Q.David Bowers and coin doctoring....
Newcomp103
Posts: 2,223 ✭
I have gone back several times in the Morgan Dollar book and read the section where he discusses Brilliant and toned coins. He gives examples of dipping to "restore its brillance" and how this is considered acceptable in the marketplace as long as it is not done repeatedly. He also points out that artificial toning "if detected" is undesirable...but, to quote him..."I can say the wizards of chemistry can do wonders with coins, and turn out absolutely gorgeous pieces. Some such artists are called "coin doctors", in a derisive context"
I never gave much thought to it until recently...and although he is certainly not encouraging this activity...he does not see to be critical of these actions either! With all of the discussions about Laura, CAC,artificial toning, coin doctors, etc....I just wanted to ask this question....if Mr. Bowers is not overly concerned with this area...should we just go back to buy the coin if you like it, pass if you dont agree with the color,toning,grade, surfaces, etc??? What say the forum?
I never gave much thought to it until recently...and although he is certainly not encouraging this activity...he does not see to be critical of these actions either! With all of the discussions about Laura, CAC,artificial toning, coin doctors, etc....I just wanted to ask this question....if Mr. Bowers is not overly concerned with this area...should we just go back to buy the coin if you like it, pass if you dont agree with the color,toning,grade, surfaces, etc??? What say the forum?
0
Comments
Jim
<< <i>Back when this book was written, toned coins had zero premium over white coins and in a lot of cases white coins brought more money. I think his position would change now that toned coins sometimes bring 50x-100x value. Just my opinion.
Jim >>
I agree with Jim. Times have changed and I suspect QDB has as well.
<< <i>I can say the wizards of chemistry can do wonders with coins, and turn out absolutely gorgeous pieces. >>
If it's true that some doctors can enhance coins so they are indistinguishable from Battle Creeks and make end rollers as reported here recently, then they really can do wonders and turn out absolutely gorgeous pieces.
<< <i>You know ..all this BS about the toning is all trivial crap.The real issue should be about the counterfeit coins.The actual changing of a date of a coin or removal of surface flaws.The methods used today to change a date of a coin have improved over the years and that is what should be the focus of attention..... >>
I'm pretty sure AT is trivial because I haven't heard the ANA say anything about it. Have they said something that I've missed?
The thing about AT is that it is often used to hide surface flaws the same way puttying and metal movement may be used. From that perspective it doesn't seem any more, or less, trivial than removal of surface flaws.
<< <i>Zoins... perhaps they should now be renamed 'Coin Artists'...
Coin Artists and Wizards of Chemistry! QDB seems to like those terms a lot better than "Coin Doctors!"
Sounds critical to me.
Steve
<< <i>Some such artists are called "coin doctors", in a derisive context"
Sounds critical to me. >>
I read the quote as QDB using the terms "artist" and "wizards of chemistry" but not wanting to be associated with the term "coin doctors." This is because artist and wizards of chemistry are in the first person and coin doctors are in the third person, implying QDB is talking about OTHER people labeling the artists (that he seems to hold in high regard) as "coin doctors," a term he's not implying he uses or condones himself.
<< <i>
<< <i>You know ..all this BS about the toning is all trivial crap.The real issue should be about the counterfeit coins.The actual changing of a date of a coin or removal of surface flaws.The methods used today to change a date of a coin have improved over the years and that is what should be the focus of attention..... >>
I'm pretty sure AT is trivial because I haven't heard the ANA say anything about it. Have they said something that I've missed?
The thing about AT is that it is often used to hide surface flaws the same way puttying and metal movement may be used. From that perspective it doesn't seem any more, or less, trivial than removal of surface flaws. >>
While I agree that AT does hide surface flaws ...the main jist is where on the scale should it be...???
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>You know ..all this BS about the toning is all trivial crap.The real issue should be about the counterfeit coins.The actual changing of a date of a coin or removal of surface flaws.The methods used today to change a date of a coin have improved over the years and that is what should be the focus of attention..... >>
I'm pretty sure AT is trivial because I haven't heard the ANA say anything about it. Have they said something that I've missed?
The thing about AT is that it is often used to hide surface flaws the same way puttying and metal movement may be used. From that perspective it doesn't seem any more, or less, trivial than removal of surface flaws. >>
While I agree that AT does hide surface flaws ...the main jist is where on the scale should it be...??? >>
One way to measure relative position of importance is how the industry is treating the issue. We know that TPGs frown on counterfeit coins. We are not sure what the actual policy on AT is in practice since many are net graded on purpose. There is also talk of TPGs looking the other way on known AT but not on known altered date/mintmark and puttied coins (that I'm aware of). It could be that AT is more important right now because we know the TPGs are taking a stand on putty and altered coins but it's less clear where the line is for AT.
As for the scale, one way to measure placement on a scale of importance is the "value" a good AT job generates through deception vs. the "value" generated by a good putty or altered date/mintmark. In one case, a good AT job was worth $26k as measured by before and after transactions. Is that more or less than the typical altered date or putty price differential?
<< <i>
As for the scale, one way to measure placement on a scale of importance is the "value" a good AT job generates through deception vs. the "value" generated by a good putty or altered date/mintmark. In one case, a good AT job was worth $26k as measured by before and after transactions. Is that more or less than the typical altered date or putty price differential? >>
I think before a buyer shells out $26 Grand for a coin he/she wishes to purchase whether the coin has passed the TPG or it is raw ..has an obligation to oneself to make sure it is legit in some sort of sense.
You woudn't purchase an auto from an unknown seller without checking serial numbers and doing a back ground check.That's what a dealer and DMV are for.
The more money involved ..the more scrutiny...
<< <i>
<< <i>
As for the scale, one way to measure placement on a scale of importance is the "value" a good AT job generates through deception vs. the "value" generated by a good putty or altered date/mintmark. In one case, a good AT job was worth $26k as measured by before and after transactions. Is that more or less than the typical altered date or putty price differential? >>
I think before a buyer shells out $26 Grand for a coin he/she wishes to purchase whether the coin has passed the TPG or it is raw ..has an obligation to oneself to make sure it is legit in some sort of sense.
You woudn't purchase an auto from an unknown seller without checking serial numbers and doing a back ground check.That's what a dealer and DMV are for.
The more money involved ..the more scrutiny... >>
Actually, $26k was the difference or "AT premium." The total price for the AT coin was $46k. The thing is that TPG policy regarding AT is ambiguous whereas TPG policy for altered date/mintmark coins is not. Ambiguity may make the issue more important than non-ambiguous issues.
The "background check" wouldn't have helped because the coin was net graded by a top TPG so a background check would have showed a "problem free" coin. The thing is that TPG policy regarding AT is ambiguous whereas TPG policy for altered date/mintmark coins is not. Ambiguity may make the issue more important than non-ambiguous issues.
As for more scrutiny, that's what stickers are for.
<< <i>Actually, $26k was the difference or "AT premium." The total price for the AT coin was $46k. The thing is that TPG policy regarding AT is ambiguous whereas TPG policy for altered date/mintmark coins is not. Ambiguity may make the issue more important than non-ambiguous issues. >>
Maybe all the suspected altered coins should be dipped to remove all the toning that hides all that altering...
<< <i>Since Mr Bowers is to coins as LRonHubbard is to Scientology then what ever Bowers says I will obey, if Bowers says Coin Doctoring is an honorable profession akin to being an artist then I want to become a con artist
Freudian slip?
<< <i>I just wanted to ask this question....if Mr. Bowers is not overly concerned with this area...should we just go back to buy the coin if you like it, pass if you dont agree with the color,toning,grade, surfaces, etc??? What say the forum? >>
A number of us have been trying to express this for quite a while.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
<< <i>Back when this book was written, toned coins had zero premium over white coins and in a lot of cases white coins brought more money. I think his position would change now that toned coins sometimes bring 50x-100x value. Just my opinion.
Jim >>
Well said!
Anyone else open this thread assuming Longacre started it only to discover he did not? Whenever I see QDB i immediately think it's a longacre post!
<< <i>I just wanted to ask this question....if Mr. Bowers is not overly concerned with this area...should we just go back to buy the coin if you like it......What say the forum? >>
No...my opinion is that as time goes on, the detection of AT will become more sophisticated......ergo "The Sniffer".
I would now avoid any coin whatsoever that any experienced numismatist might reasonably call AT......and I think the grading services, as time goes on, will get pickier and pickier when it comes to holdering anything that comes close to being AT...
Having said that, the classic statement by experts in paintings, (here paraphased), which is applicable in numismaticsis that "the best fakes are hanging in the best museums".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BONGO HURTLES ALONG THE RAIN SODDEN HIGHWAY OF LIFE ON UNDERINFLATED BALD RETREAD TIRES
<< <i>Beautiful "Art" or Natural??:
>>
It's funny. The obverse looks suspicious and the reverse looks natural.
<< <i>
<< <i>Beautiful "Art" or Natural??:
>>
It's funny. The obverse looks suspicious and the reverse looks natural. >>
Does this one look familiar?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BONGO HURTLES ALONG THE RAIN SODDEN HIGHWAY OF LIFE ON UNDERINFLATED BALD RETREAD TIRES
I am sure we could eventually get them slabbed and graded.
Camelot
In order to be US-67, the striking surface/sandpaper must be fully unmarred (UnStruck), the match heads must be fully rounded and not stuck together or previously stuck together and now separated, all matches must be unbent at their bases and no rust may have formed on the staple.
(Professional Matchbook Grading Service, "Guide to Grading Matchbooks", page 14)
About Good:
I have seen far more net graded Draped Bust material than any other series of coins.
Tom, re your dipping comment, I've seen a number of Unc. coins which over the years had acquired an unattractive yellowish layer of silver oxide (I think that's it; you'd know better than I do because of your training) which when properly dipped, looked like they just came from the mint. I'm fine with this kind of dipping. However, as far as I am concerned, coins which are dipped and stripped are numismatic abortions.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
<< <i>Beautiful "Art" or Natural??:
I don't like the coin for two reasons right off the bat:
1-The toning clings to the stars.
2-It looks "thick"
I do not pretend to be an expert on AT vs. NT but that coin speaks one word to me - AT.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
<< <i>No...my opinion is that as time goes on, the detection of AT will become more sophisticated......ergo "The Sniffer". >>
This seems to be a very common misconception.
I have seen no evidence whatsoever that the Sniffer detects AT coins.
and they're cold.
I don't want nobody to shoot me in the foxhole."
Mary
Best Franklin Website
Hopefully, coins like this are being sniffed out before slabbing today, preventing losses for TPGs and disappointment for collectors.
<< <i>I just wanted to ask this question....if Mr. Bowers is not overly concerned with this area...should we just go back to buy the coin if you like it, pass if you dont agree with the color,toning,grade, surfaces, etc??? What say the forum? >>
One of the problems with doctoring that QDB may not have accounted for is that doctoring can be unstable and turn in the holder, resulting in financial losses for the TPGs. Think AT, putty, etc. Of course, the flip side is that the financial gains are going to the doctors who operate clandestinely and seek to achieve their gains at the expense of collectors and TPGs.
...i thought this thread looked familiar, it started in 2008!
<< <i>With all of the discussions about Laura, CAC,artificial toning, coin doctors, etc... >>
I think she ought to call for a boycott of QDB. You know, lump him in with the PNG and the ANA. That ought to fix him.
<< <i>...should we just go back to buy the coin if you like it, pass if you don't agree with the color, toning, grade, surfaces, etc??? What say the forum? >>
Um, go back to it? I never left it.
<< <i>...i thought this thread looked familiar, it started in 2008!
Yeah, I just noticed that little time lapse. Hey, what's a little time lapse among friends?
<< <i>For those interested in some history on the $ posted by DieClash, here's a summary. Check out the sale dates. This coin generated a lot of discussion when the discovery was posted on these boards.
Hopefully, coins like this are being sniffed out before slabbing today, preventing losses for TPGs and disappointment for collectors.
Fascinating.
It's a moot point to me, I would never be in the market for such a coin, but it is sad to see so much alteration. I am saddened by the cleaning as much as the re-tone (perhaps even more so.)
I'm sooooo confused...
<< <i>
<< <i>In other words, may we reasonably infer, to NCS, at least, there's such a thing as, "Properly Cleaned?" And, if we may, just what does that entail? >>
The debate on whether dipping constitutes doctoring may be useful here. Using ATS terminology and grading, can it be inferred that any practice that gives a coin a cleaner appearance and still allows it to properly end up in a problem free holder be considered proper cleaning?
More specifically, can the following practices outlined by Analyst in the linked thread all be considered forms of "cleaning?"
* Immersing a coin in soapy water, acetone, or lacquer
* Immersing a coin in an ACIDIC solution for the purpose of tearing a layer off the coin to brighten, remove toning and/or remove other matter (that has formed on the coin)
<< <i>In hindsight, I've got a question. This thread of course started a few years back on the reasonable inferences to be drawn from certain statements of QDB in his book relative to his position on "coin doctoring," generally. Look at the top picture, below. What inference can be drawn from, "NCS Improperly Cleaned?" In other words, may we reasonably infer, to NCS, at least, there's such a thing as, "Properly Cleaned?" And, if we may, just what does that entail? If the answer is, if NCS does it, what that means, of course, is, it's a tacit admission, NCS "cleans" coins. And, hell, I thought they "conserved" them, I thought that was different from "cleaning."
I'm sooooo confused...
<< <i>
>>
Properly of course means that you can't tell if it has been cleaned. Like a good or bad dip job.
<< <i>More specifically, can the following practices outlined by Analyst in the linked thread all be considered forms of "cleaning?"
* Immersing a coin in soapy water, acetone, or lacquer
* Immersing a coin in an ACIDIC solution for the purpose of tearing a layer off the coin to brighten, remove toning and/or remove other matter (that has formed on the coin) >>
Zoins (...and, you must explain what that stands for, BTW...if you don't mind, I'm curious), while it may sound trite, keep your eyes on the coin. "Analyze" your coins in that manner, and forget about everybody and everything else. For example, take this proof coin. As I just said, it looks "dead," doesn't it? Of course it does. Is that dead appearance by virtue of "soapy water, acetone, or lacquer," or by virtue of having been immersed "in an ACIDIC solution for the purpose of tearing a layer off the coin to brighten, remove toning and/or remove other matter (that has formed on the coin)?" Who in the heck knows, or, for that matter, cares? It looks dead. Period. End of the inquiry. Whatever happened to it, however it may have got that way, that's a dead surface, and those questions are irrelevant and immaterial.
Now, let's move on. Does that mean that coin is uncollectible? Well, maybe to NGC, or to Analyst, or to whomever, it is. Maybe even to PCGS or to NGC, it is. That's their standards; and, of course, they're entitled to them. But, stop and think. Who are those individuals and/or groups to purport to dictate to you your standards? They're nobody, that's who they are. That's not their business.
Let me wrap this up with this, as I have to go. When you try to differentiate a circulated from an uncirculated coin, how were you taught to do that? Were you taught to do it based on what some "expert" tells you about the coin? Supposing some "expert" told you this particular coin was acquired through the McDonald's drive-through window in change for the purchase of a burger. Does that fact even matter to you in assigning your grade to the coin? Of course it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is whether and if so to what degree there's circumstantial evidence of circulation wear on the face of that coin. If there is, it's circulated. If there isn't, it's uncirculated. Period. End of inquiry.
Bottom line, keep your eyes on the coin, don't ever let your mind's eye be influenced to wander off it, and you'll never be unhappy with what you collect. That's all there is to it. It really is. Think about it.