Question for the Dippers

Perhaps the D. Carr of copper?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

See this is why you need some of that mint oil

 

And could you expound on your eraser technique? Up and down motion? Circular?

And I'm just kidding!

 

Moderns should be red and won't be sent in if they aren't so they're completely irrelevant to the discussion. Older copper than Lincolns red is the least common designation and that completely ignores all the brown ones that aren't sent in.

You also keep saying things like "And he sure as heck didn't manage to do it with all of the Red copper coins there are out there spanning dates over 200 years." like there is some large amount. There are very few coins older than 1817 graded red and even using your cherry picked data method the percentage is still minuscule. That's even including resubmissions and crackouts that were crossed over where red is the most likely color to encounter that.

Basically you're trying to shape the numbers to make it fit the narrative you are saying while ignoring the realities of what does and doesn't have the highest probability of being submitted or how those numbers came to be.

The data simply isn't supporting your claims especially not on these 200 plus year coins you keep referencing, there are not large numbers of red coins from that date period nor would they even be considered a moderate amount compared against other designations.

All the proves is that those books aren't worth the time to read and those collectors either live in the wrong place or are doing something wrong. I have coins from longer than that from childhood that are still red that I have put absolutely no effort into proper storage for the majority of the their time. It's not as hard as you're making it out to be. Go buy some coin sacks or rolls that have actually been together for those years, you'll find red coins in some of them.

 

Yes really. You are/should be well aware that red coins are far more likely to be submitted and that there are numerous brown Indians as one example out there that aren't worth being submitted which would significantly lower the percentage of red ones out of the totals. By excluding those red percentages are artificially inflated. The other older series flat out don't show large numbers of red coins even just looking at the graded ones.

With the over a million red coins over 50 years old 50 years ago was 1967, you are/should be aware that the overwhelming majority of those red coins are Lincolns. If you count ungraded ones its almost certainly over 90%. Lumping them in with older series makes it sound like red is more common than it really is on those. Of course there's a ton of red Lincolns, they've been saved in huge numbers by the roll/bag ect and there were billions and billions of them minted between the very first one and the 50 year ago mark.

 

Right back at ya.

I'll keep believing the numbers of it being the least common

 

I cannot offer any brilliant insights - there are already many on this thread. However I think I have an example.

First, this is a MS65 RB, certified by NGC to have the appearance (coloring and luster) one would expect after 94 years.


This is one I believe is magically treated.


Or is it?

The coin looks correct to me. My evidence of doctoring is actually circumstantial.

• The red one was too cheap - $31.15. The RB coin was four times that.
• All the seller’s cents were just as Red.
• After buying this on eBay, I bid and won a Red 1909 but the sale was cancelled out from under me.
• Then I checked the seller’s negatives. Another buyer had bought about $2000 worth of these Red cents and sent them for grading. They all were Detailed.
• After that the seller disappeared from eBay.

Nonetheless, if this coin is treated it proves the point. It can be brought back to a brilliant shiny state without ruining the luster. And the other buyer proved that it looks good enough to convince an experienced collector (based on his having a level of sophistication to send his own coins to a TPG).

So how did they do it?

 

@TheFinn, posted: "That's why the TPGs don't guarantee copper - they dip the coins in solvent (acetone) before encapsulation to remove anything that may enhance the grade."

You have posted ^ this . Which TPGS do you work for?

If you chose not to reply, I'll consider what you posted as uninformed nonsense and therefore I think you should consider removing that sentence from your post above. It will save me four phone calls.

"Crickets"

Hey buddy, I see you are still posting on this thread. I'm still awaiting your answer to my question.

 

@RonSanderson

Until the bottom coin is sent in and comes back "detailed," all we have here is hearsay. Or in the case of one poster - a complete fabrication.

 

GD, I am confused. I know this post wasn't directed at me...but I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say. I understand that copper is highly reactive and tends to tone. Based on your first paragraph quoted above...you seen to believe that the vast majority of the old RD coppers graded today have not always been RD but toned and were then treated in some way. Am I readying this correctly? Based on the reactivity of copper, I understand the logic. Truly untoned old copper should be exceptionally rare.

But, then in later paragraphs of the same post (second quote) you refer to old numismatic papers where such treatment was attempted and ultimately failed. You state that they tried "everything they could think of" and nothing worked. You also showed images of a cent you treated later in the thread and successive photos of how fast it retoned.

I feel like these two statements are somewhat contradictory. You are suggesting that some unknown secret process exists to untone copper and turn it red (which is at least semi stable because these supposedly treated cents are staying pretty red in slabs at least for a while)...but then stating that such an endeavor has been the unobtainable goal of collectors for decades.

Have I totally misread what you are saying? Are you suggesting that there is someone out there who has figured out a semi-stable method and is keeping quite about it to profit from it?

I completely agree that copper is very reactive and it's certainly surprising that so many red old cents remain.

 

Which is ultimately the flaw in the the majority of it has been treated argument. If it supposedly retones so fast every time there would be no red or rb coins in older holders yet there are. It’s really not much different than coins and toning. Some tone quickly, some slowly over time, and some will look like they Day they were minted decades later.

When we’re talking about old red copper we’re really talking about uncirculated coins. Really sits more amazing some of them have managed to be held by collectors all that time without finding there way into circulation

 

Clean... conservation of any and all coins involves three steps 1) pretreatment 2) treatment and 3) post-treatment. The pretreatment is a step where the surface is made free of contaminants that the treatment will not remove...i.e. if a coin that has some organic residue is dipped in eZest, the eZest will not affect the area that is coated with organic residue. The treatment can be any of a variety of methods. The post-treatment is what will prevent or minimize further modification of the surface...the treatment chemicals should be removed/neutralized to the extent possible, and then the fresh, clean surface should be passivated and protected. One of the protections is to get the coin into some kind of a holder that will minimize the exposure to environmental factors.

 

Why do you think was the 1909 was cancelled out from under you? Was it because the seller didnt get what he thought it was worth or something?

 

I think it was because of another purchaser who bought about $10K of copper, sent them to a TPG, and had them all come back as Questionable Color. He the posted blistering negative feedback on every single coin, essentially calling the seller a fraud and a cheat.

It felt like the seller may have either pulled out of the marketplace or been shut down by eBay. All I saw was that my order was cancelled after I already paid, then all the seller ‘s listings disappeared, and they have not listed again in the subsequent six months.

I’m glad you asked what I think, and not what I know. It’s odd, but this is what I deduce based on what I saw.

Edit: I still have the seller’s email address available through my PayPal receipt. Too bad I don’t have the chutzpah to contact them and ask if they cleaned their copper, and, by the way, could you teach me how?

 

Oh...that makes sense then. Thank you for clarifying.

Am I correct in assuming then that in your first paragraph you are saying that you believe the majority of the old slab red cents have been restored in some way? If so, how do explain that these coins are not turning back rapidly in their slabs? From what I have seen, treated copper coins are more prone to toning than they were originally.