I see a lot of very nicely graded silver that looks like the following - a MS64 certified copy, looks to be something that came out of the mint last week. http://www.ebay.com/itm/151418559491?_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l2648&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT Then I see fewer that look like this - same MS64 certification, but with toning that shows its age. Sometimes these are approaching a dark gray all over the surface. http://www.ebay.com/itm/1909-PCGS-M...8992549?pt=US_World_Coins&hash=item5b0a8c53a5 - Is the first simply been cleaned, no way a silver coin over 100 years old would naturally stay shiny? - Is there a general preference for collectors, or does the coin community polarize into "those who want it shiny" vs. "those who want it authentic"? - Should one expect, by definition, either of these to be more expensive or more valuable, presuming that under the tarnish they are both in identical condition, same rarity, etc? Thanks
There are a lot of things to be said about this, but I'll just try to answer the easiest question; Was the first coin cleaned? Yes, more than likely it was dipped to remove the original patina because some collectors do find a bright shiny coin more attractive. Or it could have had really ugly toning that obscured most of the luster making it virtually unsaleable before. Dipping happens a lot and is considered market acceptable, but as a whole, most collectors will prefer a coin that is original with good color and skin.
Thanks Ryan. So when you say "it[dipping] is market acceptable" then I presume it is also normal for it not to be mentioned? It should be obvious, so no need to state it, and I shouldn't downgrade my opinion of a seller who makes no mention of it?
Dipping is market acceptable if done correctly. If done correctly, (very quick dip, coin only been dipped once or MAYBE twice), its market acceptable. That is because there is no way of proving its been done. Do it incorrectly and it will impair luster, thereby lowering the grade. Its UNLIKELY that coin survived that white for that lot, but not impossible. Some silver coins HAVE survived bright white for 100 years or more, so one cannot prove it was dipped, which is kind of the point of doing it correctly.
I'd prefer the 2nd coin which is more natural looking, but that's not to say the other isn't. Like the person said, you never know. If you've seen those dull silver coins that might be missing hairline abrasion, they've probably been over dipped. You don't have to mention dipping unless it looks over dipped, ie dull and lacking luster. If you look at enough graded coins, both problem free and details graded ones, you will get the hang of what's acceptable.
Thanks much, guys. I'm getting that there's a subtle line that should not be crossed. On top of this, France minted some of these in matte finish. For the moment, I won't even try to imagine telling the difference between that and over-dipped...
Yeah, I'd assume those are rare and you wouldn't run into a lot. If you see one, only buy it if it's graded and says SP or PR instead of MS. I have one pcgs Swiss franc from the 40s I think that is a ms 65. It's beautiful; looks like it just was minted. I got it for 50 bucks on ebay. I think a lot of them on there are way overpriced. Most of the 20th century francs aren't that rare as far as I know. Krause only gives an unc price too I think, which leaves a bu price up in the air
