Tried to conserve a Seated Half Dollar

My point Michael was the mint didn't put anything on coins (other than those I mentioned) to try and prevent them from toning.

 

But the two that came back details, were they given the details because of the dipping, or for something else ?

In other words your comment, at least to me, seems to imply that the coins were not graded because they were not dipped correctly. But that may not be the case at all. You see, you can dip a coin correctly, in other words without doing harm or damage to the coin at all with the dip itself. However, by removing the toning on the coin you may reveal other damage that could not be seen while the toning was present. Other damage that may have happened years or even decades previously.

Toning can cover up a multitude of sins, it can render those sins invisible. And those sins can be things like a harsh cleaning, scratches, hairlines, or old environmental damage, to name a few.

This is why dipping a coin is always a crapshoot, and that is only one of the reasons. For even if you dip the coin 100% correctly, it may reveal old damage that existed before the toning occurred. Another reason can be damage done to the coin by the toning itself. And another can be over-dipping the coin.

But as a general rule, over-dipping the coin occurs far less frequently. Usually it's one of the other two things. But a lot of people don't realize that and they blame the dipping for causing the coin to get a details label - when it wasn't the dipping at all.

 

That's kind of like saying surgery to remove a malignant tumor causes damage to the body. Sure, the body is cut (damaged) and part of the body may even be removed, again damage. But only under the most literal definition of the word.

You can take a coin that has been toned very dark, sometimes even black, a coin that is butt ugly; dip that coin correctly and reveal a coin that still has booming mint luster and truly becomes a thing of beauty, worth multiples its previous value.

Would anybody in their right mind say that coin was damaged as a result it being dipped ? I rather think not. But if you wish to say it was - be my guest.

Dipping coins correctly has been accepted as not doing harm to a coin for longer than you and I together have been alive. In point of fact dipping coins correctly is and always has been viewed by the numismatic community as a whole as being beneficial to the coin.

Evidence of this is legion. Well over 80% of all older coins that have been graded and slabbed by the TPGs have been dipped. This is a fact, not an opinion. What's more, it is, and always been, quite common for coins that have been previously graded and slabbed and then dipped correctly, to be given upgrades, sometimes huge upgrades. Sometimes directly causing these coins to increase in value exponentially. This is also a fact, not an opinion.

Given these things, saying or even implying that dipping a coin damages a coin, well, that just plain silly.

May dipping a coin cause damage to the coin ? Yes, it absolutely may. But only when it is done incorrectly.

There is a huge difference between something that "may" cause damage, and something that "does" cause damage.

 

Oh I am so tempted to say something here, but I won't.