cleaned---conserved and still ms65?

CLASSICS · February 22, 2003 10:16AM

so, if i have a certain grading company conserve the surface of a coin, a fancy word for cleaning, it can still be a ms65? so now i can go to a new car dealership, and buy a...{used car}...but the saleman says its a {previously owned car} only driven on sundays.... but now its been cleaned up to look like new..........so its new..........really? not in my book

any more thoughts

dwood · February 22, 2003 10:20AM

Again, I'd have to agree. If it isn't in the condition that it was when it left the Mint, how can it be "Mint State?"

CLASSICS · February 22, 2003 10:22AM

<< <i>Again, I'd have to agree. If it isn't in the condition that it was when it left the Mint, how can it be "Mint State?" >>

......yes, thats what iam saying, and yet i see a certain grading company doing just this..........

Lakesammman · February 22, 2003 10:23AM

Well, I have a great pattern that had a little PVC on it...NCS removed it....now it's a beautiful NGC P65. Think of it as a new car that was stored for 150 years, forgotten, but stored properly. Someone found it, blew off the dust and had it detailed - it's still a new, 0-mile car, although by now a classic. What's the difference?? Here's mine.

coinguy1 · February 22, 2003 10:29AM

Gentlemen, "mint state" is a term used to denote "uncirculated" (as opposed to circulated or Proof) on the 70 point grading scale. It does not necessarily mean "the condition that it was when it left the mint".

Coins can leave the mint as MS68's or whatever, get knocked around in a bag and become MS65's or such and such and still be "mint state."

A conserved coin is still "mint state" as long as it has not been circulated, even if it is not in the same condition as it was in when it left the mint or before it was conserved.

CLASSICS · February 22, 2003 10:31AM

<< <i>Well, I have a great pattern that had a little PVC on it...NCS removed it....now it's a beautiful NGC P65. Think of it as a new car that was stored for 150 years, forgotten, but stored properly. Someone found it, blew off the dust and had it detailed - it's still a new, 0-mile car, although by now a classic. What's the difference?? Here's mine.

>>

....................thats a good point, and a very nice coin..........but the cars surfaces are still original never repainted or touched-up.....

Lakesammman · February 22, 2003 10:32AM

Coinguy:

Agree....Imagine throwing a Rembrandt away because it had been "conserved"....Rediculous!

dwood · February 22, 2003 10:34AM

But if you've changed the appearance of a coin, for whatever reason, and in fact altered the coin itself (it is physically and chemically impossible to remove a layer of oxidation without removing some of the surface along with it), how can it be "Mint State?" Even if it has no signs of wear, it is not physically the way it was when it left the Mint (weight is different, luster is different, strength of the strike is different due to removing surface layers, eye appeal may be the same....funny that that is the only quality you cannot scientifically measure).

dwood · February 22, 2003 10:36AM

I never proposed throwing the coin away, but to me, it is now soiled, whether it looks it or not

CLASSICS · February 22, 2003 10:37AM

<< <i>Gentlemen, "mint state" is a term used to denote "uncirculated" (as opposed to circulated or Proof) on the 70 point grading scale. It does not necessarily mean "the condition that it was when it left the mint".

Coins can leave the mint as MS68's or whatever, get knocked around in a bag and become MS65's or such and such and still be "mint state."

A conserved coin is still "mint state" as long as it has not been circulated, even if it is not in the same condition as it was in when it left the mint or before it was conserved. >>

...............mark i understand what you are saying.........yes mint state is used to denote uncirculated........this 1 to 70 scale was invented by sheldon, a collector and a well known dealer........... true, coins can leave the mint in many diffrent ways, ..........a conserved coin that has had it original surface changed...it no longer original...it has been changed......maybe we should have the grading companies denote....original surfaces. not conserved........

Lakesammman · February 22, 2003 10:41AM

I see your point....should have just let the PVC have it's way and let the coin rot......but, since at the time it was a unique pattern, just couldn't bear to see it happen!

CLASSICS · February 22, 2003 10:51AM

<< <i>I see your point....should have just let the PVC have it's way and let the coin rot......but, since at the time it was a unique pattern, just couldn't bear to see it happen! >>

................no, not at all, but only because it was a rare pattern, what maybe just a few known? like a rare car ,or a painting....because it is rare........but it still has been conserved.....changed....... it is no longer original.......it has been conserved.....

DHeath · February 22, 2003 11:36AM

Ron, the car was washed.

OT- But Original is a questionable choice of words. I'd use unmolested. A coin with 150 years of patina(corrosion) is not any more original than a conserved coin by definition.

Original - according to Websters

Adj. relating to or belonging to an origin or beginning, the original plans were not changed

not copied - an original work by Cezanne

inventive,creative - an original mind

designating something from which a copy has been made - let us look at the original

n. model - the model or archtype that has been copied, translated

old-fashioned - a person who is eccentric

nwcs · February 22, 2003 11:48AM

A coin isn't a car, so no analogy outside the numismatic realm is adequate. The only relevant question is whether the industry as a whole accepts that conservation does not automatically drop a coin to AU.

dwood · February 22, 2003 12:02PM

I don't think Ron was saying the grade should be dropped to AU, and I know I wasn't. But there should be some designation that a coin is either original, or it isn't. The crux of this is whether or not dipping renders the coin "altered" and therefore not original. I think it does, but that is my opinion only. Evidently, it's an opinion shared by more than a few.

roadrunner · February 22, 2003 12:12PM

The services could not come close to guaranteeing whether a coin had been conserved or not or had original surfaces. They assess the overall market value with a grade and that's all. Their liability would go way if they started adding "OS" on labels for orig surfaces.
Would they know for sure if it was ever cleaned or touched up during the past 50, 100 or 150 years? Coins can retone fairly heavily even after a cleaning, dipping, conservation, etc.

It's one thing to say a coin is an MS 65 (i.e. MS 64.5 to MS 65.9......a point and a half range) and a whole 'nother story to say unequivocably "original surfaces" or "unconserved."

roadrunner

michael · February 22, 2003 2:10PM

it depends on what the coin looks like now!

if within my speciality i would need to see the SPECIFIC coin sight seen in person and then i can tell you either way!

sincerely michael

Gilbert · February 22, 2003 2:35PM

Boy, I'll bet you had a fit, and still do, with recovered coins.

Classics,

You do realize that all conservation isn't merely dipping, I hope.

DWood,

Do you really believe that a fortuitous dip would remove enough material for 1) the weight to change a detectable amount 2) to affect the strike of a coin. Have you ever dipped or observed a coin being dipped? And even if the change in weight is detectable, I doubt it would even render the coin out of tolerance, so

without directly observing a coin being dipped, just exactly what is so distressing to you about it - besides limiting the amount of toned coins at a particular time?

dorkkarl · February 22, 2003 9:20PM

a coin can be "conserved" & still be 100% original.

suppose i spill coffee on a blast-white 1992 quarter in ms-65. i decide to rinse it off w/ distilled water. is the coin still original? i would claim "yes".

K S

dwood · February 22, 2003 10:28PM

Gilbert,
It's semantics. I KNOW that ANY dip will change the weight of the coin, and I'd be happy to prove it to you, if there is a reward worth the effort and expense it would entail

The problem is we are embroiled in a hobby that is an art, and not a science. The fact that the very essence of a coin's collectibility lies in the collector's emotion and "eye appeal," (two unmeasurable qualities) mandates that the terms used must take on alternative definitions. "Original" has a market accepted definition, as do "mint state," "genuine," "artificial" and other such terms. If we use the generally accepted definitions of those terms (outside of Numismatics), NOTHING would ever qualify for any of them.

Since the value of a coin is directly tied to the artistic merit it displays (another entirely subjective quality), we have constantly struggled over what is, and what is not, "a beautiful coin." All one has to do is look at the battle between Joe and Adrian to see that there is a problem with how we qualify a coin. Whatever one's personal feelings are about Joe and Adrian, they are two well respected experts, with the credentials and the experience to back it up. One sees a coin as "beautiful," while the other calls it "junk."

So it's an art, not a science. Fine and good. But there is also a financial element, and people need more concrete, MEASURABLE qualifiers when dealing with money than they do with art itself, so we developed 3rd party grading services as well as a grading scale to give some substance to the hobby. However, the intrinsic pitfalls are still there. It is an ART, and not a SCIENCE, yet we still want to heavily weight the financial value in the overall worth of the coin. Given that, a scientific measurement is mandated, or a broad sense of latitude and tolerance for each individual's perception must be adopted. The latter isn't going to happen, as evidenced daily on these forums.

"You can't tell if a coin has been dipped properly." Hogwash! Child's play, to a scientist. "A properly dipped coin is still original." Sure is, and Clinton didn't have sex with that woman, Mrs. Lewinsky (by Clinton's definition of "sex"). "Dipping is ok, but AT is not because it ALTERS the surface!" Nope. They BOTH alter the surface. One is accepted by the market, and one is not. "The coin has only been preserved, and not altered." "Altered at what level? It certainly HAS been altered, although the human eye may not be able to detect it, and removing the affects without altering the coin itself is a realistic impossibility.

It is semantics. No matter what anyone tries to tell you, this is an art, and not a science. 400 years ago, Roseanne Arnold would have been Miss America (ok, assuming the USA existed), but today, well, let's say it's a good thing she's funny. 400 years from now coins we slab and call "MS68" may be laughed at because they have not been properly stored (perhaps then serious collectors will move coins from the Mint directly into orbit?) or were measured by "that old, objective sysytem."

If we freely participate in a hobby that is based completely upon personal opinion, how can we argue that someone's opinion is "wrong?" I suggest that those who do are participating at a different level (financial value as opposed to artistic beauty) and measuring a coin by thier own equally nebulous scale. Or more probable (given human nature), that their personal perception of "what makes a coin beautiful, or collectible," is an absolute truth.

Actually, I am quite certain that most here will incorrectly surmise where I stand on these issues. In fact, I think "where we are" is the absolute worst of the two possibilities (art or science). Mixing the two CREATES the environment where a newbie can be taken advantage of. Either we move towrds quntifiable scientific measurements of a coin's qualities, or we accept that it is an art, and render 3rd party opinion as worthless. Honestly, I probably lean more towrds the art position, but I don't think I would mind the scientific either. (I mean seriously...there's a guy at PCGS who is going to put a number on my coin. We KNOW the big dealers and experts, but what do we know about THAT GUY?!? Shouldn't HE be the most brilliant Numismatic mind we can find?!? Could it possibly be any more subjective?!?)

Torquemada would be proud of the direction Numismatics is heading today

for art, as religion, is an individual perception.

DHeath · February 22, 2003 10:37PM

Dwood,

The allowable planchet weight variance for a quarter struck between 1796-1838 is 1 grain. For an SBA dollar, it's 4.5 grains. Just an observation.

IrishMike · February 22, 2003 10:39PM

Tim you are learning what the board learned last week that certain people who post in here will never ever, ever, ever, ever concede an inch, every discussion is personal to them and they will semantasize, parse, omit, twist, ingore etc forever and ever and ever. The fact is your coin coin was conserved for future generations to enjoy and returned to its "original" condition.

dwood · February 22, 2003 10:50PM

DHeath,
But that isn't relevant to my assertion. The planchet weight of the sample would be whatever it is, and after dipping, it would certainly be less.

DHeath · February 22, 2003 10:52PM

I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about how to tell if a coin had been conserved.

dwood · February 22, 2003 10:57PM

IrishMike,
You misspelled "semanticized."

And if you had any skills with regard to comprehension, you would understand that I was arguing AGAINST the semanticists who pepper the hobby.

Assuming you got your education under the outstretched arms of the popular academician "Touchdown Jesus," i suppose it is understandable

Go Navy!

Gilbert · February 22, 2003 11:10PM

DWood,

For the sake of supporting your argument, how much less would the weight be after a dip -- you did state as fact that you know it would be less?

All that aside, I agree much of what we debate is the result of semantics and interpretation. THAT IS WHY NUMISMATIC TERMINOLOGY was developed.

I just can't understand why one enters into a group, that has determined how they will discuss certain matters in certain and somewhat specific terms, but then the entrant decides "I won't accept those terms, but, I still want to join in the conversations." The group says, well now, we are dealing in subjectives, and knowing human nature, for ease of communications we have agreed that these words refer to these things. Othewise, we will never be able to progress AS A GROUP from one topic to the next; I mean, that is why we get together in the first place.

Eventually, the new entrant finds even the most acceptable and profound ideas, some maybe beneficial and appreciable to the group, are ignored, half-heartedly considered are simply overly debated as a matter of habit.

Just a group dynamic for consideration.

dwood · February 22, 2003 11:21PM

Gilbert, the variance in weight would depend on several other variables as well. The greatest impact, I assume, would come from the amount of time the coin spent in the dip.

What group are you referring to? The CU forums? I don't recall getting a handbook or anything, and I didn't sign any acceptance, other than for use of the forums themselves.

Certainly you're not implying that this forum represents the concensus of the hobby as a whole?

IrishMike · February 22, 2003 11:26PM

As I said, the beat goes on and on, btw I spelled the word according to how it fit the circumstance. Keep on semantasizing, it really is entertaining.

dwood · February 22, 2003 11:29PM

Oh,
I get it.

Sort of like my MS74 Lincolns....cool!

cleaned---conserved and still ms65?

Comments

Leave a Comment