PCGS RESPONSE POLL: 42% Voted PCGS Will State "We Thought It Obvious Wood Boxes Have Harmful Po
magikbilly
Posts: 6,780 ✭
Hi,
I am wondering what the speculation is - what will PCGS's response be after they complete the tests? 78.79% voted last week that they believed the boxes posess the potential for harm, or more - I am curious to see the results here. Obviously, answer #2 is an unsaid admission of potential for problems and a release of responsiblity.
Best,
Billy
Ps - I am told by Mr. Hall the testing is being done now - that does not mean conclusively that they were not tested before - but it sure doesn't help the case. And, sorry for the not-so-well-made poll up there. Only made one once before.
I am wondering what the speculation is - what will PCGS's response be after they complete the tests? 78.79% voted last week that they believed the boxes posess the potential for harm, or more - I am curious to see the results here. Obviously, answer #2 is an unsaid admission of potential for problems and a release of responsiblity.
Best,
Billy
Ps - I am told by Mr. Hall the testing is being done now - that does not mean conclusively that they were not tested before - but it sure doesn't help the case. And, sorry for the not-so-well-made poll up there. Only made one once before.
0
Comments
<< <i>) "We will refund and pull the boxes.." (not happening) >>
How do you know its not going to happen? Never say never.
Cameron Kiefer
you are quite correct - I should not speak in absolutes. It would surprise me in as much as it would be a sort of public admission of a mistake - not the norm today.
Best,
Billy
thanks to all those who are voting and /or making contributions to the thread. I, and several other members, am very curious to see how this will end. I also wonder when these tests will be concluded, how the results will be made known and why they are doing these tests after marketing the boxes. Impartial tests should be conducted as well.
Best and thanks,
Billy
Cameron Kiefer
<< <i>What if they are safe? Again you assume they are going to be wrong. Do you have SOLID proof that they are not except that one article? NO.
Cameron Kiefer >>
Hi Cameron,
several months ago, before I joined here, I found you online and wrote to you asking to help me date a slab - I just recognized your name. You were most helpful - thanks
One article? There are multiple sources listed in the thread(s) that resulted in this poll - I am sure you read it. Thread with more evidence
I, and others, have quoted as many sources as I can in an attempt to shed some light on this subject, including of course the Art Conservation Center at the University of Denver, the Library of Congress, Coin Chemistry by W. White, The Merck Index of Substances, the Intercept Patent and the opinion of some conservator from Coin World. There are more sources. Mr. Spud, who is actually interested in general conservation and not particularly these boxes, has quoted more sources and additional information than I care to list - literally. In addition, 78.79% of board members who voted in the previous poll thought the boxes have the potential to cause harm. Answers #2 and 3 in this poll, which "admit" there is the potential for harm, well - as of this writing almost 77% voted that way here as well. That is what this is about - potential. The one article from the University of Denver about storing metal in wood cases - the one even you said provides solid evidence they are not safe, is enough to put me off the idea - especially as I have no "pro" argument to counter it with. The "pretty" factor means little to me - about as much as the "Limited Edition" part.
Now, do I have "SOLID proof" as you put it? NO - as in I did not complete tests on these specific boxes myself - but then apparently neither has PCGS. Nor do I need to have solid proof - I did not sell them apparently without testing them. I am merely trying to raise an issue that seems important to me. However, I do know that wood is a no-no in many other areas of collecting and conservation, and there is a body of established data that bears that out - storage in wood is clearly not the best of ideas for metal objects - and it has no advantages that have been raised that I have seen. And it is not just wood - it is the adhesives used, the fabric and so on. The slabs are probably the just about the best thing going. But, as we do know that slabs are not "airtight" and are gas permeable, I do not think I will choose to store mine in a known concentrated acidic environment. Especially if it hasn't even been tested yet, as seems to be the case (no pun there). Even if the potential is deemed "possible but unlikely" - what is there on the other side of the issue that would induce me to chance my collection? Because the boxes are pretty? What am I missing here? Are there other advantages I am not seeing? They don't fit into deposit boxes (thank god) as someone mentioned. So, what is it then that makes people ignore a reasonable potential and want to even possibly risk their coins - some worth many thousands of dollars each - risk 30 coins at a time to the tune of $50 a box? To accomplish what exactly? They can't be determined to be inert - even if they were determined to be 90% safe with 90% certainty, why take a chance with a collection that has taken time, effort and money to assemble?
Best to you,
Billy
Put them in a nice Eagle Slab Album and show them off!!!
<< <i>
<< <i>) "We will refund and pull the boxes.." (not happening) >>
How do you know its not going to happen? Never say never.
Cameron Kiefer >>
Hi Cameron,
in light of the post I just responded to - are you just "devil's advocating", or do you have an opinion? I am obviously on record as being very concerned about the potential for damage from these boxes - particularly from long term storage and especially from storage in a safe or deposit box. I have tried to show why I feel this way as best I can. If you think they are safe, why - and can you cite anything to support your contention? As I have said before, I am all ears.
Best,
Billy
<< <i>Why stick your prized Slabs in a box anyway?
Put them in a nice Eagle Slab Album and show them off!!! >>
AGREED!
Best,
Billy
First, I think the eagle albums are horribly ugly! Sorry, but there is not any other way I can think of to describe my feelings of them!
Secondly, coins used to be stored in desks and cabinets made of wood. I have no recollection of anyone ever saying anything about coins being ruined by that storage method.
Ken
<< <i>Secondly, coins used to be stored in desks and cabinets made of wood. I have no recollection of anyone ever saying anything about coins being ruined by that storage method.
Ken >>
Hi Ken,
Link to Poll showing 78.79 of Board Members voted "yes" that wood has the potential to harm coins: Poll Link
From Coin Chemistry by W. White:
" Before today's plastic holders came on the scene, coins were stored in drawers, specially made wooden cabinets, paper envelopes, cardboard coin holders, cigar boxes, mint-produced cardboard boxes, mint-sewn cloth bags, paper roll wrappers and other sundry devices. Most of these storage`methods exposed coins to sulfur compounds that were present either in the solid or gaseous state. In time, many specimens developed a visible surface film of metal sulfide about 25 to 125 nanometers thick"
and
"Organic acids are not present in the ambient air at concentrations great enough to cause corrosion within collections; but they are given off by wood and wood based products, as is formaldehyde."
Thanks to MacCrimmon:
"Susan Maltby has written to this issue many times in Coin World.
She is a conservationist out of Toronto, I believe. The bottom line is, wood containers are not the best environment for storage of 'metal objects'."
From the Art Conservation Center at the University of Denver's Judy Greenfield, Conservator of Objects - "Building a Better Case":
"True African mahogany is reported to be one of the least corrosive woods, but it's expensive and difficult to procure, and other mahoganies sold as substitutes are corrosive" (Hatchfield). Additionally, mahogany is resistant to termite attack. There is disagreement over the benefits of seasoned wood. Kiln-drying (seasoning) wood helps break down and drive off some inherent acids, though it may depress the wood's RH-buffering ability (Miles). But Werner cites the Department of Industry's statement that "[seasoning] wood...accelerates the production of free acetic acid and formic acid. Most of the acid, however, remains in the wood."
So, even if you are lucky and your cabinet is actually made out of true African Mahogany it is still only a lesser evil. While Mahogany is much more stable than red oak, particularly dimensionally which I imagine would play a role in cabinet making, none of this this alters the fact that wood is factually not the best choice of material in which to store coins. I continue to quote from Art Conservation Center at the University of Denver, and this information is specifically in regard to display/storage cases - not so terribly removed from coin storage. And remember, display cases in museums are often temporary and yet these matters are considered. Many of the displayed items cited in the article were metal
"Although some woods are worse than others, all emit a variety of acids, aldehydes and other lignocellulosic degradation products." (Miles). Wood emits mostly acetic acid; formic acid is produced at 1/10th the amount of acetic acid(Blackshaw). Moisture hydrolyzes acetyl groups in the hemicellulose (a form of cellulose, the "building block" of wood) to produce acetic acid. Elevated temperatures appear to foster acetic acid production (Werner)." I don't know what to make of the claims about sanded mahogany - it is also agreed among conservators that all woods must have a barrier between the wood and the display case interior. "No wood can ever be completely sealed to stop emission of organic compounds, though sealants can impede emission." At least one case I saw made by Mr. Nichols appears to have the coins "exposed" to the inside finish, which IMHO should not be inside the case at all. You don't need physical contact for outgassing problems, and we know PCGS slabs are not "sealed" and plastic is gas permeable anyway. Also, the PCGS boxes are "cherry wood finish and are lined with black felt" - I don't have any idea what wood is used, what adhesives, what finish (oil /Varathane?) or what fabric. To me, once closed, the environment in a wood box is concentrated - and the wood just sits there outgassing with the adhesives and finish, waiting to absorb large qualtities of water...now if the box is in a safe.....
Someone mentioned Varathane - "Even after 18 months' drying time, oleoresinous (oil) paints corroded lead in an experiment cited by Miles. As oil products dry, they undergo oxidative degradation which yields volatile organic acids, aldehydes and carbon dioxide (Miles). Oleo-resinous products include oil-modified paints and varnishes, one-component polyurethane varnishes (e.g., Varathane), alkyd paints, epoxy ester paints, aluminum paints, silicone paints and most varnishes (Miles)."
The information just goes on and on...and on - ESPECIALLY about the harmful glues and adhesives that might be used in construction (perhaps more important than the wood and as important as the finish), the fabrics - fabric should not be used where humidity is not controlled (someone mentioned a tarnish retardant cloth - these can be bad - as can certain dyed felts etc.!)...all can be injurious, and usually are unless care is taken. All I am saying is that wood in not an ideal choice, or even second choice for long term coin storage. Yes, this data is about storage/display cases in museums, but most of the problems above seem are mainly influenced by humidity and temperature - variables found in every deposit box and safe. And those are concentrated environments, more than the cases in the above discussion.
Best,
Billy
PS - Despite recent posts to the contrary, oak (some say the PCGS box is in fact oak) is indeed the most acidic of woods and does in fact outgas. The most acidic hardwoods include oak, beech, birch and ash. Oak is the most acidic. With a pH of 3.7 to 4.9, depending on the source (Miles, Stamm), it is capable of liberating up to five percent of its weight in acetic acid (Erhardt)." Brazillian Mahogany, as apparently used by Mr. Nichols, is apparently properly called Honduras Mahogany and IS NOT true African Mahogany and does not share the same "stability" as the African source above - "other mahoganies sold as substitutes are corrosive" (Hatchfield)". I have no idea what wood Mr. Nichols uses other than what he states on his website. As stated above about Mahogany though, regardless of seasoning or kiln drying "most of the acid, however, remains in the wood." I have no issue with Mr. Nichols fine and attractive cases, this is not an attack on his cases nor do I wish to engage in any further discussions about his work as I do not even know him.
It just rubs me wrong with a poll and posts like this that won't give PCGS the benefit of the doubt and assumes that they will A. say it is safe and B. never refund the money and recall the boxes. They would ruin their reputation over some wood boxes? I doubt it.
I say let them finish their accelrated testing and announce something before polls like this come about.
Cameron Kiefer
<< <i>I have an opinion but no major sources like you have.
It just rubs me wrong with a poll and posts like this that won't give PCGS the benefit of the doubt and assumes that they will A. say it is safe and B. never refund the money and recall the boxes. They would ruin their reputation over some wood boxes? I doubt it.
I say let them finish their accelrated testing and announce something before polls like this come about.
Cameron Kiefer >>
Hi Cameron,
this is a POLL. Obviously, I never said they would not return peoples money, or anything else like that! As stated I wanted speculation in light of the previous poll regarding this matter. I am sorry if you don't find this interesting. I have been involved one way or another with conservation for many years and these boxes "rub me the wrong way" to use your words. I don't think wood boxes a good idea - acetic acid is outgassed by oak - up to 5% of its weight - was not acetic acid (vinegar) used in todays excellent posted experiment showing how easy it is to tone a slabbed Morgan in a closed environment (like a box) in just 12 hours? Many have stated these boxes appear to be oak. That alone is enough to give me pause.
It is not my fault if PCGS has not tested them yet, and I see no reason to carefully tread around if they haven't. As of right now, more people (40%) have voted expressing the opinion that PCGS will state "We thought it obvious they are for "display" only and not intended for long term storage - everyone knows these materials might pose problems" - that would mean most people agree that it is inherently a bad idea. As did my last Poll. I have nothing against PCGS or their reputation. I still think independant testing is a good idea though.
Best to you,
Billy
thanks again - 50 voters now and much appreciated
Best,
Billy
well - at this point with 53 voters, amost 42% of voting Board Members think it goes without saying that wooden boxes are inherently problematic by design. Very interesting poll - use the links for additional information :
Link To Thread With Additional Information
and
Another Link With Yet More Information
Best,
Billy
PS - thanks for voting!
thanks to the 54 voters.
Here is the vote breakdown:
1 vote or 1.85% - "we will refund and pull the boxes"
13 votes or 24.07% - "they are perfectly safe and we stand by that"
18 votes or 33.33% - "They are ok for short term, not in a safe and PCGS is not responsible for any "potential" color change"
22 votes or 40.74% - "We thought it obvious they are for display only and not intenbed for long term storage; everyone knows these materials are problematic."
Again, a majority feel wood has the potential for harm. I am now thinking of Frattlaws posted experiment yesterday with the vinegar (acetic acid - like what comes out of oak which these boxes seem to be) and platic bag (a closed environment...like a box). He toned a slabbed coin, albeit a "rattler", in 12 hours. In my book - I add the 33% with the 40%, as both are at minimum an admission of the potential. That added "inferred" figure would be 74.07 - not too far off from the 78.79% in the last poll that voted outright agreeing wood has the potential to harm a slabbed coin. I hope the results of the testing now beong done are made public soon, and I also hope there will be independant tests conducted. It is unfortunate these boxes appear not to have been tested prior to sales.
Best and thanks to All,
Billy
What do I mean by this? You could have a room full of monkeys with this question and a few choices, and sometimes, you'll pull these results. To base an argument based on the responses of people who, overall, are unqualified to answer the question is ludicrous. Again, I don't mean to insult anyone on the boards--I'm not saying members are dumb, stupid, or have no idea about what they're saying. I just don't think the exact grasp of chemistry needed to understand all the reactions and what's happening is held by enough of the voters to give your argument that "board members agree" any validity.
Jeremy
firstly, I have no argument. My concerns are firmly based on logical inference drawn from conservation data whose sources I have listed - not on the (appreciated) opinions gained in my Poll as you seem to think. And speaking for myself, I am offened that you think I, or any other "monkey" in here, am incapable of posing a reasonable question that might deserve a little scientific lookin' into. For me - the opinions expressed in here can be very helpful and insightful...or sometimes inciteful
All I have ever meant to accomplish with my posts, and I have stated my intent more than once, is to draw attention to a potential. 18 years of personal education and work in the field of art conservation, as relates to my own work (which is oil on copper), have taught me - wood outgasses a heck of a lot of acid. Anyone who has destretched and/or relined an old linen canvas has seen what wood can and will do. Red alarm bells went off when I heard about these boxes - "wood?" I though to myself. My position has always been simply that wood is not the best choice for storing slabs. When members responded saying with things like slabs are airtight (untrue) - that wood doesn't emit gas (untrue) - or that oak was not acidic at all (untrue) - or that oak can't hold tremendous amounts of water (unture) - or that paper/fabric does not release acid (untrue) - or that Varathane will not corrode metal (untrue) - I posted relevant data to support my concerns. No, I am not a chemist, but I will state here and now from my experience that wood will harm (tone, corrode etc) certain metals over long periods of time - especially I fear in closed or possibly humid conditions like a safe as I mentioned in a previous post. In fact, I think it is only a matter of how much how soon - the boxes cannot be inert and have to affect metal eventually. Can/when will a PCGS slab tone in a PCGS box either in a deposit box/safe or not? I don't know for sure - and apparently neither does anyone else, including PCGS. My interest is in preserving coins - mine, yours...
And, I was not trying to twist the results or validity as you put it - I clearly stated how I was interpreting the poll results for myself - I think I said something like "to me..." And, please remember - my personal "certainty" aside, I have been speaking about a (to me) worrying POTENTIAL, and have used that word enough times it should be obvious. In case it was the wording of the title of this thread you think I was trying to misuse (the "members agree" thing) I changed it to a purely factual statement.
Best to you,
Billy
From a previous post - "I don't think wood boxes a good idea - acetic acid is outgassed by oak - up to 5% of its weight - was not acetic acid (in the form of vinegar) used in todays excellent posted experiment showing how easy it is to tone a slabbed Morgan in a plastic bag in just 12 hours? Many have stated these boxes appear to be oak. That alone is enough to give me pause."
<< <i>What is the purpose of these stupid threads? If you do not like the boxes, then do not buy them. >>
Hi,
well - did you "like" PVC flips? I am certainly not suggesting these boxes in any way pose that level of threat to a coin - all I am trying to express is that a potential exists for damage that should be examined - preferably before someone opens a box containing a once unhazed run of Gem Proof Liberty 5c.
Best to you,
Billy
Can we wait for the actual facts? ....
<< <i>Why do I get the feeling I'm watching network news....
Can we wait for the actual facts? .... >>
Hi,
Thanks at least I think in part to the threads like these and the concerns also raised by other collectors who sent letters to PCGS we now are
Best,
Billy