Dealer Dips Coin After I Ask For Additional Photos

Just chiming in here, I have no issues with owning a coin that has been dipped. Obviously not over dipped where it becomes more dull but a 10 second dip followed but a thorough rinsing in distilled water. As far as I've been able to tell, this practice leaves the coin unharmed with no side affects if executed properly. I'm open to others experiences. I do not want any other cleaning of silver coins and prefer all other alloys be untouched. A silver dipping is my only exception. Also as stated before about doing this if the commercial benefits are there, I assume that there are. The articles go on about "sophisticated collectors" not wanting their coins touched at all. Well I would venture to guess that 75% of us collectors aren't "sophisticated " nor do we have deep pockets so many will venture to just be happy to own a coin to fill a hole and probably appreciate having the eye appeal and to be able to clearly make out the details of the coins.

MS70 is extremely caustic. I wouldn't use it on any coins containing aluminum, iron, or tin. YOU WILL RUIN those coins.

A question for you ....how long have you been collecting for ?

Been involved since 1965. Dealing since 1977 .

So here is a follow up question to the statement "most of us here on ccf aren't just looking to fill a hole ".

I agree, I also don't look to just fill a hole, I still look for decent quality coins. That being said, and this is going to sound harsh so please no one take it personal, but I think that when people say a coin is devalued because of some kind of cleaning, as long as it's done properly and not creating damage to the coin, have their nose in the air. Statements of a devalue in the coin by cleaning had been around, from what I can tell, a very long time. Perhaps it's the old school view that should be amended. I'm saying that in a world where electronic transactions are taking over, the fact that there are people around just keeping coins in existence is great and a task in itself and I think the Coin World should reflect that these coins are at least saved and focus on detail of what the coin was a little more. To turn your head from a 150 year old XF coin because it's been cleaned is just ridiculous. The coin survived all the years of circulation, being lost or melted and should be treated as that. You're right that it's all in the eye of the beholder, people look and desire different things but how many have been looking for something particular just because they were told that what you should be looking for. I agree that a raw coin untouched is something very special, I'm just saying that there are many coins that are in fantastic condition that don't get what they deserve.

Thanks for your thoughts samsnate, I definitely get the gist of what you're saying, and that is a totally fair assessment.

I've read a number of articles on CoinWeek by Greg Reynolds, in addition to the three part series on originality I linked to in my initial post here.

I think a key quote in Part 3 of that article is:
"If all of the antique furniture were stripped and refinished to look 'new', there would be no reason to buy antique furniture."

But your point, if I understand it correctly, is that the coin can still be appreciated based on other criteria, like the strike, and absence of marks/abrasions, rarity, etc. Right?

Also, many new(er) collectors as well as coin dealers may immediately say that the dipped coin is superior to the hazy spotted coin. Again, I personally would have most preferred the coin to have original toning, but not the spots as that certainly detracts from eye appeal.

Additional CoinWeek articles may help provide further context. Again, I also think his use of "sophisticated" can turn people off, but if you look past that I think the sentiment rings true for those seeking a deeper appreciation of this hobby.

Understanding Classic U.S. Coins and Building Excellent Coin Collections, Part 1: General Concepts
https://coinweek.com/featured-news/...al-concepts/

At the end of Part 1 he lists six guidelines to consider when building "meaningful" collections:
A). Classic U.S. Coins Must Really Be Classic
B). Each collector must figure a budget
C). Collectors should assemble sets that are widely accepted as meaningful
D). All collections should include at least two 19th century coins
E). All collections should include at least one truly rare coin
F). Weigh originality heavily and focus on quality apart from numerical grade

For this last point, he says, "This is the most important point that I put forth. To an extent, I discuss it in my article on the concept that many exciting, classic U.S. coins are not expensive. The fact that sophisticated collectors tend to weigh originality more heavily than do experts at the two leading grading services, and than do most dealers, is central to the culture of coin collecting in the U.S."

For anyone not familiar with the term "originality", my understanding is it essentially means un-cleaned and un-dipped.

Understanding Classic U.S. Coins and Building Excellent Coin Collections, Part 2: Dipped Coins
https://coinweek.com/featured-news/...ipped-coins/

I would encourage folks to read this article, as I feel it references several important considerations regarding dipping. Here are some choice quotes:

Since dipping removes metal, toning, and some other elements at or near the surfaces, much of the character and history of a coin is destroyed. Some people argue that the result is a more desirable coin.

"I find beginners and hustling dealer-collectors are more prone to like dipped coins. Over time, collectors who become sophisticated come to prefer naturally toned coins over dipped coins. It is a matter of studying and learning and getting deeper into the culture of coin collecting. Sadly, there are some people who never understand the difference, or just do not care. Usually, collectors who try hard to learn and seek mentors will learn how to appreciate and love, naturally toned coins. Becoming sophisticated takes time and the ability to develop an advanced, knowledgeable eye for coins,"

"...it is easier to sell bright coins to buyers who are not knowledgeable. I theorize that, as PCGS and NGC became successful and established beyond anyone's expectations, this initial practice, of assigned high grades to recently dipped coins to make them marketable, had already been incorporated into company policy and grading standards. In terms of quantity, the PCGS and the NGC will always grade more common coins than rare coins and grading criteria were formed (or evolved) with the implicit idea that relatively common classic U.S. coins would be marketed to investors. There thus has been a business requirement, from the beginning, for recently dipped, unnaturally bright coins to be eligible for all grade assignments."

Many of these points speak to the fact that dealers can dip a high AU coin and all of a sudden here is a "slider" that looks even more MS than it did before being dipped, and it is a bright and shiny thing that may readily attract novice collectors or those that have less appreciation for the nuances of numismatics as compared to those preferring "original skin" over a bright and shiny thing.

Sure, in this example (my initial post), a high AU 1919-S Mercury dime after dipping looks (more) MS, and it is more acceptable in the marketplace than say a freshly dipped mid 19th century seated liberty coin.

It was an interesting article. I'm not into US coins so it took some time to go through to make sure I didn't miss any key points he was trying to make while he named off all the different US coins that I know nothing about. However he spent a lot of time trying to explain AU and MS coins and how those grades could be attained etc etc. I didn't take much from it about dipped coins being a no no. Rather that they take a hit with the grading which we all k ow about already. Although I agree with him that there are a lot of factors for each kind of collector and what they can afford and desire and he also made some good points regarding the upper echelon of coin prices. I appreciate the post and the links though. ;-)