<< <i>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. >>
There is a big difference, in the general case, between *carefully* and *professionally* removing completely foreign material which has not chemically bonded or reacted to the coin's original material and stripping off some of the coin's material (even as such material has been changed due to chemical reactions) to restore whiteness and brightness.
Careful ways to remove dirt and other crud which merely sit on top of the coin and has not affected the surface underneath it is (IMO) laudable and in no way an outrage. Unless the toning is really, really bad/ugly and threatens to start eating at the coin as it blackens, stripping off the "color" is probably not a good thing.
Wow, thanks everyone. I had no idea that this thread would get so many responses and especially so many in depth comments. After reading the posts I understand that this issue has been discussed here before but I am sure there are new guys like me joining the forum on a regular basis and not everyone even knows how to use the search function. I am just now learning to use it myself.
Hi dorkkarl. Thank you for the reply. I appreciate your thoughts. You said; 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.
While I don't think it is prudent to use canned air to remove dust from a coin, I'm not sure if I would describe that as rising to the level of conserving (are there chemicals in canned air? Can the force of the air damage the coin's lustre? or it's surface?). But your example raises an interesting point about - INTENT! In your example, you were not trying to change the appearance of the coin, create a false illusion of lustre, mimic color, or other, to obtain a "better looking" coin designed to get it either certified (when it's not worthy to be certified) or upgraded (as a result of it's new enhanced look). Still, I would rather leave my raw coins unfettered by anything you described, even water or forced air from a can.
You said; now if a coin has pvc residue removed w/ an acid bath, perhaps that should be disclosed.
We are closer to agreement here (though I note you said "perhaps"). When a coin is "professionally" conserved, it is my understanding that a chemical process of some kind is used on the coin's surface. If true, would you say that it should be disclosed on the slab?
You said; others have pointed out that a properly CONSERVED coin may be (& in fact usually should be) indistinguishable from an unconserved coin,.... If a coin is "treated" with chemicals to alter it's appearance, then the fact that it is indistinguishable to most buyers makes it all the more necessary for disclosure because there is greater likelihood that it would otherwise go unnoticed by a buyer. What happens if the coin "turns" months or years later? The buyer might be left with the impression that it turned on it's own, when in fact it could have been the chemicals used to treat the coin that caused it to turn. Consider the following hypothetical situation:
If I fall in love with a woman because her blue eyes turn me on, isn't it only fair that she reveal to me that her blue eyes are really color contact lenses before I make the commitment to marry her? Suppose her fake blues were completely indistinguishable to me from real blue eyes. What should she do? Should she tell me they are fake or shut her mouth?
You said; ..because the purpose is to leave the COIN as undisturbed as possible, while removing the offending contaminant..."
Doesn't the admission "as undisturbed as possible" imply that the coin IS disturbed, however slightly or greatly? If I buy a home, shouldn't the owner disclose to me that he just treated the house with termite spray because the house had offending termites? Or, could the home seller take the position that he was only removing that which was NOT a part of the original house (the termites) and therefore is not obligated to disclose the issue? Wouldn't it just be better if the seller said something like, "this house had offending termites, I had it professionally treated and now the termites are gone. I'm told they are gone for good." Now I can make an informed decision to pass or buy. Simple!
You said; 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 originally part of the coin (say by dipping it) is CLEANING or DOCTORING the coin.
It is my understanding that "cleaned" coins are expressly not "slab-able" and will be body bagged by the biggie grading services. I've been left with the impression on this thread that "dipping" is different than "cleaning" (although I don't think it is different). In your comment above, you seem to suggest that "dipping" removes some "silver atoms" that were originally part of the coin. If this is true, then isn't this indisputable evidence that dipping DOES alter the originality of the coin as does cleaning? If yes, then shouldn't the grading services treat "dipping" and "cleaning" the same? Thanks Dorrkarl. matteproof
Hi Matteproof wow you are very passionate about this dipping and cleaning business!! I in no way want to pick a fight with you but I want to ask you some questions because you seem to say a few things about coins that I just dont understand!! OK-Like you said The general assumption is that PCGS and NGC graded coins are ORIGIONAL, I like this policy and RELY on it. Do you really belive that?? I just wondered where in the world you got that ASSUMPTION because in all my years of coin collecting the only person that said that to me was a telemarketer salesman that didnt know anything about coins and was selling overgraded coins for tremendous prices at a investment trade show!! NGC and PCGS had no stated policy like that so I just wondered where you picked that up??? Also on my 1870-CC $20 Lib. that really was a 1904 $20 Lib. I said that I washed it off with water just to see what you would say about it, but the truth is that after washing it with water it still had mud on it and then put it in a baking soda bath and that still didnt get all the gunk off so I dipped it in acetone(sorry) and finally it looked half way decent since it is in an AU58 holder at PCGS do you really think that it should have been body Bagged? Again I want to say I dont want to pick a fight here about this, I would love if the services would label a coin one of three ways A. Origional B. Dipped or processed some way C. Body Bag for harsh cleaning tooled whizzed etc. Lets dont confuse conserved coins with the A. B. or C. illustration like my 1840-0 $5 Pittman conserved coin conserved to protect and keep the coin origional not to get a higher grade, and it is my understanging that NCS doesnt dip coins for people just to get a higher grade, they conserve to protect just like grandad Corot painting and just about every other hobby had a conservation arm to preserve items for the future generations. Hope I didnt offend anybody here!!!!
Hi Reece. Thank you for the follow up. Again, I very much appreciate your terrific thoughts. You said; wow you are very passionate about this dipping and cleaning business!!
My apologies if I seem exceedingly passionate about this. I'm not. Just average passionate about it (same with ATed coins too). I do worry about newbies (and oldies) getting creamed when they are offered expensive "conserved" coins without knowing that the coin has been "conserved." "Shiney white" coins always impress newbs - and if the person happens to be a newb with a checkbook - well - creamed would be an understatement.
There is a long standing tradition in numismatics that originality is prized. If that tradition is changing, then so be it. But if it is changing because of "ignorance" or lack of knowledge, then it is not a healthy development for numismatics. Please let's not forget that our great study of Numismatics is a very important body of KNOWLEDGE. Being informed is the very soul of "knowledge."
You said; The general assumption is that PCGS and NGC graded coins are ORIGIONAL, I like this policy and RELY on it. Do you really belive that??
It was always my understanding that the biggies "body bagged" cleaned coins (human error exceptions excluded). I feel that a "dipped" coin is a cleaned coin. If it's not, then what is it? (half of a cleaned coin?). Even if half cleaned it is still cleaned (you can't be half pregnant). I feel that any coin that has been "treated" by a process - particularly a chemical process - to enhance the coin is relevant information that should be disclosed to a buyer if the Seller definitively knows about it. Since Sellers and Buyers alike cannot always "know," they turn to the grading services for their professional opinions. I know that I do (have).
You said; I just wondered where in the world you got that ASSUMPTION because in all my years of coin collecting the only person that said that to me was a telemarketer salesman...
I've never been employed in the telemarketing industry (thank GOD as such salespeople are among society's most abused and mistreated). However, I can understand how this salesman arrived at this conclusion. Furthermore, I have never seen anything by the grading services that explicitly states they will encapsulate a cleaned or altered coin as a matter of policy (body bags).
You said; put it in a baking soda bath and that still didnt get all the gunk off so I dipped it in acetone(sorry) and finally it looked half way decent since it is in an AU58 holder at PCGS do you really think that it should have been body Bagged?
If they could not discern that the coin had been chemically treated, then it is only logical that they would slab it. However, if they did discern this and certified it anyway, well, I would be disappointed.
You said; would love if the services would label a coin one of three ways A. Origional B. Dipped or processed some way C. Body Bag for harsh cleaning tooled whizzed etc. Lets dont confuse conserved coins with the A. B. or C.
I agree with you on the first part of this comment Reece. However, wouldn't a so-called "conserved" coin fall into your category B "dipped or processed some way"? Regardless of how one feels about "conserved" coins, everyone surely must agree that a "conserved" coin is "processed in some way."
You said; NCS doesnt dip coins for people just to get a higher grade, they conserve to protect
I have no problem with someone conserving their coin for whatever reason they want, provided that they disclose that vital information to a future buyer. Otherwise, the buyer cannot make an informed decision about purchasing it in the absence of the disclosure. Ideally, the best way to disclose this to a future buyer would simply be to put it on the slab, at the source, by the one who actually DOES the conserving, cleaning/dipping or whatever process they use.
You said; Hope I didnt offend anybody here!!!!
Not at all Reece. On the contrary, I'm very thankful for your input as well as everyone else’s input too. Thank you again! matteproof
Conservation, in the case of many sea salvaged or encrusted ancient coins, makes a great deal of sense. However, when "conservation" amounts to little more than an attempt to get an upgrade from a service that is known to downgrade for toning, it is another story altogether.
Hi Matteproof I want to reply to your last response-but have to go to my daughters vollyball game I will be back later tonight, I live in Calif. so it might post late. Reece
Hi Matteproof-I think you are passionate about this cleaning business!!!! I think this has been a good discussion, since the creation of NCS I think that it has brought this whole subject to the forefront.. I still maintain that NCS conserves coins and does not clean coins I think they are very different processes, and I am sure you disagree with me on that. Again we are talhing about degrees here maybe I didnt convey it right, but there are so many ways of processing a coin that it would be hard for the services to tell all that has been done to a coin, and some coins it is impossible to tell what has been done to it. And again for the good of the hobby very few coins would be slabbed period!! I think that in the gold area where I collect, taking away the bullion related coins and other cheaper coins, I think that a full 95% of the coins have been altered in some way. I dont like it, but when you find that origional coin it sure make it worth the wait!! I think that it all shakes out anyway in the prices that the coins bring the origional coins always bring strong money!! Thanks for you comments also Matteproof maybe we just have to agree to disagree on this subject>!!
Hi Reece. Thank you for your comments. I appreciate them.
Reece, centuries ago, North America had an amazing array of animal species. Many of these creatures are now extinct. For example, the Bison species (the kind of creature depicted on the reverse of the famous "Buffalo" Nickel) was once rampant in America and is now extinct due to human exploitation, hunting, and the technology of the day (i.e. longbow, recurve bow & arrow, spear, other). As a result, nearly all of these animals have disappeared completely. This is exactly what can happen when humans, even with the best of intentions, arrive with their skill as hunters, exploiters, and/or misuse of technology. The destruction of the irreplaceable can occur. Our present and future generations can now only enjoy these creatures by gazing at drawings, paintings, vintage photographs (or collecting Buffalo Nickels I suppose).
Our numismatic population of original coinage is LIMITED and irreplaceable. Chemical manipulation, baking, ATing have all served to unalterably change many an original coin.
Like the modern day status of the Bison, the future status of the "original coin" could well be in jeopardy. By placing the "comment" on the slab, that a coin has been "conserved," the TRUTH of what has happened to the coin will be revealed and the free marketplace can then evalulate it accordingly. Why wouldn't a "conserver" be willing to reveal the TRUTH about his conserved coin?
Is it because a coin KNOWN to be conserved is not likely to bring the same "doh-re-mi" as a conserved coin which is NOT known (disclosed) to a potential buyer? (we all know that in numismatics, original vs. non-original is a HIGHLY material issue). Is it fair to say that by NOT disclosing the truth, a conserver might be seeking to receive MORE money for his conserved coin than the "Free Market" might otherwise allow if full disclosure were observed? Can a fair and honorable transaction occur without full disclosure? Would a conserver still conserve if the “conserve” was required to be listed on the slab? (tongue twister). If anyone can frankly answer or respond to any of these questions, I would be very thankful.
Finally, while I have no problem with a conserved coin per se, I do have a problem when a future buyer does not receive disclosure that the coin he is being offered has been "conserved." Without that material information, he cannot make an informed decision to buy or not. Thank you again for your comments Reece (and the others too). I appreciate it much! matteproof
Yes Matteproof good illustrations, I guess you will not see my point of view, thats OK, it is what makes the world go around!! I still think that conservation is not cleaning, in respects to my 1840-0 $5 Half Eagle that had copper spots on it, it just seems like it now is just as origional as it was minted, didnt have copper spots on it when it was minted and now it is more origional than a few months ago!!
<< <i>While I don't think it is prudent to use canned air to remove dust from a coin, I'm not sure if I would describe that as rising to the level of conserving (are there chemicals in canned air? Can the force of the air damage the coin's lustre? or it's surface?). But your example raises an interesting point about - INTENT! In your example, you were not trying to change the appearance of the coin, create a false illusion of lustre, mimic color, or other, to obtain a "better looking" coin designed to get it either certified (when it's not worthy to be certified) or upgraded (as a result of it's new enhanced look). Still, I would rather leave my raw coins unfettered by anything you described, even water or forced air from a can. >>
if you are placing coins in long-term storage flips, you should definitely remove potential dust contaminants w/ canned air. otherwise, the dust particles may cause micro-spots, or worse yet, etch the surface if the flips are stored in such a way that the coin ever slides around. canned air contains ...... air & propellant, but the proplellant is basically freon & evaporates immediately before ever hitting the coin.
i strongly recommend & emphasize the canned air precaution to everyone. i believe plastic co's do the same thing prior to slabing a coin.
<< <i>You said; others have pointed out that a properly CONSERVED coin may be (& in fact usually should be) indistinguishable from an unconserved coin,.... If a coin is "treated" with chemicals to alter it's appearance, then the fact that it is indistinguishable to most buyers makes it all the more necessary for disclosure because there is greater likelihood that it would otherwise go unnoticed by a buyer. What happens if the coin "turns" months or years later? >>
a coin can "turn" whether or not it's conserved or cleaned. that's why i really don't worry about that too much. in fact, if a copper coin (for example) does NOT turn, i would be very suspicious that it's been doctored in some way. a copper coin SHOULD turn brown, & a silver coin SHOULD turn grey after time.
<< <i>If I fall in love with a woman because her blue eyes turn me on, isn't it only fair that she reveal to me that her blue eyes are really color contact lenses before I make the commitment to marry her? >>
no. if someone's eye color is a motivation either way for/against marriage, you need to have your head examined. likewise, if paranoia about whether a coin's ever been cleaned is what keeps you from buying it, rather then whether YOU LIKE the coin or not, you should not be collecting coins, because you'll never be able to understand what it means to be a collector.
<< <i>Doesn't the admission "as undisturbed as possible" imply that the coin IS disturbed, however slightly or greatly? If I buy a home, shouldn't the owner disclose to me that he just treated the house with termite spray because the house had offending termites? >>
the wood that was rotted by termites is inherent to the structure of the home, so that is analogous to cleaning, not conservation. it affects the actual structure of the home.
now wiping spilled soda off your linoleum floor, that's analogous to conservation. it does not disturb the inherent structure of the home.
proper conservation should never have to be disclosed. imagine the absurdity. i would have to list every time i've vaccuumed the carpets, wiped fingerprints off the window, dusted the mantle, raked the yard, cleaned the gutters, etc etc. again, the reason conservation need not be disclosed is becuase by def'n , conservation intends to leave the conserved item in an undistrubed state.
conservation removes that which is not inherent to the coin (or home).
<< <i>It is my understanding that "cleaned" coins are expressly not "slab-able" and will be body bagged by the biggie grading services. I've been left with the impression on this thread that "dipping" is different than "cleaning" (although I don't think it is different). >>
dipping and cleaning are both forms of DOCTORING, & it is doctoring which plastic co's allege to want to avoid. ie. whether cleaning off toning or adding toning, those are both forms of doctoring which are not certifiable. so yes, absoultely, cleaning & dipping are the same in the sense that they are BOTH FORMS OF DOCTORING.
<< <i> In your comment above, you seem to suggest that "dipping" removes some "silver atoms" that were originally part of the coin. If this is true, then isn't this indisputable evidence that dipping DOES alter the originality of the coin as does cleaning? If yes, then shouldn't the grading services treat "dipping" and "cleaning" the same? >>
absolutely, & most definitely true.
the sad fact is, most people who really want to be collectors never "get it". they honestly believe that if a plastic co. says something (like dipping) is ok, then it's ok for everyone. that is as far as their knowledge & experience will ever go - buying plastic holders w/ coins stuck in them. that is what i despise about marketing of plastic - not the plastic itself, but the inevitiable fact that it turns so many people into baby sheep.
Hi Dorkkarl. Thank you for your comments. I appreciate it. Just a few follow up thoughts for your review. You said; if someone's eye color is a motivation either way for/against marriage, you need to have your head examined.
My example was not so much about eye color, but rather the HONESTY of revealing that the eye color is non-original and derived from a foreign source, namely color contact lenses. Surely you would agree that HONESTY between courting partners is a very important issue when considering marriage (as well as when entering into business transactions). As an aside, there can be no doubt that the impetus to marry almost always carries a strong physical attraction element. In fact, I would say that lack of a strong physical attraction between potential marital partners should raise all kind of alarm bells (and physical attraction might include eye color, hair, smile, or whatever else is important to someone in the physical sense).
You said; dipping and cleaning are both forms of DOCTORING, & it is doctoring which plastic co's allege to want to avoid. ie. whether cleaning off toning or adding toning, those are both forms of doctoring which are not certifiable. so yes, absoultely, cleaning & dipping are the same in the sense that they are BOTH FORMS OF DOCTORING.
If dipping and cleaning are both forms of doctoring as you say (and I agree), then how does "conserving" a coin differ? Aren't the same or similar chemicals or substances used when conserving a coin as are used when dipping/cleaning a coin?
You said; "whether cleaning off toning or adding toning, those are both forms of doctoring which are not certifiable..
If as you say "cleaning off toning" is doctoring and is not certifiable, how do you reconcile that belief concerning those conserved coins where "cleaning off toning" is performed? Using your definition of doctoring, is it fair to say that such "conserved" coins are doctored?
Do you recall those advertisements that proudly displayed the "before and after" images of a conserved coin, where the "before" photo was an original toned coin and the "after" photo was a bright white untoned "conserved" coin? What would you say about such a conserved coin? Is it doctored?
You said; proper conservation should never have to be disclosed.
What is your definition of "proper conservation?" Does it include some "chemical process" or does it avoid the use of chemicals relying only upon the use of air, or water? Please describe. If a coin has some toning removed, has it been properly conserved? If some "skin" has been removed, has it been properly conserved?
I previously asked you the question; ...you seem to suggest that "dipping" removes some "silver atoms" that were originally part of the coin. If this is true, then isn't this indisputable evidence that dipping DOES alter the originality of the coin as does cleaning? If yes, then shouldn't the grading services treat "dipping" and "cleaning" the same? You then answered this question by saying; absolutely, & most definitely true.
If it could be shown that conserving a coin leads to the removal of silver atoms that were originally a part of the coin, or that conserving a coin removes some of the coins surface to some degree, would this change your mind about disclosing to future buyers when a coin has been conserved? Thank you again for your comments Dorrkarl. I appreciate it. matteproof
Hi Reece. Thank you for your comments and follow up. I very much appreciate it. You said; Yes Matteproof good illustrations, I guess you will not see my point of view, thats OK,
I truly do see your point of view Reece and I very much respect it. I particularly respect your point of view Reece because you are so honest, and forthright about it. I thank you for that. Though I would like to see the "comments" on the holders for coins that have been "conserved," I nevertheless respect your wisdom and that of the numismatic community. The point of view that you hold is the prevailing one. Thank you again for your comments Reece. It is very much appreciated. matteproof
<< <i>My example was not so much about eye color, but rather the HONESTY of revealing that the eye color is non-original and derived from a foreign source, namely color contact lenses. Surely you would agree that HONESTY between courting partners is a very important issue when considering marriage (as well as when entering into business transactions). >>
to me coins are not analogous to people. would you also want to know each time your girl farts but hides it out of politeness? if she's going to lengths to make herself appealing to you, you should value that aspect of her personality.
coins do not have such self-motivation. coins are altered due to greed on the part of we stupid humans.
<< <i>If dipping and cleaning are both forms of doctoring as you say (and I agree), then how does "conserving" a coin differ? Aren't the same or similar chemicals or substances used when conserving a coin as are used when dipping/cleaning a coin? >>
no. example: canned air can be used to conserve a coin by removing dust from a coin's surface w/out distruing the molecules that are inherent to the coin. suplhuric acid cannot conserve a coin because it changes the molecules that are part of the coin. it really is a very simple distinction, & i'm surprised so many folks can't grasp it.
<< <i>If as you say "cleaning off toning" is doctoring and is not certifiable, how do you reconcile that belief concerning those conserved coins where "cleaning off toning" is performed? Using your definition of doctoring, is it fair to say that such "conserved" coins are doctored? >>
if toning is removed from a coin, it is by def'n cleaning, not conservation. yes, removing toning is doctoring.
<< <i>Do you recall those advertisements that proudly displayed the "before and after" images of a conserved coin, where the "before" photo was an original toned coin and the "after" photo was a bright white untoned "conserved" coin? What would you say about such a conserved coin? Is it doctored? >>
yes.
<< <i>What is your definition of "proper conservation?" Does it include some "chemical process" or does it avoid the use of chemicals relying only upon the use of air, or water? >>
air & (distilled) water are safe conservation mechanisms. in fact, they are about the only safe way to conserve a coin. copper can be conserved by ADDING oil to the surface to prevent communication of the metal w/ air, because it is a fully reversible process.
<< <i>If a coin has some toning removed, has it been properly conserved? If some "skin" has been removed, has it been properly conserved? >>
no & no. it's been cleaned/doctored.
<< <i>If it could be shown that conserving a coin leads to the removal of silver atoms that were originally a part of the coin, or that conserving a coin removes some of the coins surface to some degree, would this change your mind about disclosing to future buyers when a coin has been conserved? >>
no, because then insanity would set in. you could do nothing to a coin & it might still lose silver atoms. but common sense tells me that if you pour acid on a coin, or scrub it w/ ajax, or laser etch the surfaces, it's guaranteed that silver atoms will be lost or disturbed.
so to summarize, it's simple. removal of something from a coin that is not inherently part of the coin, such as dust particles or spilled coffee, is conservation. altering or removing what comprises the coin & is inherent to it, such as the surfaces, is doctoring it. doctoring includes dipping, which is a form of cleaning.
Hi Dorkkarl. Thank you for the follow up. You said; air & (distilled) water are safe conservation mechanisms. in fact, they are about the only safe way to conserve a coin. copper can be conserved by ADDING oil to the surface to prevent communication of the metal w/ air, because it is a fully reversible process.
So, you are saying that a coin conserver who uses chemicals or substances other than air, distilled water (and oil for copper) to "conserve" a coin has NOT conserved that coin at all but has "doctored" it. Is that your position?
You said; it's simple. removal of something from a coin that is not inherently part of the coin, such as dust particles or spilled coffee, is conservation...
Provided that the conserver's removal of these things does NOT employ any chemicals or substances with the exception of air and distilled water to remove those dust particles or spilled coffee. Is this what you are saying?
I previously asked you the following questions; Do you recall those advertisements that proudly displayed the "before and after" images of a conserved coin, where the "before" photo was an original toned coin and the "after" photo was a bright white untoned "conserved" coin? What would you say about such a conserved coin? Is it doctored?
You answered; yes.
Yes to which one of the questions? Was it "Yes" to my first question which was Do you recall those advertisements that proudly displayed the "before and after" images of a conserved coin, where the "before" photo was an original toned coin and the "after" photo was a bright white untoned "conserved" coin? or was it "YES" to to my third question which was Is it doctored? (i.e. the toned coin that was conserved to an untoned coin in that advertisement). Thank you for the follow up Dorkkarl. matteproof
<< <i>So, you are saying that a coin conserver who uses chemicals or substances other than air, distilled water (and oil for copper) to "conserve" a coin has NOT conserved that coin at all but has "doctored" it. Is that your position? >>
yep
<< <i>Provided that the conserver's removal of these things does NOT employ any chemicals or substances with the exception of air and distilled water to remove those dust particles or spilled coffee. Is this what you are saying? >>
yep
<< <i>I previously asked you the following questions; Do you recall those advertisements that proudly displayed the "before and after" images of a conserved coin, where the "before" photo was an original toned coin and the "after" photo was a bright white untoned "conserved" coin? What would you say about such a conserved coin? Is it doctored?
You answered; yes.
Yes to which one of the questions? Was it "Yes" to my first question which was Do you recall those advertisements that proudly displayed the "before and after" images of a conserved coin, where the "before" photo was an original toned coin and the "after" photo was a bright white untoned "conserved" coin? or was it "YES" to to my third question which was Is it doctored? >>
Comments
<< <i>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. >>
There is a big difference, in the general case, between *carefully* and *professionally* removing completely foreign material which has not chemically bonded or reacted to the coin's original material and stripping off some of the coin's material (even as such material has been changed due to chemical reactions) to restore whiteness and brightness.
Careful ways to remove dirt and other crud which merely sit on top of the coin and has not affected the surface underneath it is (IMO) laudable and in no way an outrage. Unless the toning is really, really bad/ugly and threatens to start eating at the coin as it blackens, stripping off the "color" is probably not a good thing.
Thank you
Joe
While I don't think it is prudent to use canned air to remove dust from a coin, I'm not sure if I would describe that as rising to the level of conserving (are there chemicals in canned air? Can the force of the air damage the coin's lustre? or it's surface?). But your example raises an interesting point about - INTENT! In your example, you were not trying to change the appearance of the coin, create a false illusion of lustre, mimic color, or other, to obtain a "better looking" coin designed to get it either certified (when it's not worthy to be certified) or upgraded (as a result of it's new enhanced look). Still, I would rather leave my raw coins unfettered by anything you described, even water or forced air from a can.
You said; now if a coin has pvc residue removed w/ an acid bath, perhaps that should be disclosed.
We are closer to agreement here (though I note you said "perhaps"). When a coin is "professionally" conserved, it is my understanding that a chemical process of some kind is used on the coin's surface. If true, would you say that it should be disclosed on the slab?
You said; others have pointed out that a properly CONSERVED coin may be (& in fact usually should be) indistinguishable from an unconserved coin,.... If a coin is "treated" with chemicals to alter it's appearance, then the fact that it is indistinguishable to most buyers makes it all the more necessary for disclosure because there is greater likelihood that it would otherwise go unnoticed by a buyer. What happens if the coin "turns" months or years later? The buyer might be left with the impression that it turned on it's own, when in fact it could have been the chemicals used to treat the coin that caused it to turn. Consider the following hypothetical situation:
If I fall in love with a woman because her blue eyes turn me on, isn't it only fair that she reveal to me that her blue eyes are really color contact lenses before I make the commitment to marry her? Suppose her fake blues were completely indistinguishable to me from real blue eyes. What should she do? Should she tell me they are fake or shut her mouth?
You said; ..because the purpose is to leave the COIN as undisturbed as possible, while removing the offending contaminant..."
Doesn't the admission "as undisturbed as possible" imply that the coin IS disturbed, however slightly or greatly? If I buy a home, shouldn't the owner disclose to me that he just treated the house with termite spray because the house had offending termites? Or, could the home seller take the position that he was only removing that which was NOT a part of the original house (the termites) and therefore is not obligated to disclose the issue? Wouldn't it just be better if the seller said something like, "this house had offending termites, I had it professionally treated and now the termites are gone. I'm told they are gone for good." Now I can make an informed decision to pass or buy. Simple!
You said; 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 originally part of the coin (say by dipping it) is CLEANING or DOCTORING the coin.
It is my understanding that "cleaned" coins are expressly not "slab-able" and will be body bagged by the biggie grading services. I've been left with the impression on this thread that "dipping" is different than "cleaning" (although I don't think it is different). In your comment above, you seem to suggest that "dipping" removes some "silver atoms" that were originally part of the coin. If this is true, then isn't this indisputable evidence that dipping DOES alter the originality of the coin as does cleaning? If yes, then shouldn't the grading services treat "dipping" and "cleaning" the same? Thanks Dorrkarl.
My apologies if I seem exceedingly passionate about this. I'm not. Just average passionate about it (same with ATed coins too). I do worry about newbies (and oldies) getting creamed when they are offered expensive "conserved" coins without knowing that the coin has been "conserved." "Shiney white" coins always impress newbs - and if the person happens to be a newb with a checkbook - well - creamed would be an understatement.
There is a long standing tradition in numismatics that originality is prized. If that tradition is changing, then so be it. But if it is changing because of "ignorance" or lack of knowledge, then it is not a healthy development for numismatics. Please let's not forget that our great study of Numismatics is a very important body of KNOWLEDGE. Being informed is the very soul of "knowledge."
You said; The general assumption is that PCGS and NGC graded coins are ORIGIONAL, I like this policy and RELY on it. Do you really belive that??
It was always my understanding that the biggies "body bagged" cleaned coins (human error exceptions excluded). I feel that a "dipped" coin is a cleaned coin. If it's not, then what is it? (half of a cleaned coin?). Even if half cleaned it is still cleaned (you can't be half pregnant). I feel that any coin that has been "treated" by a process - particularly a chemical process - to enhance the coin is relevant information that should be disclosed to a buyer if the Seller definitively knows about it. Since Sellers and Buyers alike cannot always "know," they turn to the grading services for their professional opinions. I know that I do (have).
You said; I just wondered where in the world you got that ASSUMPTION because in all my years of coin collecting the only person that said that to me was a telemarketer salesman...
I've never been employed in the telemarketing industry (thank GOD as such salespeople are among society's most abused and mistreated). However, I can understand how this salesman arrived at this conclusion. Furthermore, I have never seen anything by the grading services that explicitly states they will encapsulate a cleaned or altered coin as a matter of policy (body bags).
You said; put it in a baking soda bath and that still didnt get all the gunk off so I dipped it in acetone(sorry) and finally it looked half way decent since it is in an AU58 holder at PCGS do you really think that it should have been body Bagged?
If they could not discern that the coin had been chemically treated, then it is only logical that they would slab it. However, if they did discern this and certified it anyway, well, I would be disappointed.
You said; would love if the services would label a coin one of three ways A. Origional B. Dipped or processed some way C. Body Bag for harsh cleaning tooled whizzed etc. Lets dont confuse conserved coins with the A. B. or C.
I agree with you on the first part of this comment Reece. However, wouldn't a so-called "conserved" coin fall into your category B "dipped or processed some way"? Regardless of how one feels about "conserved" coins, everyone surely must agree that a "conserved" coin is "processed in some way."
You said; NCS doesnt dip coins for people just to get a higher grade, they conserve to protect
I have no problem with someone conserving their coin for whatever reason they want, provided that they disclose that vital information to a future buyer. Otherwise, the buyer cannot make an informed decision about purchasing it in the absence of the disclosure. Ideally, the best way to disclose this to a future buyer would simply be to put it on the slab, at the source, by the one who actually DOES the conserving, cleaning/dipping or whatever process they use.
You said; Hope I didnt offend anybody here!!!!
Not at all Reece. On the contrary, I'm very thankful for your input as well as everyone else’s input too. Thank you again!
Reece, centuries ago, North America had an amazing array of animal species. Many of these creatures are now extinct. For example, the Bison species (the kind of creature depicted on the reverse of the famous "Buffalo" Nickel) was once rampant in America and is now extinct due to human exploitation, hunting, and the technology of the day (i.e. longbow, recurve bow & arrow, spear, other). As a result, nearly all of these animals have disappeared completely. This is exactly what can happen when humans, even with the best of intentions, arrive with their skill as hunters, exploiters, and/or misuse of technology. The destruction of the irreplaceable can occur. Our present and future generations can now only enjoy these creatures by gazing at drawings, paintings, vintage photographs (or collecting Buffalo Nickels I suppose).
Our numismatic population of original coinage is LIMITED and irreplaceable. Chemical manipulation, baking, ATing have all served to unalterably change many an original coin.
Like the modern day status of the Bison, the future status of the "original coin" could well be in jeopardy. By placing the "comment" on the slab, that a coin has been "conserved," the TRUTH of what has happened to the coin will be revealed and the free marketplace can then evalulate it accordingly. Why wouldn't a "conserver" be willing to reveal the TRUTH about his conserved coin?
Is it because a coin KNOWN to be conserved is not likely to bring the same "doh-re-mi" as a conserved coin which is NOT known (disclosed) to a potential buyer? (we all know that in numismatics, original vs. non-original is a HIGHLY material issue). Is it fair to say that by NOT disclosing the truth, a conserver might be seeking to receive MORE money for his conserved coin than the "Free Market" might otherwise allow if full disclosure were observed? Can a fair and honorable transaction occur without full disclosure? Would a conserver still conserve if the “conserve” was required to be listed on the slab? (tongue twister).
Finally, while I have no problem with a conserved coin per se, I do have a problem when a future buyer does not receive disclosure that the coin he is being offered has been "conserved." Without that material information, he cannot make an informed decision to buy or not. Thank you again for your comments Reece (and the others too). I appreciate it much!
<< <i>While I don't think it is prudent to use canned air to remove dust from a coin, I'm not sure if I would describe that as rising to the level of conserving (are there chemicals in canned air? Can the force of the air damage the coin's lustre? or it's surface?). But your example raises an interesting point about - INTENT! In your example, you were not trying to change the appearance of the coin, create a false illusion of lustre, mimic color, or other, to obtain a "better looking" coin designed to get it either certified (when it's not worthy to be certified) or upgraded (as a result of it's new enhanced look). Still, I would rather leave my raw coins unfettered by anything you described, even water or forced air from a can. >>
if you are placing coins in long-term storage flips, you should definitely remove potential dust contaminants w/ canned air. otherwise, the dust particles may cause micro-spots, or worse yet, etch the surface if the flips are stored in such a way that the coin ever slides around. canned air contains ...... air & propellant, but the proplellant is basically freon & evaporates immediately before ever hitting the coin.
i strongly recommend & emphasize the canned air precaution to everyone. i believe plastic co's do the same thing prior to slabing a coin.
<< <i>You said; others have pointed out that a properly CONSERVED coin may be (& in fact usually should be) indistinguishable from an unconserved coin,.... If a coin is "treated" with chemicals to alter it's appearance, then the fact that it is indistinguishable to most buyers makes it all the more necessary for disclosure because there is greater likelihood that it would otherwise go unnoticed by a buyer. What happens if the coin "turns" months or years later? >>
a coin can "turn" whether or not it's conserved or cleaned. that's why i really don't worry about that too much. in fact, if a copper coin (for example) does NOT turn, i would be very suspicious that it's been doctored in some way. a copper coin SHOULD turn brown, & a silver coin SHOULD turn grey after time.
<< <i>If I fall in love with a woman because her blue eyes turn me on, isn't it only fair that she reveal to me that her blue eyes are really color contact lenses before I make the commitment to marry her? >>
no. if someone's eye color is a motivation either way for/against marriage, you need to have your head examined. likewise, if paranoia about whether a coin's ever been cleaned is what keeps you from buying it, rather then whether YOU LIKE the coin or not, you should not be collecting coins, because you'll never be able to understand what it means to be a collector.
<< <i>Doesn't the admission "as undisturbed as possible" imply that the coin IS disturbed, however slightly or greatly? If I buy a home, shouldn't the owner disclose to me that he just treated the house with termite spray because the house had offending termites? >>
the wood that was rotted by termites is inherent to the structure of the home, so that is analogous to cleaning, not conservation. it affects the actual structure of the home.
now wiping spilled soda off your linoleum floor, that's analogous to conservation. it does not disturb the inherent structure of the home.
proper conservation should never have to be disclosed. imagine the absurdity. i would have to list every time i've vaccuumed the carpets, wiped fingerprints off the window, dusted the mantle, raked the yard, cleaned the gutters, etc etc. again, the reason conservation need not be disclosed is becuase by def'n , conservation intends to leave the conserved item in an undistrubed state.
conservation removes that which is not inherent to the coin (or home).
<< <i>It is my understanding that "cleaned" coins are expressly not "slab-able" and will be body bagged by the biggie grading services. I've been left with the impression on this thread that "dipping" is different than "cleaning" (although I don't think it is different). >>
dipping and cleaning are both forms of DOCTORING, & it is doctoring which plastic co's allege to want to avoid. ie. whether cleaning off toning or adding toning, those are both forms of doctoring which are not certifiable. so yes, absoultely, cleaning & dipping are the same in the sense that they are BOTH FORMS OF DOCTORING.
<< <i> In your comment above, you seem to suggest that "dipping" removes some "silver atoms" that were originally part of the coin. If this is true, then isn't this indisputable evidence that dipping DOES alter the originality of the coin as does cleaning? If yes, then shouldn't the grading services treat "dipping" and "cleaning" the same? >>
absolutely, & most definitely true.
the sad fact is, most people who really want to be collectors never "get it". they honestly believe that if a plastic co. says something (like dipping) is ok, then it's ok for everyone. that is as far as their knowledge & experience will ever go - buying plastic holders w/ coins stuck in them. that is what i despise about marketing of plastic - not the plastic itself, but the inevitiable fact that it turns so many people into baby sheep.
K S
My example was not so much about eye color, but rather the HONESTY of revealing that the eye color is non-original and derived from a foreign source, namely color contact lenses. Surely you would agree that HONESTY between courting partners is a very important issue when considering marriage (as well as when entering into business transactions). As an aside, there can be no doubt that the impetus to marry almost always carries a strong physical attraction element. In fact, I would say that lack of a strong physical attraction between potential marital partners should raise all kind of alarm bells (and physical attraction might include eye color, hair, smile, or whatever else is important to someone in the physical sense).
You said; dipping and cleaning are both forms of DOCTORING, & it is doctoring which plastic co's allege to want to avoid. ie. whether cleaning off toning or adding toning, those are both forms of doctoring which are not certifiable. so yes, absoultely, cleaning & dipping are the same in the sense that they are BOTH FORMS OF DOCTORING.
If dipping and cleaning are both forms of doctoring as you say (and I agree), then how does "conserving" a coin differ? Aren't the same or similar chemicals or substances used when conserving a coin as are used when dipping/cleaning a coin?
You said; "whether cleaning off toning or adding toning, those are both forms of doctoring which are not certifiable..
If as you say "cleaning off toning" is doctoring and is not certifiable, how do you reconcile that belief concerning those conserved coins where "cleaning off toning" is performed? Using your definition of doctoring, is it fair to say that such "conserved" coins are doctored?
Do you recall those advertisements that proudly displayed the "before and after" images of a conserved coin, where the "before" photo was an original toned coin and the "after" photo was a bright white untoned "conserved" coin? What would you say about such a conserved coin? Is it doctored?
You said; proper conservation should never have to be disclosed.
What is your definition of "proper conservation?" Does it include some "chemical process" or does it avoid the use of chemicals relying only upon the use of air, or water? Please describe. If a coin has some toning removed, has it been properly conserved? If some "skin" has been removed, has it been properly conserved?
I previously asked you the question; ...you seem to suggest that "dipping" removes some "silver atoms" that were originally part of the coin. If this is true, then isn't this indisputable evidence that dipping DOES alter the originality of the coin as does cleaning? If yes, then shouldn't the grading services treat "dipping" and "cleaning" the same? You then answered this question by saying; absolutely, & most definitely true.
If it could be shown that conserving a coin leads to the removal of silver atoms that were originally a part of the coin, or that conserving a coin removes some of the coins surface to some degree, would this change your mind about disclosing to future buyers when a coin has been conserved? Thank you again for your comments Dorrkarl. I appreciate it.
I truly do see your point of view Reece and I very much respect it. I particularly respect your point of view Reece because you are so honest, and forthright about it. I thank you for that. Though I would like to see the "comments" on the holders for coins that have been "conserved," I nevertheless respect your wisdom and that of the numismatic community. The point of view that you hold is the prevailing one. Thank you again for your comments Reece. It is very much appreciated.
<< <i>My example was not so much about eye color, but rather the HONESTY of revealing that the eye color is non-original and derived from a foreign source, namely color contact lenses. Surely you would agree that HONESTY between courting partners is a very important issue when considering marriage (as well as when entering into business transactions). >>
to me coins are not analogous to people. would you also want to know each time your girl farts but hides it out of politeness? if she's going to lengths to make herself appealing to you, you should value that aspect of her personality.
coins do not have such self-motivation. coins are altered due to greed on the part of we stupid humans.
<< <i>If dipping and cleaning are both forms of doctoring as you say (and I agree), then how does "conserving" a coin differ? Aren't the same or similar chemicals or substances used when conserving a coin as are used when dipping/cleaning a coin? >>
no. example: canned air can be used to conserve a coin by removing dust from a coin's surface w/out distruing the molecules that are inherent to the coin. suplhuric acid cannot conserve a coin because it changes the molecules that are part of the coin. it really is a very simple distinction, & i'm surprised so many folks can't grasp it.
<< <i>If as you say "cleaning off toning" is doctoring and is not certifiable, how do you reconcile that belief concerning those conserved coins where "cleaning off toning" is performed? Using your definition of doctoring, is it fair to say that such "conserved" coins are doctored? >>
if toning is removed from a coin, it is by def'n cleaning, not conservation. yes, removing toning is doctoring.
<< <i>Do you recall those advertisements that proudly displayed the "before and after" images of a conserved coin, where the "before" photo was an original toned coin and the "after" photo was a bright white untoned "conserved" coin? What would you say about such a conserved coin? Is it doctored? >>
yes.
<< <i>What is your definition of "proper conservation?" Does it include some "chemical process" or does it avoid the use of chemicals relying only upon the use of air, or water? >>
air & (distilled) water are safe conservation mechanisms. in fact, they are about the only safe way to conserve a coin. copper can be conserved by ADDING oil to the surface to prevent communication of the metal w/ air, because it is a fully reversible process.
<< <i>If a coin has some toning removed, has it been properly conserved? If some "skin" has been removed, has it been properly conserved? >>
no & no. it's been cleaned/doctored.
<< <i>If it could be shown that conserving a coin leads to the removal of silver atoms that were originally a part of the coin, or that conserving a coin removes some of the coins surface to some degree, would this change your mind about disclosing to future buyers when a coin has been conserved? >>
no, because then insanity would set in. you could do nothing to a coin & it might still lose silver atoms. but common sense tells me that if you pour acid on a coin, or scrub it w/ ajax, or laser etch the surfaces, it's guaranteed that silver atoms will be lost or disturbed.
so to summarize, it's simple. removal of something from a coin that is not inherently part of the coin, such as dust particles or spilled coffee, is conservation. altering or removing what comprises the coin & is inherent to it, such as the surfaces, is doctoring it. doctoring includes dipping, which is a form of cleaning.
K S
So, you are saying that a coin conserver who uses chemicals or substances other than air, distilled water (and oil for copper) to "conserve" a coin has NOT conserved that coin at all but has "doctored" it. Is that your position?
You said; it's simple. removal of something from a coin that is not inherently part of the coin, such as dust particles or spilled coffee, is conservation...
Provided that the conserver's removal of these things does NOT employ any chemicals or substances with the exception of air and distilled water to remove those dust particles or spilled coffee. Is this what you are saying?
I previously asked you the following questions; Do you recall those advertisements that proudly displayed the "before and after" images of a conserved coin, where the "before" photo was an original toned coin and the "after" photo was a bright white untoned "conserved" coin? What would you say about such a conserved coin? Is it doctored?
You answered; yes.
Yes to which one of the questions? Was it "Yes" to my first question which was Do you recall those advertisements that proudly displayed the "before and after" images of a conserved coin, where the "before" photo was an original toned coin and the "after" photo was a bright white untoned "conserved" coin? or was it "YES" to to my third question which was Is it doctored? (i.e. the toned coin that was conserved to an untoned coin in that advertisement). Thank you for the follow up Dorkkarl.
<< <i>So, you are saying that a coin conserver who uses chemicals or substances other than air, distilled water (and oil for copper) to "conserve" a coin has NOT conserved that coin at all but has "doctored" it. Is that your position? >>
yep
<< <i>Provided that the conserver's removal of these things does NOT employ any chemicals or substances with the exception of air and distilled water to remove those dust particles or spilled coffee. Is this what you are saying? >>
yep
<< <i>I previously asked you the following questions; Do you recall those advertisements that proudly displayed the "before and after" images of a conserved coin, where the "before" photo was an original toned coin and the "after" photo was a bright white untoned "conserved" coin? What would you say about such a conserved coin? Is it doctored?
You answered; yes.
Yes to which one of the questions? Was it "Yes" to my first question which was Do you recall those advertisements that proudly displayed the "before and after" images of a conserved coin, where the "before" photo was an original toned coin and the "after" photo was a bright white untoned "conserved" coin? or was it "YES" to to my third question which was Is it doctored? >>
yes, the coin was doctored.
K S