1797 Draped Bust Dime-Is This Surface Abrasion? Correctly Graded?

Sorry to drag this one back, but I am interested in learning more about how to distinguish artificial coloring on old silver US coins.

How were these old coins cleaned? Were they dipped in something? Do they get darker as a result? PCGS straight graded this coin as AU(53), despite the details looking quite strong. Is there a chance that coins darken AFTER being slabbed? Or did PCGS just think this coin was borderline and since 1797 dimes are so rare in high grades they gave it the benefit of the doubt?

Yes, Zurie, they were.

Thanks, Westcoin. This is enlightening and disturbing. Obviously, I don't know this particular coin's history, but the consensus here is that people suspect a previous dipping to create this darker tone. I haven't seen enough 1796-1797 dimes in my day to know what is common among them for coloration/toning/luster though. When I first saw this coin I thought of it as a higher-end straight graded example, probably one of the finer examples of a rare coin (in my understanding the 1797 dime is almost as rare, if not as rare, as the 1797 half dollar, yet only trading for a fraction of the price.

Thanks! I reached out to David Lawrence Rare Coins to ask about this dime. It has sold, but the guy told me that in person that is some luster and that they believe the toning to be natural. There is so much to learn, so thanks all of you for helping me do so!

Wow, this is a rare coin. Rarer than the 1796 I just purchased at the same grade. I estimate that there are far fewer than 50 coins that grade as high as or higher than OPs coin. In the link below, you see that the finest 16 star 1797 dime, the MS66 Pogue example has the extensive die crack running over the date. The marks on the obverse fields through the hair of liberty appear to me as a common planchet flaw. We are talking about 18th century technology where ingots were put through rollers powered by horses to create the silver sheets from which planchets would be punched out. The Mint had a lot of trouble with getting the rollers to produce sheets at tight width specifications so that the planchets would be the correct weight, thus needing extensive weight adjustment. Surface flaws were common at the dawn of U.S. coinage. I don't know enough to know if the coin is AT but the toning and color look very pleasing to my eye. Somehow I didn't see this when this was posted but a belated congratulations to OP for this fine and rare acquisition.

https://www.PCGS.com/coinfacts/coin...6-stars/4462

When given a second chance to get this coin (after the original post, in which I did not own the coin, but was dreaming of one day owning a coin like it), I actually took the opportunity, after much deliberation. I respect everyone's opinion about AT and despite these opinions, I love the coin's details--and DL was really willing to work with me on price (and trade-ins!). This coin is by far the fanciest acquisition in my collection. I know everyone says this, but it looks better in person!

I think it looks great. Congratulations on your acquisition.

Heritage has this 1796 10c in AU55 that I was considering purchasing if I didn't win the one yesterday at auction. I think it is very attractive too, but that eagle looks like a plucked chicken with no feathers and a flat head compared to yours.

https://coins.ha.com/itm/early-dime...bnail-071515

A lot of dealers are offering their coins for a fixed price through a consignment at heritage. I think it's a newer thing they're trying out. It's a good idea and Heritage gets a cut of dealer sales to third parties. They're sort of killing it right now. Let's see how long it lasts.