Do you Consider a Dipped Coin to Be Cleaned?

You make it sound as if dipping a coin is some kind of unscrupulous behavior. Would you prefer if it was called conserving a coin?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

If a coin is cleaned or dipped it is altered.

 

And altering a coin for purposes of increasing its value is doctoring it. It is fraudulent behavior.

 

Dipping a coin affects the surface of the coin...so based on that the word “altered” is accurate. However that doesn’t mean the coin is worse or somehow damaged.

 

So let me ask you this. Is it bad to dip s coin to remove toning that is end state and will damage the coin? By doing so you protect the coin from chemical destruction and at the same time increase its eye appeal and value.

 

My comment was not quite complete. I should have added that it is fraudulent behavior if the dipping was not disclosed to the new buyer. As long as everything done to the coin is disclosed, then the buyer can decide if he wants to buy and how much to pay.

Buying a dark, ugly coin for $10, dipping it to bright white, and then selling it to an unscrupulous buyer for $100 without telling the buyer it was dipped is fraudulent behavior.

Some would say that "everyone knows" the coin has been dipped. Weasel words.

If the coin were marketed as dipped, what would it be worth? Probably less than $10.

 

Question: can it always be assumed that an old silver coin that displays a bright silver color, and has not been carefully and hermetically stored since it was minted, automatically imply the coin has been cleaned at some point?
(By old coin I mean many many years, even centuries).

Answer: No. Many ancient silver coins have been found (Roman and Celtic for example) which display a bright silver appearance upon retrieval 1500-2000
years after being lost. It does happen.

I thought I would add this interesting bit of information to dispel the notion that 'bright and shiny' does not always automatically imply 'cleaned'.

 

If I get an old set of coins in a Harco Coinmaster album, reeking of shower-curtain plasticizer, you'd better believe I'm going to soak them all in acetone. I'll do it to clean off the plasticizer, either to prevent it from damaging the coins, or to stop it from damaging them further. In other words, I'm cleaning them to prevent them from being altered!

This gets back to Doug's "cleaning" vs. "improper cleaning" distinction. In some cases, properly cleaning a coin isn't just OK -- it's a critical part of responsible stewardship.

 

I always felt that unless a coin was dug up from eons in the earth it should be left as is. After all, we are only temporary caretakers of these pieces....... However, I own an 1864 two cent piece. It would likely grade AU. It’s a beautiful strike. But at some point it appears someone partially dipped it. No idea if it was some experiment or what but it greatly detracts from the appearance of the piece. I have considered dipping the piece to even out the appearance. Just can’t bring myself to doing it.

 

What you've described is "conservation," not "cleaning" of any sort. There is a difference. Conservation's goal is to stabilize and preserve the coin (remove contaminants, stop corrosion, etc.). As numismatists, we should conserve coins to preserve them for the next collector.

Cleaning's goal is to make the coin appear more attractive. Cleaning and doctoring are similar, but doctoring goes even further to make substantial and deceptive improvements to the coin.

 

Conservation and cleaning are the same thing when done properly. Harsh or improper cleaning is different. The real difference between conservation and cleaning is one word makes some of us feel all warm and fuzzy inside and the other makes some of us feel dirty.

 

I'm not comfortable arguing that the definition of "cleaning" excludes "removing foreign contaminants from a coin's surface". Yes, I understand that "cleaned" has become shorthand for "improperly cleaned"; I just think that's unfortunate, and that we should probably fix it.

To return to the original topic, I feel that in some cases "dipping" (chemically altering the surface of a coin by reducing oxides or sulfides) is "conservation". As I understand it, those oxidized layers can sometimes catalyze further attack, and removing them can sometimes slow or stop that. I'm nowhere near the point of being able to tell when, though, so my can of dip remains unopened so far.

 

This is pretty much just like the toning debates with natural vs artificial. Answers are all over the place because we can’t wcen agree on what cleaning is.

About the only thing we can say is those who selected they’d never buy a dipped coin will need to stick to ultra moderns for that

 

You are correct. Any time there are large hoards or storages of coins, the pieces on the outside "take the hit" and absorb the sulfides and oxides that can react with the metal of the coins on the inside. Same as lots of Spanish 8 reales found on the ocean floor - the coins on the outside of the clump are always corroded, but those inside of the grouping have been minimally affected.

 

Or just stick with copper/bronze coins. It's easy to tell if a copper or bronze coin has been cleaned/dipped/doctored. Un-natural colors on copper coins tend be easier to identify than on silver.

Beyond this, an experienced collector of silver coins can tell with 75% certainty if a coin's surfaces are "original". It's 95% for copper.

 

That dirty feeling is the realization of unethical, or potentially illegal, practices. Always ask yourself: "if my buyer knew what I was doing, would he still buy the coin, and for the same price?". This will inform you whether what you are doing is unethical/illegal or not.

Now, when the cleaning is above-board and disclosed, cleaning/dipping/doctoring may rise to a level of ethical behavior. This is when the word "conserved" can be used without that guilty pang of deceit.

 

When you see a slabbed coin that looks like an MS-65, but is graded MS-62, it is usually because it has been overlapped, so the luster is impaired. Other 62s are AU-58s that have slid over the MS threshold.

 

Anyone who thinks they can tell a properly dipped coin with certainly is kidding themselves. Doug is absolutely correct that many many coins have been dipped at some time including many of the ones people call original. Dipping didn’t just start in the last couple years

 

No, it is actually the exact opposite of that. Metals naturally gain a patina, which is a surface oxide or sulfide layer. This passive layer slows down and protects from further corrosion. When you dip a coin, you remove that layer - which accelerates further corrosion.

When we talk about "secondary toning after a dip" or "dip toning", that is created because some of the dip was left on the coin. Dip, being at a non-neutral pH, is going to accelerate the corrosion even further.

 

The point I was making is conserving a coin and properly cleaning a coin (which can include dipping) is the exact same thing.

Any experienced collector knows that blast white Morgan’s have been dipped. All of them have. Yet they are still highly collected.