Interesting article by Greg Reynolds on the PCGS lawsuit
GoldenEyeNumismatics
Posts: 13,187 ✭✭✭
0
GoldenEyeNumismatics
Posts: 13,187 ✭✭✭
Comments
Good article, thanks for posting it.
Coin Rarities & Related Topics: The PCGS Lawsuit Against Alleged Coin Doctors
1 CommentBy Greg Reynolds on Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Filed Under: Coins and the Law, Column: Coin Rarities, Commentary and Opinion, Featured
News and Analysis regarding scarce coins, coin markets, and the coin collecting community #3
A Weekly Column by Greg Reynolds
I. Today’s Theme
Welcome to the third installment of my column. I had planned to write more about auctions and about current demand for rare Liberty Seated coins. I was pleasantly surprised, however, by the most important lawsuit in the history of coin collecting: The PCGS lawsuit against six named individuals and other not yet named individuals regarding coin doctoring is pathbreaking and earth shattering.
Even if the PCGS does not prevail on all points or against all defendants, the educational value of this suit, and the impact that it will have on coin doctors, goes way beyond the fate of these defendants. For legal reasons, I will not comment on the defendants in this suit. I am asserting that a significant number of coin doctors who are not defendants will be discouraged by this lawsuit from doctoring coins.
The PCGS SecurePlus™ program, which was inaugurated in March 2010, also discourages coin doctoring. For some discussion of the ‘plus’ aspect of the program and my idea as to how the NGC can discourage coin doctoring, please see last week’s column.
Under the SecurePlus™ program, submitted coins are scanned, for purposes of identification, with CoinAnalyzer devices. The PCGS will be able to identify each scanned coin if it is submitted to the PCGS again in the future, and, when a match is found, the submitted coin will be closely compared to an image of the same coin that was taken when it was previously submitted. Changes in the appearance of each matched coin will be investigated. The positive effects of the SecurePlus program, though, will build very gradually over a period of many years. This lawsuit will be extremely effective at discouraging coin doctoring in the near future.
Four years ago, when coin doctoring was rampant in the dealer community, had PCGS officials threatened a coin doctor with a lawsuit, the coin doctor probably would have figured that PCGS officials were bluffing. I am almost certain that this is the first time that a grading service has sued some of its dealer-members for submitting coins that are allegedly doctored and misrepresented.
Now, if PCGS officials threaten a coin doctor with a lawsuit unless he stops submitting doctored coins to the PCGS, the threatened individual is likely to take the threat very seriously and believe that the PCGS might actually follow through with a suit. Yes, I realize that not every coin doctor will be deterred by the threat of a lawsuit. Most will be deterred, at least to an extent.
The costs of coin doctoring in terms of the risks involved are now much greater than they were before this lawsuit, even if it is never proven in court that these six defendants are involved in coin doctoring conspiracies. It is very expensive and emotionally painful to defend oneself against such a lawsuit, which here includes allegations of breach of contract, fraud, unfair business practices, and racketeering. ‘Win, Lose, or Draw,’ this lawsuit will be tremendously beneficial to coin collectors and will result in much fewer coins being doctored than would have otherwise been doctored.
This lawsuit “is about winning the hearts and minds of collectors,” John Albanese exclaims. Further, the “PCGS had to protect their shareholders, they had to protect collectors, and they had to protect themselves.” It cost “a lot of money” for the PCGS to “buy back doctored coins.” Consider “$90,000 for a 1918-S dime,” which is specifically itemized in the suit. Additionally, “PCGS has become embarrassed by doctored coins in PCGS holders,” Albanese suggests. “They have a right to protect their reputation.”
How serious a problem is coin doctoring? Of the pre-1934 coins in PCGS or NGC holders that are submitted to the CAC, John Albanese states that “a significant percentage have been doctored.”
At lot viewing sessions for major or semi-major auctions, and on the bourse floor of major conventions, I often see coins with waxes, films, gels, putties and sort of paint-like substances. Among pre-1934 absolute or condition rarities, I find far too many that have been ‘doctored,’ and, undoubtedly, Albanese catches doctored coins that I have missed or would miss.
Dr. Steven Duckor, a prominent collector for decades, is a renowned expert in early 20th century gold coins and in Barber coins. He has attended many major auctions and privately viewed thousands of choice gold coins and Barber coins. Dr. Duckor learned a great deal from David Akers, who is frequently regarded as the nation’s foremost expert in U.S. gold coins. Duckor declares that, of “uncirculated better-date Saint Gaudens Double Eagles, in PCGS or NGC holders, 15% have been doctored.”
For an explanation as to why natural toning is highly favored by sophisticated collectors and as to why ‘coin doctoring’ is so terrible, please see my three part series on this topic, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. (As usual, throughout the text, clickable links are in blue.) It may suffice to say, at this moment, that doctored coins are often ruined.
Rarities that have been ruined now cannot be effectively collected, appreciated and understood by collectors in the near or far future. It is a big disappointment for a collector to travel hundreds of miles to a coin show or an auction in order to find out that some of the coins in which he is interested have been surgically altered or puttied. Besides, in almost all instances when a doctored coin, in a PCGS or NGC holder, is sold, the doctoring is not disclosed, and the buyer is often very hurt, emotionally and/or financially, when he or she finds out that the coin has been doctored.
John Albanese asserts that “coin doctoring is [ultimately] defrauding the consumer. It is illegal to pass off a doctored coin as a high quality coin or as a coin with no serious problems. If you buy a house,” John explains, “then the problems with the house should be disclosed. Realtors are bound to tell you. It is fraud not to disclose serious problems that relate to the value of the item. Coin doctoring [typically] involves an intent to deceive,” Albanese declares.
Coins that have been doctored often ‘turn’ over time; putties and other foreign substances chemically react or just ‘fall off’! Before citing two definitions of ‘coin doctoring’ in section three below, it makes sense to put forth some basic information for the benefit of beginning collectors. Knowledgeable collectors may wish to jump to the third section.
II. The Filing of This Lawsuit and the Grading Services
Although it became widely publicized when it was posted on CoinLink on Sat. May 29, this suit was filed a day or two earlier. Officially, the plaintiff is Collectors Universe, Inc., of which the Professional Coin Grading Service (PCGS) is a subsidiary. As the PCGS is the largest and most significant part of Collectors Universe, and is known to coin collectors throughout the world, I will here refer to the plaintiff as the PCGS, though this is not completely correct.
The defendants in this suit are alleged to have conspired in efforts, many times successful, to get the PCGS to assign numerical grades to doctored coins that are higher than the grades that were previously assigned or would have been assigned had the coins in question not been doctored. In the suit, the PCGS provides a list of a dozen coins that are said to be just a “few examples” (Section 14). Each of the named defendants is alleged to be either a dealer-submitter of doctored coins and/or a coin doctor who acted in concert with at least one dealer-submitter. (Click here to read the complaint filed by Collectors Universe-PCGS, or here to read the brief announcement on CoinLink.)
The PCGS and the NGC are the two leading grading services of U.S. coins. They each place coins in sealed, hard plastic holders and assign numerical grades to submitted coins that qualify for numerical grades. John Albanese was involved in the founding of the PCGS in 1986 and he was the sole founder of the NGC in 1987. He is no longer a shareholder of either.
David Hall was the primary founder of the PCGS. Hall and relatively new PCGS President Don Willis are the driving forces behind the bold new policies that the PCGS has implemented in 2010.
In 2007, Albanese founded the CAC. Coins that are already graded by the PCGS or the NGC are accepted by the CAC for examination. A coin receives a CAC sticker of approval if the CAC finds that its grade is in the middle to ‘high end’ of the respective grade range. One of the purposes of the CAC is to filter doctored coins that the PCGS or the NGC erroneously graded. Coin grading is very difficult and no one, not even Albanese, can ‘bat near one thousand.’ (For definitions of low end, mid range and high end, please see my article on The Widening Gap. For more discussion of the CAC, please see my articles on CoinFest, Jay Brahin’s Coins, the “MS-68+” 1901-S, and Dr. Duckor’s quarters.)
Among pre-1934 U.S. coins, it is not unusual for one grade increment to reflect a tremendous difference in price, often many thousands of dollars. So, if a coin is PCGS certified as Proof or MS-65, the owner of the coin may try to get the PCGS to grade it as 66. Sometimes, if a coin is repeatedly submitted, it will eventually upgrade. In other instances, coin doctors tamper with a coin to deliberately hide imperfections and/or to give it false additional characteristics and thus try to ‘trick’ the PCGS or NGC graders into awarding it a higher grade as a consequence of deliberately falsified characteristics.
III. What is ‘Coin Doctoring’?
How is ‘coin doctoring’ different from ‘conservation’? I have never felt comfortable with the definition that most often floats about the coin collecting community. Nonetheless, it has some merit and is widely accepted: ‘Taking something off a coin is conservation; adding something to a coin is doctoring.’ So, removing dirt, grime, toning, organic matter, or even a layer of metal via dipping, is ‘conservation,’ according to this definition. Adding metal, plastics, auto body putty, colored substances, gels, films, and a variety of other things, constitutes doctoring.
In my view, some so called conservation practices damage coins, sometimes irreparably. I admit, however, that a majority of influential dealers (though perhaps not most knowledgeable collectors) view a wide range of conservation practices as being legitimate. From my inquiries, however, I conclude that more than 95% of knowledgeable collectors and leading dealers, agree that coin doctoring, as defined above or below, is damaging and usually fraudulent.
The following is the definition of ‘coin doctoring’ put forth by the PCGS in this lawsuit, in Section 9B, and seems to stem from the agreement that dealer-members sign in order to be dealer-submitters of coins for PCGS grading. I have here removed the phrase ‘among other things,’ which appears repeatedly and is distracting. The parentheses and the words inside them appear in the PCGS definition as stated in this lawsuit.
According to the PCGS, coin doctoring “involves the alteration of the appearance of a coin to attempt to increase its value, and may involve: adding substances to coins (such as putty, wax, facial oils, petroleum jelly or varnish); treating coins with chemicals (such as potash, sulfur, cyanide, iodine or bleach); heat treating coins in any way to alter their appearance; re-matting (“skinning”) Proof gold; ‘tapping’ and ’spooning’ (i.e. physically moving surface metal to hide marks); filing rim nicks; or repairing coins (re-tooling metal).
Though there is no perfect definition of coin doctoring, and this PCGS lawsuit states that coin doctoring may also involve actions not listed above, this is a very good definition, not just in my opinion. It is strongly consistent with viewpoints expressed to me, over a period of years, by leading dealers and collectors.
IV. Is Coin Doctoring A Crime?
It is not clear whether coin doctoring is a crime. This is the first such civil suit. I am not aware of any criminal charges that are relevant to this case.
Since the modifications of a doctored coin are rarely disclosed, coin doctoring is usually fraudulent, largely because the intent is to deceive and to ‘counterfeit’ not an entire coin, but some desirable characteristics of a coin. Coin doctors are ‘counterfeiting’ positive characteristics of a coin. For example, a doctored coin may appear to be free of contact marks and hairlines in the right obverse (front) field, yet these are really there but are masked by added substances. A choice quality right obverse field is being counterfeited. Likewise, attractive blue, purple and green toning is often counterfeited.
“We as owners of rare coins are caretakers of history,” Dr. Duckor exclaims. “When you doctor a coin, you destroy history. If coin doctoring is not a crime now, it should be,” in Duckor’s view.
The PCGS lawsuit does assert that doctoring U.S. or foreign “legal tender” coins “is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C §331,” which is abbreviated in the lawsuit as follows, “Whoever fraudulently alters, defaces, mutilates, impairs, diminishes, falsifies, scales or lightens any of the coins minted at the mints of the United States … [or] … Whoever fraudulently possesses, passes, utters, publishes, or sells, or attempts to pass, utter, publish or sell … any such coin, knowing the same to be altered, defaced, mutilated, impaired, diminished, falsified, scaled or lightened … Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years or both.”
It is thus argued in the lawsuit that someone who doctors a coin and/or someone who knowingly submits a doctored coin to the PCGS for grading is committing a crime, which is much more than a civil offense. It is not necessary for this argument to be accepted in order for the PCGS to win. Indeed, the PCGS does not have to prevail on all counts in order to win this civil suit.
The strongest arguments by the plaintiff may relate to the ‘breach of contract’ accusation, as each dealer-submitter agreed, in a contract with the PCGS, not to submit any doctored coins for PCGS grading. “Dealer and PCGS agree that PCGS would suffer irreparable damages if Dealer were to engage in coin ‘doctoring’ and that PCGS shall be entitled to not only compensatory damage but also [other legal measures against the Dealer] for any breach of the Dealer’s obligation not to ‘doctor’ coins or knowingly submit doctored coins to PCGS.”
Suppose, hypothetically, that an expert dealer submitted a substantial number of doctored coins to the PCGS for grading. Would much (if any) additional evidence be needed to prove that such an expert-submitter ‘knowingly’ submitted doctored coins?
V. The Accusations in the Lawsuit
So far, I have reported that the PCGS has claimed that the defendants have committed fraud and ‘breach of contract.’ The PCGS has made addition allegations, including “willfully, fraudulently, [and] maliciously” violating provisions in the California Business & Professions Code, and forming conspiracies, which I take to refer to allegations that the defendants worked in pairs or teams.
As it is widely recognized in the coin collecting community that coin doctoring constitutes fraud (except perhaps in the very rare instances where such doctoring is fairly disclosed), the two most curious and potentially explosive allegations are the first two counts. The PCGS alleges that the defendants “acts constitute an actionable wrong” under the Lanham Act, and the PCGS alleges racketeering under RICO statutes. I will probably discuss these two allegations next week.
VI. The Fight Against Coin Doctoring
I strongly believe that the coin doctoring problem can be contained. It can never be entirely abolished. The number of choice and rare pre-1934 U.S. coins that are doctored can be limited to a very small number each year.
Dr. Duckor “applaud[s] PCGS efforts and CAC efforts to control the coin doctoring problem. The hobby will be better off because of this lawsuit.” In Duckor’s view, the five most important advances in the history of coin collecting are: the founding of the PCGS in 1986, the founding of the CAC in 2007, the introduction of the PCGS SecurePlus™ program in March 2010, the filing of this lawsuit a few days ago, and the development of the PCGS CoinSniffer technology to detect some kinds of coin doctoring. “These five steps have revolutionized coin collecting,” Duckor exclaims.
The influential collector Jay Brahin remarks that this lawsuit is “long overdue. You can’t stop coin doctoring unless you expose coin doctors and their associates. Their greatest tool is secrecy. Many coin doctors [and their supporters] are in cahoots with each other. They work together,” Brahin has learned.
I hypothesize that there are fewer than seventy-five coin doctors who have the skills to often deceive graders at the PCGS and the NGC. As for coin doctors who can effectively laser the fields of Proof gold coins or build the heads on Standing Liberty Quarters, as mentioned in this lawsuit, Albanese estimates that “there are definitely less than ten, probably not even six who could do this.” I am glad to hear that there are so few. The PCGS should sue most or all of them now.
There are more coin doctors who are able to add putty and other substances, to disguise imperfections, and then get such doctored coins in PCGS or NGC holders. Albanese suggests that there are “twenty to thirty,” which, honestly, was my estimate before all the words even came out of his mouth. I finished his sentence. I could guess the identities of ten to fifteen of them.
With a few more lawsuits, similar to this one, the PCGS may be able to deliver many ‘knockout punches.’ Jay Brahin asserts that such lawsuits “would be great for the coin business. When you remove more doctored coins with counterfeit [characteristics], everyone will feel more comfortable.” Further, Brahin points out that, if “the cancer” of coin doctoring “spreads more” over the next several years, “it will become harder to cure.” It is best to “go after the coin doctors now and put them out of the coin doctoring business,” Brahin suggests.
Even if the PCGS does not soon file any additional lawsuits, this one will accomplish a great deal. Regardless of the fate of these six defendants, others will be discouraged from doctoring coins. The mere filing of this suit will save many rare coins from being damaged and will enhance the credibility of the PCGS. Plus, it will greatly contribute to the education of collectors.
bob
We'll use our hands and hearts and if we must we'll use our heads.
Clearly, since the process is not perfect, the guaranty is important. What percentage of investors might leave the hobby without the TPG's assurance/insurance? Are there freshly worked coins that everyone might miss?
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
I am just playing devil's advocate here. I don't know how a court would see these inconsistencies. I can understand the breech of contract, but I don't know the monetary value associated with something like that. I don't have the contract so I don't know the terms.
They brought suit. PCGS is allowed to specify what their guaranty covers and to identify, based on buybacks, how they were damaged. Hence, they get to set the rules. It is their dealer policy, their guarantee, their damages, and their suit.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
"Taking something off a coin is conservation; adding something to a coin is doctoring. So, removing dirt, grime, toning, organic matter, or even a layer of metal via dipping, is conservation, according to this definition. Adding metal, plastics, auto body putty, colored substances, gels, films, and a variety of other things, constitutes doctoring."
"coin doctoring is usually fraudulent, largely because the intent is to deceive and to ‘counterfeit’ not an entire coin, but some desirable characteristics of a coin. Coin doctors are ‘counterfeiting’ positive characteristics of a coin."
IMO, language like this - taking a known numismatic term - "counterfeit" - and stretching the definition to fit an entirely different concept is just the type of obfuscation that the defendants in the lawsuit are likely to use.
merse
I agree. The management at PCGS demonstrated tactical brilliance with the introduction of the new technology and the announcement of the suit. They allowed high-visibility dealers to create an atmosphere of fear and doubt regarding holdered coins and, at the right moment, introduced a solution. It is PCGS's willingness of take legal action, improve technology, and stand by their guarantee, that makes the brand valuable. Others will tout their role in forcing action, while PCGS increases its market dominance. Fascinating.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
And if PCGS states, "We can accept a dipped coin purely based on the overall appeal" - suggesting that as long as there is still luster etc, it would be acceptable, that just comes off as contradictory to me.
<< <i>“Whoever fraudulently alters, defaces, mutilates, impairs, diminishes, falsifies, scales or lightens " Dipping?
dang right dipping
golfer72 <<“Whoever fraudulently alters, defaces, … falsifies, scales or lightens " -- Dipping?>>
Golfer72 & Scotty1418, as I said in previous articles, dipping is harmful (in my opinion), but it is not doctoring. The term ‘lightens’ probably refers to a past practice where criminals would shave silver or gold off of coins and then spend the coins. So, the term ‘lighten’ here refers to reducing the weight of a coin, not increasing its brightness. That being said, a dipping does cause a coin to lose weight, but only to a small degree. Spending a coin or carrying it around, without a holder, will cause it to lose weight as well. Returning to dipping, there are instances where the harm done by dipping is outweighed by the benefits when there are harmful substances on a coin that cannot be removed in a less harmful manner. Traditionally, in the coin business, dipping has never been regarded as doctoring. Even so, I recommend against dipping, and I maintain that most sophisticated collectors prefer coins with natural toning that do NOT look dipped.
Dbcoin, I am glad you quoted a paragraph from my analysis that refers to the views of Dr. Duckor. I am grateful to him for his cooperation regarding this analysis and other endeavors. It is great that Dr. Duckor is often willing to share his knowledge and insights with the coin collecting community. Upon request, I would be glad to furnish a list of links to other articles in which Dr. Duckor is quoted.
DHeath <<Are there freshly worked coins that everyone might miss?>
DHeath, I am not sure how to interpret your use of the word ‘everyone.’ John Albanese is perhaps the best at catching doctored gold coins and he openly admits that he misses one on occasion. While both the PCGS and the NGC have done a better job of filtering doctored coins since the issue was publicized in 2007, both services are still sometimes tricked by coin doctors. For the reasons that I explain in my analysis, this lawsuit will result in dozens of coin doctors stopping, reducing the number of coins that they doctor, or reducing the severity of their doctoring activities. Even more would be accomplished, however, if the PCGS filed additional lawsuits and/or if the NGC filed one.
Steve27 << … using a laser doesn't fit in the doctoring definition.>>
This is serious mis-interpretation of both definitions. In my analysis, I refer to two definitions, both of which are fairly widely accepted in the coin collecting (+ dealer) community. One is the floating definition regarding adding and taking off, and the other is the PCGS definition.
The PCGS definition clearly prohibits “heat treating coins in any way to alter their appearance,” which includes lasering, and “physically moving surface metal,” which lasering (in the cited cases) does as well.
As for the floating ‘Add vs. Remove’ definition, maybe I should have made clear that moving metal from one area of a coin to another, even if the two areas are adjacent, is adding something, usually to cover or obliterate surface imperfections. Put differently, if metal is moved, it is removed from one area and ADDED to another area of the same coin; moving metal is doctoring.
TMot99, you are confusing cleaning or neutralizing with doctoring.
Coin doctoring is about deliberately harming a coin for the purpose of tricking experts into thinking that the coin is of much higher quality than it is or was before it was doctored. The use of acetone, while often not a good idea, is not doctoring. While I do not know what TMot99 meant by removing “corrosion,” removing “PVC or dirt” with the chemicals that are typically employed by experts for this purpose would not constitute doctoring. Consider the list of examples that the follow the mention of “chemicals” in the PCGS definition, “potash, sulfur, cyanide, iodine or bleach.” It is clear that the references are to artificial toning and/or substantially changing the color of all or parts of a coin, for the purpose of deceiving graders and/or eventual collector-buyers.
In any event, comments, both positive and negative, are welcome and are appreciated. If many collectors and other coin enthusiasts put forth time and effort to address this topic, we can accomplish a great deal in terms of containing the coin doctoring problem. Support the PCGS SecurePlus program. Tell David Hall and Don Willis that you favor additional lawsuits. In my analysis, I discuss the number of coin doctors, which is not large. Most of them can be discouraged.
My Analysis of PCGS Lawsuit Against Alleged Coin Doctors
Second Weekly column that includes a discussion of how NGC can employ technology, which the NGC already employs, to discourage coin doctoring
Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring, Part 1
Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring, Part 2
Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring, Part 3
PCGS Message Board Thread about Collecting Naturally Toned Coins Articles
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>I'm not sure what PCGS hopes to accomplish with the lawsuit, but the only way to curb coin doctoring is to do a better job in detecting doctored coins. >>
+1
<< <i>I'm not sure what PCGS hopes to accomplish with the lawsuit, but the only way to curb coin doctoring is to do a better job in detecting doctored coins. >>
I'm with you on this one, who in their right mind would submit knowing the potential is there that you could wind up in court for submitting coins you have doubts about. I thought their service was to help eliminate the doubts.
I did mean everyone to include Mr. Albanese. There is obviously a huge reward for gaming the services, including CAC. Since all services are fallible, buyer confidence is at least partly dependent on the TPG guaranty. With great deference to Mr. Albanese, who is clearly one of the most skilled in the hobby, he would have no idea how many coins fooled him. I am certain fewer fooled him than have fooled others, but if the SecurePlus process is capable of detecting alterations that fool the naked eye, it is reasonable to assume some altered coins have been given CAC stickers. Guarantees will become a critical to investors as previously holdered coins are resubmitted. It will be interesting to see how things develop in the coming months. Deep Blue eventually beat Bobby Fisher.
and it sets us apart from practitioners and consultants. Gregor
And how would it be differentiated between Blue Ribbon being acceptable on early copper but facial oils are not?
It is the whole concept of "some is...some isn't" that leaves the issue very confusing and therefore will be a hard fight in court in my opinion.
<< <i>The definition of doctoring is so mushy, I don't know how it can be enforced. When it says "...treated with chemicals...", that is an extremely broad statement. In that PCGS knowingly and frequently will accept dipped coins goes against their definition. When is it ok and when is it not? Also, most early copper that I have seen has Blue Ribbon or other oil-based component applied. I have heard that it is common for this to be brushed on copper and that this is an accepted practice, yet this also goes against "...treated with chemicals...". And finally, a rinse with acetone to remove PVC is treating a coin with chemicals to "attempt to increase its value". So what is acceptable and what is not? And why does PCGS get to set the rules? If PCGS were to win, I would bet that over 90% of the collecting public and dealers would be guilty of this. Of course, I am not talking lasering, or puttying, but I am talking about acetone rinse, Blue Ribbon, dip, or other compounds that are known to remove PVC or dirt or corrosion.
I am just playing devil's advocate here. I don't know how a court would see these inconsistencies. I can understand the breech of contract, but I don't know the monetary value associated with something like that. I don't have the contract so I don't know the terms. >>
I agree with this 100%. Murder can be difficult to prove, as I believe this case may as well. I do believe bringing the subject to light is a great step forward.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>I'm not sure what PCGS hopes to accomplish with the lawsuit, but the only way to curb coin doctoring is to do a better job in detecting doctored coins. >>
Andy, that's a curious statement. Perhaps you don't KNOW what PCGS hopes to accomplish, but surely, you can easily come up with the two or three most likely things.
As to the damages that a few posters have asked about....
Among other things, the complaint includes language from the PCGS dealer agreement as follows: "PCGS shall be entitled to not only compensatory damages", as well as "Dealer agrees that in the event PCGS incurs any attorney fees and/or cost and expenses as a result of said 'doctoring', including but not limited to investigating claims of alleged 'doctoring', and engaging in legal proceedings with dealer or any other third party relating to same, PCGS shall be entitled to reimbursement of such fees and costs from dealer".
<< <i>I'm not sure what PCGS hopes to accomplish with the lawsuit, but the only way to curb coin doctoring is to do a better job in detecting doctored coins. >>
It's all about their guarantee and how doctored coins in their holders cause them big losses. Collector's Universe has an obligation to its shareholders to reduce unnecessary costs and the meat of this lawsuit is to not only do that but to recover experienced losses as well. Any additional benefits to the collecting community are just icing on the cake.
I have not read the dealer agreement but I do believe the success of the case will rest on how well "doctoring" is defined in the agreement. To agree not to submit "doctored" coins with no clear definition of what "doctored" means leaves a valid arguement for the defense: "Well, your honor, my client was under the impression that he was not to submit coins for grading that had undergone X-rays or other medical testing or procedures."
ZeroHedge makes debut at White House press corps briefing
I would take the legal analysis in the article with a grain of salt. There are two main issues here to be resolved in the suit:
1. Breach of contract. The dealer agreement specifies certain things that a submitting dealer agrees he will not do (or knowingly do). It doesn't matter what it is, nor what anyone's definition of coin doctoring is. If the submitter did any of those things listed in the contract, there is liability. The challenge in the lawsuit will be to prove that the contracting party either did those things himself, or knowingly submitted coins that he knew were treated in the proscribed manner, and submitting them anyway. The definition of "coin doctoring" is irrelevant to any legal analysis on this issue. As a complete aside and for illustration purposes, if the agreement said the dealer would never breath on a coin before submission, and PCGS can prove that the dealer breathed on it, there is liability (not sure about damages, but a breach of contract nonetheless).
2. Fraud. The key thing here to me is that you don't have to be a direct party to the dealer agreement in order to be exposed to liability. This is PCGS's way of reaching beyond the submitter to the person who actually did the work on the coin. For success on the fraud allegation, there must be a false representation or concealment of a fact intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to their detriment, when they otherwise would not have. Again, I don't think a definition of coin doctoring is going to get us anywhere with this either. The issue will center around whether the defendant's act was intended to conceal or misrepresent the grade (and hence value) of the coin such that PCGS relied on the representation and has been harmed in the process. It's really no different that insurance fraud, and yes there is civil liability and criminal liability for fraud like this. You also have conspiracy if the submitter knew the coins were doctored when they submitted it.
Personally, I think the reference to the USC law regarding the alteration of legal tender is somewhat of a red herring and is there to spice up the lawsuit. It is not really relevant to the real issues in the case. Notwithstanding, I have seen judges hang their hats on more obscure things when deciding a case, and would have put it in the lawsuit if I had prepared the complaint.
ZeroHedge makes debut at White House press corps briefing
<< <i>Doug, you're saying that the dealer agreement does give specific examples of prohibited practices (doctoring)? If so, case is a walk in the park. As stated above, I personally have not seen the agreement and believe the case will hinge on how well the agreement describes the prohibited items. >>
I'm not Doug, but I did read the complaint. And it references a number of activities which are said to constitute coin doctoring under the PCGS dealer agreement.
Also, naysayers can talk as much as they want about how there is ambiguity and disagreement regarding certain practices that might or might not be considered coin doctoring by collectors and dealers. But the specific examples of doctored coins listed in the complaint do not appear to be ambiguous.
<< <i>
<< <i>Doug, you're saying that the dealer agreement does give specific examples of prohibited practices (doctoring)? If so, case is a walk in the park. As stated above, I personally have not seen the agreement and believe the case will hinge on how well the agreement describes the prohibited items. >>
I'm not Doug, but I did read the complaint. And it references a number of activities which are said to constitute coin doctoring under the PCGS dealer agreement.
Also, naysayers can talk as much as they want about how there is ambiguity and disagreement regarding certain practices that might or might not be considered coin doctoring by collectors and dealers. But the specific examples of doctored coins listed in the complaint do not appear to be ambiguous. >>
Exactly. And had I been PCGS with this going on, I would have made sure before I filed the case that I had coins that exactly fit the things prohibited in the agreement, and multiple examples so I could establish a pattern. I feel sure that they did. This is not the kind of lawsuit where suit would have to be filed before counsel was fully prepared.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
I had hoped that at least two objectives of the PCGS would be obvious. 1) The PCGS aims to discourage coin doctoring. 2) When the PCGS 'buys back' a doctored coin, the PCGS wants those involved in the doctoring and submitting of the respective doctored coin to pay damages to the PCGS, actual, incidental and punitive.
MrEureka, LancastarCoin and SeemyAuction, please refer to the section of my analysis, near the beginning, which refers to the fact that the mere filing of this lawsuit is itself a strong deterrent to coin doctoring. If anyone disagrees with my arguments that this lawsuit has already accomplished a great deal, please be specific as to the points in my analysis that you are challenging and I would be delighted to discuss the matter further. I really believe that, as a consequence of the filing of this lawsuit, most (not all) coin doctors, who are not defendants in this suit, will doctor fewer coins, will stop altogether, or will reduce the severity of their respective coin doctoring practices.
DWMJR <<For success on the fraud allegation, there must be a false representation or concealment of a fact intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to their detriment, when they otherwise would not have. Again, I don't think a definition of coin doctoring is going to get us anywhere with this either. The issue will center around whether the defendant's act was intended to conceal or misrepresent the grade (and hence value) of the coin such that PCGS relied on the representation and has been harmed in the process.>>
Doug, I honestly believe your statement here is very misleading. The PCGS definition and accompanying points clearly indicate that coin doctoring is fraud. Typically, a coin doctor deliberately reduces the grade of a coin as part of an undisclosed treatment of a coin that is aimed at tricking graders and collectors into thinking that it is of a higher grade than it was before it was doctored. The practice of coin doctoring, as described in this lawsuit, meets the criteria for fraud, as DOUG has stated it, almost perfectly. Consider the criteria for fraud as it would apply to a doctored coin that is submitted to the PCGS for a numerical grade: the concealment of defects on a coin, the failure to disclose such defects, the request for a numerical grade when the submitter knows that a numerical grade is not merited, and the intent to deceive PCGS graders into thinking that the coin is of a higher grade than it is and was before it was doctored. (I am referring to situations where a dealer is knowingly submitting a doctored coin for numerical grading. I am not commenting as to what the defendants in this case knew or did not know.)
Consider, as an abstract example, a coin that grades MS-64 is damaged in an effort to conceal hairlines and contact marks for the purpose of tricking PCGS graders into awarding a MS-66 or higher grade. It is not unusual for a MS-64 grade coin to be ruined to the point that it would not merit a MS-60 grade in an attempt to trick PCGS graders into thinking that it grades MS-66 or higher. How could it be argued that such an act is not fraudulent?
If this case goes to trial, the PCGS may call expert witnesses, both in-house and outside consultants. It can be explained to a jury that the PCGS definition of doctoring is very good (though imperfect), is exceptionally clear, and is extremely consistent with the way that the term 'doctoring' is employed among mainstream dealers and collectors. An expert who testifies otherwise might 'end up' committing perjury.
1st installment of New Weekly Column on Coin Rarities & Related Topics
Second Weekly Column
Third Weekly Column is My Analysis of this lawsuit
Someday classics might be as good as moderns.
<< <i>
<< <i>Doug, you're saying that the dealer agreement does give specific examples of prohibited practices (doctoring)? If so, case is a walk in the park. As stated above, I personally have not seen the agreement and believe the case will hinge on how well the agreement describes the prohibited items. >>
I'm not Doug, but I did read the complaint. And it references a number of activities which are said to constitute coin doctoring under the PCGS dealer agreement.
Also, naysayers can talk as much as they want about how there is ambiguity and disagreement regarding certain practices that might or might not be considered coin doctoring by collectors and dealers. But the specific examples of doctored coins listed in the complaint do not appear to be ambiguous. >>
Not Doug, it is clear that the complaint is specific, however the complaint is not what will be entered as evidence against the accused. Back to my question: Is the dealer agreement that will be used as evidence (and not the complaint) specific as to what constitutes "doctoring?" To me this is what will make or break the case. Are the activities referenced in the complaint also spelled out in the dealer agreement? If not, defense attorneys will have a field day.
ZeroHedge makes debut at White House press corps briefing
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Doug, you're saying that the dealer agreement does give specific examples of prohibited practices (doctoring)? If so, case is a walk in the park. As stated above, I personally have not seen the agreement and believe the case will hinge on how well the agreement describes the prohibited items. >>
I'm not Doug, but I did read the complaint. And it references a number of activities which are said to constitute coin doctoring under the PCGS dealer agreement.
Also, naysayers can talk as much as they want about how there is ambiguity and disagreement regarding certain practices that might or might not be considered coin doctoring by collectors and dealers. But the specific examples of doctored coins listed in the complaint do not appear to be ambiguous. >>
Not Doug, it is clear that the complaint is specific, however the complaint is not what will be entered as evidence against the accused. Back to my question: Is the dealer agreement that will be used as evidence (and not the complaint) specific as to what constitutes "doctoring?" To me this is what will make or break the case. Are the activities referenced in the complaint also spelled out in the dealer agreement? If not, defense attorneys will have a field day. >>
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I am under the impression that the complaint includes language taken directly from the dealer agreement, with respect to specifically, what constitutes coin doctoring. check it out here and let me know what you think
<< <i>Perhaps I am mistaken, but I am under the impression that the complaint includes language taken directly from the dealer agreement, with respect to specifically, what constitutes coin doctoring. check it out here and let me know what you think >>
From the complaint (quoting the dealer agreement): "Dealer shall not "doctor" coins or knowingly submit to PCGS coins which have been "doctored." Coin "doctoring" involves the alteration of the appearance of a coin to attempt to increase its value and may involve (here is where complaint list out examples of doctoring)."
Sounds like anyone doing anything to alter the appearance of a coin to increase its value is guilty of doctoring. To me this would include cleaning, dipping, etc. Does not cleaning/dipping a coin alter its appearance to increase its value?
ZeroHedge makes debut at White House press corps briefing
<< <i>
<< <i>Perhaps I am mistaken, but I am under the impression that the complaint includes language taken directly from the dealer agreement, with respect to specifically, what constitutes coin doctoring. check it out here and let me know what you think >>
From the complaint (quoting the dealer agreement): "Dealer shall not "doctor" coins or knowingly submit to PCGS coins which have been "doctored." Coin "doctoring" involves the alteration of the appearance of a coin to attempt to increase its value and may involve (here is where complaint list out examples of doctoring)."
Sounds like anyone doing anything to alter the appearance of a coin to increase its value is guilty of doctoring. To me this would include cleaning, dipping, etc. Does not cleaning/dipping a coin alter its appearance to increase its value? >>
To your last point, do any of those things like cleaning, dipping, etc. change the value of the coin if done properly? Those things remove foreign matter from the coin. Was the grade a 65 both before and after the cleaning? Was it really a 66 under the dirt, but the graders couldn't see what was under the dirt so they would have given it a 65? You can over dip a coin to the point it is no longer a 65, but you are not going to get a 65 on a graded holder if the cleaning was harsh and resulted in damaging the coin. I'm not to concerned about these practices.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Perhaps I am mistaken, but I am under the impression that the complaint includes language taken directly from the dealer agreement, with respect to specifically, what constitutes coin doctoring. check it out here and let me know what you think >>
From the complaint (quoting the dealer agreement): "Dealer shall not "doctor" coins or knowingly submit to PCGS coins which have been "doctored." Coin "doctoring" involves the alteration of the appearance of a coin to attempt to increase its value and may involve (here is where complaint list out examples of doctoring)."
Sounds like anyone doing anything to alter the appearance of a coin to increase its value is guilty of doctoring. To me this would include cleaning, dipping, etc. Does not cleaning/dipping a coin alter its appearance to increase its value? >>
To your last point, do any of those things like cleaning, dipping, etc. change the value of the coin if done properly? Those things remove foreign matter from the coin. Was the grade a 65 both before and after the cleaning? Was it really a 66 under the dirt, but the graders couldn't see what was under the dirt so they would have given it a 65? You can over dip a coin to the point it is no longer a 65, but you are not going to get a 65 on a graded holder if the cleaning was harsh and resulted in damaging the coin. I'm not to concerned about these practices. >>
Of course cleaning and dipping, in most cases, add to the value of a coin. They make a coin more desirable and more marketable which increases what people are willing to pay. It doesn't matter if you are concerned about these practices. What does matter is if PCGS is concerned about these practices and where they draw the line on an alteration to "increase the value" of a coin. They are the ones who can drag you into court for altering a coin to increase it's value (only if you have a dealer agreement with them). And by the way their agreement reads, technically, they can drag you into court if they can prove your cleaning of a coin increased its value.
ZeroHedge makes debut at White House press corps briefing
This is a bold and necessary step by PCGS and I would like to add....... it's about time
If the suit only acts as a deterent it will be pay huge dividends in the long run. However, PCGS ( and NGC) must keep the pressure on and make the risk/reward for the doctors and their employeers very unattractive. Tilt the scale. Face it, even with improved PCGS detection technology someone will eventually find away around it IF given the chance and if the consequences of being caught are nothing more then an idle or one time threat or a slap on the wrist.
In the end, "Coins" themselves AND collectors should be the net big winners.
As far as what constitutes coins doctoring?----Intent to deceive is enough of a clear definition to me.
I will leave the legal wrangling of the PCGS/Dealers agreement to the "others". At the end of the day I don't think that's the most important part of this suit in the grand scheme of things. To this specific case, yes. To the grand scheme of the coin industry going forward, no IMHO.
PCGS does run the risk of skeletons popping out of the closet during this case as some of the defendants may have intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the company which in some instances MAYBE less then flattering. In otherwords, some of the defendants may know where the proverbial "bodies are buried. I applaud PCGS for running this necessary public relations risk.
As of now there are only allegations brought on by PCGS. I'm sure there are more then germs of truth to their suit. There can be no doubt that the coin doctoring problem exists and the coin industries dirty little ( not so) secret needs to be dealt a serious blow. I hope the guilty are found guilty and are made to pay. I hope the innocent are found innocent.
Greg's article as usual was extremely well written IMO. MJ
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
From my analysis, <The following is the definition of ‘coin doctoring’ put forth by the PCGS in this lawsuit, in Section 9B, and stems from the agreement that dealer-members sign in order to be dealer-submitters of coins for PCGS grading. I have here removed the phrase ‘among other things,’ which appears repeatedly and is distracting. The parentheses and the words inside them appear in the PCGS definition as stated in this lawsuit.> Also, I capitalized the word ‘alteration’ below.
<According to the PCGS, coin doctoring “involves the ALTERATION of the appearance of a coin to attempt to increase its value, and may involve: adding substances to coins (such as putty, wax, facial oils, petroleum jelly or varnish); treating coins with chemicals (such as potash, sulfur, cyanide, iodine or bleach); heat treating coins in any way to alter their appearance; re-matting (“skinning”) Proof gold; ‘tapping’ and ’spooning’ (i.e. physically moving surface metal to hide marks); filing rim nicks; or repairing coins (re-tooling metal).>
I will concede the point that the first clause, in the PCGS definition, could have been worded better. The word ‘may’ in the phrase “and may involve” probably should have been deleted. Obviously, the PCGS wished to reserve the right to add methods of doctoring to the list in the future, probably to include possible new technologies that coin doctors might use. So, PCGS experts can explain this to a jury; that coin doctors may use new technologies in the future so the definition said “and may involve” rather than “and involves”! The jury probably will understand, I hope, and can be effectively informed that almost all coin doctoring activities fall in the categories in the list in the PCGS definition.
Obviously, the list, in the PCGS definition, indicates the kinds of practices that constitute an ‘alteration’! Generally, in the coin collecting community, a dipping or an application of acetone is not considered to be an alteration. I am not arguing that dipping or the use of acetone is desirable. I am putting my own opinions aside and pointing out that dipping is not considered to be an “alteration.” It is a widely accepted practice at both the PCGS and the NGC and among a majority of leading dealers. The PCGS can easily arrange for expert witnesses to honestly testify that dipping and acetone treatment are not ‘alterations’ and are not doctoring, as these terms are used in the coin business and in the coin collecting community at large. A true expert who testified otherwise may be guilty of perjury.
A couple of you emphasized that a dipping or a cleaning may increase the value of a coin or even increase its PCGS grade. It is no secret that this occurs. But, the dipping and/or cleaning are apparent. There is not an intent to deceive and there is often a genuine increase in grade, in accordance with PCGS standards. More importantly, the term ‘alteration’ in the definition has to be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the practices of the PCGS and of the coin collecting community in general.
If a dealer-submitter takes a moderately toned silver coin and dips it to the point that it is blast white, this might not be a good thing to do, but it is not doctoring and it is not fraud. The graders at the PCGS will, of course, see that the coin has been recently dipped and they will take that point into consideration. There would be no concealing of defects. A dipping by a dealer-submitter, or an associate of a dealer-submitter, is not relevant to coin doctoring, and is not fraudulent. I repeat, though, that I am, usually, an opponent of dipping. It is not remotely plausible, however, that the term ‘alteration’ in the PCGS definition refers to dipping. It should not be difficult to explain this point to a jury.
Doug, I believe, was wrong, in that he was saying that the PCGS definition does not help in proving fraud. I believe that it helps tremendously and is more than sufficient. Indeed, it is very good, but not excellent. The list in the PCGS definition of doctoring covers the methods used in probably 99% of all doctoring activities that might plausibly fool PCGS or NGC graders. Coin Doctoring is deliberately harming (often irreparably damaging) a coin for the purpose of tricking people into thinking that it is of much higher quality than it was before it was doctored: This is fraud!
As for the use of the word “chemicals,” experts can refer to the list that follows the word chemicals, “potash, sulfur, cyanide, iodine or bleach” and explain to the jury that these are chemicals that are used to try to trick experts into thinking that a coin has certain naturally attractive qualities that it does not have and that some of the listed chemicals are used to cover-up other doctoring activities. The chemicals cited are used to deceive, hence these are involved in coin doctoring. It is logical to conclude from the definition, and can be explained to a jury, that chemicals that are not used to deceive, like water, are not relevant. Using soapy water to remove some dirt on a coin may not be a good idea in many instances; but such an activity would not constitute coin doctoring. The use of soapy water to remove dirt may sometimes be harmful, but it is not an alteration in the sense that the term alteration is defined by coin collectors or coin dealers. In regards to a coin, the term ‘alteration’ is very sharp and refers to events that more than 98% of coin experts would regard as being damaging and usually done with the intent to deceive.
Consider the PCGS and the NGC use of the term ‘altered surfaces’! Coins with ‘altered surfaces’ do not qualify for numerical grades.
I really believe that most of us should be in agreement that this PCGS definition of coin doctoring is very good and is wonderful in some ways. As long as it has been used for many years, and is so consistent with the ways in which most experts define coin doctoring, it should be embraced. It just does not not have the holes that some participants in the forum think it has. Of course, a better definition could be written. It is just not practical, however, for a better definition to be widely agreed upon. I cannot even persuade all the participants in this thread, including one long-term strong opponent of coin doctoring, that the filing of this lawsuit is both of tremendous importance and very beneficial to the coin collecting community.
<< <i>I am here responding to messages posted by many participants in this thread, and I wish to thank everyone for reading my analyses of this topic, as it is of tremendous importance. I hope that we all wish to save rare coins from being damaged by coin doctors.
From my analysis, <The following is the definition of ‘coin doctoring’ put forth by the PCGS in this lawsuit, in Section 9B, and stems from the agreement that dealer-members sign in order to be dealer-submitters of coins for PCGS grading. I have here removed the phrase ‘among other things,’ which appears repeatedly and is distracting. The parentheses and the words inside them appear in the PCGS definition as stated in this lawsuit.> Also, I capitalized the word ‘alteration’ below.
<According to the PCGS, coin doctoring “involves the ALTERATION of the appearance of a coin to attempt to increase its value, and may involve: adding substances to coins (such as putty, wax, facial oils, petroleum jelly or varnish); treating coins with chemicals (such as potash, sulfur, cyanide, iodine or bleach); heat treating coins in any way to alter their appearance; re-matting (“skinning”) Proof gold; ‘tapping’ and ’spooning’ (i.e. physically moving surface metal to hide marks); filing rim nicks; or repairing coins (re-tooling metal).>
I will concede the point that the first clause, in the PCGS definition, could have been worded better. The word ‘may’ in the phrase “and may involve” probably should have been deleted. Obviously, the PCGS wished to reserve the right to add methods of doctoring to the list in the future, probably to include possible new technologies that coin doctors might use. So, PCGS experts can explain this to a jury; that coin doctors may use new technologies in the future so the definition said “and may involve” rather than “and involves”! The jury probably will understand, I hope, and can be effectively informed that almost all coin doctoring activities fall in the categories in the list in the PCGS definition.
Obviously, the list, in the PCGS definition, indicates the kinds of practices that constitute an ‘alteration’! Generally, in the coin collecting community, a dipping or an application of acetone is not considered to be an alteration. I am not arguing that dipping or the use of acetone is desirable. I am putting my own opinions aside and pointing out that dipping is not considered to be an “alteration.” It is a widely accepted practice at both the PCGS and the NGC and among a majority of leading dealers. The PCGS can easily arrange for expert witnesses to honestly testify that dipping and acetone treatment are not ‘alterations’ and are not doctoring, as these terms are used in the coin business and in the coin collecting community at large. A true expert who testified otherwise may be guilty of perjury.
A couple of you emphasized that a dipping or a cleaning may increase the value of a coin or even increase its PCGS grade. It is no secret that this occurs. But, the dipping and/or cleaning are apparent. There is not an intent to deceive and there is often a genuine increase in grade, in accordance with PCGS standards. More importantly, the term ‘alteration’ in the definition has to be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the practices of the PCGS and of the coin collecting community in general.
If a dealer-submitter takes a moderately toned silver coin and dips it to the point that it is blast white, this might not be a good thing to do, but it is not doctoring and it is not fraud. The graders at the PCGS will, of course, see that the coin has been recently dipped and they will take that point into consideration. There would be no concealing of defects. A dipping by a dealer-submitter, or an associate of a dealer-submitter, is not relevant to coin doctoring, and is not fraudulent. I repeat, though, that I am, usually, an opponent of dipping. It is not remotely plausible, however, that the term ‘alteration’ in the PCGS definition refers to dipping. It should not be difficult to explain this point to a jury.
Doug, I believe, was wrong, in that he was saying that the PCGS definition does not help in proving fraud. I believe that it helps tremendously and is more than sufficient. Indeed, it is very good, but not excellent. The list in the PCGS definition of doctoring covers the methods used in probably 99% of all doctoring activities that might plausibly fool PCGS or NGC graders. Coin Doctoring is deliberately harming (often irreparably damaging) a coin for the purpose of tricking people into thinking that it is of much higher quality than it was before it was doctored: This is fraud!
As for the use of the word “chemicals,” experts can refer to the list that follows the word chemicals, “potash, sulfur, cyanide, iodine or bleach” and explain to the jury that these are chemicals that are used to try to trick experts into thinking that a coin has certain naturally attractive qualities that it does not have and that some of the listed chemicals are used to cover-up other doctoring activities. The chemicals cited are used to deceive, hence these are involved in coin doctoring. It is logical to conclude from the definition, and can be explained to a jury, that chemicals that are not used to deceive, like water, are not relevant. Using soapy water to remove some dirt on a coin may not be a good idea in many instances; but such an activity would not constitute coin doctoring. The use of soapy water to remove dirt may sometimes be harmful, but it is not an alteration in the sense that the term alteration is defined by coin collectors or coin dealers. In regards to a coin, the term ‘alteration’ is very sharp and refers to events that more than 98% of coin experts would regard as being damaging and usually done with the intent to deceive.
Consider the PCGS and the NGC use of the term ‘altered surfaces’! Coins with ‘altered surfaces’ do not qualify for numerical grades.
I really believe that most of us should be in agreement that this PCGS definition of coin doctoring is very good and is wonderful in some ways. As long as it has been used for many years, and is so consistent with the ways in which most experts define coin doctoring, it should be embraced. It just does not not have the holes that some participants in the forum think it has. Of course, a better definition could be written. It is just not practical, however, for a better definition to be widely agreed upon. I cannot even persuade all the participants in this thread, including one long-term strong opponent of coin doctoring, that the filing of this lawsuit is both of tremendous importance and very beneficial to the coin collecting community. >>
Greg, I think you did an excellent job of distinguishing dipping from the forms of doctoring which PCGS is apparently taking aim at.
In doing so, however, you made use of the word "deceive", which you said does not apply to dipping. And, while I generally agree, currently, the word "deceive" is not included in the PCGS definition of coin doctoring. And I think it should be. Because as it stands at the present time, dipping could be considered doctoring, just like the other practices noted in the complaint.