To dip or Not to dip, that is the question

I didn't look at the reverse closely at first and assumed it was an 1887 or 1887-O. I bought an 1886-S raw that is MS63 and didn't notice until later it is an S/S, Hot 100 VAM.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I don't feel this coin is a good choice to dip. Can't see that helping the coin. It's pretty cool just the way it is.

 

Don't do it Chris! Nice 5A! (jrfaust Vamworld) hee hee hee.....(Dark side laugh)

 

Absolutely not. Leave it alone.

 

yes, also because I couldn't see it clear enough

 

Correct me if I am wrong (seriously, please do)...but aren't roller lines caused by the process that ensures the pre-stuck planchets are the correct thickness? So, they occur before the coin is struck? Is that correct?

If that is the case, why would roller lines not be toned like the rest of the coin?

 

Oh for the love of god. No, they aren't. Where's all this supposed numismatic knowledge Doug? Are you finally going senile??

 

They are caused by micro grooves in the rollers used to squeeze the ingots into planchet strips of the proper thickness. Sometimes they are deep, sometimes shallow depending on the grooves. They are typically obliterated by the strike but depending on the strength of the strike and depth of the grooves they can still remain on a struck coin. The toning didn't fully develop here due to the depth of these grooves. Similar to the process of that creates elevated chromatics or pull away toning.

 

OK, that is what I thought (in reference to how they are created).

Assuming the depth of the grooves is the reason for the lack of toning...why is it only present on that one spot of the cheek when the rest of the cheek and field (all with roller marks) are so toned?

 

No. You know a ton about numismatics, but the fact that this is a very common phenomena with Morgans, even in this predominance, doesn't seem to be part of your personal knowledge subset.

Because they were not altered by pressure and flow at the moment of strike, like the rest of the surface of the coin was. This is analogous to "pullaway toning" - why doesn't that area around the date tone like the rest? Because the surface composition is different.

This one is a candidate for removal of the toning, with the proper technique. That technique probably shouldn't be only thiourea, given the thickness of the toning at the periphery. I know how I'd do it if the coin were mine, but I don't know if I'd do it. This is a 4-figure coin in 65, with a good shot at 65, and I'd probably not risk that upside by removing the color. It doesn't always come out right even if you do it right.

 

I'm sure other factors were at play too. Given more time in the environment in which it toned it probably would have eventually toned that area as well.

 

I can't speak as someone experienced with dipping coins (only dipped 3, 1 I regret big time) but can speak as a buyer and I'd rather buy it exactly as is personally.

 

Interesting toning pattern on obverse. Appears the hydrogen sulfide was generated in the vicinity of the central part of the coin and diffused evenly toward the periphery. But there was a bit of shielding by the peripheral devices (stars, letters, digits) so that there is a light area in the field just periphward (made that up!) of most of the peripheral devices.

Cal

 

SuperDave, posted "...the fact that this is a very common phenomena with Morgans..."

@SuperDave is correct as Doug has misspoken in this quote:

GDJMSP, posted: "...they are without question scrapes that occurred not only long after the coin the was struck, but also after it was toned."

jtlee321, is mostly correct: "...it looks like the toning did not take due to a planchet flaw just below the surface that was exposed while being drawn through the draw bench. That white looks familiar, as I've seen it on other Morgans."

In the largest sense, a roller mark is a flaw in the planchet. However, this specific characteristic is simply called a "roller mark." This imperfection was not completely obliterated when the coin was struck. Roller marks are caused by worn rollers or the draw bench. They do not happen due to "a planchet flaw just below the surface." They are the flaw! There are many variables to consider but the deeper the marks go into the planchet, the more likely they will not be struck out. One very important characteristic in the image is the interior of the marks. It is dull. That's the same color we see on weak strikes. Some long-time grading instructors call this "weak strike luster." When you examine a coin and see this "matte color" inside a "scratch-like" mark, it is NOT PMD. The area inside the mark did not tone because its surface is not as susceptible to tone as the struck portions of the surface.

@SuperDave continues: This one is a candidate for removal of the toning, with the proper technique. That technique probably shouldn't be only thiourea, given the thickness of the toning at the periphery. I know how I'd do it if the coin were mine, but I don't know if I'd do it. This is a 4-figure coin in 65, with a good shot at 65, and I'd probably not risk that upside by removing the color. It doesn't always come out right even if you do it right."

He saved me a lot of posting. DON'T TOUCH THE COIN! I love it.

 

BOOM. I love it when I can poke Doug in the numismatic eye

 

that is an attractive looking coin, glad it wasn't dipped!

 

Nice job Chris!!

 

I figured the roller marks would keep the grade to 63 or less. I liked the surface as is with colorful hints around the edges glad you left it alone. I wouldn’t touch a coin like this blast white