Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 1489119, member: 112&quot;]The key word in my comments was &quot;properly&quot;. But if the dipping is not done properly and the coin is over-dipped, then the damage is easily seen with the naked eye. You don&#039;t need magnification to see that at all.</p><p><br /></p><p>But if it is done properly, I don&#039;t care how much magnification you use, you&#039;ll not find any physical proof that the coin was dipped. That is of course because there isn&#039;t any. The reason there isn&#039;t any physical proof is because even when coins come fresh from the dies there is a varying amount of luster on each coin - no two of them are ever identical. With every coin that is struck the luster decreases ever so slowly. So a coin that is struck when the dies are fresh, new, will have more luster on it than a coin that is struck 100,000 coins into the run. But yet both of those coins, the early and later one, are undoubtedly mint fresh.</p><p><br /></p><p>So looking at a coin that has been properly dipped and comparing it to one struck with fresh dies, is like comparing the coin from new dies with one from later in the run. </p><p><br /></p><p>Also, there is another scenario. You can have a coin struck with new dies that has the maximum luster, later that coin tones. Later still that same coin is dipped. You can then take that dipped coin, compare it to another coin that came from late in the run, and the properly dipped coin will have more luster than the late run, undipped coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>That is why the numismatic community finds dipping coins to be an acceptable, and yes even sometimes a necessary and beneficial practice.[/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