Never seen this toning patter before!

Mike,

I think we are both on the same page and I will leave it at that. Nothing good can come from continuing this discussion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Aw, come on, don't want to take the bait?

No problem -- I have to remind myself that people use words differently.

 

Good try Mike. I will say this: I am an expert poker player.

 

Just one question. How does a nice guy like you end up with a babe like that?

OK, enough of that. I looked at your Heritage link, BTW, and that is a looker, to say the very least. But back to the subject at hand, I tried to do side-by-side comparison photos, but the subject proof blew up too blurry for that. Below is the area I was looking at (the photo is off my '39-D FB). As you can see, there are feathers all over that you don't see on the subject proof.

That said, I do have to continually remind myself of one thing, from time to time. Back when Mike(noodle), et al., were discussing whether "strike" should be considered a technical grading factor, I resolved it in my mind that it shouldn't. And that just looks like a weak strike on that subject proof, from all the evidence adduced, I have to say. Thanks!

 

You'd better be, to afford all those toned, gem coins. I'd hate to think you're not a poker-face and could really use the money.

 

That is how I win. Everyone thinks your face is where the tells are. Look at a guys hands, they tell you much more.

 

Then remind me never to play cards with you.

Have a nice evening!

 

Mike, he's a hand-reader. Just keep your hands under the table except when betting and that will throw him off.

 

Doctor doctor tell me the news,

"Oh doctor doctor tell me the news I've got a bad case of re toning news".
This dime has been dipped in the past and the areas where the toning is showing, (so scattered about) is either where the dip was left on to long on those intermingled portions or where the dip did not as completely remove as much as other portions were.
From what I have learned about coins such as these is "there is virtually no chance this coin has not been dipped at least once"
I'd bet money on this one!

Ben "back in the swing" Peters

 

I'll take that bet....

Please explain how roll-toned coins - coins that have never been dipped -- often show a similar broken-toning pattern?

I'm not saying 100% that the coin has not been dipped -- however there's no direct evidence to support your authoritative conclusion.

Respectfully...Mike

 

It's an early proof

It's an early proof coin - it was never in a roll - I know sometimes we see modern proof rolls but not this era never. Plus I have opened 10,000 rolls of Lincoln's and never seen that kind of pitter/patter vibrancy without a definitive linking to one edge of the coin or another. That plus no circular pattern and the toning on that proof dime hardly shows any evidence of a link to the outer circumference.
Ben Peters

 

I will say this, your arguments are thoughtful and thorough.

Why would people dip a proof dime? Just asking out of ignorance.

Ruben

 

Many times these proofs,

Many times these early proofs have been handled in a horrendous method to say the least, (old leaky capital holders, cardboard 2x2's, etc.). We have seen them just about ruined in a number of different ways. My ascertation that I know it has been cleaned not only come from exprence but from the times, the 40's & 50's where it was not at all uncommon to dip coins. That plus think about all the original early mint sets you seen in the older cardboard holders? Sometimes they have nice toning but mostly it's a grey mottled type that while it may show originality is really not very appealing
Now this dime may not even have needed dipping, or maybe it had just the faint remnant of a hit or fingerprint on the highest points and somebody dipped it. Often the areas of a coin that have had the most luster removed tone the soonest - and that's what I think happened to this coin. Now I have dipped many modern proof coins, some to great success some not so great but the secret always lies in the moisture being removed as quickly as possible. I actually use a boiling water rinse often and it works very well. I do not think that the folks who were the caretakers of these coins originally were near as careful and knowledgeable as we are today,
Ben Peters

 

I looked, I decided and that's my opinion,

I looked, (again) I decided, I gave my opinion and I will stand by that - it don't look right to me that's all. I could be wrong I am at least twice each day so that would not surprise me at all but that would be my determination in a court of law or the court of "Coin Talk".

I know what explain this - the coin has toned just so little of an amount in over 60 years???? Why now, why so little and why in this strange way - I mean did it decide to start toning in May of 2007????

Ben "stick by my opinion for now" Peters

 

Thanks for your response, Ben. To address a few points you raise....

I realize fully that this coin was likely never in a roll (as an aside, I'm not sure how you can say never). My point was not that this dime was in a roll, but rather a similar broken toning pattern takes place on coins that weren't dipped in the past.

As for your opening of 10k Lincoln rolls -- how does that apply to silver? They tone quite differently based on my experience (specifically, this toning pattern virtually never is present in Lincoln's of this time period, but Washies, Roosies, Walkers and Mercs do).

Again, what, specifically led to to the conclusion that this coin was 100% dipped in the past, because I just don't see it (but I am certainly open to the possibility)?

Thanks in advance & respectfully submitted....MIke

 

I think the real question is, Lehigh, are you gonna buy it?

 

well your right about,

Well you are right about many things and it's true copper rolls do not compute to silver - I meant to put that in there. But I sure have seen a few hundred patterns of artificial and natural toning else where to boot.
Look, in the south we like to "round things up" or "get to the point or meat of the subject" maybe not your style or flavor but it sure does save time -
I've seen a lot of rolls for sale but I have never seen or even heard of proof coins of this era in rolls - I mean maybe there has been but I ain't never heard of such - I mean come on that would make these rolls worth $30 to $50K - if you have ever seen, heard, or even dreamed about these early proofs by the roll then my hat is off to you.
Bottom line - this coin don't look right to me (that don't make me right) and this coin was never in a roll ( of that I'm certain).
One more thing,,,,,
do you'all think I would ever purposely put this much effort into subjects that I am not sure about my opinion or being convinced of and have experience in just to pass the time of day with you guys - I mean I like you'all but I have 600 Lincoln's to put up before Friday am.
So, bye,

Ben "in a time crunch" Peters

 

Thanks, Ben, for sharing your thoughts and experience with us. Your response makes it much more clear (although I will respectfully disagree with your conclusion). Take care...Mike