Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;jolumoga, post: 26779016, member: 41780&quot;]This is an interesting argument and one that I have thought of, but you could say that tarnish is technically corrosion, and without a removal of the source the coin will continue to degrade*. So it seems when coins are dipped, the corrosion is removed, but that can cause its own problem if they are not properly dipped. I have also read here or elsewhere that 80 to 90 percent of early 20th-century silver dollars were dipped, so by now we should see the damage if it were to occur. Lately I&#039;ve been buying some blast white Peace dollars in rattler holders, and they seem to have held up in the last 40 years or so.</p><p><br /></p><p>Regarding the ethics of dipping, which is prevalent, it seems it&#039;s the &quot;juicing&quot; of the hobby that most seem to accept as above board. After all, when grading coins, we look for surface alterations. Well, technically, dipping coins alters the surface, but perhaps it&#039;s just a matter of degree that makes it acceptable or not - it&#039;s just not noticeable enough, so the method gets a pass, unless done excessively, which ruins the luster or appearance.</p><p><br /></p><p>Then again, cleaning coins used to be considered acceptable in the hobby. So a lot is arbitrary.</p><p><br /></p><p>*ChatGPT has clarified that tarnish can actually form a protective barrier for a coin, especially if the source is removed and the coin is then kept under the right conditions.[/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