Bring some chips cause I brought the dip.

Lots of discussions on this forum about dipping or cleaning coins. I just did this so you can see how it affects this coin. I am not posting this to start a discussion about wether you should dip or not. Feel free to do so, but I won't participate.
Here is the 1883-o that I "conserved" with 2 seperate dips and rinsed with acetone.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

well, that's another coin that won't pass the sniffer test.

 

sniffer test???

 

It does not throw a red flag for dipping. Dipping is seen as safe conservation. The sniffer is for other alterations such as putty. Not knowing how to properly dip will just get you a worse grade. Im in the group of not knowing how to dip.

 

Any idea what cause the discolored(?) parts of that coin to begin with.

 

If you're asking me, I don't know. This and 8 others were in the red velvet type case. All have some toning on the fornt, but this was the only one that had it on the back. They can all be seen in this thread.

 

Thanks. I did see your other thread earlier: Question about Littleton but missed the other thread until now.

I'm looking at this coin and the dark regions look to have some sort of reticulation, as if once wet with whatever caused this darkening. I don't know what terms to use to refer to it... but I wonder if any others think the coin was once wet? Be it in oil, polluted water of some sort or any other liquid that dried by evaporation causing the reticulated regions within the darker areas, thus would this be environmental damage?

 

incorrect, dip is not what the "sniffer" is meant to detect.

that said this coin was in serious need of the conservation performed upon it.

 

Well, I for one think it looks great! Much better than what you started with.

 

Hope he at least rinsed the acetone with some distilled stuff......preferably not whiskey.

 

whiskey is your reward for a job well done.

 

http://www.pcgs.com/articles/article_view.chtml?artid=6363&universeid=313

I have spoke with PCGS a few times on this & some new wording will be coming soon in regards to acetone being used as well.

 

If I read the link correctly, it does concern me somewhat they list the detection of acetone. A quick dip in acetone has been a standard acceptable practice for years.

The coins shown in my opinion have been improved.

 

That's how I read it too.

So...

Yes, but there may be a shift coming to segregate those from those which can be detected have not and to categorize them amongst PCGS slabbed coins going forward.

That's a pretty strong absolute assumption to make for the future. Even if they continue to slab dipped coins, the future market for slabbed dipped coins vs. those that are slabbed and determined not to have been dipped could define a huge price gap between coins of the same grade and similar apparent condition.

Again, a rather strong absolute assumption for the future market based on the present and past market acceptance. With the development of newer detection capabilities there may be categories coming that will work against this statement within the slabbed coin collector base.

Currently, yes, but again, not necessarily will they necessarily continue to grade dipped coins should they change their stance on this or if the market begins to favor graded coins that can clearly be shown to have never been dipped and collectors direct attention on that guaranty instead.

I remain open to the possibility that an industry leader in coin certification and authentification such as PCGS has the business sense and self-preservation to improve their services and to define their corner of the market to remain competitive, in authority and in a leadership position by enacting new dimensionality to their market. If they have the ability to segment the types and qualities of the coins they certify, and thus create an entirely new segment that ensures collectors that coins have never been dipped, remain original and back it with the TPG guaranty then that change can affect collector behavior and financial consideration, whereby once market acceptably dipped coins become no longer quite as acceptable nor allowed in future submissions for slabbing.
​

 

I know, I've read all the published articles that I could find on the PCGS " sniffer " subject, including the entire Lawsuit Filing's by both Parties. What I should have said, is that I don't think the coin at this stage will be accepted for encapsulation, based upon the results I see from the " dipping ". While it does appear to be greatly improved, I see some " spotting" left on the coin. Perhaps it's my eyes, that's a very real possibility or the lens of the camera, or actual residue. It certainly does not appear to have been " overdipped " . As was stated by Farstaff and Krispy , the PCGS process does indeed state they " CAN detect " Acetone " . It's there, in Black & White . Whether or not at some point the TPG's make any changes to this practice being " acceptable " , remains open. There is to much money to be lost by the TPG and collector alike . So I don't see that happening, I hope not. Back to the coin in question, I don't feel it would be accepted for encapsulation, based upon what I see the coins condition is from the before and after photo's. I think it has to some degree been improved from an eye appeal perspective, but I also see " Damaged Good's " .

 

As far as detecting acetone, according to published documents, including various biochemical and MSDS, pure acetone evaporates 100% with no residue. Impure acetone ( fingernail polish removers, etc., can produce residue. Acetone does not produce any chemical bonding with the metal. I find it very very difficult to believe that acetone would remain on a coin even if said coin was hand delivered at a show. IMO, yes they could detect acetone, but there wouldn't be any there if pure acetone was used on the coin. The equipment is nothing special that most university labs don't have something similar or better.

Also a good % of Americans have acetone as a component of their breath, urine, and perspiration ( especially undiagnosed or untreated diabetics, as well as byproducts of various prescription and OTC treatments, so most likely there would be many false alarms.

Jim

 

ewwwww did you have to go there Desert ? But Acetone can create " spotting " right ?

 

that 83 looks better now.

 

Jim, I'm glad you distinguished what PCGS should have in their article about mention of acetone. Thank you.