If the photo of the OP coin is accurate, that piece is too dark for me. The toning or “thin film interference” is obscuring the design features. Between that and “blast white,” I will take “blast white,” but as @TypeCoin971793 said, I’ll original surfaces, but attractive original surfaces.
I think dipping coins is another way to alter the coin. I prefer they be left alone as is. The exception is that if there is so much crud on the surface that dipping is the only wat to properly identify the coin. I prefer the new coin look , and some naturally toned specimens . Dipping coins is just another method of cleaning that is hidden from the purchaser most times! Dillan
With this coin it's definitely a crap shoot, but I'm inclined to agree with ya. But, if I were looking at that coin thinking of buying it - I'd simply walk away.
I hope that you and @Kentucky can educate me on this blast white issue. I've passed on scores of coins with this attribute, sometimes thinking that they may have been cleaned in some sort of strong acid.
Well.... I am on the road and unable to do photos. You can see the seated half in my avatar. It is a straight grade coin and in hand appears to have been struck yesterday. Yes I do believe many are treated to look this way. If the mint luster remains.... That makes me a buyer.
Coins can be blast white if 1) they are recently struck or 2) they are older but the surface has not oxidized or 3) they been dipped. If a coin shows numismatic luster (hourglass) it is acceptable whether it has been dipped or not. Excessive dipping can destroy luster many say, but some new coins do not have luster to begin with. Perhaps some of our experts could chime in and help straighten me out.
The dot increases the coin’s retail value by like $3000 ;-) You should have a look at the PCGS price guide.