Question about conservation vs. doctoring?

Duane

Dear all-

I'm hoping to get the group's thoughts on a distinction between what constitutes conservation or doctoring. I have a copper coin that is a great coin in every way, except it shows a patch of verdigris in a reverse area that concerns me. I’m afraid that the verdigris might eat through the coin’s ‘skin’ and cause corrosion pits. To remedy this, I'd like to briefly immerse the coin in acetone, Blue Ribbon (Trichloriethane), or olive oil and remove the corrosion with a Q-Tip cotton swab, wash the coin in soap and water, air dry the coin, and to prevent further corrosion apply a protective coating to the coin, preferably one that can be easily removed. Renaissance Wax and Polyvinyl Acetate (PVA) Lacquer (sometimes called Gelva V-7) or Blue Ribbon are three protective coatings that I know can be used.

How do my fellow collectors view this? Conservation or Doctoring of a coin? Any idea how PCGS may handle this attempt to save a great coin?

Thanks,
Duane

erwindoc

I dont know how skilled you feel at "conservation" and I dont know the value of the coin you are talking about, but you might consider sending it to NCS and let them doctor it, then they will send it to NGC if they can get it fixed up appropriately. It would be up to you if you crossed it at that point. I dont think PCGS has a "conservation service". I wouldnt consider the coin "cleaned" unless the whole thing was fixed, but it is a fine line.

RBinTex

Shoulda did a poll on THIS thread Duane.

Duane

I thought that the question would draw more commentary. I am going to submit the coin to NCS for conservation (thanks) as I am not at all skilled at cleaning coins. "Conservation" seems to win the vote over "Doctoring" by 2-1. But I am wondering why.... Is removing verdigris from an otherwise intact coin so the surfaces do not become destroyed in the future truly constitute an unethical act in the mind of the 3 collectors who voted "Doctoring"? What are any of these votes (from either side) based on?

RBinTex

I would imagine it highly unfair to assert that sending it to NCS is in any way "doctoring".

Don't they "help" (don't really know the least offensive verb/adjective here) a coin if they can?

Duane

RB--

Thank you. That is exactly my point. Whether I try to conserve (or adjective of choice here) my coin, so some future collector may enjoy it, or NCS (more skilled than I) does the same thing (remove the verdigris), I do not see how the description I outlined above can be fairly contrued as "doctoring". I guess that the real doctors are not the folks who try to "help" a coin but doing 'something' to it that is intended to actually preserve it, and not to create a better looking coin with the intent to deceive others. This may be a question of whether one has deceptive intent or not. Certainly, when I go to sell my coin, I would disclose to the buyer that NCS has removed some verdigris from the coin, and thereby making it a conserved coin. I'd like to hear from others on the subject to, as you and I have had our (heating, but constructive) discussions before on this issue.

Duane

renomedphys

When it's your coin, it's called "conservation". When it belongs to someone else, it's called "doctoring". Haven't these discussions taught us anything?

DIMEMAN

I personally don't see any problem with that you are wanting to do to your coin. To me you are not trying to make it look better than it is, but only trying to protect it and keep it where it is. If that makes sense.

JMHO

Duane

Thank you. 12 people agree with us, and 6 disagree. Although no one on the "purist" vote has articulated why what I'm suggesting is in any way contrary to the spirit of a true collector or numismatics as a whole.

renomedphys

What is really frank and true about the issue is, once the coin has been "conserved", it becomes a hot potato. Even if the new owner knows about the "improvement", it will be considered by most collectors as un-original, and therefore, eventually, the coin will be flipped to someone without the implied knowledge that came with the coin when you passed it on. For a lot of collectors, the knowledge of the act is more important than the true appearance of the coin. This is the primary motivator for an owner in posession of said knowledge to withhold it upon the sale of the coin. Eventually, unless the coin is labelled as such, no one will ever be the wiser. Is that really fair?

Duane

"What is really frank and true about the issue is, once the coin has been "conserved", it becomes a hot potato."

Matt - I'm not so sure that statement rings true for me. To begin with, do we honestly think that a coin (any coin) that is 100 years old or more has never been cleaned, givin what we know? Heck, it's common knowledge that major collectors like Eliasberg and others (and even the Smithsonian) periodically "wiped" their coins clean because at that time in history, they thought that cleaning was synonomous with conservation. But the coins from those pedigreed collections are actually in high demand - not hot potatos at all! Also, if some of the gold coins that have been salvaged from the various historical ship wrecks where not 'conserved', than the numismatic world would be missing some fantastic coinage - coinage that collectors pay huge sums to own. And if we are willing to accept that valuable art pieces can be renovated and conserved, why not coins?

renomedphys

As always, I am the proverbial Devil's advocate. There are really a lot of shades of gray here.

Duane

Shades of "blue" would be more appropriate

WaterSport

The problem is that you have neither definition of Conservation or Doctoring. I define conservation as preservation of the coin as is. Only removing surface crud of whatever kind that will come off. If the crud makes the coin have better eye appeal and wins you a point in plastic, great. A coin soaked in acetone, soap and water, mineral oil, is not Doctoring in my opinion. All the other treatments are Doctoring in my as they will give the coin a false impression. And to me, trying to represent a coin that is not in the state of preservation it truly is can and should be called Doctoring .PCGS should slap the hand with a no grade, in fact, those who dip silver, should also be called coin doctors as the dip flattens the natural appearance just like deelers darkener darkens copper.

WS

zeebob

I was in the "conservation camp" right up until the "apply a protective coat." The application of an agent that is intended to remain on the coin's surface crosses the doctoring line. In this case the intent might be noble, but I suspect the effect will be to affect the way the natural surface looks.

RBinTex

Hey PCGS,

How about a definition!

Duane

"The problem is that you have neither definition of Conservation or Doctoring."

That is exactly correct. So in order to see how these terms are actually used in the industry, I Googled the phrase "the conservation of coins". The following link was one of many that came up: www.ncscoin.com/pdfs/conservation_guide.pdf (The Conservation of coins BOOK 4/02 -- a cooperative effort of many differant grading services, including NGC and PCGS). This is a very helpful guide regarding exactly what the terms "cleaning" and "doctoring" mean in differant circumstances. But not all circumstances, and the 12 page pamphlet does not refer to the application of protective coatings (as someone in this string indicated they saw as 'doctoring').

So to clarify further, I Googled the phrase "conserving artwork protective coating" to see what professional conservers do in other fields of art relating to protective coatings as part of "conserving". Right at the top of the list was an article by the Philadelphia Museum of Art (http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/22-398-553-441.html) relating to metal conservation.

I think this article gives many good reasons why applying protective coatings as a part of the conservation of metal sculptures is acceptable. But one of the best, IMHO, as it relates to coins as well, is the desire to protect a patina from UV radiation (i.e. sunlight), so a patina that looks a certain way today can hopefully be preserved to look that way in the future. This example taken from another field may be a great place for us to start in trying to define what is conservation and what is doctoring in the field of numismatics.

DMWJR

Just a short comment from the peanut gallery --

Many coins that are considered original today, have really had something done to them in the past. Some things are very subtle and maybe 99% of the dealers and collectors would never know. Many people who scoff at doing anything at all to a coin probably have coins in their collections that have had the exact same things done to them.

If you own an uncirculated large cent, there is a huge likelihood that some oil or wax has been applied to it in the last 200 years. Then, let's consider the circulated ones that have endured all sorts of grime and slime in their lifetime, ... a little oil or wax doesn't sound too bad at all.

Ethically, I don't have a problem with someone doing something with a coin that removes contaminants from a coins surface so long as the act itself doesn't further impair the coin or enhance it beyond what the coin would otherwise be.

A good example to me would be a Morgan dollar with nice original (LOL) surfaces and luster with a dark ugly spot on it. If you could dip the spot off without impairing the luster, I would do it. If it were going to strip the surfaces, I would leave the spot there. If the spot was active advanced PVC, I might have to factor that in as well.

(Duane, you know you can't listen to anonymous pollsters!!)

Duane

Thanks Doug - Peanut Gallery opinions welcome You make a lot of good points, especially about many people with attitudes about what does and does not constitute doctoring having some of these coins right in their collections. A little humility would go a long way, IMHO. In the end, who REALLY knows?

I found a two part article right here in the PCGS Library, that further discusses the subject:

http://www.pcgs.com/articles/article_view.chtml?artid=2316&universeid=313

Maybe PCGS should consider coin conservation as an additional collector service?

Happy reading.

topaz77

<< <i>Thanks Doug - Peanut Gallery opinions welcome You make a lot of good points, especially about many people with attitudes about what does and does not constitute doctoring having some of these coins right in their collections. A little humility would go a long way, IMHO. In the end, who REALLY knows?

I found a two part article right here in the PCGS Library, that further discusses the subject:

http://www.pcgs.com/articles/article_view.chtml?artid=2316&universeid=313

Maybe PCGS should consider coin conservation as an additional collector service?

Happy reading. >>



Thanks for providing the PCGS source. It was quite interesting and very educational and also made me realize just how much there is to learn.

As for your topic, I was sitting on the fence (Ouch!) I was leaning toward conservation, but wasn't sure about applying an agent. After reading the article, I guess I'm still not sure. Sorry, guess I'm not much help.

RBinTex

PCGS Linkage

IloiloKano

<< <i>Eventually, unless the coin is labelled as such, no one will ever be the wiser. Is that really fair? >>

Let me see if I understand the objection. Without some sort of permanent label, there is absolutely no way to determine the coin was treated in any way... none at all. So unless there is some means to permanently affix a complete documented history of every single event that may have taken place while in a person's possession, someone could potentially get screwed? What am I missing here?

Potential seller to potential buyer: In 1999 the coin was dropped on a carpet, but under 10x magnification, there was no discernable damage. See? Here's a loupe.

Potential buyer to potential seller: Well, I dunno.

Potential seller to potential buyer: But I had the 1999 event recorded and notorized, and then I had a world class coin dealer examine the coin and confirm there was no detectable damage. He issued a statement to that effect, and I had that statement notorized also. Then I had PCGS encapsulate the coin, along with both notorized statements.

Potential buyer to potential seller: I think I'll pass. [Looking Around] Do you have any "problem free" coins for sale? Ahhh... Ahhh... Ahhh CHEW!!! Excuse me.

Potential seller: [Dumbfounded] Did you just sneeze on my coins?

ME, under my breath: What a moron!



In answer to your poll, except for the protective coating, conservation. But then again, PCGS plastic itself is a protective coating, in the strictest sense.

Duane

"In answer to your poll, except for the protective coating, conservation. But then again, PCGS plastic itself is a protective coating, in the strictest sense."

I was wondering if anyone would articulate that point. I realize that we are dealing with lexography here, but a plastic slab fully surrounding a coin does reasonably fall within the definition of a "protective coating" IMHO.