On the topic of conservation I agree with CCU's comment earlier in the thread
<< <i>That's a fair analogy for coins that have actually deteriorated over time and are in need of conservation (of which the coin shown here may well have been one), but we all know that a lot of coins get conserved that didn't need it and are made worse and less desirable by the process. >>
I try as best as I can to keep an open mind and bringing up the SS Central coins was not necessarily meant as an endorsement of coin conserving, however given the historical significance of those coins, I don't find fault with it. However there were those at the time that expressed the opinion that at the very least some of these coins would as we call it "turn". I vividly remember those discussions. Part of the reason I mentioned it was for the koolaid drinkers who either refuse to acknowledge or were ignorant of the fact that other TPG's have conserved coins.
I strongly believe that any coin that has been conserved by any TPG in any way should be noted on the holder. Of course this will never happen.
ah yes, that breath of fresh air we all know as BillJones!!
I am not a not a big fan of NCS for the most part. oh, really???
First the red spot was not a copper stain and might have come off with out the aid of NCS. and you know this??? how, from looking at an online photograph??
But aside from the red mark, which may not have been copper staining at all, (and probably wasn't), hey, did you hear the bugler sounding retreat??
BTW, as that ND fan so correctly noted, our web-host will sometimes conserve.
Ok, since we're on the topic.....ya'll think that coin looks better with the copper spots?
Not me. Good example of "coin doctoring" that in my opinion is an improvement.
At least I have the courage to stand up for what I believe in despite some people's name calling.
(Trying to intimidate a guy who grew up in New Jersey as the poorest kid in a rich town....who likes snakes....who grew up to be a personal injury lawyer....is like peeing in the ocean to make it rise.)
I've looked at thousands of Saints and Type 3 $20's over the past few years and these sure look like copper spots to me. If not, please tell me what they are since they show up routinely on gold coins, especially fresh ones that have been buried away for years. I see these spots all the time on orginal $20's and they aren't from lipstick, fingernail polish, blood, or your kid's Crayola's. I'll accept an isolated carbon spot or two or three on a gem seated coin just like I would on a choice to gem gold coin to preserve the original surfaces. Once stripped down, it's gone forever.
The 1898 $20 should have been left alone. Until NCS came along most dealers prefered the spots left on the coin to show them that the coin still had its original surfaces. Today, the collecting fraternity has been brainwashed to like dipped and processed gold. Note that CAC has no problem with copper spots and will basically ignore them when certifying gold. It would take a pretty unsightly mess of spots to have them not certify solely because of red spots. There are number of superb and rare date Saints in 66-67 grade that have obvious copper spots. That doesn't seem to affect the desireability of those coins, it may even add to it. Just ask Dave Akers, Dr. Duckor, Saint Guru, and others.
The coin with just two a minor spot per side was far better before the conservation as now the skin is no longer original. Those spots will eventually grow back. It took over 100 yrs to get them to the point where they were today. If left alone, another 20 yrs probably would have made little difference in the spots.
<< <i>too much bias exists with the forum membership to get an objective answer to a question like this. i would suggest in the future that you post the picture of an "after" coin and hope that noone has seen it and rats you out. then, after members have tripped over themselves stating what a nice coin it is, you can add the link to the NCS site. that would be objective, albeit somewhat embarrassing, also.
i like the after coin. >>
^^^ Yeah what he said.
Some you guys are saying this is "doctoring". But, isn't doctoring classified as manipulation or altering a coins original surface and then keeping that information from the unsuspecting potential buyer? This is merely what it is, conservation. Removing something that isn't supposed to be there. I applaud NCS for their efforts.
<< <i>Yes, similar to restoring the Sistine Chapel or other rare work of art that has deteriorated over time. >>
That's a fair analogy for coins that have actually deteriorated over time and are in need of conservation (of which the coin shown here may well have been one), but we all know that a lot of coins get conserved that didn't need it and are made worse and less desirable by the process. >>
The same is true of paintings that were oiled or re-varnished when not necessary. It was done to improve the temporary appearance or bring it "to date" but in the end such treatments were harmful.
<< <i>Some you guys are saying this is "doctoring". But, isn't doctoring classified as manipulation or altering a coins original surface and then keeping that information from the unsuspecting potential buyer? This is merely what it is, conservation. Removing something that isn't supposed to be there. I applaud NCS for their efforts. >>
Apparently, even the PNG can't come up with a definition of coin doctoring. Maybe Laura will.
I am not so crazy about this. I looked at the images again. I like the before. It looks like some 70% of the natural skin was lost IMHO looking at the images closely and the areas around the devices etc.. It looks cleaned inside out. To me, grading book quotes, allowances, definitions and other statements aside, this coin was created with this copper spot - now it should be removed to improve it's - what - expected appearance in relation to other coins, people etc? This is bordering on more-than-cleaning. The color must have changed in this process. This coin never looked quite as it did now - did it?
Comments
On the topic of conservation I agree with CCU's comment earlier in the thread
<< <i>That's a fair analogy for coins that have actually deteriorated over time and are in need of conservation (of which the coin shown here may well have been one), but we all know that a lot of coins get conserved that didn't need it and are made worse and less desirable by the process. >>
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I strongly believe that any coin that has been conserved by any TPG in any way should be noted on the holder. Of course this will never happen.
I am not a not a big fan of NCS for the most part.
oh, really???
First the red spot was not a copper stain and might have come off with out the aid of NCS.
and you know this??? how, from looking at an online photograph??
But aside from the red mark, which may not have been copper staining at all, (and probably wasn't),
hey, did you hear the bugler sounding retreat??
BTW, as that ND fan so correctly noted, our web-host will sometimes conserve.
<< <i>
<< <i>So I guess this is "Approved" doctoring of a coin?
One man's conservation is another man's doctoring. >>
Very fine line there....
Not me. Good example of "coin doctoring" that in my opinion is an improvement.
At least I have the courage to stand up for what I believe in despite some people's name calling.
(Trying to intimidate a guy who grew up in New Jersey as the poorest kid in a rich town....who likes snakes....who grew up to be a personal injury lawyer....is like peeing in the ocean to make it rise.)
The 1898 $20 should have been left alone. Until NCS came along most dealers prefered the spots left on the coin to show them that the coin still had its original surfaces. Today, the collecting fraternity has been brainwashed to like dipped and processed gold. Note that CAC has no problem with copper spots and will basically ignore them when certifying gold. It would take a pretty unsightly mess of spots to have them not certify solely because of red spots. There are number of superb and rare date Saints in 66-67 grade that have obvious copper spots. That doesn't seem to affect the desireability of those coins, it may even add to it. Just ask Dave Akers, Dr. Duckor, Saint Guru, and others.
The coin with just two a minor spot per side was far better before the conservation as now the skin is no longer original. Those spots will eventually grow back. It took over 100 yrs to get them to the point where they were today. If left alone, another 20 yrs probably would have made little difference in the spots.
roadrunner
<< <i>too much bias exists with the forum membership to get an objective answer to a question like this. i would suggest in the future that you post the picture of an "after" coin and hope that noone has seen it and rats you out. then, after members have tripped over themselves stating what a nice coin it is, you can add the link to the NCS site. that would be objective, albeit somewhat embarrassing, also.
i like the after coin. >>
^^^ Yeah what he said.
Some you guys are saying this is "doctoring". But, isn't doctoring classified as manipulation or altering a coins original surface and then keeping that information from the unsuspecting potential buyer? This is merely what it is, conservation. Removing something that isn't supposed to be there. I applaud NCS for their efforts.
<< <i>
<< <i>Yes, similar to restoring the Sistine Chapel or other rare work of art that has deteriorated over time. >>
That's a fair analogy for coins that have actually deteriorated over time and are in need of conservation (of which the coin shown here may well have been one), but we all know that a lot of coins get conserved that didn't need it and are made worse and less desirable by the process. >>
The same is true of paintings that were oiled or re-varnished when not necessary. It was done to improve the temporary appearance or bring it "to date" but in the end such treatments were harmful.
Eric
<< <i>Some you guys are saying this is "doctoring". But, isn't doctoring classified as manipulation or altering a coins original surface and then keeping that information from the unsuspecting potential buyer? This is merely what it is, conservation. Removing something that isn't supposed to be there. I applaud NCS for their efforts. >>
Apparently, even the PNG can't come up with a definition of coin doctoring. Maybe Laura will.
I am not so crazy about this. I looked at the images again. I like the before. It looks like some 70% of the natural skin was lost IMHO looking at the images closely and the areas around the devices etc.. It looks cleaned inside out. To me, grading book quotes, allowances, definitions and other statements aside, this coin was created with this copper spot - now it should be removed to improve it's - what - expected appearance in relation to other coins, people etc? This is bordering on more-than-cleaning. The color must have changed in this process. This coin never looked quite as it did now - did it?
Eric
But that's what makes the world go 'round.... the fact that we don't all like the same thing.