Serious ? Not trying to start something...what is it really with Doctored Coins

mnmcoin

I have a bet with someone and we are trying to figure it out.

What is it really about doctored coins, whether it be at, puttied, thumbed, whatever that is so taboo.

Is it just that the thing is not "original" or is it that we/you are afraid the coin is going to melt or change or whatever in five years...or what really is it.

After the results, I will post another topic regarding this, that is a spinoff.

thanks for your input...fire away!!!

mo <><

KlectorKid

I would say its not origanal any1 can make a doctored coin with a little help and some time but u can never bring an old coin back from the past...

Bear

Since most collectors coins are not covered under their medical plan or HMO, I guess they fear

that doctoring the coin could lead to expensive medical complications

for the coin. In fact, its quite possible that the coin could expire.

BNE

Two things:

First: investing in a coin based on a price that would be appropriate if the coin genuinely was what it appeared to be, and then having the putty (or whatever) fall off, color turn, etc., destroying the investment.

Second: (As Laura said) ruining perfectly good coins through clumsy "improvement" efforts.

The latter offends our aesthetics and the "purity" of the hobby.

The former hurts our wallets.

That's why it's first.

paigowjohnny

What is taboo is :

A moderately experienced collector (me) pays $325 for a raw 1879-CC clear CC Morgan dollar in XF

I loupe it, look at it 6 ways to Sunday, am buying from a reputable dealer, and can't tell anything wrong.

I send it in for grading...I get body bagged for cleaning. It's now at ANACS, and if I get what I expect, I'll get a net VF 20 or so for cleaning. My $325 coin is now maybe $100.

Maybe cleaning isn't doctoring by the standard being talked about here...but any "altered coin" will eventually be found out, no matter how good it is...and somebody is gonna eat a significant investment...and worse, is depressed every time they now look at that coin in their collection.

I hear the chorus now...only buy slabbed coins then. Well, even the experts get fooled some time.

That's what is taboo...in my opinion.

KlectorKid

im with bear try link to insurance plan

ccr

Maybe the expense of putting thru medical school? Harvard is possibly $20,000+ a year......

Ok Ok on a seriuos note it`s sort of/kind of like if you bought a Picasso for $5,000,000. Would you A) want it painted "as it is" from the hand of Picasso himself. Restored, that is " it`s still from the artist himself" but got some of the dirt and grime that usually develops over time wipped away. C) Someone decided to put a few brush strokes on it so it`s hard for the average art enthusist tell the difference. D) A repoduction.

These are generalizations but, it depends on what you want. Some are picky and particular and some don`t care. It`s a mystery to me alot of the time figuring out what other people like and don`t like.

nwcs

Well, it is my opinion that most classic coinage out there (pre 1964) that is in higher grades have been manipulated to some degree. Originality is a nice thing. Doctoring, though, I take to be the intentional deception of a coin's true condition. Like putting a towel over a rust spot on a car so the buyer won't see it. That's why I don't want doctored coins. Even some AT coins can be pretty, but I don't want them.

The guy on the AT video was talking about coin shows and said that in the bathrooms you'll always find dealers dipping their coins or AT-ing them.

Dog97

The originality is the key issue with me.

roadrunner

They use putty on cars too. Bondo buried under the paint looks good for a few months or years after the job is done and the sale gets made. But it starts to look like crud way too soon. The car buyer wasn't aware he was buying bondo but rather a metal car with good paint. Same for coins, antiques, paper money, stamps, books, etc. You want the original surfaces, patina, paint, etc. Not someone else's idea of what it should be. Many top collectors strive to find those ultra original surfaces and pay dearly for them. Original is almost always more highly favored and priced over doctored.

roadrunner

dorkkarl

for what i collect (high grade bust, copper), originality is a moot point. i firmly believe 95% of all unc bust coins are cleaned (dipped, whatever you call it).



<< <i>What is it really about doctored coins, whether it be at, puttied, thumbed, whatever that is so taboo....are afraid the coin is going to melt or change or whatever in five years >>

you got it. putty will continue to etch a coin's surface, as will the oils from thumbing, as will the non-neutralized coin dip. so at the profit of a few meaningless dollars, a coin is permanently defaced.

K S

CLASSICS

doctoring a coin, to enhance its looks, and to raise its price, and then selling it to someone, is wrong. plain and simple.........

Gilbert

Actually, plain and simple ... it's DECEPTION.

dorkkarl

<< <i>doctoring a coin, to enhance its looks, and to raise its price, and then selling it to someone, is wrong. plain and simple......... >>

again, i think valid exceptions are damaged coins, provided the enhancement is disclosed. holed coins are a good example.

K S

Steve27

"is it just that the thing is not "original" or is it that we/you are afraid the coin is going to melt or change or whatever in five years...or what really is it."

With doctored coins I believe the real fear is that the coin will change with time. Look at Laura's (Legend's) problem, she bought a high grade coin with great eye appeal which then changed while in the slab. based on the review from PCGS indicating that the grade did not change, one can only assume that the grade was still technically correct, but the eye appeal was greatly diminished; thus, so was the value.

keets

hello morris

it drives at originality for me and it's tied in with the issue of market grading with the color enhanced coins and just the technical grade with coins altered to mask detracting features. the risk, of course, is that at some future time there is a change in the coins appearance or detection by someone knowledgeable in how the coin has been altered. and that gets right to the heart of the issue which is money.

secondary for me is that when a coin has been altered and the results are poor it essentially takes it out of the "mainstream" for collectors, or at least it should. i've had coins body-bagged for cleaning, color and AT. to date only one is no longer in my possession and that was a coin i purchased from the local dealer with the contingency that it be graded as genuine. it was not, so he retained ownership and still had the coin as of last week. he keeps a display of counterfiet and doctored coins prominently displayed on one of his cases.

that's sort of a mental-hotfoot for me, what's done with a coin that is known to be "counterfiet" which is in effect what doctored coins are if we cut out all the semantic BS. there is something improper from my lofty perch about moving a doctored coin on down the line as genuine. the issue that got this current round of threads going, the legend coin, is a sad tale indeed. but really, if they raise the issue of doctoring and then move the coin along, well, it just doesn't make sense to me. even if it's represented truthfully it moves on to be represented as genuine by a subsequent owner. maybe.

this should be a real test for PCGS. they have in effect certified a counterfiet coin as genuine. they need to do the right thing and take that coin out of circulation. but, we as collectors need to do the same.

al h.

MikeSettles

I'm somewhere in the middle on this.

I agree that adding to a coin, like puttying, plating or chemical toning is basically no different than counterfitting.

Removing from a coin, so that what remains was originally there, like cleaning, is not deceptive.

Exposing a coin to a natural environment that coins in the past have been exposed to produce a desired effect is also OK.

If some great toning comes from storage in certain folders, what is the difference between coins stored there by collectors who did not know what would happen and coins stored there by collectors who DID know what would happen and wanted it to happen.

Also, IMHO, exposing coins to an environment that many coins are exposed on a regular basis is not fraudulent.

Example: I find a copper coin that has glue or paint on it. I clean the paint off and the coin looks improper for it's age. I set it outside till it looks right and then keep it. The coin may have lost some surface content from the cleaning, but coins lose surface content from circulation as well. Coins are often exposed to the weather during their life as in my example. Therefore what is wrong with this coin? It is true that the coin suffers some damage from this process, but I would rather own an EF40 with natural looking tone than an AU50 with paint on it.

DesertLizard

One heck of a question!

Well, doctored coins when done for profits by $$$ driven sellers are essentially presenting something that is not genuine. Hence ARTIFICIALLY Toned.

But then again what do I know! I think you had better ask Laura Legend what the big deal is, she is in a better position to know at the moment.

BlueCole

i'm cheap, so i mostly buy circ stuff, and proof sets still in the package. So i don't worry about doctoring.

B.

BNE

Morris: who won the bet, and what was it?

keets

BNE

.....and such a good point you raise!!!! i went back to cut/paste from my own post!! what was the bet, morris??

and that gets right to the heart of the issue which is money.

al h.

mnmcoin

Here is the scoop...

I was having a conversation with a fellow dealer as to what it is about "manipulated" coins, that being toned, thumbed, puttied whatever. I have just recently become dealing with coins full time about five years now and still am trying to grasp the real concept of what are the ideal coin characteristics. Some of the options lie between originality, eye appeal, luster, rarity, desirability, marketability, etc. The list probably could go on forever. Anyway, in my experience people always place originality and eye appeal at the head of the class. Again, not having what I feel is sufficient experience to state diffinitively the numero uno ideal coin characteristic (maybe there really isn't just on diffinitive answer really, but my analness won't simply allow that conclusion) I am left to discussing it with other fellow more experienced numismatics. The basis for the conversation is half this and half based on a possible immature thought process going on in my head that is simply, if the coin is better looking (just like dipping) who cares. Really there is more to that thought, but for time sakes that is just a summary.

That is the backround of the conversation. Well it came down to what I feal is the ultimate desired coin characteristic being eye appeal, which again spawns the idea that if a coin looks better with artificial toning on it what is the harm. Which is what he brought up, there is no guarantee the coin is going to look that way in ten years.

Blah, blah, blah...more slightly insignificant conversation that is not pertinant and the challenge was laid down. I just feel that like most of the grading services, people ultimitaly don't really care if the coin is original just as long as it looks nice and doesn't melt, and he feels that the concept of originality is the key.

Which brings up two examples that must be compared...the first being physical appearances of humans ie plastic surgery et al. and the restoration of cars is the second. We Americans love our women "fixed" or our hair "fixed" etc. hey its not original but it sure looks good. No matter what you do to a 1957 Chevy Bel Air restoration wise, it is still not the "original" car that came of the assembly line 45 years ago, but yet thousands of people collect and live that life.

So what is it about coins that differs, or am I right?

FIRE AWAY!!!

mo <><

keets

hello morris

i'll go out on a limb here and tell you that with women when it really matters, i'll take original. i even prefer my girlfriend when she wears the bare minimum (you bet!!!) of make up. i never have been a big fan of all the prissy women you see around. the perfect example of an AT'd woman for me is Cher. i will admit she is much improved over what she was, but really, nothing is real. face, boobs, butt and who knows what else. that just doesn't work for me. but then, i think we should all take a bath or at least a good rinse, if you catch my drift!!

al h.

dorkkarl

a coin can never be uncleaned. so the # of original coins can only decrease over time, as coin doctors continue to dip morgan dollars & walking halves, whiz AU small cents to make them look unc (gee XF details, but full cartwhel luster....), etc. etc. so i don't see how you could ever go wrong buying originals. i'll admit that i do buy fancy colored stuff too, just cause i like it, but the bottom line is that you just can't go wrong w/ original coins.

sadly, many series, like bust dollars & halves, have so many cleaned coins, that you sometimes have to settle for "as close as possible" to original.

K S

MikeSettles

I think one of the problems is collectors paying a premium for attributes that have nothing to do with the original coin. Why pay an exessive premium for a coin that happened to be subjected to an environment that turned it colors never intended for the coin. If collectors didn't, the coin toners wouldn't make any money.

There are other silly attributes as well. Pedegree's are one. Who cares who collected the coin. It's the same as thousands of other that came from the mint. If some famous person made the coin by hand, like a sculpure or other piece of art, OK.

What kind of premium would you add to a circulated quarter spent by Elvis for a jelly donut. Yes the rarity factor would apply as it does in moster toning, but there is no way (apparently) to prove absolute authenticity so buyer beware.

If you love the coin because of its color, then buy it. If you are paying a premium for the rarity of its color, then you would probably be better off buying a rarity that can be proven.

pmh1nic

MikeSettles

What constitutes "silly attributes" is in the eye of the beholder. I also might define originality more broadly than you. When discussing originality the toning that has taken place on most bust coinage is a testament to and has become part of the coins originality. These coins were made and have survived through a period of time when the modern climate control require to prevent toning didn't exist. Finding a coin from this period that isn't toned is in most cases a sure sign that the coin has been doctored (dipped). The toning these coins acquired has become in my mind part of the coin's originality. If the toning happens to be attractive that, coupled with the "original surfaces," warrants a premium (IMHO).

As far as pedigrees go there are a few historic and one of a kind collections that are worth a modest premium to me (Eliasberg would be one). That said the premiums paid during the highly publicized first auctions don't seem to hold up over the long run so you have to exercise some self-control and not get caught up in the bidding frenzy. Then again the really big money coins are purchased by collectors that in many cases don't really care about spending an extra $10,000 or $100,000+ for a coin they want.

BNE

Those are really interesting thoughts, Morris!

I think there probably is a wide, wide variety of collector opinion on the points you raised. Your comment about, "if it looks cool, and is "done well," who cares?" does really strike home. Since I've moved into collecting raw buffs (which is an area where you find a whole lot more "well who the hell knows what THAT is"-type coins), I've found myself confronting the issue for the first time.

Where I've drawn the line for myself is that I am somewhat "comfortable" with coins that are "questionable" -- that is, where you really, really go back and forth and ask yourself: "AT or not?" -- IF the coin is a relatively common coin (so I don't feel bad that someone might have impaired a semi-rare coin) and I don't pay an excessive premium for the color.

With raw, cheaper coins, which I have no intent to slab, and just like to gaze at in a Dansco album, I can appreciate crazy-colored "wonder-if" coins.

mnmcoin

<< <i>I think one of the problems is collectors paying a premium for attributes that have nothing to do with the original coin. pay an exessive premium for a coin that happened to be subjected to an environment that turned it colors never intended for the coin. collectors didn't, the coin toners wouldn't make any money.

There are other silly attributes as well. Pedegree's are one. Who cares who collected the coin. It's the same as thousands of other that came from the mint. If some famous person made the coin by hand, like a sculpure or other piece of art, OK.

What kind of premium would you add to a circulated quarter spent by Elvis for a jelly donut. Yes the rarity factor would apply as it does in moster toning, but there is no way (apparently) to prove absolute authenticity so buyer beware.

If you love the coin because of its color, then buy it. If you are paying a premium for the rarity of its color, then you would probably be better off buying a rarity that can be proven. >>



I guess the reason is the old economic benchmark of supply and demand. Ifthere is little supply (really toners are like snowflakes, in that for the most part two coins very rarely look the same) and you have even just two people, which is more like 10-15 people that want that one coin, that is how premiums are paid. Besides coin docs that tone rare coins would still do it if there is no premium persay paid for toned coins, because it is a well known fact that both major services can and will bump a coin from 64 to 65 and from 66 to 67 on a coin in which hides a nick or abrasion keeping from the next grade in brilliant white (where every mark shows) or adds the neccessary eye appeal to go to the next grade. Premium or not for common coins, which in my opinion is not the bid deal as people are paying for the color, that generally stays that way...my problem is with coins like Laura at Legend, where a coin is doctored in a way that deteriates or hides a flaw that is latter exposed.

thanks for all the comments, I am so glad I started this thread here...I have heard some really great stuff.

mo <><

nwcs

<< <i>What kind of premium would you add to a circulated quarter spent by Elvis for a jelly donut. Yes the rarity factor would apply as it does in moster toning, but there is no way (apparently) to prove absolute authenticity so buyer beware. >>

On the other hand, consider a quarter known to have been handled by Abraham Lincoln or a gold $10 given by George Washington to someone? Provenance can add a significant premium. But ultimately it is who the coin is connected with that matters. That a coin was once in a collection of someone named Jack Lee is insignificant to me. But a coin that once was (verifiably) handled by George III has added historical value beyond the numismatic value.