things while others simply won't accept these subtle nuances. Everyone is different, it's what makes the world go around, regarding who accepts what, UNLESS, it is a blatantly obvious mark, or severe or even moderate luster degradation, hairlines etc. Then MOST people should AVOID these coins PCGS/NGC/CAC TPGS coins----- +/*/Bean/ or No bean!! My 2 cents........

 

In summation--

 

I think that dipping should be done only on an ugly coin that is 'AT Risk' for corrosion.

 

Milky, dull coins shouldn't be dipped at all anymore, b/c there surfaces are ruined forever, anyway.

 

Coins should be rinsed properly which all makes a BIG difference and impedes luster, when not done right, just like an overdipped one will, even if it hasn't been overpipped but has alot of dip residue.

 

I KNOW dipped coins to be market acceptable that is a straight up fact. I MYSELF accept the nice ones.

 

I believe people that are dippers are NORMALLY conservatists. Coin Doctors attempt to deceive for financial gain and their practiced can be far more sinisiter, harmful and flat out wrong----ie whizzing, gumming and much worse for the coin and the collector! JMHO.

[MorganMan]

Once again, a light dip hurts nothing if done properly. It is all about preferences. Some of us like Blondes. Some like Brunettes. The "toner" crowd is the redhead lover........

 

 

Edit: I DO agree only MS, problem free coins are ok with it. Dipping an AU coin is asking for trouble.

 

 

MM

[Hard Times]

Once again, a light dip hurts nothing if done properly. It is all about preferences. Some of us like Blondes. Some like Brunettes. The "toner" crowd is the redhead lover........

 

 

Edit: I DO agree only MS, problem free coins are ok with it. Dipping an AU coin is asking for trouble.

 

 

MM

 

mmm...... redheads

[James_OldeTowne]

Once again, a light dip hurts nothing if done properly. It is all about preferences. Some of us like Blondes. Some like Brunettes. The "toner" crowd is the redhead lover........

But... do you like a brunette who has bleached her hair blonde . . . . . . . . and claims to be a NATURAL blonde ? ? ? ?

[DieClash]

I always love when this topic comes up. I concur, that "dipped" is a matter of eye-appeal. If you cannot tell it's been dipped and it still displays excellent luster then "original" may not be questioned.

 

I also agree with Mark, that the older the coin is, if it has not toned, then the more liklihood that coin has been dipped at one point. I think QDB once uttered that most 19th century coins have been dipped to remove color and probably more than once.

 

To me it's common sense. The older the coin, the more likely it's been dipped. And until the 1980s, toned coins were frowned upon. Since blast white sold, then it becomes obvious that the older the coin the more likely it was dipped and probably multiple times.

 

The corollary argument is how much tarnish can an "original" surface accumulate before it is no longer original? I'd argue that a coin's exposure to the elements post-mint alters the "original" surface equally as does dipping to remove that tarnish alters the original surface.

 

Mint State in this hobby is sometimes an oxymoron when calling a rainbow-toned coin Mint State. In the true definition of the term "Mint State" these colorful coins are not. In that the Mint did not produce coins of color.

 

Yet "Original" surface and NT are bandied about, none-the-less. Technically, wear-wise they may be MS, but with elements rendering the surface tarnished, then they are not MS, simply because the U.S. Mint doesn't produce colored, tarnished coins.

 

Cheers!

 

Kirk

 

edited for clarity/grammar

[AnkurJ]

No

[TonerGuy]

But... do you like a brunette who has bleached her hair blonde . . . . . . . . and claims to be a NATURAL blonde ? ? ? ?

 

Okay your description of dipping is better...

[Kurtdog]

Coins dipped at the mint are original. Aside from that, I can't imagine how anyone could ever consider a coin known to be dipped as being original.

 

Of course, if it cannot be determined whether or not a coin was dipped, then it is "original enough".

OK, now we're getting someplace. Maybe. Let's see. What I hear you saying is, if it cannot be determined whether or not a coin was dipped, we're to deem the coin "original." Let's slow down, and start, there. Is that correct? I'll give you the rest of it, where I'm intending to go with this, provided I get the right answer.

[MarkFeld]

Coins dipped at the mint are original. Aside from that, I can't imagine how anyone could ever consider a coin known to be dipped as being original.

 

Of course, if it cannot be determined whether or not a coin was dipped, then it is "original enough".

OK, now we're getting someplace. Maybe. Let's see. What I hear you saying is, if it cannot be determined whether or not a coin was dipped, we're to deem the coin "original." Let's slow down, and start, there. Is that correct? I'll give you the rest of it, where I'm intending to go with this, provided I get the right answer.

 

I realize that that particular question wasn't directed at me, but will provide my answer, anyway.

 

No, if it cannot be determined whether a coin has been dipped, we're to deem the coin neither "original" nor dipped, and merely provide an opinion, based upon appearances, knowledge and experience. In other words, we make an educated guess. And like it or not, in the large majority of cases, all we can do is guess.

[Kurtdog]

Coins dipped at the mint are original. Aside from that, I can't imagine how anyone could ever consider a coin known to be dipped as being original.

 

Of course, if it cannot be determined whether or not a coin was dipped, then it is "original enough".

OK, now we're getting someplace. Maybe. Let's see. What I hear you saying is, if it cannot be determined whether or not a coin was dipped, we're to deem the coin "original." Let's slow down, and start, there. Is that correct? I'll give you the rest of it, where I'm intending to go with this, provided I get the right answer.

 

I realize that that particular question wasn't directed at me, but will provide my answer, anyway.

 

No, if it cannot be determined whether a coin has been dipped, we're to deem the coin neither "original" nor dipped, and merely provide an opinion, based upon appearances, knowledge and experience. In other words, we make an educated guess. And like it or not, in the large majority of cases, all we can do is guess.

When it cannot be determined whether or not a coin was dipped, what are we to presume? That's the question. What I hear you saying is, we're to presume nothing, either way. Is that correct?

 

[MarkFeld]

Coins dipped at the mint are original. Aside from that, I can't imagine how anyone could ever consider a coin known to be dipped as being original.

 

Of course, if it cannot be determined whether or not a coin was dipped, then it is "original enough".

OK, now we're getting someplace. Maybe. Let's see. What I hear you saying is, if it cannot be determined whether or not a coin was dipped, we're to deem the coin "original." Let's slow down, and start, there. Is that correct? I'll give you the rest of it, where I'm intending to go with this, provided I get the right answer.

 

I realize that that particular question wasn't directed at me, but will provide my answer, anyway.

 

No, if it cannot be determined whether a coin has been dipped, we're to deem the coin neither "original" nor dipped, and merely provide an opinion, based upon appearances, knowledge and experience. In other words, we make an educated guess. And like it or not, in the large majority of cases, all we can do is guess.

When it cannot be determined whether or not a coin was dipped, what are we to presume? That's the question. What I hear you saying is, we're to presume nothing, either way. Is that correct?

It depends upon how you define "presume". One definition I found was "belief on reasonable grounds or probable evidence." If you go along with that one, we can presume, based on knowledge, experience and the appearance of a coin, that it has or has not been dipped. I am equating "presume" with an informed and reasonable guess. Others might agree or disagree with that.

 

If, on the other hand, you use a definition of "presume", such as "The act of presuming or accepting as true.", the result might be different.

[James_OldeTowne]

Coins dipped at the mint are original. Aside from that, I can't imagine how anyone could ever consider a coin known to be dipped as being original.

 

Of course, if it cannot be determined whether or not a coin was dipped, then it is "original enough".

OK, now we're getting someplace. Maybe. Let's see. What I hear you saying is, if it cannot be determined whether or not a coin was dipped, we're to deem the coin "original." Let's slow down, and start, there. Is that correct? I'll give you the rest of it, where I'm intending to go with this, provided I get the right answer.

If unable to determine whether or not a coin is dipped, then one is best advised not to lose sleep over it. At some point, buy the coin simply because you will enjoy owning it.

[MarkFeld]

Coins dipped at the mint are original. Aside from that, I can't imagine how anyone could ever consider a coin known to be dipped as being original.

 

Of course, if it cannot be determined whether or not a coin was dipped, then it is "original enough".

OK, now we're getting someplace. Maybe. Let's see. What I hear you saying is, if it cannot be determined whether or not a coin was dipped, we're to deem the coin "original." Let's slow down, and start, there. Is that correct? I'll give you the rest of it, where I'm intending to go with this, provided I get the right answer.

If unable to determine whether or not a coin is dipped, then one is best advised not to lose sleep over it. At some point, buy the coin simply because you will enjoy owning it.

And not to declare to others that it has or hasn't been dipped.

[Kurtdog]

Coins dipped at the mint are original. Aside from that, I can't imagine how anyone could ever consider a coin known to be dipped as being original.

 

Of course, if it cannot be determined whether or not a coin was dipped, then it is "original enough".

OK, now we're getting someplace. Maybe. Let's see. What I hear you saying is, if it cannot be determined whether or not a coin was dipped, we're to deem the coin "original." Let's slow down, and start, there. Is that correct? I'll give you the rest of it, where I'm intending to go with this, provided I get the right answer.

If unable to determine whether or not a coin is dipped, then one is best advised not to lose sleep over it. At some point, buy the coin simply because you will enjoy owning it.

And not to declare to others that it has or hasn't been dipped.

Ah, but that's the thing. If there's no evidence on the face of the coin to suggest that the coin had been dipped, does it matter whether the coin had in fact been dipped? Think about it.

 

Let me put it another way. If there's no evidence on the face of the coin to suggest that the coin had been in circulation, does it matter whether the coin had in fact been in circulation? I got the coin in change at Walmart. I mean it, I mean it, I mean it, I mean it. Does that matter?

 

I have to scoot, for now, but, I shall return. Just don't be too hard on me, in the meantime, as, I really think we're starting to get someplace. I could be wrong. Neither am I suggesting, however, that I have all the answers all gift-wrapped in tissue paper with a pretty pink ribbon around it. Had I thought I had, understand, I'd hardly have started this thread.

 

OK, carry on.

[MarkFeld]

Coins dipped at the mint are original. Aside from that, I can't imagine how anyone could ever consider a coin known to be dipped as being original.

 

Of course, if it cannot be determined whether or not a coin was dipped, then it is "original enough".

OK, now we're getting someplace. Maybe. Let's see. What I hear you saying is, if it cannot be determined whether or not a coin was dipped, we're to deem the coin "original." Let's slow down, and start, there. Is that correct? I'll give you the rest of it, where I'm intending to go with this, provided I get the right answer.

If unable to determine whether or not a coin is dipped, then one is best advised not to lose sleep over it. At some point, buy the coin simply because you will enjoy owning it.

And not to declare to others that it has or hasn't been dipped.

Ah, but that's the thing. If there's no evidence on the face of the coin to suggest that the coin had been dipped, does it matter whether the coin had in fact been dipped? Think about it.

 

Let me put it another way. If there's no evidence on the face of the coin to suggest that the coin had been in circulation, does it matter whether the coin had in fact been in circulation? I got the coin in change at Walmart. I mean it, I mean it, I mean it, I mean it. Does that matter?

 

I have to scoot, for now, but, I shall return. Just don't be too hard on me, in the meantime, as, I really think we're starting to get someplace. I could be wrong. Neither am I suggesting, however, that I have all the answers all gift-wrapped in tissue paper with a pretty pink ribbon around it. Had I thought I had, understand, I'd hardly have started this thread.

 

OK, carry on.

 

"If there's no evidence on the face of the coin to suggest that the coin had been dipped, does it matter whether the coin had in fact been dipped? "

 

To most people, probably not. But to some of us yes. If a coin has been dipped in the not too distant past, it might be more subject to retoning, due to an improper rinse or from being more susceptible to the elements.

 

And, even if one can't tell for certain that a coin has been dipped, there is something highly enticing and almost magical in the thought that a coin (or other old object) has somehow defied great odds in remaining in pristine condition, on its own.

 

Curiously, what would your reply to this question of yours be: "Let me put it another way. If there's no evidence on the face of the coin to suggest that the coin had been in circulation, does it matter whether the coin had in fact been in circulation?"

 

Personally, even if I couldn't tell the difference, if given a choice, I would prefer to own one which had not been in circulation - it's the effect on the mind, not the eyes, at play.

[Hard Times]

"To most people, probably not. But to some of us yes. If a coin has been dipped in the not too distant past, it might be more subject to retoning, due to an improper rinse or from being more susceptible to the elements. "

 

Agree on the improper rinsing, but how does a coin become more susceptible to the elements for retoning if it has been dipped? Are you saying that by removing tone, the 'fresh' metal underneath is more susceptible to retoning whereas if the original tone remains on, it masks additional toning? Or? not sure I completely agree with that if that is what you mean. I think it would be a case by case basis and also how the coin is protected during all phases of its life until the present....

 

 

"And, even if one can't tell for certain that a coin has been dipped, there is something highly enticing and almost magical in the thought that a coin (or other old object) has somehow defied great odds in remaining in pristine condition, on its own."

 

Gotta say, with the exception of Morgans where we know they sat in vaults with little air exchange for decades, it is really stretching it seems that any coin had a magical history of remaining pristine and tone free for all of those decades. How could one know for sure? If there is some of these out there, it must be a very small minority - are there some features that would indicate pristinity yet largely untoned to completely untoned?

 

 

Best, HT