What a difference a dip makes - conserving a proof 1969-S half

[TomB]

While I like the after coin so much better, I'm really wondering where all the "original is best" people are.

I would have to be considered one of those folks who advocates the buying of coins that might be termed "original", but my niche is within an era of coinage significantly older than this half dollar. In fact, I believe I have in the past advocated the use of dip in cases such as this.

 

I'm not sure if you're "starting down a slippery slope" or if you're "jumping from a plane without a parachute".

 

Personally, I feel doctoring coins is doctoring coins, not matter what they are dated. It's either OK or it's not - date of the coin does not matter.

I didn't say it wasn't doctoring; of course it's doctoring.

[pendragon1998]

I don't know, I think doctoring connotes alteration with intent to defraud. This falls more under conservation, IMHO - alteration with the intent of addressing damage from improper storage. No different than an acetone dip to remove PVC. To include both concepts under "doctoring" seems wrong.

[TomB]

I have no desire to debate your position, Michael and, in fact, can agree with and have previously voiced much of your last post. Perhaps I did not draw a fine enough line between what I perceive to be possible conservation vs something else and simply bundled it all together in this example under the single term of doctoring.

 

Here is a cut-and-paste of something I wrote on the boards a while ago, which I have edited down to fit better this tangent. If someone on the boards would like to parse my statements down to an even finer level of minutiae then I would request that this party simply PM me their questions since defining every word of every thread will get tiring for most involved quite quickly.

 

I believe that proceeding with surface manipulation in the absence of a compelling reason such as to avoid additional surface injury, be it called cleaning or conservation, is quite tricky when there is the realistic chance that the surface properties of the underlying metal might change. In my opinion, the resulting coin that was treated not in an attempt to avoid future injury but rather in an attempt to improve its eye appeal, and that has had its surface features changed, is an example of artificial toning or of a doctored coin. Please note that I include the very popular practice of dipping to remove non-harmful toning in this category. This is an unpopular position to hold, and flies counter to long-accepted industry and hobby standards, but it is what I believe. It is also a position that does not allow me to scrutinize coins closely with conveniently obtained and used metrics, but must be applied on a coin-to-coin basis and relies on experience and logic. The extension of this is that a great many blast white Morgan dollars and the majority of blast white Seated Liberty and Barber coinage has been doctored through dipping to alter the surfaces of the coins. Does this mean that NCS will doctor coins on-demand when the request is simply to remove undesired, but non-harmful toning? Yes, in my opinion this is a reasonable statement if these parameters are used.

 

Finally, I strongly believe it is the responsibility of each individual to determine what is acceptable to his or herself. Is dipping to produce the elusive blast white Seated Liberty half okay? How about the production of blue-toned copper from an otherwise RB example? Should the introduction of a small amount of putty onto the surface of a gold coin be viewed as favorable? May PVC be safely removed with acetone? What about those coins stored in cardboard albums, where do they fit in this discussion? These are things that must be answered by the individual and that should be reflected in their purchases.

[James_OldeTowne]

I don't know, I think doctoring connotes alteration with intent to defraud. This falls more under conservation, IMHO - alteration with the intent of addressing damage from improper storage. No different than an acetone dip to remove PVC. To include both concepts under "doctoring" seems wrong.

I agree completely.

[WinstonWare]

While I like the after coin so much better, I'm really wondering where all the "original is best" people are.

 

I actually stopped checking in on this post after the first couple of responses because the coin simply isn’t in my area of interest and the application of dip isn’t in my area of study. Personally, I have no logical or emotional reaction to dipping moderns. I guess I just don’t care…

[lkenefic]

 

I agree... each of us must make this determination based upon what we decide to purchase; however, isn't it the intent of the "coin doctor" to perpetrate some sort of fraud? I can see conserving [by dipping] a coin to prevent damage (PVC or the like) but I think dipping to remove "unattractive" toning is not alright. This opens up the door to the purely subjective terms 'attractive' versus 'unattractive'. This is especially true when the motive becomes cash-driven versus an attempt at conservation.

 

Oddly, no one has answered my question about whether or not NGC or PCGS has some sort of guarantee pertaining to coins not turning hazy after they've been encapsulated. Can they really make such a guarantee???

 

Leo

[BillJones]

I have some random thoughts about this

 

1. I think that the coin does look better after the dip. I don’t find hazy modern Proof coins attractive and avoid them when I see them in high grade slabs.

2. Sometimes dipping like this is required to make the coin salable. Years ago I sent the only coin I’ve had done to NCS. It was $2.50 Indian that had a big, dark copper stain in the recessed area of the Indian’s neck. The coin was a solid MS-64 otherwise, and I couldn’t sell the coin for much of anything. NCS fixed it and then NGC graded it. It was “too white” for my taste, but I was more than happy to sell it to a dealer at what was a reasonable price. Sometimes coins have something on them that makes them impossible to sell. I don’t think that a chemical dip should be a problem.

3. Despite the improvement, some residue of the haze remains. Collectors here should “go to school” on this so that they will know what to look for before they pay big bucks for cameo Proof from this era. In 1969, only a small percent of Proof coins were cameo pieces. No all Proofs were cameos to one degree or another they way they are today.

4. I’d like to see this coin in six months to a year. Quite often you dip a coin and then don’t remove the residue properly, it reverts to its old ugly self.

 

Finally, if it’s wrong to dip a coin like this to make it more saleable, what about the bright white Proof coins you see from let’s say 1942 and before. Are these coins something that we would call altered or damaged? Should they be “no grades” because of that? Proof coins from the 1936 to ’42 era are noted for haze, and such hazed, but original, coins are real bears to sell. One could say the same thing for earlier silver Proof coins. I don’t find dipped coins attractive, but I don’t think that they should rejected put into NCS holders.