Just curious if this coin, which I do NOT own, seems dipped or not. http://slqs.com/images/07282010\PIC00004.JPG http://slqs.com/
I would say that this coin is Genuine and authentic in every way. Now that is Mint Condition my friend. An absolute GEM .
The 1917 Type 1 is without question the best Strike of the entire series . It is also the most readily available , typically with FH and BLAST WHITE . They trade very frequently . Actually, the non full head in the MS65 , MS66 and 67 are far far more scarcer . Check out some of the larger auction houses like Stack's , Heritage or Goldbergs . These are fairly bountiful with regular appearance's . If you looking for concrete proof that this specimen was never dipped , I can't say that with a 100% degree of certainty, but with this specimen , I would say it appears fresh out of the mint and the TPG agrees. You know, those Professional Numismatic Graders . P.S. I have auction catalogs going back 30 + years . Locating the same , would not be a problem .
I would say that it has certainly been dipped. No coin of that age can exist in that color without having been dipped. Even David Bowers agrees with this.
I hate to, but I agree with Doug that this MOST LIKELY has been dipped. I still contend a few coins this old can remain white, the vast majority, (95% plus), would have a little mellow tone on them, especially on the edges, at least. Its a nice coin, no doubt, but the blast white makes me want to put on sunglasses.
Unless it's the lighting but just under the wings and under the breast you can see a light haze/tone and a bit big spot under the left wing, alas it may have been a very quick dip I would say Yes it a had a quick bath
Are you Quoting him on a general statement he made? Anyway, your entitled to your opinion as I am mine. I could be wrong, but I still say this looks all original . Neither of us will know for certain .
rule #1: If you have to ask-- it was dipped. Rule #2: If you have to ask: It was cleaned. Okay, this should eliminate about 90% of the future postings.
That coin looks to me like an old dip. I've very suspect of any coin that white. The blasting tone itself is not natural, even out of the mint. The first one was an amazing strike, but I'm not sure I'd drop 9K on a coin like that which is blast white. Ruben
Yes, it's in one of his books. And yes, you are entitled to your opinion. But I would ask you - did you think about what the likelihood would be for a coin of that age to have no toning whatsoever ? And if you did - how do you think that could have happened ? I ask this for a couple of reasons. 1 - Back then nobody but nobody cared if a coin toned or not. Collectors didn't care because they routinely cleaned all their coins back then, usually harshly. So if a coin toned they just cleaned it. 2 - There were no coin holders back then except for manila envelopes and tissue paper both of which caused toning rather quickly. So the coin could not be protected from toning by a collector even if one wanted to do so. 3 - These coins did not sit around in bags in bank vaults like the Morgans did, quarters were then as they are now the workhorse of the coins. They were used so they didn't get the chance to sit around in bags. 4 - Paper rolls cause coins to tone, so it could not have been stored in a roll. So just how did this coin manage to stay in pristine untoned conditon for nearly 100 years ? That's why I can say with reasonable certainty that the coin has been dipped.
the thing is, that coin looks to me like it was recently dipped, in the last few year. And it make me wonder, who in the world dips a coin with that kind of strike. I wish I had some pedigree on that coin. Ruben
