Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 1793861, member: 112&quot;]desertgem explained it quite well. But let me add something else here.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>When that reply was made on the other forum that the coin looked dipped, what that person should have said was that the coin looked over-dipped. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>It&#039;s a difference in terminology, but a very important one because the two terms mean entirely different things. Incorrect usage of numismatic terminology is common place, too much so. And it leads those trying to learn things to completely wrong and inaccurate conclusions. Just like that person saying the coin looked dipped did to you. That made you think that any dipping of a coin was harmful to the coin when that is simply not true.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The same thing can be said of the term clean, cleaned, cleaning. Whenever someone says that a coin has been cleaned, that is supposed to be a bad thing meaning that coin is a problem coin. But it isn&#039;t true, they are not using the correct terminology. What they should say is that the coin has been harshly cleaned, or improperly cleaned. That is the bad thing, that is what makes a coin a problem coin.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>A cleaned coin, or cleaning a coin is perfectly acceptable - when it is done properly. And properly is defined as done in such a way as to not harm the coin.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>People need to be more careful in what they say and how they say it, use the correct terminology in other words, or it is all too easy for others to completely misunderstand and start believing things that are simply not true.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in