Any tips on determining holder marks versus possible coin marks?

Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by Stephan77, Aug 31, 2015.

  1. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Ehhhhh - first part of that is not true, second part is. But yeah, I do understand your point. I just would have worded that first part differently.
     
    Stephan77 and Kentucky like this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Yes a dipped coin is absolutely a cleaned coin. But the operative word there is "cleaned". You see, there is nothing wrong with cleaning a coin. There is only something wrong with harshly cleaning a coin.

    That's the entire issue - people put entirely the wrong definition on the word clean, cleaned, cleaning. 9 out of 10 times when someone says any form of the word clean what they really mean is harshly cleaned. But they have the shortened the phrase to just the one word instead of using the correct terminology as they should.

    So it is not the fact that there different degrees of cleaning, it is that there are different methods of cleaning. Proper methods of cleaning are perfectly acceptable because they do no harm to the coin. Improper methods are not acceptable because they do harm the coin. So those different methods must be distinguished from one another by using the correct terminology - cleaning and harsh cleaning.

    For example - if a coin has some dirt on it and you squish it, rinse it in distilled water to remove that dirt, and successfully do so. Have you harmed that coin ? No you have not. But have you cleaned that coin ? Yes of course you have, removing dirt or something from a coin is the very meaning of cleaning it. It's no different than washing your hands - you have cleaned your hands. But you didn't harm your hands by doing so, nor have you harmed the coin by doing so.

    But if you were to take a piece of steel wool and rubbed your hands while cleaning them, yes you would harm your hands. Same thing with the coin if you use steel wool on it. Both your hands and the coin would have been harshly cleaned and harmed.

    Now the reason people get confused when it comes to dipping a coin and sometimes consider any dipping to be harsh cleaning is because dipping a coin improperly can indeed harm the coin. But what they don't realize or understand is that dipping a coin properly does not harm the coin. On the contrary, it quite often even prevents harm from being done to the coin. And that is why dipping also has its different forms of word usage. There is dipping and that is acceptable because it does no harm. And then there is over-dipping that is not acceptable because it does do harm. Dipping equates to cleaning, and over-dipping equates to harsh cleaning.

    It's just like it is with many other things in life, the right amount of a good thing, is a good thing. But too much of a good thing is a bad thing.
     
    Kentucky, Stephan77 and medoraman like this.
  4. Kentucky

    Kentucky Supporter! Supporter

    I just don't have your silver tongue.
     
    Stephan77 likes this.
  5. Stephan77

    Stephan77 Well-Known Member

    Doug - Thanks for the informative reply. Ya know with nice replies such as this, I'm starting to believe that despite all the bad things that everyone says about you throughout the forum, a small fraction of it may not be true. :D
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2015
  6. Kentucky

    Kentucky Supporter! Supporter

    To quote Chico Marx, "Sometimes a little-bit is a whole-lot and sometimes a whole-lot is a little-bit."
     
    Stephan77 likes this.
  7. medoraman

    medoraman Supporter! Supporter

    Doug reminds me of a grumpy old SOB of a dealer I knew 35 years ago. Reputation for just being a jerk, but the truth was he was just tired of everyone not wanting to really put in the effort and learn. Once you got his respect for putting in the effort, there was not a better teacher in the world to learn from. No, he never sugar coated things, but I never learned more from any other numismatist than him.

    Now, I am not calling Doug a grumpy old SOB, but.... ;)

    No, Doug is old school and talks straight. Way too many people in this world and hobby simply want it sugar coated and be told "how wonderful they are doing" and "look how smart you are" constantly like some would like. He states facts matter of factly and call out the BS of changing grade standards. I can think of few here I would listen to over Doug regarding coins.
     
    micbraun and Stephan77 like this.
  8. Stephan77

    Stephan77 Well-Known Member

    This is a great forum, no doubt about it, and no doubt about what you just stated about Doug. I've learned a lot since becoming a member here, and have much more to learn about this wonderful hobby of ours.
     
  9. physics-fan3.14

    physics-fan3.14 You got any more of them.... prooflikes?

    Several points to make:

    1. Not sure how we got on this tangent, but there is a significant difference between conserving and cleaning a coin. Conservation is (almost) always acceptable, cleaning is (usually) not. The difference between the two is a topic for another thread (and has been discussed many times before).

    2. There is absolutely no way to tell if the coin has been dipped based on those pictures. It is perfectly reasonable to expect a coin to have survived in that condition without dipping, just as it is perfectly reasonable to expect that it may have been properly dipped.

    3. The mark appears to be on the coin, but that's ok. 67 is not a perfect grade - there must be some imperfections on the coin to have earned that grade; otherwise, it would be a 70. It is not reasonable to expect a perfect coin without a perfect grade, and the corresponding price.

    4. The lighting may have exaggerated the mark. With just the wrong lighting, a very tiny tickmark may look like a glaring gash.

    5. If you don't like the coin when you get it in hand, return it. That's the whole point of a return policy. In this case the coin is sight-seen, and the buyer has the advantage.
     
    medoraman and Stephan77 like this.
  10. Stephan77

    Stephan77 Well-Known Member

    'The mark appears to be on the coin, but that's ok."

    Nope, to me it's not ok on a modern proof coin graded 67. In my opinion a mark such as this could have been on the planchet, in which case the planchet should have been rejected by the mint. Likely if it's on there, it happened from careless handling, perhaps from a scissors cutting open the mint wrapped plastic, which in my view should at that point no way receive a 67 grade. Technically at that point it's really not even an uncirculated coin any longer.

    "There is absolutely no way to tell if the coin has been dipped based on those pictures."

    I'm going by the fact that it is in an old green holder, and if it was dipped back then, I think that the coin would have been discolored in various ways by now associated with dipping. The toning looks undipped and natural to me as a 1954 silver coin should be if stored properly. The year 1954 proof coins are notorious for discoloration because of the type of plastic the mint used. However I'm not sure at what point in time the discoloration from the plastic began to take place. I think it's possible with this coin, it was taken out of the mint plastic early, placed in a quality 2x2 holder, and then finally slabbed years ago - that's what I'm hopeful about anyway.

    "Conservation is (almost) always acceptable, cleaning is (usually) not."

    As far as cleaning and dipping, let's tell it like it is...almost all of the time it's done for profit, and that's okay, but let's not pretend with most coin cleaning and dipping that conservation is the motivation. The coins that I plan on keeping, until death do us part, I would never clean or dip them.

    "The lighting may have exaggerated the mark. With just the wrong lighting, a very tiny tickmark may look like a glaring gash."

    Perhaps you're right, and if that's the case, maybe I can get past my usual coin collecting criteria, accept the tiny mark and enjoy the coin - I'm just not sure at this point.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2015
  11. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Bite your tongue !! You wanna ruin my reputation !! :D
     
    Stephan77 likes this.
  12. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Yeah it's been discussed many times before, but apparently it's needs discussed again. Conservation is nothing more than a euphemism for proper cleaning. It's an attempt at someone using what they think is a fancier word to describe something that is plain and ordinary. Why not just call it what it really is and be done with it ! Conservation and proper cleaning are exactly the same thing.

    The question of and discussion of dipping never had anything to do with the OP's original coin. But rather about coins in general and whether or not dipping is, or is not, an acceptable practice.

    That said yeah I agree with your comments, for that specific coin. But if the coin in question were a SLQ, or Barber, or Bust quarter, and any older coin with the possible exception of a few Morgans, no those comments would not be accurate.
     
    Stephan77 likes this.
  13. Onofrio Bacigalupo

    Onofrio Bacigalupo Well-Known Member

    In God we trust. Others pay cash.
     
    Stephan77 likes this.
  14. Onofrio Bacigalupo

    Onofrio Bacigalupo Well-Known Member

    You can usually pry it open with a pocket knife and look. I bought a one Sucre from Ecuador commemorating that country's 200th anniversary of independence. The holder was so scratched that I pried it open and put it in a new one. Luckily both were round.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page