To dip? Or not to dip? That is the question.

I know most coin folks look down upon dipping coins. There are very few coins that I think are a candidate for dipping but from time to time I see both graded and ungraded coins that can benefit from a properly executed dip. Here is an example that crossed my desk. I chose to pick this coin as an example because of the low value of the piece and my confidence in the finished result.

Here is the coin before with the cert from the holder.

​

I (along with the major grading companies) consider there to be 3 types of toning.

1. Positive toning - This is toning which adds to the eye appeal of the coin. These are coins which we could consider attractively toned.
2. Neutral toning - This is toning that neither adds or detracts from the eye appeal of the coin.
3. Negative toning - This is toning that detracts from the overall eye appeal of the coin.

I would consider the piece to have negative toning on the obverse. I don't have a problem with the reverse of the coin. It has a nice thick original skin... but that obverse.

After a quick dip, wash in distilled water, and a pat dry this is the result.

​

I think we can agree that this is a dramatic improvement from the earlier state of this coin. I just wanted to show that while dipping just any coin is most likely a bad idea with the proper experience and technique a once ugly coin is now conserved and collection worthy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I don't frown on dipping if it is done right - and I think you did it right. My opinion you improved that coin in this case. I think there was a seated dime several years back that NCS "preserved" (picking my words carefully) and posted on this site - that I did not think the toning was negative. In this case the toning showed spotchy and finger prints - so in my opinion you did good.

 

PS - dipping done right means not by me. Never done it or tried it so I would not trust myself with a coin like this.

 

What a great outcome!

 

I'll leave the dipping to the professionals, like you Dutch! Outstanding!
Steve

 

I also agree with the decision, as I did the same thing and showed the results in this example:
http://www.cointalk.com/t140858/

 

Very nice! I don't remember ever seeing a dipped coin look so much better afterwards.

 

That's because people have dipped coins that either shouldn't have been dipped or just weren't that nice to begin with.

 

Dip, in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing, can have amazing results if used on the right coin -- as is shown clearly by Matt's example above.

However, looking at the other side of this issue -- I would want to know, if I were considering purchasing this coin, if the coin was dipped.

 

If done like Dutch executed, I'm fine with "Don't ask, Don't Tell." That being said, I am 100% Collector, 0% Investor. I have no intention to ever sell, unless the day comes where I might have to.
Steve

 

Matt: Nice work! :thumb:

Will you now be resubmitting the coin to NGC? If so, please report back to this thread with the results, especially if NGC are not made aware that they previously graded the coin. I don't doubt the grade, I'm just curious if you resubmit what comes back.

In the case of this coin, the obverse toning developed because of the fingerprints correct? That is what the pattern seems to indicate, fingerprints. Did you feel there was any risk when you made the decision that even if the negative toning was removed, that you may have been left with a coin damaged from the prints? Any background on how you made the call to go ahead with this, particularly if the end result after dipping would have left you with a coin that had more negative eye appeal than before dipping? And I understand about the low value, so reply with all value-reasoning aside, if you can.

Thanks.

 

Sure you do, you just never saw the before photo.

Personally, I don't have a problem with dipping coins but I do understand the argument by those opposed to it who see it as a form of coin doctoring, no different than artificial toning.

 

I was going to resubmit it to NGC.

I would guess that the toning did develop because of the fingerprints. There is always a risk when dipping a coin that the toning has damaged the surface. The hardest part is determining which coin will come out and which wont. Usually the more opaque the toning is while looking at the coins luster the better chance it's not damaged the surfaces. The first thing I look for is the luster. If the coin is completely toned but still has poppin luster under the toning odds are the surfaces are ok. If you see a coin when heavier especially darker toning and the luster is really subdued in the toned areas... odds are that coin is not one that should be dipped. In the first picture you can see that while the coin is toned the luster is still apparent through the toning... almost like it wasn't there.

 

The only difference I see between this and artificial toning is that more often then not artificial toning is done to hide something that is wrong with the coin. I'm not talking about artificial toning a coin to rainbow... but adding a matte grey back to a cleaned coin. This is the artificial toning I worry about most.

In this situation you are working in reverse to unhide just how nice the coin is.

This is one of those taboo subjects that people feel very strongly about.

 

Thanks Matt, that was great and very helpful. :smile

 

Matt,

As you know, there are two types of artificial toning. Type 1 AT is used to cover up problems (cleaning etc) or other forms of coin doctoring. This form of AT is usually found on higher dollar value coins. Type 2 AT is used to create eye appeal rainbow toning which results in both increased eye appeal and price.

I believe that 10 years ago, your statement would have been true. But with the expansion of the toned coin market, type 2 AT is much more prevalant these days than type 1 unless you are talking about high value coins. To me, type 2 AT and dipping are one in the same, both use a chemical process to increase the eye appeal of the coin. One adds eye appealing toning, the other removes unappealing toning. Just my 2 cents.

 

Assuming my quarters weren't dipped at some point, as Doug once suggested, is probably naive of me. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder I suppose. Most people want either "blast white" or "attractively toned" coins. The majority of coins fall somewhere in the middle...the ones that haven't been dipped, artificially toned, etc... As collectors, I guess we just can't appreciate a coin's naturalness. We want them to look like what time has made them not and we'll be damned if we pay the going rate for an original surface modern coin. I'm as guilty as the next.

 

I'm not saying that I don't agree with you to an extent... but I see more harm in adding something to a coin that it never had....for example rainbow toning.... then returning it to a previous state. Every silver coin we collect looked like the result of the dip at some point.

 

Good point. Though, I would like to see a pic of this coin in a couple months to see how it looks then. I don't know what was used as a dip. If this coin still looks great down the road a bit, I'd love to know what was used. I've got a couple of pieces that could use the same procedure.