Do you consider a dipped surface "original?"

[MarkFeld]

"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....

 

Yes, I believe that, in a sense, toning serves to protect the surfaces of the coin from the elements. And if the toning is removed, 1) the newly stripped surfaces tend to be more reactive and 2) no longer have that protection.

 

For example, generally speaking, I think you will find that a newly dipped coin is more likely to tone more quickly than a toned coin will (continue to tone).

[Hard Times]

Yes I see your reasoning and thaz what I thought you meant, thanks for further clarifications Mark.

[DieClash]

"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....

 

Yes, I believe that, in a sense, toning serves to protect the surfaces of the coin from the elements. And if the toning is removed, 1) the newly stripped surfaces tend to be more reactive and 2) no longer have that protection.

 

For example, generally speaking, I think you will find that a newly dipped coin is more likely to tone more quickly than a toned coin will (continue to tone).

 

 

Mark, I would go further and remove "believe" (conditionally) that a freshly dipped coin (silver, copper are highly reactive metals) will most definitely tone more rapidly than one that has already toned. The reactants have degraded into more stable compounds (e.g. silver sulfate). So yes, that tiny coat of stable toning (i.e., thin-film interference) compounds will act as a shield to SLOW down the chemical reaction over time and protect the coin from further damage in the short-term. But in the long term you can never completely stop the process in the absence of a vacuum.

 

Keep in mind that the surfaces will continue to react with the atmosphere at different rates given the availability of oxygen and moisture (which is the condition mentioned earlier).

 

I'm no chemist, but this thread is more ideological than scientific, in the "what IF" scenario you cannot tell a coin has been dipped, but suspect that there's no way an 1836 Gobrecht $ can be "blast" white, given the history and storage alternatives of the time.

 

So do you go by logic and dismiss the blast white gem as not original, or do you go with your eyes that see no evidence of "dipping"? Pretty good question if you ask me!!

 

Cheers!

 

Kirk

 

 

 

[MarkFeld]

"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....

 

Yes, I believe that, in a sense, toning serves to protect the surfaces of the coin from the elements. And if the toning is removed, 1) the newly stripped surfaces tend to be more reactive and 2) no longer have that protection.

 

For example, generally speaking, I think you will find that a newly dipped coin is more likely to tone more quickly than a toned coin will (continue to tone).

 

 

Mark, I would go further and remove "believe" (conditionally) that a freshly dipped coin (silver, copper are highly reactive metals) will most definitely tone more rapidly than one that has already toned. The reactants have degraded into more stable compounds (e.g. silver sulfate). So yes, that tiny coat of stable toning (i.e., thin-film interference) compounds will act as a shield to SLOW down the chemical reaction over time and protect the coin from further damage in the short-term. But in the long term you can never completely stop the process in the absence of a vacuum.

 

Keep in mind that the surfaces will continue to react with the atmosphere at different rates given the availability of oxygen and moisture (which is the condition mentioned earlier).

 

I'm no chemist, but this thread is more ideological than scientific, in the "what IF" scenario you cannot tell a coin has been dipped, but suspect that there's no way an 1836 Gobrecht $ can be "blast" white, given the history and storage alternatives of the time.

 

So do you go by logic and dismiss the blast white gem as not original, or do you go with your eyes that see no evidence of "dipping"? Pretty good question if you ask me!!

 

Cheers!

 

Kirk

 

 

 

Hi Kirk and good to see you posting here.

 

I often try to use words such as "think" or "believe" when I am not certain about something, instead of sounding like I know if for a fact. In the example you gave/asked about - if I were to see a white Gobrecht Dollar, logic and the odds would tell me that it had indeed, been dipped.

[Kurtdog]

 

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.

OK, very good. That's right on the mark, Mark. No pun intended. Now we're getting someplace, IMHO, as, certainly, a lot of people collect like that, just as you say, based on what they're persuaded their mind's eyes can see. The question is, “Should we be collecting like that?”

 

In other words, “I got this coin in circulation.” "I dipped this coin." "I tarnished this coin." Or, conversely, “I didn’t get this coin in circulation.” “I didn’t dip this coin.” “I didn’t tarnish this coin.” Think of those statements, simply, as evidence going to the respective issues in those statements. Do you see, how, by focusing on that evidence, you’re taking your eyes off the coin? Sure you are. To the degree you’re focusing on those statements, to the same degree are you taking your eyes off the coin.

 

That, IMHO, is where all the trouble in this hobby starts. In a nutshell, it starts at the point at which we’re persuaded to take our eyes off the coin. Needless to say, I don’t do that for anybody, that’s simply not how I learned to collect.

 

I have to shove off, again. Actually, I have to get some coin-unrelated shopping in. You know how that is. Anyway, let's all have a very Merry Christmas, or, if you must, a very Happy Winter Solstice.