What are you talking about? I rehashed nothing. I thought it was pretty clear that there are certain key date ASE that are worth more than bullion even if they are damaged. That's it. I didn't rehash my quotes in anyway...I just only quoted the relevant parts.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=231155261143&ssPageName=STRK:MESE:IT I have a book of dansco missing the 1986, that are all white. I considered pulling this auction and dipping it. It just crossed my mind, that there might be something with modern minting that might not be combatible with dipping
Boy, that's one ugly ASE. It looks like it's had the luster beaten out of it already. Can't believe someone is paying $42 for that coin. Craziness. Cats and Dogs living together....
Ok, we have Artificial toning - natural toning , and when someone dips a coin normally, it is called dipped, and OK with old timers ( sorta Natural), but what should it be called when someone takes a ugly NT ASE , and using very diluted dipping solution lightly removes some of the Deep Ugly to produce a moderate tone that is much more attractive ( Artistic even). Artistic De-toning?, Artificial de-toning?, or still NT as only some of it was removed by acceptable dipping and what remains is still Natural? Most use the Dip solution straight, whereas one can easily dilute it and slow down the action. It is mainly a strong acid ( Fast)-----> weaker acid ( Slow). Think a TPG would grade it as normal?
I like the look of it the way it is. Although I generally like toned coins. Most ASE/bullion collectors like everything blast white like it was just minted though.
Nobody really answered your question - not completely anyway. Yes, if you over-dip the coin it will affect the coin in a negative way. But if you dip it correctly, it will not affect it in a negative way.
I've read that MS coins are not as easily damaged as circulated coins when dipped, simply due to the fact that they have more luster. Is that correct? I am not a dealer
I say the opposite is true actually because many, if not not most circulated coins don't have any luster at all. I'm not gonna say it's unheard of, but most coins under XF don't have any luster. And those XF will rarely have half of their luster, and those AU half to most of it. But I guess in a way it depends on how you define damaged. An MS coin can be dipped properly and nobody can ever tell that it was dipped - except by using deductive reasoning. A circulated coin though, if you dip it, just about anybody will immediately know it was dipped. But is that damage, or not ? I ask that because many circ coins can be and are found toned almost completely black. And if they are, then they have either already been damaged by the terminal toning, or soon will be damaged by the terminal toning. So is it damage to dip and remove that terminal or nearly terminal toning ? I'd have to say no it is not. Others will disagree of course. But don't get me wrong here, MS coins can most definitely be easily damaged by improper dipping. MS coins are quite fragile. But if they are dipped properly then no, they won't be harmed. And often they will even be improved.
Here is a before and after scan of a 1926D Peace Dollar I dipped a long time ago. I don't have a photo since I never really felt any use in taking it's pic. I still have it somewhere buried in the SDB with a few other well worn specimens. I think it might illustrate your point.
That's not the kind of coin that benefits from a dip. As I get time in the next few days I'll post a few examples of coins I do.
Yep, you are 100% correct. It is an example of a coin that turned black and ugly and had the ugly erased. Worth only melt before and still only worth melt. But a little easier on the eyes.
I think he might of posted it as an example of the circ coins I mentioned. I ask that because many circ coins can be and are found toned almost completely black. And if they are, then they have either already been damaged by the terminal toning, or soon will be damaged by the terminal toning.