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

We can agree or disagree on dipping , but the coin turned out great , next time who knows
what might happen .

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I was thinking something similarly and figured that Matt's experience, seeing so many coins, his knowledge about toners, cleaned coins, dipped coins and dipping coins himself, all combined must have factored into his ability to spot coins that he felt reasonably confident would not, especially in this case, end up worse for having been dipped. I think he answered that quite well, in what to look for and how to make this judgment call. It wasn't just by luck nor taking a risk on a low value coin that he was successful. I also suppose that he knows his dipping procedure well enough that the coin is stable, ready to resubmit and a few months down the road will not revert to a state of negative eye appeal once in it's new holder. (Yes, I understand that even though dipped and bright looking now, the coin will continue to tone, even in the holder.)

edit: thanks Doug, post went up while I was typing.

 

I still have a couple of coins I have done more then 3 years ago in my safe and they have not retoned. I can't say they won't retone with certainty... but I haven't had one do it yet.

 

So, what is the luster like on those coins that have not retoned? Has that deteriorated or does it seem to be the same as it was AFTER the dip?

 

The luster doesn't change over time. If you don't rinse them properly you leave residue of the dip which will cause them to fade over time. But done properly there is no luster loss.

 

I've always condoned proper dipping on mint state coins. Hell, once you've ruined a good roll of dimes practicing, you really can gain a knack for it. I wish I had before pictures for some of the silver I've restored. I personally only know how to do silver properly. I have no idea how to do nickel, would be afraid to do it to gold and never achieve decent results with copper.

I remember the S.S. South America debacle with PCGS slabbing coins previously covered in edited... "Oh this is different. The coin wasn't cleaned. It was curated."

Mm. Hmm. Just practice your technique on relatively low-worth coins. With practice you'll be getting PCGS to slab your dipped offerings.

Disclaimer: I think it is wrong to try and clean a coin to make it something it is not. That is why I originally stated that I will only clean mint state coins. Removing tarnish, or even surface debris from an otherwise uncirculated coin is not passing the coin off as something that it is not. I get ruffled at several sellers on eBay passing off dipped AU58 Washington Quarters as "Choice Gem Select Premium Deluxe Faux Luxury Brilliant Uncirculated ++". You know it's quality if they add the plusses amirite?

 

Does that depend on what was used for the dip? I am thinking something like ezest versus acetone.

 

This coin was done in ezest. Acetone has no real significant effect on toning at all.

 

Yes it most certainly does. A solution many start with is pure TarnX. Depending on how long you dip you can most certainly change the nature of the luster because TarnX is somewhat corrosive. You can tell an over-TarnX'ed coin because the luster is very diffuse... kind of like the reflected light is scattered to the point of having no focus. Original luster will be focused into metal flow patterns created by the strike. (A well-known example being "cartwheel" luster.)

Acetone is one of the safest dips to use. As it will not affect the metal quickly. Luster is a refraction effect: light bounces off of the surface of a coin into our eyes. The luster we see on a mint state coin is the light bouncing off of the natural metal flow. When the surface of a coin is truly altered, luster will no longer look natural. The surface of the coin is no longer like that of the struck coin. This is why whizzed coins look so ridiculous: only proofs have flat fields.

If you are using a dip that can affect the surface metal of the coin, then you most certainly can affect the luster. The original poster's example of the Franklin half was perfectly executed. The luster was not changed at all, and if you read his description for chosing to dip the coin, you understand that he took into account that the luster of the coin had not already been impaired.

 

That would be "reflection".

Refraction only happens when light passes through something -- technically, passing through an interface between two media with different refractive indices.

Diffraction happens when light encounters obstacles that are around the same size as the light waves themselves. I'm pretty sure that's not what's happening with luster, either -- if it were, we'd see rainbow effects (like you see on a CD or DVD).

 

Thanks - I think this answers the question. I just know ezest if you don't use it correctly it can burn the luster off a coin. On a side note I used it pure once trying to clean a burned coins just to see the date - of course we never got through all the black on some of the halves so the shop would not take those. All I remember is how hard we worked to try to clean some for the silver content - and a few remained black lumps of metal to be returned to the owner.

 

Excellent conservation! Congrats!

 

This thread leaves me utterly ambivalent; really can't reconcile my opinions on this.

 

If you are going to dip using a thio-acid solution such as EZest ( previously Jeweluster), you can successfully underdip and then do it again until satisfied. You need to dilute with distilled water. I would suggest as much as 1 part dip/ 9 parts water if you have not done such before, rinsing with water after each, and much longer rinse after you have decided you are done. You can even do it the first time , rinse well, let dry. and admire it a week or so, before deciding whether to try again.

BUT!!!! You can not repair once you OVERDIP and the luster is gone. Reread this sentence.

Jim

 

I'm entrapped by infinite recursion!

 

It's good for you

​