Well, OK, but we seem to be using the labels "restoring" and "conservation" to encompass things like puttying and ATing, which are generally considered "bad", and certainly neither restorative nor conserving.
<< <i>If the doctoring is good enough to pass as "original", then the coin is effectively "original"
"original" is an appearance, not a process. >>
Here we go.... I took a PCGS MS 64 Franklin Half (39 S) with PVC contamination (which I purchased from dealer A) to dealer B, dealer B advised me to send the coin to NCS. The coin went to NCS then on to NGC. NGC assigned an awfully nice MS66 grade! When the coin came back dealer B just chuckled..... The coin does look superb!! Blast white with lots of luster! Don't worry all you naysayers.... I cracked the coin out and put it in a Dansco Album!! I guess that move will elicit a whole array of comments...... Anyway, my point is that if this is "doctoring" then I say it is acceptable. "Doctoring" to me involves tooling or adding something to a coin to make it appear to be something it is not. AT, adding putty or some other foreign matter is definitely unacceptable. Controlled "Cleaning" is acceptable IMHO........
What we've got here is failure to communicate.....
So many collectors are led blindly to the 'original' or 'toned (read that tarnished)' bandwagon without really understanding what they are actually seeking. Yes, I agree, there are noted collectors (here and elsewhere) that truly like the various shades of tarnish, and truly pursue originality. That being said, new, or uninformed collectors immediately latch on to this thinking it is 'the way'. I really chuckle at those who say 'I would never buy a cleaned - dipped - etc (you insert the term) coin.... and yet, they likely have AT coins and dipped coins in their collection.... yep, even in slabs. Because they just do not know. And the beat goes on....... Cheers, RickO
<< <i>I am against someone intentionally and willfully deceiving me for their profit and at my expense. >>
I agree. Doctoring is all about fraud. That includes tooling or lasering coins, production of 'red' coppers, artificially toning coins, bleaching/ironing currency, applying putty, etc. I have no problem with a rinse in acetone to remove organic gunk or a quick dip in a reducing agent.
Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
<< <i>If the doctoring is good enough to pass as "original", then the coin is effectively "original"
"original" is an appearance, not a process. >>
Using this kind of logic, the line between doctoring an original coin and producing a counterfeit de novo would be mighty thin. Further, what passes for 'original' really does depend on who does the judging.
Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
<< <i>Well, OK, but we seem to be using the labels "restoring" and "conservation" to encompass things like puttying and ATing, which are generally considered "bad", and certainly neither restorative nor conserving.
Edit: posted mostly in response to Studio60 >>
I strongly oppose puttying as affirmatively as auto restorationists do. Any purist would agree that procedure is not conservation nor restoration. Please. NO bondo on my coins nor cars.
<< <i>Let those who wish to alter, conserve, restore, doctor, etc. coins do as they please, as long as it is fully disclosed. Then grading companies, as well as buyers and sellers of such coins can make informed decisions. >>
Actually, I disagree. If they become good enough to fool everyone, then my 'original unmessed with' specimens become much more common and thus worth less.
<< <i>My suspicions are too, that this discussion of coin "conservation, doctoring, enhancement, cleaning, etc." has been going on in parallel in the art world.
Personally, I think the real problem in the final analysis is
1. the problem of market acceptability and 2. stability of the changes that have been made to the coin. >>
These two problems can be easily addressed by doctors if they change their behavior.
1. Market acceptability: the problem here is that it seems many doctors wish their coins to be treated as non-doctored coins and hide their work accordingly. Some coin professionals that are open about their work are well known and even sought out and recommended in the open, for example Coin Restoration Services. TPGs even have solutions for doctored coins in the form of Genny holders and NCS holders. Doctors should use these holders and let the coins be valued for what they are, not what some myth of what they are not. Over time, doctors can establish names and pedigrees for their work but they must start by taking ownership for their actions.
2. Accountability: the problem here is that a lot of doctoring can deteriorate over time, resulting in financial losses that the doctor has not warned people about or provided remediation for. Many upstanding businesses provide disclosure and warranties for their work. If a head falls off, putty goes bad, color changes, etc., the responsibility should be on the doctor to make good on it, not a TPG that was purposely deceived against the terms of their contract. Just like the guarantee offered by TPGs, doctors should offer guarantees and seek customer satisfaction.
If the area of numismatics wishes to operate more inline with other fields, doctors would be well advised to (a) take ownership for their work and (b) be accountable for their work. By taking ownership and being accountable, doctors may find that they get more business, are better respected, and may even change the focus of their business, emphasizing certain practices and de-emphasizing other ones.
<< <i>A screwed up coin can only be changed into another form of screwed up coin. I take a hard line on this. It serves to make original coins rarer. The thought of doctoring makes me sick. I guess it does not make everyone sick; I am not universal in this opinion.
Coin doctors do not serve the numismatic community. Coin doctors serve themselves. >>
<< <i>A screwed up coin can only be changed into another form of screwed up coin. I take a hard line on this. It serves to make original coins rarer. The thought of doctoring makes me sick. I guess it does not make everyone sick; I am not universal in this opinion.
Coin doctors do not serve the numismatic community. Coin doctors serve themselves. >>
I agree with all 4 of your sentences adamlaneus. >>
How would you suggest the problem of doctoring be dealt with?
<< <i>Let those who wish to alter, conserve, restore, doctor, etc. coins do as they please, as long as it is fully disclosed. Then grading companies, as well as buyers and sellers of such coins can make informed decisions. >>
Actually, I disagree. If they become good enough to fool everyone, then my 'original unmessed with' specimens become much more common and thus worth less. >>
Well, yes and no, since assuming full disclosure, your coin is no more common, although perhaps worth less.
<< <i>If the doctoring is good enough to pass as "original", then the coin is effectively "original"
"original" is an appearance, not a process. >>
Using this kind of logic, the line between doctoring an original coin and producing a counterfeit de novo would be mighty thin. Further, what passes for 'original' really does depend on who does the judging. >>
I'm not saying that doctoring or counterfeiting is right, just that appearance is the only way to judge a coin (other than the potential for sniffing and scanning). If a doctored coin appears original and nobody can tell it its doctored it will be accepted in the marketplace as original and nobody will be any wiser. How do we really know how a coin got its toning? We don't. We have to rely on its appearance and make a judgment (that may or may not be right).
The problem with good counterfiets is that if they get really good, people wont be able to tell real from memorex. That will be a huge problem for the coin market. Hopefully detectoion technology can stay ahead of the curve.
<< <i>The problem with good counterfiets is that if they get really good, people wont be able to tell real from memorex. That will be a huge problem for the coin market. Hopefully detectoion technology can stay ahead of the curve. >>
There is a solution for counterfeiters. Should doctors be treated the way counterfeiters are?
<< <i>If the doctoring is good enough to pass as "original", then the coin is effectively "original"
"original" is an appearance, not a process. >>
Here we go.... I took a PCGS MS 64 Franklin Half (39 S) with PVC contamination (which I purchased from dealer A) to dealer B, dealer B advised me to send the coin to NCS. The coin went to NCS then on to NGC. NGC assigned an awfully nice MS66 grade! When the coin came back dealer B just chuckled..... The coin does look superb!! Blast white with lots of luster! Don't worry all you naysayers.... I cracked the coin out and put it in a Dansco Album!! I guess that move will elicit a whole array of comments...... Anyway, my point is that if this is "doctoring" then I say it is acceptable. "Doctoring" to me involves tooling or adding something to a coin to make it appear to be something it is not. AT, adding putty or some other foreign matter is definitely unacceptable. Controlled "Cleaning" is acceptable IMHO........ >>
39 S ???
Advanced collector of BREWERIANA. Early beer advertising (beer cans, tap knobs, foam scrapers, trays, tin signs, lithos, paper, etc)....My first love...U.S. COINS!
I am absolutely for coin conservation. I would love it if PCGS offered the service. I would actually pay PCGS to treat coin prior to encapsulation to remove surface impurities which could lead to discoloration or spotting.
How exactly does PCGS "fix" coin sent in under the grade guarantee? I sent in a gold coin with a copper spot, got it back shiny new with no traces of the spot in the same holder. Is that considered doctoring?
Personally, I am against anything that changes the look of a coin. This includes but is not limited to the "excepted" methods of altering a coin by the operations of NCS and dipping. I feel that if any coin is changed in any way it should be marked as such (i.e. Genuine but altered).
Zcoins wrote: "Coin doctors do not serve the numismatic community. Coin doctors serve themselves."
That statement may be applied to just about any profession, even your family doctor. If people did not first serve themselves very little would be accomplished. The bigger picture is, once a (coin) doctor serves himself, are you benefiting from his work?
If you answer "yes" then his agenda or reasons for doing so are not relevant. Drug companies seek out new and wonder medications not so much because they're humanitarians but rather for their corporate bottom line. And, there's nothing wrong with that.
How about this. I open an insurance company offering malpractice insurance to all coin doctors for say $100/year. Please submit application to: www.@#@#@.com. After receiving as many applications as possible, refuse coverage to all of them and post their names here.
successful BST deals with Meltdown, Broadstruck, lordmarcovan, MisterTicToc, JINX86, BXBOY143, MBCOINS and others
<< <i>I am absolutely for coin conservation. I would love it if PCGS offered the service. I would actually pay PCGS to treat coin prior to encapsulation to remove surface impurities which could lead to discoloration or spotting.
How exactly does PCGS "fix" coin sent in under the grade guarantee? I sent in a gold coin with a copper spot, got it back shiny new with no traces of the spot in the same holder. Is that considered doctoring? >>
Are you sure that you got back the same coin that you sent in?
If you sent in 10 problem ms69 ASEs with milk spots would you feel slighted if they simply sent you 10 replacement coins?
1. Education. Not just in numismatics, but in other areas that affect the many apsects of numismatics. 2. Experience (a lot, not just a few years, or a few books. I mean literally many years viewing thousands of coins. I even think that experimenting on sacrificial coins to learn the results of known AT techniques. It is distinguishable, and noticeable.) 3. Ego and pride. Some folks just can't accept the fact that the "monster" they bought is AT. Instead of learning from the experience, and really getting those attributes into their bones, they stick their heads in the sand, and become obnoxious and defensive. 4. Never buying a toned coined without a return policy. 5. Clear cut policies on Ebay, ANA, Forums, etc. on what is acceptable, and what is not. >>
All good points in a good discussion... with regard to #5 - eBay has policies in place, but there is very little marshaling going on there. If you think about how much money a coin doctor takes in each week and you consider that a percentage of that money goes to eBay week in and week out in the form of listing, final value and PayPal fees for every transaction, they have very little incentive to stop the coin doctor from selling his wares. I know they have received hundreds if not thousands of complaints from well minded buyers, but very little if anything is done about it.
My big problem with coin doctoring is that the stuff they do to coins that makes coins look totally unattractive to the eyes of an experienced collector who knows how an original coin should look. In most cases I go for the original coin or the coin that some people might call “original now.” What I mean by “original now” is a piece that once dipped and has now re-toned to an acceptable and STABLE color. Usually a coin that is in an old slab qualifies as such a piece.
At the last FUN show auction I bought an expensive coin that had been “done” because I didn’t find it’s appearance as totally unacceptable, and the price was in line with where I wanted to be for the type in my collection. Here is the coin which is in an MS-61 holder.
There were four examples of this type coin in the auction. Two of them were in problem coin holders, and I did not care for the looks of them. One was graded the same as this one, but I didn't like it either. This one I viewed as "okay." I could enjoy owning it, even though it didn't have the surfaces that I completely enjoy.
What is interesting is the price I paid. According to the Gray Sheet I got this piece for a little less than AU-50 bid. My grade for the piece was AU-58. The MS-60 Gray Sheet price was almost $20 thousand more than I paid.
The question are, what did this coin look like before the coin doctor played with it? And would it have brought more money if he had left it alone? I'll never know the answer because I'll never see the coin in its "before" state, but it's question that runs through my mind whenever I see a coin that's been "improved."
Did the coin doctor make this coin more saleable, or did he knock $20 thousand off the value?
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
I'm not saying that doctoring or counterfeiting is right, just that appearance is the only way to judge a coin (other than the potential for sniffing and scanning). If a doctored coin appears original and nobody can tell it its doctored it will be accepted in the marketplace as original and nobody will be any wiser. How do we really know how a coin got its toning? We don't. We have to rely on its appearance and make a judgment (that may or may not be right).
The problem with good counterfiets is that if they get really good, people wont be able to tell real from memorex. That will be a huge problem for the coin market. Hopefully detectoion technology can stay ahead of the curve.
this is a FANTASTIC post that bears repeating with an I would spell detection <--- that way, and add, "and pedigrees" after technology
<< <i>A screwed up coin can only be changed into another form of screwed up coin. I take a hard line on this. It serves to make original coins rarer. The thought of doctoring makes me sick. I guess it does not make everyone sick; I am not universal in this opinion.
Coin doctors do not serve the numismatic community. Coin doctors serve themselves. >>
There is a shortage of doctors with in the US so we won't have to worry too much. Besides, I agree with you!
<< <i>My suspicions are too, that this discussion of coin "conservation, doctoring, enhancement, cleaning, etc." has been going on in parallel in the art world. >>
Yes. Opportunists will strategize in any market containing valuable items, as each of these markets has items that are less than desirable, damaged, etc. that are a hard sell, and can be "improved" in a deceitful way when greed is the primary motive. There are expert paper and ephemera restorers that do amazing work, work that actually increases the value of most pieces even with disclosure, yet some entities will employ such persons and then not disclose. Ex: vintage movie posters (worth 6 figures or more), old masters, rare early lithographs, etc.
<< <i>Personally, I am against anything that changes the look of a coin. This includes but is not limited to the "excepted" methods of altering a coin by the operations of NCS and dipping. I feel that if any coin is changed in any way it should be marked as such (i.e. Genuine but altered).
Tom >>
A coin with ANY TONING is genuine and altered.
A coin with ANY WEAR is genuine and altered.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
<< <i>Let those who wish to alter, conserve, restore, doctor, etc. coins do as they please, as long as it is fully disclosed. Then grading companies, as well as buyers and sellers of such coins can make informed decisions. >>
I'm missing something here. Isn't the fact that the disclosure might "run with the coin" only for a relatively short period of time, leaving subsequent numies in the same position as if the disclosure never occurred, which is pretty much equal to no disclosure and intentional deceit?
Here was PCGS's philosophy regarding CURRENCY doctoring. While PCGS Currency has been sold off, this was written under PCGS ownership:
Good note restorers are sometimes capable of amazing feats, and even the best experts are sometimes hard-pressed to determine what (if any) work has been done to a note. A minor corner bend or light fold can sometimes be removed with careful and skillful work so that even the closest examination cannot reveal its previous existence. Many notes that have been lightly circulated now appear to be fully New or uncirculated, as they have been pressed or ironed out. Pinholes can be filled or closed, handling marks or finger smudges can be erased, ink marks or stains can be lightened or removed entirely, tears or splits can be closed, and virtually any problem can be attacked to improve the appearance or remove its visual signs. Sometimes, the skill with which these repairs or restorations are executed makes detection difficult or even impossible.
How one approaches this problem is the basis for a reasonable and consistent grading standard. To ignore the problem would be a disservice to those in the marketplace who currently value originality. To place too much blame or detraction upon those notes that are truly beautiful and highly collectible, yet are not wholly original, would be a disservice. Many estimates of the numbers of large size type notes that have been restored in some fashion or another run so high that the supply of truly original notes might be so low as to preclude their collectability.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
Comments
puttying and ATing, which are generally considered "bad", and certainly neither restorative nor
conserving.
Edit: posted mostly in response to Studio60
<< <i>If the doctoring is good enough to pass as "original", then the coin is effectively "original"
"original" is an appearance, not a process. >>
Here we go.... I took a PCGS MS 64 Franklin Half (39 S) with PVC contamination (which I purchased from dealer A) to dealer B, dealer B advised me to send the coin to NCS. The coin went to NCS then on to NGC. NGC assigned an awfully nice MS66 grade! When the coin came back dealer B just chuckled..... The coin does look superb!! Blast white with lots of luster! Don't worry all you naysayers.... I cracked the coin out and put it in a Dansco Album!!
Successful BST xactions w/PCcoins, Drunner, Manofcoins, Rampage, docg, Poppee, RobKool, and MichealDixon.
<< <i>I am against someone intentionally and willfully deceiving me for their profit and at my expense. >>
I agree. Doctoring is all about fraud.
That includes tooling or lasering coins, production of 'red' coppers, artificially toning coins, bleaching/ironing currency, applying putty, etc.
I have no problem with a rinse in acetone to remove organic gunk or a quick dip in a reducing agent.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
<< <i>If the doctoring is good enough to pass as "original", then the coin is effectively "original"
"original" is an appearance, not a process. >>
Using this kind of logic, the line between doctoring an original coin and producing a counterfeit de novo would be mighty thin.
Further, what passes for 'original' really does depend on who does the judging.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
<< <i>Well, OK, but we seem to be using the labels "restoring" and "conservation" to encompass things like
puttying and ATing, which are generally considered "bad", and certainly neither restorative nor
conserving.
Edit: posted mostly in response to Studio60 >>
I strongly oppose puttying as affirmatively as auto restorationists do. Any purist would agree that procedure is not conservation nor restoration. Please. NO bondo on my coins nor cars.
<< <i>Let those who wish to alter, conserve, restore, doctor, etc. coins do as they please, as long as it is fully disclosed. Then grading companies, as well as buyers and sellers of such coins can make informed decisions. >>
Actually, I disagree. If they become good enough to fool everyone, then my 'original unmessed with' specimens become much more common and thus worth less.
<< <i>My suspicions are too, that this discussion of coin "conservation, doctoring, enhancement, cleaning, etc." has been going on in parallel in the art world.
Personally, I think the real problem in the final analysis is
1. the problem of market acceptability and
2. stability of the changes that have been made to the coin. >>
These two problems can be easily addressed by doctors if they change their behavior.
1. Market acceptability: the problem here is that it seems many doctors wish their coins to be treated as non-doctored coins and hide their work accordingly. Some coin professionals that are open about their work are well known and even sought out and recommended in the open, for example Coin Restoration Services. TPGs even have solutions for doctored coins in the form of Genny holders and NCS holders. Doctors should use these holders and let the coins be valued for what they are, not what some myth of what they are not. Over time, doctors can establish names and pedigrees for their work but they must start by taking ownership for their actions.
2. Accountability: the problem here is that a lot of doctoring can deteriorate over time, resulting in financial losses that the doctor has not warned people about or provided remediation for. Many upstanding businesses provide disclosure and warranties for their work. If a head falls off, putty goes bad, color changes, etc., the responsibility should be on the doctor to make good on it, not a TPG that was purposely deceived against the terms of their contract. Just like the guarantee offered by TPGs, doctors should offer guarantees and seek customer satisfaction.
If the area of numismatics wishes to operate more inline with other fields, doctors would be well advised to (a) take ownership for their work and (b) be accountable for their work. By taking ownership and being accountable, doctors may find that they get more business, are better respected, and may even change the focus of their business, emphasizing certain practices and de-emphasizing other ones.
<< <i>A screwed up coin can only be changed into another form of screwed up coin. I take a hard line on this.
It serves to make original coins rarer.
The thought of doctoring makes me sick. I guess it does not make everyone sick; I am not universal in this opinion.
Coin doctors do not serve the numismatic community. Coin doctors serve themselves. >>
I agree with all 4 of your sentences adamlaneus.
rainbowtoned on Instagram
https://instagram.com/rainbowtoned/
<< <i>
<< <i>A screwed up coin can only be changed into another form of screwed up coin. I take a hard line on this.
It serves to make original coins rarer.
The thought of doctoring makes me sick. I guess it does not make everyone sick; I am not universal in this opinion.
Coin doctors do not serve the numismatic community. Coin doctors serve themselves. >>
I agree with all 4 of your sentences adamlaneus. >>
How would you suggest the problem of doctoring be dealt with?
<< <i>
<< <i>Let those who wish to alter, conserve, restore, doctor, etc. coins do as they please, as long as it is fully disclosed. Then grading companies, as well as buyers and sellers of such coins can make informed decisions. >>
Actually, I disagree. If they become good enough to fool everyone, then my 'original unmessed with' specimens become much more common and thus worth less. >>
Well, yes and no, since assuming full disclosure, your coin is no more common, although perhaps worth less.
<< <i>
<< <i>If the doctoring is good enough to pass as "original", then the coin is effectively "original"
"original" is an appearance, not a process. >>
Using this kind of logic, the line between doctoring an original coin and producing a counterfeit de novo would be mighty thin.
Further, what passes for 'original' really does depend on who does the judging. >>
I'm not saying that doctoring or counterfeiting is right, just that appearance is the only way to judge a coin (other than the potential for sniffing and scanning). If a doctored coin appears original and nobody can tell it its doctored it will be accepted in the marketplace as original and nobody will be any wiser. How do we really know how a coin got its toning? We don't. We have to rely on its appearance and make a judgment (that may or may not be right).
The problem with good counterfiets is that if they get really good, people wont be able to tell real from memorex. That will be a huge problem for the coin market. Hopefully detectoion technology can stay ahead of the curve.
<< <i>The problem with good counterfiets is that if they get really good, people wont be able to tell real from memorex. That will be a huge problem for the coin market. Hopefully detectoion technology can stay ahead of the curve. >>
There is a solution for counterfeiters. Should doctors be treated the way counterfeiters are?
<< <i>
<< <i>If the doctoring is good enough to pass as "original", then the coin is effectively "original"
"original" is an appearance, not a process. >>
Here we go.... I took a PCGS MS 64 Franklin Half (39 S) with PVC contamination (which I purchased from dealer A) to dealer B, dealer B advised me to send the coin to NCS. The coin went to NCS then on to NGC. NGC assigned an awfully nice MS66 grade! When the coin came back dealer B just chuckled..... The coin does look superb!! Blast white with lots of luster! Don't worry all you naysayers.... I cracked the coin out and put it in a Dansco Album!!
39 S ???
Howabout a 39 S Walker..........
But the points remain the same
Successful BST xactions w/PCcoins, Drunner, Manofcoins, Rampage, docg, Poppee, RobKool, and MichealDixon.
How exactly does PCGS "fix" coin sent in under the grade guarantee? I sent in a gold coin with a copper spot, got it back shiny new with no traces of the spot in the same holder. Is that considered doctoring?
Tom
That statement may be applied to just about any profession, even your family doctor. If people did not first serve themselves very little would be accomplished.
The bigger picture is, once a (coin) doctor serves himself, are you benefiting from his work?
If you answer "yes" then his agenda or reasons for doing so are not relevant.
Drug companies seek out new and wonder medications not so much because they're humanitarians but rather for their corporate bottom line. And, there's nothing wrong with that.
<< <i>I am absolutely for coin conservation. I would love it if PCGS offered the service. I would actually pay PCGS to treat coin prior to encapsulation to remove surface impurities which could lead to discoloration or spotting.
How exactly does PCGS "fix" coin sent in under the grade guarantee? I sent in a gold coin with a copper spot, got it back shiny new with no traces of the spot in the same holder. Is that considered doctoring? >>
Are you sure that you got back the same coin that you sent in?
If you sent in 10 problem ms69 ASEs with milk spots would you feel slighted if they simply sent you 10 replacement coins?
2. Experience (a lot, not just a few years, or a few books. I mean literally many years viewing thousands of coins. I even think that experimenting on sacrificial coins to learn the results of known AT techniques. It is distinguishable, and noticeable.)
3. Ego and pride. Some folks just can't accept the fact that the "monster" they bought is AT. Instead of learning from the experience, and really getting those attributes into their bones, they stick their heads in the sand, and become obnoxious and defensive.
4. Never buying a toned coined without a return policy.
5. Clear cut policies on Ebay, ANA, Forums, etc. on what is acceptable, and what is not. >>
All good points in a good discussion... with regard to #5 - eBay has policies in place, but there is very little marshaling going on there. If you think about how much money a coin doctor takes in each week and you consider that a percentage of that money goes to eBay week in and week out in the form of listing, final value and PayPal fees for every transaction, they have very little incentive to stop the coin doctor from selling his wares. I know they have received hundreds if not thousands of complaints from well minded buyers, but very little if anything is done about it.
rainbowtoned on Instagram
https://instagram.com/rainbowtoned/
At the last FUN show auction I bought an expensive coin that had been “done” because I didn’t find it’s appearance as totally unacceptable, and the price was in line with where I wanted to be for the type in my collection. Here is the coin which is in an MS-61 holder.
There were four examples of this type coin in the auction. Two of them were in problem coin holders, and I did not care for the looks of them. One was graded the same as this one, but I didn't like it either. This one I viewed as "okay." I could enjoy owning it, even though it didn't have the surfaces that I completely enjoy.
What is interesting is the price I paid. According to the Gray Sheet I got this piece for a little less than AU-50 bid. My grade for the piece was AU-58. The MS-60 Gray Sheet price was almost $20 thousand more than I paid.
The question are, what did this coin look like before the coin doctor played with it? And would it have brought more money if he had left it alone? I'll never know the answer because I'll never see the coin in its "before" state, but it's question that runs through my mind whenever I see a coin that's been "improved."
Did the coin doctor make this coin more saleable, or did he knock $20 thousand off the value?
The problem with good counterfiets is that if they get really good, people wont be able to tell real from memorex. That will be a huge problem for the coin market. Hopefully detectoion technology can stay ahead of the curve.
this is a FANTASTIC post that bears repeating with an
I would spell detection <--- that way, and add,
"and pedigrees" after technology
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>A screwed up coin can only be changed into another form of screwed up coin. I take a hard line on this.
It serves to make original coins rarer.
The thought of doctoring makes me sick. I guess it does not make everyone sick; I am not universal in this opinion.
Coin doctors do not serve the numismatic community. Coin doctors serve themselves. >>
There is a shortage of doctors with in the US so we won't have to worry too much. Besides, I agree with you!
<< <i>My suspicions are too, that this discussion of coin "conservation, doctoring, enhancement, cleaning, etc." has been going on in parallel in the art world. >>
Yes. Opportunists will strategize in any market containing valuable items, as each of these markets has items that are less than desirable, damaged, etc. that are a hard sell, and can be "improved" in a deceitful way when greed is the primary motive. There are expert paper and ephemera restorers that do amazing work, work that actually increases the value of most pieces even with disclosure, yet some entities will employ such persons and then not disclose. Ex: vintage movie posters (worth 6 figures or more), old masters, rare early lithographs, etc.
rainbowtoned on Instagram
https://instagram.com/rainbowtoned/
<< <i>Personally, I am against anything that changes the look of a coin. This includes but is not limited to the "excepted" methods of altering a coin by the operations of NCS and dipping. I feel that if any coin is changed in any way it should be marked as such (i.e. Genuine but altered).
Tom >>
A coin with ANY TONING is genuine and altered.
A coin with ANY WEAR is genuine and altered.
<< <i>Let those who wish to alter, conserve, restore, doctor, etc. coins do as they please, as long as it is fully disclosed. Then grading companies, as well as buyers and sellers of such coins can make informed decisions. >>
I'm missing something here. Isn't the fact that the disclosure might "run with the coin" only for a relatively short period of time, leaving subsequent numies in the same position as if the disclosure never occurred, which is pretty much equal to no disclosure and intentional deceit?
Edify me, please.
was written under PCGS ownership:
Good note restorers are sometimes capable of amazing feats, and even the best experts are sometimes hard-pressed to determine what (if any) work has been done to a note. A minor corner bend or light fold can sometimes be removed with careful and skillful work so that even the closest examination cannot reveal its previous existence. Many notes that have been lightly circulated now appear to be fully New or uncirculated, as they have been pressed or ironed out. Pinholes can be filled or closed, handling marks or finger smudges can be erased, ink marks or stains can be lightened or removed entirely, tears or splits can be closed, and virtually any problem can be attacked to improve the appearance or remove its visual signs. Sometimes, the skill with which these repairs or restorations are executed makes detection difficult or even impossible.
How one approaches this problem is the basis for a reasonable and consistent grading standard. To ignore the problem would be a disservice to those in the marketplace who currently value originality. To place too much blame or detraction upon those notes that are truly beautiful and highly collectible, yet are not wholly original, would be a disservice. Many estimates of the numbers of large size type notes that have been restored in some fashion or another run so high that the supply of truly original notes might be so low as to preclude their collectability.