maybe 80 percent of au and above coins have been dipped, but i think that percentage is far lower for well circulated coins
Yea the overall percentage is quite low if you include copper given the absolute glut of cull Indians and Lincolns ect, but if you exclude things like that or just focus on a series like bust halfs or seated series the percentage starts to climb pretty fast on better pieces. He's definitely right though that pretty much everyone has some coins that have been dipped before even the most anti dip collectors.
Copper looks terrible when dipped, so i assume it's not done a lot like you say. Everytime i go on ebay i see some guy selling dipped AU indians selling for 30-40 or more. The pics look terrible but people keep bidding on his coins. What a sham
A lot of people think that but it isn't true. The reason they think that is because they can't dip copper and have it turn out right. But that doesn't mean that nobody else knows how to do it. Copper is and always has been successfully dipped. And the proof of that is in the number of red coins that exist.
interesting. so i assume they must dilute the dip a lot and do quick baths. Come to think of it, one could experiment very easily with all the cents out there. If i only had time i might experiment and see if what you say is true. I always thought those late indians and early lincolns just stayed in great shape. You dont see a lot of reds further back, like mid to low 1800s. Perhaps there's a limit how far back copper can be treated
By the way, i see this same guy every night or so on ebay selling xf/au indians that were dipped crudely. It's so obvious theyre cleaned so im surprised he always has takers. He takes pics of each one at the same angle, and they all have the same terrible discoloration. Pisses me off what he's doing
Some silver coins tone very dark, almost black and I don't blame people for dipping them so they can see what the coin looks like.
i think coins are a lost cause at that point. If really dark, i think dipping would either ruin or lighten them up a little. What i despise though is turning coins blast white, which probably cant occur when toning is first really dark or terminal
That's the thing - you can never know if toning is truly terminal until after you dip the coin. There have been more coins than you can count that were toned black, then dipped to reveal a true Gem, fully lustrous and a thing of beauty ! And the opposite as well, toned black, dipped, only to reveal a dead, lifeless coin with no luster whatsoever. This is what always makes dipping a crap shoot - you can never know what lies under the toning until after you remove the toning ! Dipping a coin can increase its value by 5 times or decrease its value by 5 times - it can go both ways. Of course the 5 is a variable, sometimes more sometimes less.
I picked up a rare 1820's Italian silver coin and it has XF details but the toning is almost black. When it's in a flip all you see is black. With a flashlight you can see the nice details. This is the kind of coin that could look better with a dip.
Generally, if you see a silver coin over 80 years old with no toning whatsoever, it’s a safe bet that the coin has been dipped. There are exceptions, such as Morgans stored in bank vaults for decades.
But i think you should add that's more true for unc coins, like all those blast whites that some rave about. For circulated coins with little toning, im sure most were cleaned by other methods like wiping and polishing