I will not engage in the pissing contest, but will attempt to enlighten you:
A. There is a difference between conservation and coin doctoring. Removing PVC haze from a proof coin to prevent further damage is CONSERVATION. Removing PVC, verdigris, leftover dip, or other harmful crap from any coin to prevent further damage is conservation. If the coin is left gradable, it will be worth more than a coin with harmful crap on it. Many times, after removing the crap, the coin is damaged and remains a problem coin. I understand NCS uses many of the aforementioned techniques to conserve coins as well. In general, this is NOT considered "doctoring".
B. Now, the various techniques used to ADD substances to a coin such as artificial toning, recoloring, putty, artifical frost, nose grease, etc, is considered DOCTORING. Any coin "worked" in this manner is obviously bad news.
C. The controversy lies with "conserving" original coins which have no problems and are already graded or "gradeable". Coins with dark toning or even nice original toning are being "conserved" by stripping the surfaces to "lighten" them in pursuit of a higher grade, and many (including myself) consider this to ruin the coin. NCS does this, and even has examples on their website of original coins being ruined. This is considered by many to be DOCTORING as well.
Conservation of the PVC-hazed Kennedy is category "A" and generally not considered doctoring.
The re-toned bust half you discussed in a previous thread falls into category "B".
The all-too-common lifeless, stripped NGC AU-58 Dahlonega Half eagles fall into category "C"
I will not engage in the pissing contest, but will attempt to enlighten you:
A. There is a difference between conservation and coin doctoring. Removing PVC haze from a proof coin to prevent further damage is CONSERVATION. Removing PVC, verdigris, leftover dip, or other harmful crap from any coin to prevent further damage is conservation. If the coin is left gradable, it will be worth more than a coin with harmful crap on it. Many times, after removing the crap, the coin is damaged and remains a problem coin. I understand NCS uses many of the aforementioned techniques to conserve coins as well. In general, this is NOT considered "doctoring".
B. Now, the various techniques used to ADD substances to a coin such as artificial toning, recoloring, putty, artifical frost, nose grease, etc, is considered DOCTORING. Any coin "worked" in this manner is obviously bad news.
C. The controversy lies with "conserving" original coins which have no problems and are already graded or "gradeable". Coins with dark toning or even nice original toning are being "conserved" by stripping the surfaces to "lighten" them in pursuit of a higher grade, and many (including myself) consider this to ruin the coin. NCS does this, and even has examples on their website of original coins being ruined. This is considered by many to be DOCTORING as well.
Conservation of the PVC-hazed Kennedy is category "A" and generally not considered doctoring.
The re-toned bust half you discussed in a previous thread falls into category "B".
The all-too-common lifeless, stripped NGC AU-58 Dahlonega Half eagles fall into category "C"
EOM. >>
A nice well thought out argument ... and, an interesting take on the issue that has merit. However, with regard to your argument "C", I believe that many of the coins he doctors are in fact already graded, are cracked out of their PCGS and NGC holders, are "conserved" in pursuit of a higher grade, and in fact receive a higher grade ... thus being considered DOCTORING by your own definition. Nonetheless, you make a good point.
<< <i>A nice well thought out argument ... and, an interesting take on the issue that has merit. However, with regard to your argument "C", I believe that many of the coins he doctors are in fact already graded, are cracked out of their PCGS and NGC holders, are "conserved" in pursuit of a higher grade, and in fact receive a higher grade ... thus being considered DOCTORING by your own definition. Nonetheless, you make a good point. >>
OK, additional detail -- those coins were submitted to PCGS in "soft flips". These flips contain PVC and have been proven to haze proof coins with a "PVC Haze". Left untreated, they will damage the coin. The coins Russ has conserved were originally submitted in PVC flips and were graded before the PVC haze appeared. In some cases the haze started to appear, and lowered the grade at PCGS. Subsequently, the coins "turned in the holder" and the haze appeared. If these hazed coins were to be re-submitted, they likely would not receive the grade on the holder. Removal of this haze is legitamite conservation, improves the appearance to what it looked like before the haze set in, and prevents further damage to the coin. Also, proof coins may develop haze and "milk spots" from residue left by the mint. This residue is harmful to the coins, and removal of such is also considered legitimate conservation.
I cannot recall any instance in which Russ took a perfectly good coin and "doctored" it further. In one instance he actually was a victim of "doctoring", as a coin he purchased had artificial frost which literally fell off the coin after a few months (which PCGS compensated him for under the grading guarantee). IIRC, he also conserved a coin or two doctored with artificial frost.
Comments
I will not engage in the pissing contest, but will attempt to enlighten you:
A. There is a difference between conservation and coin doctoring. Removing PVC haze from a proof coin to prevent further damage is CONSERVATION. Removing PVC, verdigris, leftover dip, or other harmful crap from any coin to prevent further damage is conservation. If the coin is left gradable, it will be worth more than a coin with harmful crap on it. Many times, after removing the crap, the coin is damaged and remains a problem coin. I understand NCS uses many of the aforementioned techniques to conserve coins as well. In general, this is NOT considered "doctoring".
B. Now, the various techniques used to ADD substances to a coin such as artificial toning, recoloring, putty, artifical frost, nose grease, etc, is considered DOCTORING. Any coin "worked" in this manner is obviously bad news.
C. The controversy lies with "conserving" original coins which have no problems and are already graded or "gradeable". Coins with dark toning or even nice original toning are being "conserved" by stripping the surfaces to "lighten" them in pursuit of a higher grade, and many (including myself) consider this to ruin the coin. NCS does this, and even has examples on their website of original coins being ruined. This is considered by many to be DOCTORING as well.
Conservation of the PVC-hazed Kennedy is category "A" and generally not considered doctoring.
The re-toned bust half you discussed in a previous thread falls into category "B".
The all-too-common lifeless, stripped NGC AU-58 Dahlonega Half eagles fall into category "C"
EOM.
<< <i>Fletcher:
I will not engage in the pissing contest, but will attempt to enlighten you:
A. There is a difference between conservation and coin doctoring. Removing PVC haze from a proof coin to prevent further damage is CONSERVATION. Removing PVC, verdigris, leftover dip, or other harmful crap from any coin to prevent further damage is conservation. If the coin is left gradable, it will be worth more than a coin with harmful crap on it. Many times, after removing the crap, the coin is damaged and remains a problem coin. I understand NCS uses many of the aforementioned techniques to conserve coins as well. In general, this is NOT considered "doctoring".
B. Now, the various techniques used to ADD substances to a coin such as artificial toning, recoloring, putty, artifical frost, nose grease, etc, is considered DOCTORING. Any coin "worked" in this manner is obviously bad news.
C. The controversy lies with "conserving" original coins which have no problems and are already graded or "gradeable". Coins with dark toning or even nice original toning are being "conserved" by stripping the surfaces to "lighten" them in pursuit of a higher grade, and many (including myself) consider this to ruin the coin. NCS does this, and even has examples on their website of original coins being ruined. This is considered by many to be DOCTORING as well.
Conservation of the PVC-hazed Kennedy is category "A" and generally not considered doctoring.
The re-toned bust half you discussed in a previous thread falls into category "B".
The all-too-common lifeless, stripped NGC AU-58 Dahlonega Half eagles fall into category "C"
EOM. >>
A nice well thought out argument ... and, an interesting take on the issue that has merit. However, with regard to your argument "C", I believe that many of the coins he doctors are in fact already graded, are cracked out of their PCGS and NGC holders, are "conserved" in pursuit of a higher grade, and in fact receive a higher grade ... thus being considered DOCTORING by your own definition. Nonetheless, you make a good point.
<< <i>A nice well thought out argument ... and, an interesting take on the issue that has merit. However, with regard to your argument "C", I believe that many of the coins he doctors are in fact already graded, are cracked out of their PCGS and NGC holders, are "conserved" in pursuit of a higher grade, and in fact receive a higher grade ... thus being considered DOCTORING by your own definition. Nonetheless, you make a good point. >>
OK, additional detail -- those coins were submitted to PCGS in "soft flips". These flips contain PVC and have been proven to haze proof coins with a "PVC Haze". Left untreated, they will damage the coin. The coins Russ has conserved were originally submitted in PVC flips and were graded before the PVC haze appeared. In some cases the haze started to appear, and lowered the grade at PCGS. Subsequently, the coins "turned in the holder" and the haze appeared. If these hazed coins were to be re-submitted, they likely would not receive the grade on the holder. Removal of this haze is legitamite conservation, improves the appearance to what it looked like before the haze set in, and prevents further damage to the coin. Also, proof coins may develop haze and "milk spots" from residue left by the mint. This residue is harmful to the coins, and removal of such is also considered legitimate conservation.
I cannot recall any instance in which Russ took a perfectly good coin and "doctored" it further. In one instance he actually was a victim of "doctoring", as a coin he purchased had artificial frost which literally fell off the coin after a few months (which PCGS compensated him for under the grading guarantee). IIRC, he also conserved a coin or two doctored with artificial frost.