Conservation, Doctoring, Restoration, & Cleaning.
WWBillman
Posts: 900
CONSERVE: To prevent decay, waste, or loss of.
Where would we be today without conservation? What would have happened to all our historical artifacts? Where would the flag that flew during The Battle of Baltimore and was Francis Key Scott’’s inspiration for the Star Spangled Banner be today if not for conservation? Conservation is a good thing if done correctly in the best interest of the item being conserved. Without conservation we would have no need for museums as everything would have already deteriorated and disappeared forever. A professional educated in the methods of conversation in his respective field will tell you his first responsibility is to the artifact. He owes no allegiance to the owner and has no interest in financial gains beyond receiving compensation for being responsible and performing his job to the best of his ability. Why should coins be excluded from this? Are coins not artifacts (an object made by human beings, one belonging to an earlier time or culture stage)? Are coins not a part of our history that deserves our care and preservation to ensure they exist for the generations to come? NCS is such a company dedicated to doing just that. They choose to NOT conserve a large percentage of the coins submitted. Why? Because their first responsibility is to the coin not the submitter paying the fees.
I sent NCS an originally toned PCGS MS64 1861 Indian Cent that had 2 distracting spots on the obverse. I knew if those spots were not there it would have a shot at MS65 and be much more desirable. Guess what? NCS refused to conserve it. Why because they were concerned it would have a negative affect producing an unnatural color on the coin. Did they care about making me happy? Did they care about making the coin more aesthetically pleasing? NO, all they cared about was the coin.
RESTORE – To bring back to a former condition, not original.
Is restoration needed in the coin hobby? Yes. Why, there are a lot of coins with major historical significance that have almost completely disappeared. What a shame it would be to lose these artifacts forever to never be enjoyed by future generations. A holed or otherwise damaged coin may be monetarily less desirable but it has not lost its historical value and even though they can never be restored to their original condition they should not be discarded. There is nothing wrong with restoring these pieces provided it is fully disclosed as to what was done. If inserted into a slab by a third party grading service it should be disclosed on the holder and at most receive a net grade.
DOCTOR – To tamper with.
There is a big difference between conserving and doctoring. A doctor has no concern for the item he is toying with. His bottom line is profit derived from fraudulent acts with no regard to the long-term effects on the coin or its historical significance. Money is his only motivator and everything he does has but one goal, more money. He is self-serving and will go to any extreme to further his goal. He is a parasite within the hobby and could cares less about the damage he is inflicting on the coins. He uses harsh methods to disguise small imperfections, alter, or enhance a coin to make it more appealing and create a false sense of desirability.
CLEANING – To make free from irregularity.
This is where it gets tricky. Dipping a coin “technically” could or could not be considered cleaning. Dipping if not done correctly can remove the flow lines/irregularities on a coins surface that produce the luster affect. It is done to remove contaminates and or oxidation from the surfaces that is damaging to the coin to stop the deterioration. I do not agree with the novice dipping a coin but left to a professional conservationist the damage is minuscule and has little effect on the flow lines/irregularities on a coins surface and luster. On the other hand harsh abrasive “cleaning” removes all the irregularities and completely alters a coins surfaces and definitely falls under the category of doctoring.
As someone once stated, “we as coin collectors do not own our coins rather we pay for the privilege to be the caretakers”. These coins will hopefully be here long after we die for the enjoyment of future generations. We as collectors will not always agree on everything but I think we can all agree that it is our responsibility to care for and protect our coins to the best of our abilities. Helping, educating and protecting each other is imperative for us to achieve that goal. Zero tolerance for the parasites within the hobby is a must.
All definitions given are mine and are based on how I understand the terms to apply to coins.
AND of course this is all just my humble opinion.
Where would we be today without conservation? What would have happened to all our historical artifacts? Where would the flag that flew during The Battle of Baltimore and was Francis Key Scott’’s inspiration for the Star Spangled Banner be today if not for conservation? Conservation is a good thing if done correctly in the best interest of the item being conserved. Without conservation we would have no need for museums as everything would have already deteriorated and disappeared forever. A professional educated in the methods of conversation in his respective field will tell you his first responsibility is to the artifact. He owes no allegiance to the owner and has no interest in financial gains beyond receiving compensation for being responsible and performing his job to the best of his ability. Why should coins be excluded from this? Are coins not artifacts (an object made by human beings, one belonging to an earlier time or culture stage)? Are coins not a part of our history that deserves our care and preservation to ensure they exist for the generations to come? NCS is such a company dedicated to doing just that. They choose to NOT conserve a large percentage of the coins submitted. Why? Because their first responsibility is to the coin not the submitter paying the fees.
I sent NCS an originally toned PCGS MS64 1861 Indian Cent that had 2 distracting spots on the obverse. I knew if those spots were not there it would have a shot at MS65 and be much more desirable. Guess what? NCS refused to conserve it. Why because they were concerned it would have a negative affect producing an unnatural color on the coin. Did they care about making me happy? Did they care about making the coin more aesthetically pleasing? NO, all they cared about was the coin.
RESTORE – To bring back to a former condition, not original.
Is restoration needed in the coin hobby? Yes. Why, there are a lot of coins with major historical significance that have almost completely disappeared. What a shame it would be to lose these artifacts forever to never be enjoyed by future generations. A holed or otherwise damaged coin may be monetarily less desirable but it has not lost its historical value and even though they can never be restored to their original condition they should not be discarded. There is nothing wrong with restoring these pieces provided it is fully disclosed as to what was done. If inserted into a slab by a third party grading service it should be disclosed on the holder and at most receive a net grade.
DOCTOR – To tamper with.
There is a big difference between conserving and doctoring. A doctor has no concern for the item he is toying with. His bottom line is profit derived from fraudulent acts with no regard to the long-term effects on the coin or its historical significance. Money is his only motivator and everything he does has but one goal, more money. He is self-serving and will go to any extreme to further his goal. He is a parasite within the hobby and could cares less about the damage he is inflicting on the coins. He uses harsh methods to disguise small imperfections, alter, or enhance a coin to make it more appealing and create a false sense of desirability.
CLEANING – To make free from irregularity.
This is where it gets tricky. Dipping a coin “technically” could or could not be considered cleaning. Dipping if not done correctly can remove the flow lines/irregularities on a coins surface that produce the luster affect. It is done to remove contaminates and or oxidation from the surfaces that is damaging to the coin to stop the deterioration. I do not agree with the novice dipping a coin but left to a professional conservationist the damage is minuscule and has little effect on the flow lines/irregularities on a coins surface and luster. On the other hand harsh abrasive “cleaning” removes all the irregularities and completely alters a coins surfaces and definitely falls under the category of doctoring.
As someone once stated, “we as coin collectors do not own our coins rather we pay for the privilege to be the caretakers”. These coins will hopefully be here long after we die for the enjoyment of future generations. We as collectors will not always agree on everything but I think we can all agree that it is our responsibility to care for and protect our coins to the best of our abilities. Helping, educating and protecting each other is imperative for us to achieve that goal. Zero tolerance for the parasites within the hobby is a must.
All definitions given are mine and are based on how I understand the terms to apply to coins.
AND of course this is all just my humble opinion.
Bill
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
0
Comments
Another reason is the spots that are on there probably have eaten into the coins surface, and probaby had been "conserved" in the past. And possibly the spots have come back. So IMO I don't feel they chose not to work on your coin because they really cared about the coin, just the thing called CYA. This is just my opinion here.
Edited to add: Do we really have any long term studies to say what NCS is doing is not harming the coin. Maybe this could be "doctoring also.
First of all the coin was a PCGS MS64 for whatever that is worth. It had never been dipped or tampered with. I suspect the spots were due to some ignorant spitting all over it. The coin exhibited a natural toneing. NCS choose not to conserve it due to to the toning, afraid conservation would end in the coin having an un-natural color.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
2 minor thing i'd mention. (1) about your particular ms-64 ihc. my observation is that a couple of spots will not keep a ms-65 coin from grading ms-65. in fact, i've seen ms-65 coins that looked like they had measles. (2) dipping done to remove contaminants = good. dipping done to brighten a coin just to make $ = doctoring = bad.
imho.
keep up the terrific posts!
K S
WWBillman,
Thank you for this very interesting and intelligent thread. A pleasure to read!
<< <i>Bill -- enjoyed the post. When you break it down maybe the only difference between NCS and the Coin Dr. is accountablity >>
Don't think I would agree with that. NCS does not putty over marks, create toning or even care about the coin. Once they get their money out of it they could care less if it rusts away.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
I might share an experience with NCS that was disappointing. I sent them an MS Canadian coin that I had purchased new over 40 years ago. It had been improperly stored and developed a milky haze that was very displeasing. I took it to NCS at a major show and they agreed that it could be improved. I sent it in and many weeks later it returned essentially unchanged in appearance. I paid the bill for conservation and slabing but there was no note about what they did or didn't do and why? I would have no problem if they analyzed the situation decided against conservation and told me why or tried and failed and explained the situation. This was my NCS trial baloon and I was disappointed because of the absence of feedback!
That is unusual, when I got mine back they had attached a note explaining why they refused to conserve it.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
<< <i>I sent them an MS Canadian coin that I had purchased new over 40 years ago .... It had developed a milky haze...NCS ...agreed that it could be improved. I sent it in and ...it returned essentially unchanged in appearance >>
hey trime, is it possible that all they did was neutralize the film? i agree that they provided poor svc. if they did'nt give some kind of explanation of what's going on.
K S