My main point in this discussion isn't whether conserving is good or bad, right or wrong. I strongly believe that the fact that a coin or car or painting or piece of antique funiture has been conserved should be plainly stating when selling an item so that the potential buyer can decide what affect the conservation has on his determination of the market value.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
Speaking of the originality of coins......I personally attended the sale of the Louis Eliasberg as well as the Childs collection.Some of the late seated coinage and the Barber coinage was purchased directly from the mint.Even the coin doctors were baffled as there was nothing they could do to improve the coins.Mint state Barber coinage......ms68 PERFECT.......Unadulterated Gold Coins.....Blazing white Morgan dollars that were never dipped
Condition Rareties of the highest order.....Because there are so many more coin collectors today than there were 100 years ago,some collectors think a 1963 D Lincoln cent is a RARE coin in ms67 red.How our values change.What about a full red 1864 "L' proof Indian cent in full red.
You cannot put lacquer on a copper coin and then twenty years later remove the lacquer and say the coin is "Original".The coin has been doctored.(oops Conserved)The coin becomes a lighter color because the skin is stripped and usually there is a iridescent film on the coin
Stewart - Your first paragraph made me salivate. Rare coins direct from the mint. In pristine condition after more then 150 years. Ahhhhh those were the years for real coin collecting. Of course having a lot of money and influence didnt hurt while the rest of the nation was struggling to eat.
That's not going to happen PMH. It never happened with dipped coins, or coin cared coins, or camel brushed coins..................none of those processes were ever disclosed, and I don't think they will in the near future. I agree with your idea of disclosure, I just don't think it's realistic. I mean, you can't even get coins that have been obviously cleaned to be notated as such when they go to auction. We're a long way away from 'disclosure". The other thing is I don't believe, from what I've seen anyways, that the processes that NCS uses, are all that drastic. I could be wrong, but I have seen them increase eye appeal on certain coins, but not do enough "work" to change color designations, for example. The nickel coins I sent in had the "gunk" removed, and maybe an extremely light dip. Nothing drastic, believe me. I was expecting more. The eye appeal of the coins was increased, but the technical grades stayed the same. Same with a proof two cent piece that I saw before and after. Nothing too heavy.
<< <i>a coin or car or painting or piece of antique funiture has been conserved should be plainly stating when selling an item so that the potential buyer can decide what affect the conservation has on his determination of the market value. >>
bigd5 is on the right track. "full disclosure" is an ideal that is, unforutnately, not possible to achieve. if a morgan dollar coin was cleaned in 1950 and allowed to retone, we might not be able to tell at all, so the coin would be sold as "original". however, if the "conservation" were known, sure it ought to be mentioned. what i'm trying to say is that, if a dealer offers a coin (or car or antique) for sale, doesn't mention anything about "conservation", but you think it's been cleaned (or waxed or restored, whatever), that DOES NOT mean the dealer is a scam artist or doing something wrong. it's simly a fact of life.
to the point of the original querstion, "What is the difference between a coin doctor and a coin conserver ?", it really is a moot point from the standpoint of "right" and "wrong", BUT let me put it this way.
a "conserver" would tell you , IF he knew, that something he's selling is "conserved". he might even say a coin was "original", simply because he didn't know better. a "coin doctor" would tell you the coin was "original", even if he just whizzed it last night.
hey, STEWARTBLAYNUMIS, forgot to compliment you on your post, and to thank you for giving us a glimpse at greatness. didn't get to attend any of the eliasberg sessions, but i did buy some of child's coins. actually, many of his coins were of average grade, but i know from 2nd hand reports that eliasberg had incredible stuff. was norweb comparable?
I understand that we can't turn back the clock and relabel all the slabbed coins that have been dipped or otherwise "improved" through conservation efforts. And maybe my thinking is pie in the sky. But if companies like NCS and others are going to sell this service above board and guarantee the results then coins they conserve should be noted as such IMHO. If they (the companies doing the conserving) are as good as they say they are (and as some on the board claim) and if this whole concept of originality is really just a fanciful concept held by a few misguided collectors then the fact that a coin has been conserved shouldn't have a significant bearing on the market value of a coin.
My sneaky suspicion is that many sellers understand the value a large number of collectors place on this concept of originality and they don't want to risk missing out the premium these collectors will pay for coins they believe meet this standard of originality by disclosing that the coins they're selling have been conserved.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
Comments
Speaking of the originality of coins......I personally attended the sale of the Louis Eliasberg as well as the Childs collection.Some of the late seated coinage and the Barber coinage was purchased directly from the mint.Even the coin doctors were baffled as there was nothing they could do to improve the coins.Mint state Barber coinage......ms68 PERFECT.......Unadulterated Gold Coins.....Blazing white Morgan dollars that were never dipped
Condition Rareties of the highest order.....Because there are so many more coin collectors today than there were 100 years ago,some collectors think a 1963 D Lincoln cent is a RARE coin in ms67 red.How our values change.What about a full red 1864 "L' proof Indian cent in full red.
You cannot put lacquer on a copper coin and then twenty years later remove the lacquer and say the coin is "Original".The coin has been doctored.(oops Conserved)The coin becomes a lighter color because the skin is stripped and usually there is a iridescent film on the coin
Stewart
In pristine condition after more then 150 years. Ahhhhh those were the years for real coin collecting.
Of course having a lot of money and influence didnt hurt while the rest of the nation was struggling to eat.
Bear
Camelot
The other thing is I don't believe, from what I've seen anyways, that the processes that NCS uses, are all that drastic. I could be wrong, but I have seen them increase eye appeal on certain coins, but not do enough "work" to change color designations, for example. The nickel coins I sent in had the "gunk" removed, and maybe an extremely light dip. Nothing drastic, believe me. I was expecting more. The eye appeal of the coins was increased, but the technical grades stayed the same. Same with a proof two cent piece that I saw before and after. Nothing too heavy.
LSCC#1864
Ebay Stuff
<< <i>a coin or car or painting or piece of antique funiture has been conserved should be plainly stating when selling an item so that the potential buyer can decide what affect the conservation has on his determination of the market value. >>
bigd5 is on the right track. "full disclosure" is an ideal that is, unforutnately, not possible to achieve. if a morgan dollar coin was cleaned in 1950 and allowed to retone, we might not be able to tell at all, so the coin would be sold as "original". however, if the "conservation" were known, sure it ought to be mentioned. what i'm trying to say is that, if a dealer offers a coin (or car or antique) for sale, doesn't mention anything about "conservation", but you think it's been cleaned (or waxed or restored, whatever), that DOES NOT mean the dealer is a scam artist or doing something wrong. it's simly a fact of life.
to the point of the original querstion, "What is the difference between a coin doctor and a coin conserver ?", it really is a moot point from the standpoint of "right" and "wrong", BUT let me put it this way.
a "conserver" would tell you , IF he knew, that something he's selling is "conserved". he might even say a coin was "original", simply because he didn't know better. a "coin doctor" would tell you the coin was "original", even if he just whizzed it last night.
K S
K S
I understand that we can't turn back the clock and relabel all the slabbed coins that have been dipped or otherwise "improved" through conservation efforts. And maybe my thinking is pie in the sky. But if companies like NCS and others are going to sell this service above board and guarantee the results then coins they conserve should be noted as such IMHO. If they (the companies doing the conserving) are as good as they say they are (and as some on the board claim) and if this whole concept of originality is really just a fanciful concept held by a few misguided collectors then the fact that a coin has been conserved shouldn't have a significant bearing on the market value of a coin.
My sneaky suspicion is that many sellers understand the value a large number of collectors place on this concept of originality and they don't want to risk missing out the premium these collectors will pay for coins they believe meet this standard of originality by disclosing that the coins they're selling have been conserved.
K S