Should Eliasberg, Bass, Garrett, etc. Pedigreed Coins be Conserved...

RKKay

by dealers who want to just flip it for a profit if they have beautiful (let's not argue this term; accept it as fact) original toning, or should deference be paid to the pedigree?

J-340 ex. Eliasberg PCGS PR 64; now dipped, stripped and left for dead as NGC PF 65Cam

I can't find my old pix, so if anyone has the old pix...please post

mgoodm3

No. Hell No.

MacCrimmon

Lots of hairlines in those fields.......

And no, they should be left alone!

tradedollarnut

As long as the grading services reward dipped out lightly hairlined POS's, it will happen. The only way we can do anything about it is to refuse to buy them.

ColonialCoinUnion

I find it revolting that a dealer somewhere feels that by dipping a coin like this and getting it into a higher holder he can increase its selling price, amazing that the grading services (NGC in this case) reward this sort of activity by upgrading dipped coins and nauseating that there is (very likely) a collector somewhere uneducated enough to buy this coin for strong money and keep the cycle humming.

magikbilly

Hi,
I am anxious to see a photo of it before this vicious attack.

Best,
Billy

RKKay

<< <i>I am anxious to see a photo of it before this vicious attack. >>



I'm still looking. I know I took pix when I owned it a couple years ago. I haven't located them yet.

Coinhusker1

<< <i>As long as the grading services reward dipped out lightly hairlined POS's, it will happen. The only way we can do anything about it is to refuse to buy them. >>



Well, a loud and clear message would be if it sells for less than what it did as a nicely toned PCGS PF 64. However, may be wishful thinking if it was sold a while back.

BillJones

<< <i>I find it amazing and revolting that a dealer somewhere feels that by dipping a coin like this and getting it into a higher holder he can increase its selling price.

And even more amazing and significantly more revolting that there is a collector somewhere uneducated enough to prove that dealer right. >>



You would be amazed at the number of collectors who will not buy toned original coins.

What are you going to do? I've tried to teach them; it does not matter. They will not listen. The argument that a silver coin that is 100 + years old is almost always toned just can't be driven into their heads.

Personally I almost never dip coins. I buy and seel them "as is" unless they have dirt or the film that can form on copper. The latter must be removed because it stays there for a long time, it will promote corrosion.

Yes, I agree this Eliasberg coin now looks like hell. It was a PR-64 before it was dipped, and now its no better than PR-63 or perhaps 62.

RKKay

BEFORE

dorkkarl

<< <i>Should Eliasberg, Bass, Garrett, etc. Pedigreed Coins be Conserved... >>

huh??? has someone determined that these coins have problems that REQUIRE conservation???

K S

mgoodm3

That was really nice before.

ziggy29

Personally I think it's revolting that a coin with a truly prized pedigree would be altered from the state that Eliasberg, Bass, Garrett et al enjoyed it for many, many years. Still, it's their coin now, so they can unfortunately do what they want.

All we can do if we disapprove of these dealers, if indeed the dealers are responsible for the "conservation," is not do business with them.

BillJones

From the "before" photo it looks like the fields were cloudy. That always reason for a dip in the minds of many because the cloudiness will dip off, and many collectors hate the look. Thats why the vast majority of the silver Proof coins from the 1936 to '42 are dipped. Most of those coins toned to a haze, not to colors.

The trouble is you need to look at what is under the haze. If there are hairlines a REAL down grade and certainly a loss of eye appeal are in the offing.

I don't know what coin NGC was looking at when they gave this hairlined piece an PR-65. Maybe it was the coin BEFORE this one on the line, and thy got the labels mixed up.

BillJones

<< <i>Personally I think it's revolting that a coin with a truly prized pedigree would be altered from the state that Eliasberg, Bass, Garrett et al enjoyed it for many, many years. Still, it's their coin now, so they can unfortunately do what they want.

All we can do if we disapprove of these dealers, if indeed the dealers are responsible for the "conservation," is not do business with them. >>



I guess you would have to stop doing business with everybody, except me. Most all dealers play with coins to get higher grades. That's part of the business. With mark-ups the way they are because of the Gray Sheet and Blue Sheet collectors, who refuse to pay over the sheets, "grade-flation" is only way to stay in business.

mgoodm3

<< <i>I guess you would have to stop doing business with everybody, except me. >>



Since I have to deal with you from now on, whatcha got?

Coinhusker1

<< <i>


BEFORE >>



Well, based on the photos, it looked nicer before, and looks like it has more cameo. PCGS seemed a bit tight not giving it a cam.

RYK

The transformation is horrible and depressing.

I find it revolting that a dealer somewhere feels that by dipping a coin like this and getting it into a higher holder he can increase its selling price, amazing that the grading services (NGC in this case) reward this sort of activity by upgrading dipped coins and nauseating that there is (very likely) a collector somewhere uneducated enough to buy this coin for strong money and keep the cycle humming.

I agree with CCU.

ColonialCoinUnion

<< <i>I guess you would have to stop doing business with everybody, except me. Most all dealers play with coins to get higher grades. That's part of the business. With mark-ups the way they are because of the Gray Sheet and Blue Sheet collectors, who refuse to pay over the sheets, "grade-flation" is only way to stay in business. >>



I agree, and I have done just that in my own specialty. I will not buy a coin from certain dealers, even if it is a good coin that hasn't been corrupted, because I don't want to support the people who engage in these kinds of activities.

Sort of a 1 person protest march.

boiler78

As a former owner of the coin in question I think it is sad that NCS would even consider "conserving" this coin. I am not against conservation when it is done judiciously and responsibly but this coin has been harmed by the process.

Bill- I can assure you that the fields were not cloudy and the toning was much lighter than Ricks images suggest.

BillJones

Maybe NCS fooled with this coin and NGC gave it a PR-65 as a consolation prize ...

Lakesammman

It's not clear to me that NCS did the deed. Agree it looks ruined.

RYK

Someone get my a time machine, so I can go back and buy the coin before it was damaged...er, I mean, "conserved".

boiler78

Lakes- NCS almost had to. How would they be able to pedigree that dipped out POS to the Eliasberg collection without the pedigree listed on the PCGS holder??

BillJones

I've seen worse thant this ...



BEFORE ... NGC AU-50 - Nice and original



AFTER ... PCGS AU-58 - now bright and shiny.

I wish that I had had the $85K so that I could have saved this coin from its fate ...

RKKay

<< <i>I can assure you that the fields were not cloudy and the toning was much lighter than Ricks images suggest. >>



Are you disparaging my photographic skills, Boiler? Bring it on!

boiler78

Rick- Actually I think your image is one of my old images so if anything I am disparaging my photographic skills!

Mark

coinlieutenant

And I can attest....Boiler's pictures suck!!

tradedollarnut

Conservation can have a place in numismatics. As John Maben likes to say, NCS probably does a better job of neutralizing any solutions used in the process to help prevent coins from turning after the fact. And they do turn down some coins that conservation would ruin. That's a positive.

With that said, the mere existance of NCS tends to increase the number of coins conserved. The need to turn a certain number of coins per month to stay profitable leads to things like putting stickers on coins suggesting conservation would 'improve' the coin - even coins that the owner would never even think of improving. Providing grade insurance, for a fee, tends to increase the number of washed out uglies in a certain holder - and does little to protect the owner from eventual loss in the marketplace. And taking a percentage of the value of the coin for a service IMO tends to inflate the grade of the coin, and thus the fee.

All of the above flies in the face of what I personally deem to be proper.

lloydmincy

Buy as many "before's" as you can. Some day, they will be extremely rare, and worth a MINT! Sad...

Lakesammman

Boiler78 - your right - I overlooked that.

I just sent a J73 original into NCS hopiong for a cameo - sure hope it doesn't come back looking like THAT POS!!

coinlieutenant

uh oh Tim...

You're going to hell for sure now...

J

ziggy29

<< <i>With that said, the mere existance of NCS tends to increase the number of coins conserved. >>

My biggest fear about this isn't that NCS would look to conserve more coins, but that this process adds legitimacy to the concept of "coin conservation" in general, perhaps leading to a lot of people who have neither the experience nor the know-how to properly conserve a coin (or whether conservation is even appropriate) attempt to do so.

The result would either (a) ruin a coin that could have been improved with professional conservation or (b) ruin a coin that never should have been messed with in the first place.

So I'm okay with conservation in a few cases. I just think it's a shame that the fact that a small number of coins can be improved is probably causing many coins that *can't* be improved to be messed with anyway.

morgannut2

IMO anyone who "conserves" a pedigreed coin is a sleasy greedy pig.

Goldfinger

That's a crime. Does anyone know what dealer dipped it?

And how can the grading services award a higher grade when everyone else feels the coin has been damaged? It seems unusual that the grading services' view would diverge so dramatically.