Hypothetical - scratch on an otherwise beautiful rare coin

Pushkin

Let's assume that 127 years and 9 months ago a six year old was boy was playing with an 1873 DDO (Snow-1) Indian head Cent (a wonderful variety IMO) and accidentally or otherwise caused a scratch to appear on the obverse directly above the date. This is a straight scratch about 1/4" long and not very deep - just enough to penetrate the skin. Let's assume that today the coin would grade AU-58 but would likely be body-bagged by PCGS because of the scratch.


If someone with some artistic skills managed to almost completely remove the scratch, or at least diminish the appearance of the scratch enough to get the coin "in plastic" at say, AU-58 , would you consider the culprit:

1. An evil SOB that deserves to be flailed alive over an Interstate highway for the unnatural desecration of an original old rarity?

2. A gifted artist that transformed a damaged coin into an eye-appealing and valuable plastic encased rarity?

3. You wouldn't care, as long as the coin was in good plastic (especially if you were the owner)?

4. Don 't ask, don't tell.

5. None of the above?

6. Some of the above?

7. You hate hypothetical questions and you wish that the moderator would lock this thread?

GoldenEyeNumismatics

50% #1
50% #2

To restore a rarity to an acceptable state is something which many would look upon as being a great thing. Others perceive it as fraud. I see it as somewhere in between, and am generally neutral when it comes to developing an opinion on this type of doctoring.

StubbyMcNumbthumbs

<< <i>50% #1
50% #2

To restore a rarity to an acceptable state is something which many would look upon as being a great thing. Others perceive it as fraud. I see it as somewhere in between, and am generally neutral when it comes to developing an opinion on this type of doctoring. >>




I think you've pretty much summed up how I feel on matters such as this.

keets

there are enough coins to be repaired and collectors who want them and will pay that a cottage industry has grown to serve the demand. i'm sure you probably know where such a coin be "repaired" for a nominal fee by an expert, if such a use of the term is legitimate. my opinion of the described event would be based on where i sat in the equation:

a). if i was the owner who wanted to sell-----#2.
b). if i was the buyer who wanted an original coin and knew nothing about the repair-----#3.
c). if i knew the circucumstances and was a jealous competitor-----#1.
d). if i owned the coin and found out about the reair-----#1.
e). a PCGS coin forum respondant who has no interest in the item-----#4.

is this based on anything that happened to you(or your cat!!)??

MidLifeCrisis

I hate this scenario! My first inclination is to choose #1.

However, I think it's reasonable to assume that many, if not most really old, really rare, collectable coins have been messed with in some fashion over the years...especially 18th and early 19th century coins. The rarer the coin, the more tolerant I am of scratches and other issues...and the more tolerant I am of coins that have been messed with.

I also don't agree with the TPG practice of body-bagging a coin just for a scratch. In fact, I don't agree with bodybagging coins at all. I think you should coinsider all issues when determining a grade, but the coin should still get a grade. From the way you describe the scratch, I would much rather see it considered as part of the grade assigned - maybe take the coin down to AU 53 or so - than for the scratch to be the reason the coin is put in a genuine holder.

In any case, it would be hard to justify "doctoring" the coin to cover up the scratch in my opinion. It seems deceitful and dishonest more than anything.

MidLifeCrisis

Wow...I didn't mean to be a thread killer for this.

So...

cladking

It depends on what's done to hide the scratch.

If we're talking a good thumbing or causing toning to occur in such a way as to hide it
then I'd say he did a good job. Anything that moves metal or adds something that wasn't
there is dishonest and I'd hope the graders would always catch it.

There are lots of coin doctors and they come in different types; some can improve the
look of a coin through "natural" means and some get out the torches and solder. The
repair of holes and such are OK only so long as you aren't trying to pass off the pro-
duct as original.

pakasmom

#5. None of the above.

Personally, I'd rather have it with the scratch. But the #1 choice is a bit too extreme.

airplanenut

How bad is the scratch? Here's a piece that I bought that has a fair scratch, but given its age, the scratch has toned in well, and while unfortunate, isn't very distracting anymore. As a bonus, it knocked the coin down at least two grades so I could afford it

tightbudget

If it's been thumbed over or something so that the coin's a uniform color, I could probably live with it. If that's the case, then #2. If it's been tooled, then #1.

magikbilly

Hi,

I am reminded of a otherwise beautiful 1941 Pr Merc 10c (not rare but what I like) that I passed up about a months or so ago. Is was quite nice with color, PCGS Pr65 and had a very small pinhole on the cheek complete with a small amount of moved silver. It was visible w/o a glass. I was strongly attracted to the color and original surfaces, but could not live with the mark. Had it been anywhere else in some secondary area, I would have bought it. But I'd always see it where it was so I passed.

Eric