I have to agree with Coinguy on this one--these actions are not counterfeiting. However, KurtDog, your point is well taken. The definition of "coin doctoring" is a tough one. We can probably agree that certain actions are clearly doctoring, but others may not be so obvious. So, let's start with PNG's definition of coin doctoring:
The PNG Board of Directors has adopted this initial definition:
Coin doctoring is the action of a person or the enabling of another to alter a coin's surface or appearance, usually to diminish or conceal defects, and thereby represent the condition or value of a coin as being superior to its actual condition or value. Among the practices defined as doctoring are effacing hairlines by polishing or manipulating the surfaces of proof coins, applying substances to the surface of coins to hide marks and defects, hiding marks or otherwise changing the appearance of a coin by adding toning, adding chemicals or otherwise manipulating the surfaces to create "cameo" frost on the devices of proof coins, and making a coin appear more fully struck by re-engraving portions of the devices, such as re-engraving bands on the reverse of a Mercury Dime or adding head detail to a Standing Liberty Quarter. Altering dates or mintmarks or other struck portions of a coin to make it appear to be from a mint date or type other than that of origin, and altering business strike coins to make them resemble proof issues are also examples of coin doctoring. This definition is not intended to be all-inclusive, but only illustrative of forms of coin doctoring.
Is this acceptable/unacceptable?
When I first read this definition, I thought it was a pretty good one. I still do since it at least defines the bad practices which clearly fall within the definition of coin doctoring. However, dipping, or over-dipping, might be argued as being included within it. I think dipping is acceptable, as long as it is done properly. At least it is market acceptable. I've even heard professional graders say "this coin needs a dip" [I thought I saw somewhere where PNG or someone said that coin doctoring excluded dipping, but perhaps I'm mistaken]. I wouldn't mind a seller telling me, as some do, that the particular coin was probably dipped at some point, even if it was in a PCGS PF67 holder. On the other hand, I wouldn't think he should be accused of being a coin doctor for failing to advise me. Otherwise, as you've said, a lot of people would be guilty.
To me, all of that is a bit beside the point at this time. The industry needs to address the worst of the "coin doctoring" activities. The rest, I suspect, will fall in place. But maybe I'm wrong here and it should be defined clearly now to avoid future problems.
Edited for typos and to add: Actually the more I read it, the more I think that there is wisdom in PNG's definition. Set a definition that is reasonable, set the stage to go after the worst offenders. Now if they would just do it.
We are at a cross-roads in numismatics as to what is considerd acceptable or non acceptable.It is fairly obvious that we would like our coins to be in a pristine state...( I believe most of us do anyway)...There are some natural elements that do not harm coins and will reduce the harmful effect of aging or degradation on the surface.We can encapsulate or coins but that eliminates the need to be free to hold them and cherish them as they were meant to be.The other side of the coin as to say is the harmful and deliberate physical contact as to mar or manipulate in such manner as to change or distort the surface.....
Comments
The PNG Board of Directors has adopted this initial definition:
Coin doctoring is the action of a person or the enabling of another to alter a coin's surface or appearance, usually to diminish or conceal defects, and thereby represent the condition or value of a coin as being superior to its actual condition or value. Among the practices defined as doctoring are effacing hairlines by polishing or manipulating the surfaces of proof coins, applying substances to the surface of coins to hide marks and defects, hiding marks or otherwise changing the appearance of a coin by adding toning, adding chemicals or otherwise manipulating the surfaces to create "cameo" frost on the devices of proof coins, and making a coin appear more fully struck by re-engraving portions of the devices, such as re-engraving bands on the reverse of a Mercury Dime or adding head detail to a Standing Liberty Quarter. Altering dates or mintmarks or other struck portions of a coin to make it appear to be from a mint date or type other than that of origin, and altering business strike coins to make them resemble proof issues are also examples of coin doctoring. This definition is not intended to be all-inclusive, but only illustrative of forms of coin doctoring.
Is this acceptable/unacceptable?
When I first read this definition, I thought it was a pretty good one. I still do since it at least defines the bad practices which clearly fall within the definition of coin doctoring. However, dipping, or over-dipping, might be argued as being included within it. I think dipping is acceptable, as long as it is done properly. At least it is market acceptable. I've even heard professional graders say "this coin needs a dip" [I thought I saw somewhere where PNG or someone said that coin doctoring excluded dipping, but perhaps I'm mistaken]. I wouldn't mind a seller telling me, as some do, that the particular coin was probably dipped at some point, even if it was in a PCGS PF67 holder. On the other hand, I wouldn't think he should be accused of being a coin doctor for failing to advise me. Otherwise, as you've said, a lot of people would be guilty.
To me, all of that is a bit beside the point at this time. The industry needs to address the worst of the "coin doctoring" activities. The rest, I suspect, will fall in place. But maybe I'm wrong here and it should be defined clearly now to avoid future problems.
Edited for typos and to add:
Actually the more I read it, the more I think that there is wisdom in PNG's definition. Set a definition that is reasonable, set the stage to go after the worst offenders. Now if they would just do it.
Tom