“Conservation” of coins—Good or bad for Numismatics?
Tomthemailcarrier
Posts: 651 ✭✭✭✭✭
I like original surfaces on my coins. I don’t want them “improved” by a cleaning or whatever new technique that’s in vogue these days. While removing surface contaminants makes sense on a limited scale anything beyond that seems deceptive to the buyer and forever changes the coin.
Apparently it is much more common than I realized. I recall that when the S.S. Central America gold coins were located after spending so much time in the ocean that encrustations were removed. TPG’s then slabbed the coins despite that. At the time I had thought that it was acceptable since the submitters were big players.
Is that when the coin market came to accept more “messing with” coins? To me it seems a slippery slope that we are on. How do you feel about this phenomenon? I find it sad that there are very few coins that have
original skin. Where do TPG’s draw the line? Where do you draw the line?
Am I just old fashioned (and somewhat naive) believing that TPG’s should protect us from this trend? Instead they offer “conservation” which to me really hides the fact that they are cleaning coins.
Comments
I had a coin dealer friend once tell me that he liked and preferred coins that are original but in the real world when he buys an ugly splotchy tarnished silver dollar, he can't sell it without first dipping it. No one wants to buy an ugly coin and he needs to sell them to stay in business. Welcome to the real world.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Just my personal opinion.
I think in the right circumstances conservation is good for the hobby. Such as when a coin has been contaminated by PVC, and conservation is necessary to stabilize and protect if from further damage.
I like original coins, and hate to see them "improved" for profit. But the coins are the property of the owners, all opinions aside, the owners have the right to do as they please with their property.
Conserving coins has been going on for along time and will continue into the future, the shame of it is that once the coin has been conserved it can never go back to its original state.
So my opinion is that conserving coins to make them easier to sell is not good for the hobby long term.
I also believe that gaining knowledge of what an original coin looks, or buying from a reputable dealer who has this knowledge, is key to avoiding future surprises when it comes time to sell.
That's the key thought in the debate. Numismatists believe it or not are humans and as with KFC for example, some prefer their coins "nice and shiny" (extra crispy) while many others prefer original crust or recipe. IMO, Original is best but sometimes a little help on an ugly/defective surface is the right thing to do. Of course without the intent to deceive.
Time for lunch!
Conservation is good if they have something on the surface that will in time destroy them.
I am a big proponent of original coins but, when a coin has PVC, or unsightly surface contaminants that will potentially harm the surface, then professional conservation is in order.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
I have used NCS a number of times and find that their opinion is on the mark for me. Whether or not they conserve usually depends on marketability. And remember it still has to grade when they are done !
Tom,
You are not "old fashioned" you just have a lot yet to learn. We all do. That's why it is important to pick the brains of our older numismatists and very successful younger ones who post on CU before they are gone. I'll try to answer some of your post based on my limited experience:
"I like original surfaces on my coins." We all should! One of the reasons TPGS's came into being was to help collectors have original coins. CAC was needed just because... and that's all I'll say except alterations have become very sophisticated an AFAIK, very few folks are using microscopes - YET. I'm going to toot my own horn here to make a point about future surface alterations. Around 1980, I had a beginning collector in my class who was a scientist using an electron microscope daily at his job. I was discussing surface alterations at the time. After telling the class that IMO, the "days of the hand lens for coin authentication were over," I looked at him and said something as this: "I have examined the surfaces of more coins using magnification than any person alive or dead. There cannot be any person alive who will EVER ever be able to catch up to me until I am dead for at least a decade! HOWEVER, if you go back to your lab on Monday and start examining the surfaces of hundreds of coins on a daily basis using that electron microscope, you will surpass my experience with that instrument in a few hours and no one will ever be able to catch up to the number of coins you will have examined with that instrument! Then you can teach the class.
"I don’t want them “improved” by a cleaning or whatever new technique that’s in vogue these days. While removing surface contaminants makes sense on a limited scale anything beyond that seems deceptive to the buyer and forever changes the coin."
First off, understand what YOU want means absolutely nothing to anyone. Your "wants" are only good for you; yet hopefully, most of your "wants" will be agreeable to as many folks as possible. That's one thing that helps make us happy.
When a coin is altered in any way by any means, there are only two outcomes. It was good for the coin or it was not. When the outcome is good, generally it is undetectable to all but a few folks (the ones who do it and those who are very advanced numismatists). Generally, there are microscopic clues on any coin that has been touched (good or bad) in any way. I've even seen graders smell a coin being graded - sort of like pre-PCGS "Sniffer technology. So if you and 99.9% of dealers/collectors cannot tell a coin is original or not, iMO, the outcome is good. In cases where deception is involved, until it is detected (most are and have been eventually) by a TPGS, the outcome, unfortunately, was still a good one.
Yes, yes, and yes. However, don't feel bad, you are learning something very important. You, me and every collector needs to learn all we can in order to make an informed purchase. I buy coins that are not original. But I know they are not original. I was so picky in the past that I missed out buying some truly very scarce items (that I shall never own $$$$ now) because they were improperly cleaned.
Depending on what you collect, for some coin series, originality is very uncommon even if you have deep pockets.
It has nothing to do with big players. I've had the experience of conserving recovered gold and you won't detect my work! You can submerge a gold coin for hundreds of years at the bottom of the ocean and under the right conditions it will come out as original as the day it was struck. Most damage comes from the action of sand, recovery damage, and improper conservation after it is found. It is a cool subject to read about and become more informed.
No Tom, think about this for yourself. Coins have been "messed with " in all sorts of ways including counterfeiting, debasement and cleaning PROBABLY shortly after the first electrum lump was stamped. Thousands of years have elapsed since coins have meem messed with and it is still going on. Only new methods of deception have come along to combine with those pieces messed with previously.
IMO, you are just a typical collector. The TPGS's are not hiding anything. "Conservation" is a term used for a coin that is properly cleaned! With just a little thought, anyone can determine that if you cannot see something it is not there. If you cannot detect something (whether others can or not) YOU cannot detect it so it is not there. After realizing this as a young collector, I made this distinction in classes decades ago as a professional instructor: If a coin is cleaned (conserved) PROPERLY, no one can tell it was cleaned. That's the simple difference.
Bottom line, Right or wrong, what you believe is all that matters - TO YOU. The TPGS's are your friend. It is up to all of us to become educated so we can enjoy our coins more.
PS It's been my experience in classes over the years that most uninformed collectors (thankfully in class to become informed) prefer an improperly cleaned, shiny coin at first to an original piece.
On copper small green spots if not dealt with turn into big green spots over time. I recall @Insider2 saying something about that in another thread. I like coins as original as possible, but some need conservation to avoid being ruined. Depends on the coin and the owners wishes.
Insider2,
Thank you for your detailed response to my question. It has been an eye opening week for me and I guess even at the ripe old age of 63 I can still learn some things. It is difficult to overcome preconceived notions but it is hard to argue with facts. You have been a good teacher to a reluctant pupil and your patience is greatly appreciated. Enjoy what is left of your weekend and I will attempt to put this whole experience to good use at the Philadelphia ANA.
I'm older than you and still learning about coins. Enjoy the show!
As others have noted, the biggest problem with "conservation" is when people who do not know better buy and use products on the market that are detrimental to coins (either immediately or long term).
There are, however, some products and techniques that, if applied correctly, can remove harmful contaminants from a coins surface, and/or protect a coin from future contaminants. The knowledge comes from knowing the difference between the two.
There are several threads on this site that are great reads for those that are interested in learning more.
There are some coins that do deserve to be conserved. Here is one I conserved:
From this (heritage Image):
To this (Mike Printz image):
If you know what you're doing, not a big deal. Everyone does it, believe it.
Can you add a photo of the holder in which that originally ANACs holdered coin now resides?
The pictures tell the story quite well. I had read that collectors used to apply lacquer to their coins to minimize exposure to the elements. Removing the lacquer and reholdering them makes perfect sense to me. Thank you for the visuals. They make it quite clear that conservation of the 1818 large cent was a good idea.
I don't know much about conservation but I know having bad options is better than having no options.
“Original” and “attractive” do not go hand and hand. In fact, those two things frequently don’t come together. Sometimes it is necessary to conserve a coin to make it saleable. The purests can talk all they want about what a sin it is to dip or “curate” a coin, but I don’t see a lot of them buying ugly coins at strong prices. In fact I don’t see them buying the ugly coins at all.
As for the SS Central America coins the curation was necessary, and when it worked, made the coins much more attractive. Dried sea crud on the surface of a coin is not attractive and could be detrimental to the long term preservation of the piece.
I've been digging very old coins out of the ground for thirty years. I am grateful for every one of them in whatever condition. To be able to find a date from the 17th or 18th century is the payoff. Distilled water and mineral oil are my go to baths. I learned about acetone here and it has value. No acid or alklye for me! Thanks for the topic. Peace Roy
BST: endeavor1967, synchr, kliao, Outhaul, Donttellthewife, U1Chicago, ajaan, mCarney1173, SurfinHi, MWallace, Sandman70gt, mustanggt, Pittstate03, Lazybones, Walkerguy21D, coinandcurrency242 , thebigeng, Collectorcoins, JimTyler, USMarine6, Elkevvo, Coll3ctor, Yorkshireman, CUKevin, ranshdow, CoinHunter4, bennybravo, Centsearcher, braddick, Windycity, ZoidMeister, mirabela, JJM, RichURich, Bullsitter, jmski52, LukeMarshall, coinsarefun, MichaelDixon, NickPatton, ProfLiz, Twobitcollector,Jesbroken oih82w8, DCW
Conservation good and a reality in the marketplace. Customers want coins which are brilliant, Wellstruck with nice Luster, PQ, little or no tarnish, no spots or dark areas. Heavily tarnished (toned) coins will trade at a discount. Putting a sticker on a coin heavily tarnished your blowing in the wind.
Fresh coins I am seeing either from online auction houses or from a wholesalers on the bourse have been run thru the conservation mill prior to slabbing and are brilliant and PQ.
I never cared for tarnished coins nor some gimmick or upsell is going to convince me otherwise.
Call some ugly piece of toned garbage “original” if you want but everybody knows your gonna be blowing in the wind selling it for a decent price.
Whatever you do don’t invest big money in coins without getting some good experience on the sell side of the ball. I have no sympathy for you if u don’t. You want to churn your portfilio too and get rid of pieces about go bad in the holder, take profits, expand, etc.
If a coin can be conserved to a "gradable" condition it should (if you want) be done. I see no problem with it. Most problems cannot be undone. Those deserve to stay ungradable.
The blurry thing is differentiating the science of numismatics from the "industry" of it.
The proper answer is "It depends on the coin and what is going to be done to it." Some coins should be properly conserved while many other coins are either improperly conserved and are harmed or they never needed conservation in the first place.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
I like original surfaces on my coins
JMHO, but you should probably be more concerned about the use of the term "original surfaces" than about the acknowledgment of a "conservation" having been performed on a coin(s). to my way of thinking, the former is deceptive while the latter is openly admitting what has been done.
a large number of our nicely toned coins with "original surfaces" have been previously dipped, it was a common practice in the 19th Century and into the 20th Century, we just have no way of knowing for certain. there have been enough instances where forum sleuths have linked old auction catalogues or pictures to prove this to be more than an Urban Myth. certainly there are 100+ year old coins which are 100% original, but there are also coins we have no way of knowing.
the take-away in today's world is that now we have professional services doing the work instead of back-alley amatuers and they are doing it openly.
I would be really interested in learning more about how collectors in the 19th century and early 20th cared for their coins and what they might have done to preserve them. I know that some had “cabinets” where they placed their coins for display. They were felt lined and I would imagine that that material interacted with the metal. Does anyone here know good reading material on early practices used to care for coins?
Thank you to all for chiming in and giving me a much better picture of these practices.
@BillJones "Dried sea crud on the surface of a coin is not attractive and could be detrimental to the long term preservation of the piece."
Many of the Central America coins were encased in a layer of iron from the ship which served to preserve the coins' surfaces. This was a fortunate chemical reaction that kept all the sea crud from damaging the surfaces. The iron was removed by non mechanical means exposing the pristine surfaces without damaging or altering them.
One must use caution when discussing 'original' surfaces. Any circulated coin no longer has 'original' skin/surface. Unless a coin has entered strict, controlled preservation directly from the mint, it is unlikely to maintain an original surface. Tarnish, crud, dings, scratches, oils, and bacteria, all happen when a coin circulates. Preservation is good, but applies to only a small segment of collectible coins. Conservation, when done by competent, skilled individuals, prevents further degradation of a coin, and in other cases, restores it's beauty. So, understanding that 'original' barely exists (except newly minted coins or those preserved), accept the fact that coins have all been 'messed with' simply because they have 'circulated' -either in commerce or the numismatic field. And 'messed with' includes any handling, not just attempts at cleaning. I apologize to purists for bursting the 'bubble' of originality. Cheers, RickO
Coin is raw in my 7070.
Does lacquer cause any long-term damage? Playing devils adequate, isn't leaving the lacquer on doing a better job of conserving as it is providing some protection. Why take it off?
Yes lacquer protects the coin; however if a spot was missed...yuck. It may eventually turn a different color.
Coatings that were placed on coins in former times have fallen out of favor. Coatings are removed so the coin will not get a "detail" grade.
Altered surface coins are worth little more than melt. Tough to dip without a metal loss.
Perhaps you should clarify your post by being more specific. As it stands, it is not true.
Good discussion.
It's amusing to me that the coins we usually describe as "original" look nothing like they did when they first left the mint and actually were original. Flashy red copper and blast white silver = true originality.
For me, I ask "Is it plausible that this coin passed from its creation to the present time without being boinked?" If so, it's a candidate for my collection. Sometimes secondary toning from an old dip can be quite attractive. As long as the luster and surfaces are decent, I'll chase them too.
I'm a sucker for pretty toners though.
Great thread!
My YouTube Channel
How would each of you handle a copper coin, slabbed as MS63 BN, CAC'd, and then turned in the holder?
$500 coin.........is not junk.
Sent in to try to save the coin, ended up with $100 bill and a cleaned coin, slabbed the same, but, obviously, no CAC sticker either.
original can have different meanings, I like the ones mentioned by RickO and BryceM except that they are too restrictive in general use. I think we each need to have a working definition of "original" that fits us as collectors. I view a Mint State or Proof coin that has had nothing done to it as original. Morgan Dollars that were stored in bags and are toned or brilliant would be original. more Modern issues stored in rolls or still in Mint packaging would be original. I also tend to think that circulated coins which suffer the fate ascribed by RickO, tarnish, crud, dings, scratches, oils, and bacteria are original in the sense that they should look that way.
I tend to shy away from using the original moniker, in principal it tends to mean I know what the history of a specific coin is and that is almost never the case. most often I have to presume what has been done to a coin to get it from when it was struck to me looking at it in the condition it's in.
How did it turn? Brown is the bottom.
I've been guilty of "dipping" a few coins and submitting it in for grading. Luckily it received numerical grading !!!
There's a Braided Large Cent at the coin shop I go to that I found while rummaging in one of his boxes he normally doesn't have out on display, it's the coins he has in waiting once display slots open up. I discovered it has funky stuff all over it which he inspected at said looked like PVC. He said he would "clean" it to take remove and stabilize the coin so it won't keep growing and I could have first shot at it if I'm still interested. I guess you could say this would be an appropriate use of conservation.
Collector of randomness. Photographer at PCGS. Lover of Harry Potter.
Like most topics regarding opinion," IF" is the controlling factor. If it is damaged, if it has potential harm, if it looks better, if it becomes more marketable. I sent one coin to be conserved and I wished I had left it alone. "If" I hadn't it might have become too toned, who knows for sure. 1890 Liberty Seated Dime Proof before and after conservation.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
Stuff happens. Next time sell the coin as is. I've heard that many copper coins are being destroyed at the conservation services. If the wrong tech gets your coin....
$100 to conserve a coin?
Insider has provided very much valuable information in this thread. I would like to add an important caveat. To paraphrase, while there are telltale microscopic clues that a coin has been conserved, it done properly, very few people, if anyone, would know it.
The problem is that time is not your friend, and what might look well and good to you now might turn in the holder years later. I had a Draped Bust Half Cent in MS 65 BN which looked fine and sold to me by one of the most reputable people in the business, start to turn in holder and develop small green PVC by the date eight years after I bought it. Fortunately, I was able to unload the coin as is and not take a financial hit.
For this reason, I will not buy a pre Unc. 1815 copper unless it's in an OGH. That means I'll probably never buy one.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
For this reason, I will not buy a pre Unc. 1815 copper unless it's in an OGH. That means I'll probably never buy one
this is the unrealized value of Condor101's book. also, the day will come when there is a clear line for collectors as far as time in a holder is concerned, both with PCGS and NGC: pre-prong holders will be the new OGH. in fact, let me now start that and take credit for the abbreviation --- PPH!!!
Would someone clearly define "conservation" in relation to collectible coins?
Coin was a perfect BN (read that MILK CHOCOLATE PERFECT BROWN).........started to develop a haze on the surfaces, which proceeded to get worse, turning some portions flaky off white haze.
Did not want to lose the coin while in the holder and elected for conservation.
Now, I am the owner of a cleaned brown copper coin. Yes, still in a slab.........but nobody would buy this coin, even at half of market.
@Elcontador said: "The problem is that time is not your friend, and what might look well and good to you now might turn in the holder years later."
And this boys and girls is the reason why I stopped buying/collecting original BU Red Lincoln cents in 1968!
@acloco said: "Coin was a perfect BN (read that MILK CHOCOLATE PERFECT BROWN).........started to develop a haze on the surfaces, which proceeded to get worse, turning some portions flaky off white haze."
We all know that Copper is very reactive. These coins can turn even in holders. Stand a distance away and watch a Large Cent dealer set up at a show. Many brush their coins to "freshen" their surface. Conserving a copper coin can be a crap shoot. It is something I would only entrust to just a few people.
The good thing is when you pay to have any coin conserved by the same company that slabbed it in the first place, in most cases the grade will stay the same no matter how the coin turns out.
@RogerB said: "Would someone clearly define "conservation" in relation to collectible coins?"
LOL, You go first!
I think a lot of the anti-conservation views come from an incomplete view of originality IMHO. Originality is not a binary trait but a full spectrum ranging from never, ever touched (rare to non-existent for most rare issues) to grossly altered with varying degrees in between. There is also an eye appeal spectrum and the two intersect. The holy grail for a coin for me is one that is completely original and that is very eye appealing. Those don't always exist or may not be readily available; thus, every decision is a trade-off between varying degrees of originality and eye appeal.
Applying this to this thread, I am okay with conservation insofar as it preserves a coin or prevents a decline in its quality over time. I am also okay with some techniques that go beyond mere conservation such as an old dip. The key for me is market acceptability and the degree of originality. A coin that is harshly cleaned/damaged/repaired, etc., will never be acceptable to me as I view each action as only inflicting further significant damage to the coin. A coin that was dipped properly long ago and that has nicely retoned is acceptable as long as the coin wasn't significantly damaged (i.e. dipped out/muted luster).
I think some of the guys on eBay have beat you by using the coinage "old blue holder." Sadly there is a reason to view some of the older blue holders with nostalgia in the way that OGH were during that era.
I'm sure my definition will prove inferior, but here goes:
Any method employed to arrest corrosive or otherwise damaging processes to a coin's surface and to prevent a decline in future quality that does not involve inflicting significant damage to a coin.
I thought of one last night as I lay in bed waiting to fall asleep. Unfortunately, I forgot it but it wll come back to me later. This was the beginning:
Conservation is an alteration made to a coin's surface...
What about steel cents that are starting to have a reaction between the zinc and steel?
Should they be conserved by reprocessing or left to rot?
Should reprocessed steel cents be re-plated with zinc or lightly coated in oil?