Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Small Size, post: 2647798, member: 77924&quot;]&quot;Dipping&quot; is a tricky one. Many dealers will privately concede that nearly every 18th or 19th Century coin that looks freshly minted has probably been dipped at least once. Silver by its nature tones over time. Copper even more so. Even old gold will usually have a nebulous but detectable patina. Nonetheless, such coins, if otherwise MS-63 or something, will be labeled as such by even the most trustworthy TPG&#039;s as original, even though they know it is very unlikely that the surface is truly original.</p><p>When you add this to the near-universal consensus that removing obvious foreign material from a coin&#039;s surface is acceptable (take a look at some before and after shots of the double eagles salvaged from the wreck of the S.S. Central America), then clearly there is some leeway given in such matters.</p><p>One of many reasons for my preferred grade when seeking a coin is AU-58. As for toning, I think on many coins it makes them more attractive, and makes the design elements pop more. Some of my favorite coins are toned. I love Bust halves that clearly sat in bank vaults in kegs or bags for decades, only to be released in the late 1860&#039;s and 1870&#039;s, when banks had new, less clumsy means of keeping required specie reserves on hand.</p><p>They typically acquired a medium to dark tone during their hibernation, a bit of circulation rubbed it off the highest points, before somebody got one in change, realized it was old and funny looking, and put it aside.</p><p>Beats a shiny &quot;original&quot; MS-60 by a country mile aesthetically, and costs about a tenth as much.[/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