A Coin World quote from Q. David Bowers you may have missed. Please read and comment.
keets
Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
Taken from his "The Joys of Collecting" column in the December 29th Coin World, page 32:
..........."Cleaning" and "Conservation" are two different things. In our hobby, the majority of early silver Proof coins, 1915 and earlier, have been impaired by well-intentioned efforts to make them "brilliant," by repeated dipping and cleaning.
If it were not so, then all would be gem Proofs (say Proof 65 or higher) today and would be toned. As it is, gems are in the minority, and probably 80 percent or more of extant Proofs have from a few to many hairlines (caused by cleaning).
Reading between the lines a bit and taking into consideration what other notable numismatists have stated concerning early collecting practices, I'll echo a statement I've made before-----the claims of the originality of the surface quality of most classic coins should always be held suspect. My belief is that many wonderfully toned coins, Mint State moreso than Proof, have retoned from previous efforts to "clean" them.
Another disturbing aspect of this is the preponderance of older containment mediums which seem to be enjoying flourishing sales. Old Wayte Raymond albums, Commemorative tab holders, paper envelopes for Proof/Mint Sets and most recently GSA Morgan Dollar holders which will obviously be used to bilk money when they're used to reholder non-GSA coins.
It seems a modern day collector needs to be critically observant today in watching for the leeches involved in our hobby. All the more reason to find trusted dealers and like-minded collectors to form relationships with. To that end, this forum and PCGS have provided an invaluable service for us. I for one am grateful.
Al H.
the underlined was edited from the overwhelming majority of at the behest of Feldolini. in my zest to post, my fingers got a bit excited!!
..........."Cleaning" and "Conservation" are two different things. In our hobby, the majority of early silver Proof coins, 1915 and earlier, have been impaired by well-intentioned efforts to make them "brilliant," by repeated dipping and cleaning.
If it were not so, then all would be gem Proofs (say Proof 65 or higher) today and would be toned. As it is, gems are in the minority, and probably 80 percent or more of extant Proofs have from a few to many hairlines (caused by cleaning).
Reading between the lines a bit and taking into consideration what other notable numismatists have stated concerning early collecting practices, I'll echo a statement I've made before-----the claims of the originality of the surface quality of most classic coins should always be held suspect. My belief is that many wonderfully toned coins, Mint State moreso than Proof, have retoned from previous efforts to "clean" them.
Another disturbing aspect of this is the preponderance of older containment mediums which seem to be enjoying flourishing sales. Old Wayte Raymond albums, Commemorative tab holders, paper envelopes for Proof/Mint Sets and most recently GSA Morgan Dollar holders which will obviously be used to bilk money when they're used to reholder non-GSA coins.
It seems a modern day collector needs to be critically observant today in watching for the leeches involved in our hobby. All the more reason to find trusted dealers and like-minded collectors to form relationships with. To that end, this forum and PCGS have provided an invaluable service for us. I for one am grateful.
Al H.
the underlined was edited from the overwhelming majority of at the behest of Feldolini. in my zest to post, my fingers got a bit excited!!
0
Comments
> All the more reason to find trusted dealers and like-minded collectors to form relationships with.
To believe most famous national known dealers understand original surface requirements is a dangerous thought
However, I think you could do yourself a disservice, if you base your decisions on the frame of mind that you expressed below. Many of these "wonderfully toned coins" have not been cleaned, but merely stored in albums, envelopes, cabinet drawers, etc.
Sure, some of them have retoned after cleanings and the originality of others might be fairly questioned. But, the term "overwhelming number" sounds extreme to me. Would you consider "many" instead, as a compromise?
<< <i>My belief is that the overwhelming number of wonderfully toned coins, Mint State moreso than Proof, have retoned from previous efforts to "clean" them >>
I recently had a discussion with a dealer about a Barber coin in MS67. I was told the coin was graded correctly, but it was ugly, and I wouldn't want it. I didn't see the coin in person, I only saw the image. I look at toning like aging, for some it happens more gracefully. IMO, if the coin is technically graded correctly, has not been messed with and has a somewhat substandard appearance, I'm still going to "consider" the coin. That will certainly depend on how many are available at the grade I'm looking for and how substandard the appearance is. Having said that, I will admit there are some butt ugly coins out there that should probably be melted.
while i tend to agree with you in principal about the dipping/cleaning threads, i'm a willing participant in them if only to try to help what will happen anyway. to that end i have received some valuable information here and have tried to disseminate the same. the critical factor for me is in judging what to leave alone and when to consider help from others, including NCS. things like that need to be based in intelligent observation and not whimsical, wishful thinking. QDB concludes his article with the below, openminded paragraph:
For you the answer is simple: Buy a coin only if it presently meets all of your requirements. Do not buy a coin with the view of cleaning, dipping, or otherwise changing it's appearance to make it more valuable. Leave that to the experts.
al h.
<< <i>For you the answer is simple: Buy a coin only if it presently meets all of your requirements. Do not buy a coin with the view of cleaning, dipping, or otherwise changing it's appearance to make it more valuable. Leave that to the experts. >>
I agree wholeheartedly with what QDB said here. I haven't read my copy of CW yet. I guess I'll start with his article first.
I understand too there are times when a coin "needs" conservation. What concerns me are the coins that receive attention when it's not needed.