It could be, but it does appear to have some luster remaining. The luster doesn't appear to be booming...but there is some there. If it had been harshly dipped I would expect it to have a very dull look so I would say it has been dipped...maybe even a little over dipped, but not harshly. That being said, most blast white Morgan's have been dipped to some degree.
You know, it might be a good idea actually to call a spade a spade. They might start adding that to the grading. MS63 - Slightly Dipped 60% original luster MS62 - Old Dip - retoning Ruben
Well, my point was it is hard to tell if the coin has actually been damaged by dipping in the photos. It appears to have luster...but its hard to tell how much. Plus, MS Morgan's can differ greatly in the amount of luster they originally had based on the die that produced them. Take this coin for example (the photo isn't great) but you can tell that this coin has very booming luster. It doesn't show in well, but this coin is blast white with minor proof like features. I can guarantee you this coin has been dipped at one time. It is over 120 years old and has basically no toning (well, it has a touch). The coin shows no negative result of being dipped...it just was in all likely hood dipped at some point. I don't think this coin should be labeled "old dip" or anything of that sort because it didn't damage this coin. Was the original coin in this post dipped? Probably, the vast majority of white MS Morgan's have been. Did the dipping damage it? Maybe, hard to tell from the photos...IMHO, this coin would need to be in hand to tell for sure.
Richie I would only disagree with one thing you said there - I don't think that coin has been dipped at all. It appears to be quite original to me.
My coin or the one originally posted? The only reason I think mine may have been dipped at one time is because there is basically no toning...the luster looks great.
I'm talking about the coin you posted in post 24. If you think that coin has no toning then the pictures do not represent the actual coin at all.
It does have some toning...but not a ton of it. When I bought it 10 years ago it had none and has began to tone since I have gotten it. I have had it in a Dansco album and has been toning in there. I took this pic about a year ago. I think the photo might make the toning a little more prevalent than it actually is. It really is a very attractive coin.
I agree, I think it is an extremely attractive coin. But if you compared that coin to a freshly struck .900 silver coin, I think you would also agree that it is heavily toned. All I have are the pics to go by, I base my comments on that.
I'm sure that's true. Too bad we don't have a time machine so we can go back and compare...and maybe get a few souvenirs.
Yes, but the color of freshly struck .900 silver is the same today as it was hundreds of years ago. And it will be the same hundreds of years from now.