Who all here feels "uneasy" about coin conservation?
unoojojoe
Posts: 17
I know I do. It sort of feels like "legalized coin-doctoring" to me. I'm sure many have differing opinions and all are valid. I'm just wondering what others here think. Also, has anyone heard if pcgs plans on offering such a service as their competitor?
Thank you
Joe
Thank you
Joe
0
Comments
Dipping has long been an accepted practice (among many)
Professional dippers are now doing "conservation"
My posts viewed
since 8/1/6
Joe
I think that in many cases, conservation can be a good thing.
Sadly and disturbingly, however, I also think that conservation is being widely over-used and even abused, causing many perfectly fine/nice coins to be ruined (forever).
Finally, in my opinion, many of the "conserved" coins are either being graded higher than they deserve to be, or are being assigned grades, when they should be receiving "no-grades".
In a multitude of cases, unnatural looking "conserved" coins are being rewarded, rather than penalized in grade - I think that is backwards, not to mention wrong.
I know many other dealers who feel the same way, but for various reasons, some of them are hesitant or afraid to speak out publicly on this subject. That is their right, but I sure wish more of them would stick their necks out alongside mine.
In case it wasn't already obvious, I'm well beyond "uneasy" on this subject.
<< <i>
In a multitude of cases, unnatural looking "conserved" coins are being rewarded, rather than penalized in grade - I think that is backwards, not to mention wrong.
>>
I second that opinion. The look way too unnatural!
J&J Coins
website
Wild Ebay Toners for sale
The big O
There is nothing wrong with 'conservation' per se, it's the decision making process that I disagree with. Coins are being conserved simply so they can upgrade - not because they are in need of conservation. I disagree with that so strongly that I continue to get myself in trouble over it....
Conservation pro's and con's aside, and nothing personal to unoojojoe, but there is plenty of discussion in the archives about this with positions firmly established. it's a useful way to find forum info, with the function placed by the forum administrators at the top of Page One. try a search.
al h.
<< <i>...Let's say I have a $20 liberty that has 1 or 2 small copper spots on it. If I send it in to NCS, will the "bath" make those copper spots undetectable even to a relative expert? More importantly, could they come back years later inside the holder? >>
Unoojojoe, there are a number of ways to lighten and even "remove" copper spots/stains from gold coins and it can be done without treating the remainder of the coin's surfaces.
I have been told that the copper spots/stains can and do sometimes return, however. But, I do not know what percentage of them do so or how long it typically takes.
<< <i>I know I do. It sort of feels like "legalized coin-doctoring" to me. I'm sure many have differing opinions and all are valid. I'm just wondering what others here think. >>
I concur. I still havn't fully made up my mind though. I've been lurking all of the threads on it and am still forming an opinion. For now, though, I still have "uneasy" feelings toward it.
USMC Veteran 1981-1992
Cold War Veteran
It's truly funny, no make that truly sad, that people in this day and age are so wrapped up in their own little world that they refuse to try and teach someone else the correct or accepted way of doing things.
Why not just be honest, and call it "coin cleaning"?
Why the fancy word "conservation"? Does that somehow make it more acceptable?
I mean really, who could be against "conservation"? I feel warm and fuzzy just saying it!
Dave
Mark - It's also obvious that you're not trying to get your old job back!
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
In special situations PCGS "farms coins out" to be conserved. For example, a long time ago CosmicDebris posted here that one of his coins (Kennedy proof?) developed a print after grading -- he had before & after pics to prove it. They did a nice job removing it for him. I'd prefer they keep that special circumstance policy and not make it a regular service. That would only encourage more submitters to clean coins that didn't need it and create a department of PCGS that would have to earn its keep by promoting conservation.
I think Mark's post was excellent. I would only add that conservation should be used only to prevent additional damage to a coins surface, ie: removal of PVC, removal of corrosion that will spread without care, and not used to create shiney little metal disks.
I do believe that NGC will eventually pay a price for NCS over time. I already look at any un-toned coin in a new NGC slab as suspect of likely inappropriate conservation.
You know, what somebody thinks is ugly and sends in to get cleaned up I might have paid a lot more for it in it's original condition even if it wasn't "monster" or "killer" etc.
So I'm uneasy about "conservation" in the general case because it's overdone, but done right to the right coin, I think it's a good thing. The problem is that too many people either do these things unprofessionally or they do it to a very market-desirable and original coin.
Well written and I appreciate your comments. There are those instances where coins have been stored in PVC flips and need help before there are greater problems. Stopping PVC problems is a key issue in separating conservation for other motives that are quite obvious...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Louis
I am not trying to be difficult, nor do I completely disagree with your view... its just that perhaps a higher portion of the existing population of coins that have been slabbed to date may need your conserved designation... I still maintain that an original surfaces designation would be more effective especially for high end circulated coins. I really believe that type collectors and early gold collectors would appreciate this concept... that is if they seek original coins.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I don't hear anybody whining when a monster toned morgan gets graded a point higher than it would recieve on purely technical merits. Why the other way around, when a coin gets an upgrade from having haze, spots, foreign matter, mold, fingerprints, etc. (OK, maybe not so much mold
<< <i> It sort of feels like "legalized coin-doctoring" to me. >>
I generally agree, But when it comes to coins like those recovered from shipwercks, "curating" seems to make sense IF IT IS DISCLOSED.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
<< <i>Matteproof:
I am not trying to be difficult, nor do I completely disagree with your view... its just that perhaps a higher portion of the existing population of coins that have been slabbed to date may need your conserved designation... . >>
Hi coinkat. Thank you for your comments. I appreciate them very much. I agree with you that under my scenario far fewer coins would be slabbed without the "conserved" description on the slab. But why should this matter? This would probably have the effect of making the truly original coins more desirable, which they deserve to be.
If a coin has been "cleaned" or "conserved" (to me, conserved is just a nicer way of saying cleaned, dipped out, or doctored in some way) then shouldn't the buying public be aware of that fact when they are laying out big bucks for a dipped out, washed out, cleaned or doctored coin? I feel that quality numismatics need not necessarily be tied to "how many" would be slabbed but rather how many deserve to be slabbed. The general assumption is that PCGS and NGC graded coins are ORIGINAL. I like this policy and rely upon it. I'm sure others do too.
If I'm wrong, and it becomes accepted by the numismatic community (and grading services) that "conserved" coins should be slabbed without the "comment" on the slab, then isn't it fair to say that the whole idea of "body bags" should be set aside once and for all? Why should some suffer the pretense of the body bag while others not? Thank you again for your comments coinKat.
<< <i>The general assumption is that PCGS and NGC graded coins are ORIGINAL. I like this policy and rely upon it. I'm sure others do too. >>
Matteproof, if by "original" you mean un-dipped, etc., that "assumption" would be incorrect in a great many instances.
Shameful, Reece, and I was just staring to like you.
A problem is, there is a very strong perception that PCGS and ngc only certify ORIGINAL coins. Otherwise, why would NGC have started the NCS "net grade" slab?
Also, the idea of "conserving" is a flat admission that a coin has been "chemically treated" or doctored AFTER minting for the purpose of making it "look better." I do not feel that such a coin deserves to be called "original." If you think I'm wrong, please tell me why. Thank you again for your input Coinguy1. It is appreciated.
I also tend to think that real conservation work is different from dipping or cleaning. I think coins with distracting problems, or problems that can grow worse with time, should be conserved to preserve the coin for future numismatists. I would hope that NCS would be discriminating about which coins they work on (ie not just making a coin bright so it upgrades), and I think they should disclose the conservation work done.
A problem is, there is a very strong perception that PCGS and ngc only certify ORIGINAL coins. Otherwise, why would NGC have started the NCS "net grade" slab?
Also, the idea of "conserving" is a flat admission that a coin has been "chemically treated" or doctored AFTER minting for the purpose of making it "look better." I do not feel that such a coin deserves to be called "original." If you think I'm wrong, please tell me why. Thank you again for your input Coinguy1. It is appreciated. matteproof
Matteproof, the NCS "net grade" was and is for coins that have been artifically toned, have been harshly cleaned, or for coins that have other damage that prevent them from being NGC certified. By other damage I mean things like severe rim damage, gouges, etc. By harshly cleaned, I mean physically cleaned by the use of wiping or scrubbing that scratches (however lightly) the surface of the coin. The fact that this kind of cleaning physically damages the surface of the coin in an irreversable way is what makes harsh cleaning unacceptable.
I don't think there is any perception whatsoever that PCGS and NGC only certify original coins! NGC even has made it well known that their NCS service will physically deliver a coin after conservation to the NGC grading room to grade and slab the coin!! The (correct) marketplace perception is that they avoid slabbing harshly cleaned coins and it is also a well known fact that they will even allow a very small amount of hairlining from cleaning on rare issues (though it may negatively impact the grade).
I strongly dislike the concept of "coin conservation" in ALL circumstances
perhaps a higher portion of the existing population of coins that have been slabbed to date may need your conserved designation
If a coin has been "cleaned" or "conserved" (to me, conserved is just a nicer way of saying cleaned, dipped out, or doctored in some way)
I also think that conservation is being widely over-used and even abused, causing many perfectly fine/nice coins to be ruined (forever).
Coins are being conserved simply so they can upgrade - not because they are in need of conservation
Dont like the slabbed grades improving when should stay same or even decrease.
I already look at any un-toned coin in a new NGC slab as suspect of likely inappropriate conservation.
Makes me appreciate my ORIGINAL stuff more, both toned & nontoned
But I think people way overdo it and do these things to wonderfully toned coins as well as the ugly clunkers.
Joe Friday would be howling "Just the facts Ma'am, just the facts."
al h.
NCS does disclose the work they do and for an extra fee they will even provide a conservation report complete with before and after photos.
NGC does not disclose this on their slab. Think about it:
NGC discloses the information on coins sent thru NCS and the guy who dips his coin at home doesn't tell NGC and they do not disclose it on the slab because they don't know. The coins are sold at public auction, and the one with "conserved" on the label is deeply discounted. A month later, the NCS conserved coin looks great, and joe-blow dip service coin looks like crap because he didn't rinse it properly.
How does this do a service to the numismatic community? Does this help the guy who tried to do the right thing by having a professional clean his coin up and not chance ruining it himself, but he takes a huge hit when he sells? Or does it help the guy who paid substancially more for the undesignated coin, not knowing that it had been dipped, or improperly rinsed? Or does it help NCS who is seeing decreased volume because coins they have worked on sell for a discount? Or perhaps it helps NGC because the coins that go through NCS tend to not be graded by NGC but rather they return to the submitter raw so they can send them over to PCGS. Maybe it doesn't really help anyone at all.
Seriously now, the services recieve coins all the time that have been dipped. They just know about a few of them. They can't designate them all so they designate none, which is fair. Plus there are so many reasons why NGC would not want to designate this on their slabs that it is unreasonable to expect them as a money-making business to throw all business sense to the wind and start designating "conserved" on their slabs.
michael
i hope you are'nt confusing "conservation" & "cleaning", since cleaning is doctoring, & conservation is not.
K S
Now, when a coin is specifically treated with chemicals or some other linear process, with the express purpose of enhancing its "look," usually to obtain a commercial advantage, then all I'm saying is that a coin undergoing such a process should be made KNOWN to it's future owner. Normally, we rely upon the grading services to provide that assurance. I do not have a problem with "dipped" or even "cleaned" coins per se, but I do have a problem with calling them "original." Thanks Reece.
Ironically, rather than preserving coins for future generations, the coin conservation movement is more likely to create the real problem of encouraging the alteration of our existing pool of original coins. I feel this has the potential to threaten the originality of our already diminishing population of original coinage.
Just think of this; every coin show has it's vast number of cleaned, altered, whizzed, and fizzed coins that we all see with our own eyes. They are often raw or "net graded." Wall to wall, we see these mistakes of numismatic history and we cringe. Take note that most of these are the result of numismatists from yester year who dipped out all of those coins to make them look "better." Over the course of time, these "dippings" yielded a very diminished coin and the marketplace today generally shuns such coins as unworthy or impaired. Though the technology may be better today than yesterday (and can we really be certain about that over time?) the practice of "treating" a coin to enhance it's beauty is born of the same spirit (is it more of a commerical spirit than a numismatic one?).
The result of all of these "doctored" coins from the past has been a disaster to our present universe of coinage. It has served to make our "original" examples all the more desirable. How has "coin enhancement" ever done any good for future generations of numismatists or numismatics? A beautiful face with a face lift, no matter how beautiful, is NOT original (and face lifts are known to come apart after a few years, requiring more face lifts still). Thanks!
Consider this. If it is the practice of the grading services to slab dipped out coins, then wouldn't it be reasonable for them to boldly state that this is their practice? Furthermore, if this be the case, shouldn't they define what is the allowable depth of that "dipping" process in order for submitters to obtain the certification? Otherwise, how else could a submitter determine if his raw dipped coin(s) measure up to the slabbing service standard when submitting? Without such a defined standard, he cannot know. A clearly defined criteria would allow for a submitter to make a reasonably educated determination if his "dipped" coin(s) are TOO dipped (or not) to be holdered by the services standard.
Or, perhaps the better way would be easier - if a coin has been chemically treated AT ALL it should not slab without the "comment" on the slab stating that it has been conserved.
Most all attractive large Cents out there have been "conserved" - copper naturally attracts dirt regardless of where it has been kept for over 150 years, so at one point someone put olive oil, blue ribbon or care on it to restore the underlying beauty. Other copper coins, including Indian Cents, Lincoln cents have been conserved in this way at some point. This is benificial conservation and is taught in my class at the ANA seminar.
Many copper coins have black carbon spots. These disfigure the coin and should be removed, but only by an expert with steady hands. If I can detect a removed spot I'll shy away from a coin (although its better than having the spot). As a recent example, I bought a Flying Eagle in MS64 at one of the LB auctions for $1350 (PQ money) and noticed after I got the coin that the fields had been expertly smoothed. I immediately dumped the coin to another dealer for a big loss. I should have noticed it in lot viewing, but missed it.
Conservation to raise a grade on a copper coin from RB to RD is not conservation, it's detrimental cleaning.
Conservation to raise the numerical grade is not so clear. What if the coin actually is undergraded because of dirt on the coin?
<< <i>Hi dorkkarl. You said; i am 100% PRO coin conservation, since conservation implies removal of contaminants that may damage a coin. i hope you are'nt confusing "conservation" & "cleaning", since cleaning is doctoring, & conservation is not. Removing contaminants from a coin is perfectly fine. However, the fact that this process has been done to the coin should be disclosed to future buyers and the normal place to do this is on the holder. >>
i do not entirely agree.
good example: i use canned air to conserve (remove dust particles) from every single coin that i store in 2x2 flips. do i need to disclose this to the next person i sell the coin too? what if i use distilled water to rinse spilled coffee off a morgan dollar? these are examples of CONSERVATION.
now if a coin has pvc residue removed w/ an acid bath, perhaps that should be disclosed.
just trying to point out that a hard & fast rule is difficult here.
others have pointed out that a properly CONSERVED coin may be (& in fact usually should be) indistinguishable from an unconserved coin, because the purpose is to leave the COIN as undisturbed as possible, while removing the offeninding contaminant. in fact, that is the essence OF conservation - to leave that which IS inherent to the coin, while removing that which is NOT inherent to the coin.
cleaning is different - it removes that which IS INHERENT to the coin, such as toning. when silver atoms that are part of a coin combine w/ other atoms, they are still the same silver atoms that were part of the coin, though they may now be a different color (the tone). removing the silver atoms that were orignally part of the coin (say by dipping it) is CLEANING or DOCTORING the coin.
removing the dust particles adhering to the layer of silver atoms (but not chemically combined w/ the silver atoms) is NOT cleaning.
K S
What I have a problem with is "conservation" of a collectible (and gradable) coins in an attempt to get an upgrade, like that trade dollar that was posted previously which was toned on the rim and made blast white. I would think upgrades from this would be (or should be) rare, but who knows, if the conservation is subsequently linked to a re-grading. Maybe someone who has done this can comment.
dipped blast white AU will almost always bring more than a naturally toned coin.
But it is getting better. Like many, I gravitated to white coins early on.
As the number of coins I look at increases I have developed an appreciation of toned coins.
I believe that admiring a toned coin is a factor of experience. Doesn't mean that preferring toners is
a natural progression of increased knowledge. I see it as more of an acquired taste.
Steve
<< <i>What I have a problem with is "conservation" of a collectible (and gradable) coins in an attempt to get an upgrade >>
that is NOT CONSERVATION.
that is CLEANING.
K S