First, there are many PNG members that lack the skills required to consistently judge whether or not a coin has been doctored. And given that fact, I would be reluctant to tell the public that they can count on PNG dealers to protect them from doctored coins.
Maybe the guild could offer periodic and mandatory educational seminars on coin doctoring for their membership so they can be properly trained to identify various doctoring overtime......
Perhaps increase the dues to pay for such ongoing training.
I manage money. I earn money. I save money . I give away money. I collect money. I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>Coin grading is comparative and subjective and not everyone will agree on what grade a coin should receive. On a level farther removed from this subjective nature on coin collecting is coin doctoring. "Fixing" coins has been around since coin collecting began. It varies from cleaning some dirt off a coin to expertly toning million dollar coins. Detection of doctoring is even more subjective than grading a coin. I believe this is where the problem comes in...who is to say a coin has been doctored? It's TOO subjective to point blame sucessfully, except for perhaps the repeat offenders that build a track record. The only way I can see to combat this problem is by using methods similar to what PCGS has implemented. Sniffer and photographs. Eveything other than hard evidence (like laser mapping and photographs for comparison) is just opinion. The only way to come close to PROVING coin doctoring is to compare a coin to itself...before and after. The problem with this approach is that EVERY coin is not likely to pass through a sniffer process before it's doctored...but it sure helps with the high value ones. >>
Respectfully, I disagree. It is not too subjective and it must be stopped or, at a minimum, seriously hindered. The sniffer, CAC, Secure Plus, etc. all are good things, but they treat the symptoms, not the cause. They seek to identify those coins that are choice, or original but they do nothing to address the problem of stopping coin doctoring. To use a perhaps inappropriate analogy, it is as if we are treating a cancer with drugs without attempting to cure the cancer. And I do think coin doctoring is a cancer to the numismatic community. Without attacking the cause, coin doctoring will continue and it will adapt and improve.
From my reading only, it appears that Laura Sperber, who I don't know, has been a great, often brash spokesperson trying to get something done. That she sometimes writes inartfully doesn't bother me at all. We all do that from time to time. Plus, there is a necessary urgency in what she says and writes that I happen to agree with. Andy's comments, to me, make a great deal of sense. His last substantive comment above sounds like a great idea and one that could actually work. The problem is that PNG and other organizations have done little or nothing to address the problem and some real action is necessary. And let's not leave the ANA out of the conversation here. As the largest numismatic organization out there, the ANA should be doing more as well.
1. First of all, I do not believe that anything will ever make TDN squirm.
2. Often it takes only a single voice shouting in the wilderness to create change.
3. No one, to my knowledge, has disagreed with Laura's quest for increased industry integrity.
4. PCGS has certainly responded in a positive and , I must say, expensive technical manner.
5. Many fine people, in their own quiet way, are pushing for the same kind of positive change.
6. Instead of nit picking, we should all be singing Hallah Lulah that this change occurs as rapidly as possible for our own selfish benefit and for the benefit of the coin industry as a whole.
7. With the massive increase in Chinese phony coins pouring into the USA, we all better hope that something is done sooner , rather then later.
8. At least, Laura is consistent , loud, influential and working in the best interests of the collecting public. One can not really fault the intent or dedication , of the good people fighting on our behalf.
Once again another of these threads that disturbs me greatly. Dealers making up stuff about how you can't define doctoring in order to justify doing nothing.
If you move metal or add something to a coin that's doctoring. That's a really simple definition, took all of 10 seconds to come up with. What is so difficult that PNG can't do something similar? Rhetorical question, I'm sure some dealers can come up with 101 excuses why that doesn't define doctoring enough, but that is exactly my point.
Call me a McCarthyite , I don't care, in my personal opinion if a professional dealer is not taking an active stance about the problem then they are indeed contributing to the problem.
Andy - Thank you. Your last post I believe shows some constructive insight on what can be done about this matter.
In all fairness, Laura Sperber has worked in the industry for many years, and has established a reputation for herself. She is a good person to be speaking out in this matter. While the kind of coins in which she does business are the mostly likely ones to be the victims of sophisticated coin doctoring, she genuinely cares about the hobby. If she gets a bad coin, I imagine she is a big enough fish in this pond to quietly be made whole in the matter, but she has decided to take the high road. Good on her for that.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
Buy Coins with verifiable pedigree's . They won't be the most spectacular looking flashy bright or fantastically colorful pieces but you will more likely than not , get a a piece with original surfaces. Buy from reputable owners or auction dealers.
How many dealers would even know who Laura is at the Poolville Tx show that has 30 tables, or the Foreman Arkansas show with 40 tables and the list goes on and on.
I would like to see something done on doctoring and might as well fix the coin dealers that advertise in all the big coin mags, Coast to Coast and the many just like them. You read all the time that newbis get reamed and you call that the cost of education. Fix that part to.
Who is going to eat all those questionable toned coins in holders that would never be reslabbed if cracked?
There is a lot to be fixed.
Where is the bulk of the docotring being done? On coins over 5k or 20k or 100k or under 1k? Doctoring 20k and higher coins would be okay, i am not a buyer in that range and those buyers have enough money to need a tax write off anyway.
Mark NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!! working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
<< <i>How many dealers would even know who Laura is at .... >>
I'm guessing the PNG dealers there know who she is
An interesting question would be how many of those PNG dealers follow #1 and #7 on the PNG Code of Ethics they've agreed to?
Andy wrote:
<< <i>Is it more ethical to do a job that can be detected by any competent numismatist, or to do a job that cannot be detected by anyone? And if it cannot be detected by anyone, how could it be a bad thing? >>
If the PNG feels it is more ethical to doctor coins that cannot be detected by the customer and not to disclose that information, contrary to their current Code, perhaps the PNG Code of Ethics could be updated to reflect this:
<< <i>To refrain from disclosing information on knowingly altered or repaired numismatic items to my customer. >>
<< Is it more ethical to do a job that can be detected by any competent numismatist, or to do a job that cannot be detected by anyone? And if it cannot be detected by anyone, how could it be a bad thing? >>
If the PNG feels it is more ethical to doctor coins that cannot be detected by the customer and not to disclose that information...
Obviously (to everybody but Zoins), me asking questions does not equate to the PNG taking a position. And even if I did take a position instead of just asking questions, my position would be mine alone, not the PNG's.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Is it more ethical to do a job that can be detected by any competent numismatist, or to do a job that cannot be detected by anyone? And if it cannot be detected by anyone, how could it be a bad thing? >>
If the PNG feels it is more ethical to doctor coins that cannot be detected by the customer and not to disclose that information... >>
Obviously (to everybody but Zoins), me asking questions does not equate to the PNG taking a position. And even if I did take a position instead of just asking questions, my position would be mine alone, not the PNG's. >>
It was obvious to me your question is a hypothetical asked by an individual. However, it is not as obvious that you realized my question is also a hypothetical asked by an individual. I'll try harder.
Since you like to ask questions, I thought to ask a few as well.
It was obvious to me your question is a hypothetical asked by an individual. However, it is not as obvious that you realized my question is also a hypothetical asked by an individual.
I realized it. Still, a hypothetical based on a ridiculous, dishonest or obnoxious premise should be shot down for what it is. For example, what do you think of this one? If Zoins spent the last 10 years in prison for the crime of bestiality with an underage iguana, and if he offered to sell you a lifetime supply of counterfeit green beans, would you prefer to pay him with a check or through Paypal?
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>It was obvious to me your question is a hypothetical asked by an individual. However, it is not as obvious that you realized my question is also a hypothetical asked by an individual. >>
I realized it. Still, a hypothetical based on a ridiculous, dishonest or obnoxious premise should be shot down for what it is. >>
I do not consider the idea of changing the PNG Code of Ethics ridiculous or dishonest because it seems like it may not reflect the accepted behavior of their membership. On the contrary, changing the Code to reflect current behavior may make the PNG more honest. This is because it has been suggested there are coin doctors within the PNG. Presumably these coin doctors are violating the PNG Code of Ethics they agreed to and yet they are allowed to remain within the PNG. If the PNG feels it is okay to violate the Code or that they are powerless to do anything about it, perhaps the Code should be changed to reflect that view and their membership to avoid inconsistency and confusion. A simple solution could be to drop items #1 and #7 from the Code.
As for your other thoughts, I'm not sure I know enough to even comment except that I am in shock!
What percentage of collectors will not purchase coins other than from a PNG dealer? Even if the PNG made changes for the better, would it really make a difference in the end?
There is no "AT" or "NT". We only have "market acceptable" or "not market acceptable.
I have dipped coins and I have removed surface contaminants. Does that make me a coin doctor?
To me doctoring is adding something to the coin to mislead a purchaser.
I have thousands of coins that need to be sold. I want to sell them for a fair price. Am I supposed to qualify the purchaser as to his intent in buying my coins?
Attacking the PNG at every opportunity is not a good thing. Neither is attacking the ANA. Both organizations are for the betterment of numismatics.
How many professional numismatists have testified against people trying to defraud others thru numismatics? I have done it for over 25 years.
I am sure that something else will come up later.
PNG member, numismatic dealer since 1965. Operates a retail store, also has exhibited at over 1000 shows. I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
JL--I have dipped coins and I have removed surface contaminants. Does that make me a coin doctor?
Response--No. The definition of coin doctoring as written and addressed previously does not include dipping. Some may argue otherwise, but this is re-hashing old ground and not really furthering the conversation.
JL--To me doctoring is adding something to the coin to mislead a purchaser.
Response--OK..that is a start...it is also bad...now why not get the PNG to say that and to have its members attest that they will not knowingly sell a coin like that without full disclosure.
JL--I have thousands of coins that need to be sold. I want to sell them for a fair price. Am I supposed to qualify the purchaser as to his intent in buying my coins?
Response---I don't know what you mean by "qualifying the purchaser" but I'll tell you this...IMO it is your job to protect your purchaser/client. Maybe this is actually a point of contention. Maybe you believe that is not your responsibility, especially when dealing with other dealers. Maybe you are entitled to the benefit of your sophistication and expertise in all instances. My view as a consumer is that you have so much more expertise than the purchaser, who is presumably coming to for your expertise, it is your job to fully and honestly advise him. For my part, if I can't trust a coin dealer to refrain from knowingly selling me a doctored coin, that dealer is of little use to me. Frankly, I think the same rule should apply dealer to dealer, but I suppose that is open to some debate. It certainly would level the playing field as between a very knowledgeable dealer and a not so knowledgeable dealer. And I suppose that would be financially a bad thing for the knowledgeable dealer. But wouldn't it be worth it?
JL--Attacking the PNG at every opportunity is not a good thing. Neither is attacking the ANA. Both organizations are for the betterment of numismatics.
Response--Why not? Both deserve criticism. On this issue Laura Sperber's comments are accurate. And criticism, especially constructive criticism, is a good thing if it causes PNG or the ANA to act. Both organizations are for the betterment of numismatics; however, PNG and ANA both overstate their claims of consumer protection. The ANA made a statement a few years ago that it was to be the "standard bearer" for integrity in numismatics, or something to that effect. That is simply an untrue statement. In the June 27 issue of Coin World, Robert Brueggeman wrote the "Guest Commentary" touting what a great organization PNG is and how important it is for consumer protection. Given PNG's impotence in the area of coin doctoring I am inclined to write a response to that article. By creating a false sense of "consumer protection" among its the consumer public, I actually thing PNG is harming the numismatic community in some ways. It touts consumer protection, but acts like an indecisive follower rather than the great organization that it could be. I have said this before, but PNG adds nothing to a dealers credentials IMO. At a minimum, however, I think we can agree that often the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and if PNG did act positively as others have suggested, PNG could do more good, collectively, than any single collector or dealer could individually. That is what is so frustrating about PNG and its indecision, lack of action and lack of direction.
JL--How many professional numismatists have testified against people trying to defraud others thru numismatics? I have done it for over 25 years.
Response--I think that is wonderful for you and for numismatics and you should be commended. I and many people on these boards consider you a highly knowledgeable and reputable numismatist. That doesn't mean that we can't disagree. I still think that as a member of PNG, you should do more to combat coin doctoring.
JL--I am sure that something else will come up later. >>
JL--To me doctoring is adding something to the coin to mislead a purchaser.
Response--OK..that is a start...it is also bad...now why not get the PNG to say that and to have its members attest that they will not knowingly sell a coin like that without full disclosure.
b]The PNG will continue to discuss the situation, but will probably not come up with their own definition of doctoring. The organization will take action against individuals when a complaint is made
JL--I have thousands of coins that need to be sold. I want to sell them for a fair price. Am I supposed to qualify the purchaser as to his intent in buying my coins?
Response---I don't know what you mean by "qualifying the purchaser" but I'll tell you this...IMO it is your job to protect your purchaser/client. Maybe this is actually a point of contention. Maybe you believe that is not your responsibility, especially when dealing with other dealers. Maybe you are entitled to the benefit of your sophistication and expertise in all instances. My view as a consumer is that you have so much more expertise than the purchaser, who is presumably coming to for your expertise, it is your job to fully and honestly advise him. For my part, if I can't trust a coin dealer to refrain from knowingly selling me a doctored coin, that dealer is of little use to me. Frankly, I think the same rule should apply dealer to dealer, but I suppose that is open to some debate. It certainly would level the playing field as between a very knowledgeable dealer and a not so knowledgeable dealer. And I suppose that would be financially a bad thing for the knowledgeable dealer. But wouldn't it be worth it?
On this subject, I was referring mostly to wholesale business. It is not my responsibility to know what the wholesale purchaser does with his purchase. I have every bit of responsibility to protect the retail customer and will continue to do so.
JL--Attacking the PNG at every opportunity is not a good thing. Neither is attacking the ANA. Both organizations are for the betterment of numismatics.
Response--Why not? Both deserve criticism. On this issue Laura Sperber's comments are accurate. And criticism, especially constructive criticism, is a good thing if it causes PNG or the ANA to act. Both organizations are for the betterment of numismatics; however, PNG and ANA both overstate their claims of consumer protection. The ANA made a statement a few years ago that it was to be the "standard bearer" for integrity in numismatics, or something to that effect. That is simply an untrue statement. In the June 27 issue of Coin World, Robert Brueggeman wrote the "Guest Commentary" touting what a great organization PNG is and how important it is for consumer protection. Given PNG's impotence in the area of coin doctoring I am inclined to write a response to that article. By creating a false sense of "consumer protection" among its the consumer public, I actually thing PNG is harming the numismatic community in some ways. It touts consumer protection, but acts like an indecisive follower rather than the great organization that it could be. I have said this before, but PNG adds nothing to a dealers credentials IMO. At a minimum, however, I think we can agree that often the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and if PNG did act positively as others have suggested, PNG could do more good, collectively, than any single collector or dealer could individually. That is what is so frustrating about PNG and its indecision, lack of action and lack of direction.
Keep the discussion going, Tom. Write your response to Bob's Commentary. The PNG is a professional organization. We are not law enforcement.
JL--How many professional numismatists have testified against people trying to defraud others thru numismatics? I have done it for over 25 years.
Response--I think that is wonderful for you and for numismatics and you should be commended. I and many people on these boards consider you a highly knowledgeable and reputable numismatist. That doesn't mean that we can't disagree. I still think that as a member of PNG, you should do more to combat coin doctoring.
I will continue to promote numismatics and work to eliminate fraud. The vast majority of coin dealers, in general, wish to eliminate fraud.
PNG member, numismatic dealer since 1965. Operates a retail store, also has exhibited at over 1000 shows. I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
Since Andy wasn't too happy with my first response, I'll try again.
<< <i>Is it more ethical to do a job that can be detected by any competent numismatist, or to do a job that cannot be detected by anyone? >>
I feel the ethical issue involved is primarily the disclosure of the alternation rather than the competence of the job. The PNG Code of Ethics also requires disclosure so it would a appear the PNG also feels non-disclosure is an ethical violation, at least in words. The issue with this question is that if we were to say that ethics depends on the competence of the job, then the same doctor is likely to be both ethical and unethical depending on whether he or she was trying a new technique or one that he or she has already refined. If a person behaves both ethically and unethically, is he or she ethical or unethical overall? Perhaps the answer is clear and expected.
<< <i>And if it cannot be detected by anyone, how could it be a bad thing? >>
Using Andy's words, I feel this question may border on being ridiculous, dishonest or obnoxious. There have been many times when a doctoring job was not detectable by a customer or TPG at the time it was doctored, only to be revealed later. In these cases, there can be and has been substantial financial loss, reputation loss, embarrassment and disappointment. Undisclosed doctoring is a bad thing, even when the doctor thinks it is undetectable. If the doctor is so confident his or her work is undetectable, then why not be public and take financial responsibility for work if it goes bad by offering a warranty? The doctor can simply take the coin back if it goes bad. The reality is that coin doctors are being dishonest, operating in secret, and seeking financial gain while making others pay for their mistakes.
Comments
Maybe the guild could offer periodic and mandatory educational seminars on coin doctoring for their membership so they can be properly trained to identify various doctoring overtime......
Perhaps increase the dues to pay for such ongoing training.
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
<< <i>Coin grading is comparative and subjective and not everyone will agree on what grade a coin should receive. On a level farther removed from this subjective nature on coin collecting is coin doctoring. "Fixing" coins has been around since coin collecting began. It varies from cleaning some dirt off a coin to expertly toning million dollar coins. Detection of doctoring is even more subjective than grading a coin. I believe this is where the problem comes in...who is to say a coin has been doctored? It's TOO subjective to point blame sucessfully, except for perhaps the repeat offenders that build a track record. The only way I can see to combat this problem is by using methods similar to what PCGS has implemented. Sniffer and photographs. Eveything other than hard evidence (like laser mapping and photographs for comparison) is just opinion. The only way to come close to PROVING coin doctoring is to compare a coin to itself...before and after. The problem with this approach is that EVERY coin is not likely to pass through a sniffer process before it's doctored...but it sure helps with the high value ones. >>
Respectfully, I disagree. It is not too subjective and it must be stopped or, at a minimum, seriously hindered. The sniffer, CAC, Secure Plus, etc. all are good things, but they treat the symptoms, not the cause. They seek to identify those coins that are choice, or original but they do nothing to address the problem of stopping coin doctoring. To use a perhaps inappropriate analogy, it is as if we are treating a cancer with drugs without attempting to cure the cancer. And I do think coin doctoring is a cancer to the numismatic community. Without attacking the cause, coin doctoring will continue and it will adapt and improve.
From my reading only, it appears that Laura Sperber, who I don't know, has been a great, often brash spokesperson trying to get something done. That she sometimes writes inartfully doesn't bother me at all. We all do that from time to time. Plus, there is a necessary urgency in what she says and writes that I happen to agree with. Andy's comments, to me, make a great deal of sense. His last substantive comment above sounds like a great idea and one that could actually work. The problem is that PNG and other organizations have done little or nothing to address the problem and some real action is necessary. And let's not leave the ANA out of the conversation here. As the largest numismatic organization out there, the ANA should be doing more as well.
Tom
2. Often it takes only a single voice shouting in the wilderness to create change.
3. No one, to my knowledge, has disagreed with Laura's quest for increased industry integrity.
4. PCGS has certainly responded in a positive and , I must say, expensive technical manner.
5. Many fine people, in their own quiet way, are pushing for the same kind of positive change.
6. Instead of nit picking, we should all be singing Hallah Lulah that this change occurs as rapidly
as possible for our own selfish benefit and for the benefit of the coin industry as a whole.
7. With the massive increase in Chinese phony coins pouring into the USA, we all better hope
that something is done sooner , rather then later.
8. At least, Laura is consistent , loud, influential and working in the best interests of the collecting
public. One can not really fault the intent or dedication , of the good people fighting on our behalf.
Camelot
I'm sure Laura will find a way.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Camelot
If you move metal or add something to a coin that's doctoring. That's a really simple definition, took all of 10 seconds to come up with. What is so difficult that PNG can't do something similar? Rhetorical question, I'm sure some dealers can come up with 101 excuses why that doesn't define doctoring enough, but that is exactly my point.
Call me a McCarthyite , I don't care, in my personal opinion if a professional dealer is not taking an active stance about the problem then they are indeed contributing to the problem.
World Collection
British Collection
German States Collection
In all fairness, Laura Sperber has worked in the industry for many years, and has established a reputation for herself. She is a good person to be speaking out in this matter. While the kind of coins in which she does business are the mostly likely ones to be the victims of sophisticated coin doctoring, she genuinely cares about the hobby. If she gets a bad coin, I imagine she is a big enough fish in this pond to quietly be made whole in the matter, but she has decided to take the high road. Good on her for that.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
I would like to see something done on doctoring and might as well fix the coin dealers that advertise in all the big coin mags, Coast to Coast and the many just like them. You read all the time that newbis get reamed and you call that the cost of education. Fix that part to.
Who is going to eat all those questionable toned coins in holders that would never be reslabbed if cracked?
There is a lot to be fixed.
Where is the bulk of the docotring being done? On coins over 5k or 20k or 100k or under 1k? Doctoring 20k and higher coins would be okay, i am not a buyer in that range and those buyers have enough money to need a tax write off anyway.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
<< <i>How many dealers would even know who Laura is at .... >>
I'm guessing the PNG dealers there know who she is
An interesting question would be how many of those PNG dealers follow #1 and #7 on the PNG Code of Ethics they've agreed to?
Andy wrote:
<< <i>Is it more ethical to do a job that can be detected by any competent numismatist, or to do a job that cannot be detected by anyone? And if it cannot be detected by anyone, how could it be a bad thing? >>
If the PNG feels it is more ethical to doctor coins that cannot be detected by the customer and not to disclose that information, contrary to their current Code, perhaps the PNG Code of Ethics could be updated to reflect this:
<< <i>To refrain from disclosing information on knowingly altered or repaired numismatic items to my customer. >>
<< Is it more ethical to do a job that can be detected by any competent numismatist, or to do a job that cannot be detected by anyone? And if it cannot be detected by anyone, how could it be a bad thing? >>
If the PNG feels it is more ethical to doctor coins that cannot be detected by the customer and not to disclose that information...
Obviously (to everybody but Zoins), me asking questions does not equate to the PNG taking a position. And even if I did take a position instead of just asking questions, my position would be mine alone, not the PNG's.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Is it more ethical to do a job that can be detected by any competent numismatist, or to do a job that cannot be detected by anyone? And if it cannot be detected by anyone, how could it be a bad thing? >>
If the PNG feels it is more ethical to doctor coins that cannot be detected by the customer and not to disclose that information... >>
Obviously (to everybody but Zoins), me asking questions does not equate to the PNG taking a position. And even if I did take a position instead of just asking questions, my position would be mine alone, not the PNG's. >>
It was obvious to me your question is a hypothetical asked by an individual. However, it is not as obvious that you realized my question is also a hypothetical asked by an individual. I'll try harder.
Since you like to ask questions, I thought to ask a few as well.
I realized it. Still, a hypothetical based on a ridiculous, dishonest or obnoxious premise should be shot down for what it is. For example, what do you think of this one? If Zoins spent the last 10 years in prison for the crime of bestiality with an underage iguana, and if he offered to sell you a lifetime supply of counterfeit green beans, would you prefer to pay him with a check or through Paypal?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>
<< <i>It was obvious to me your question is a hypothetical asked by an individual. However, it is not as obvious that you realized my question is also a hypothetical asked by an individual. >>
I realized it. Still, a hypothetical based on a ridiculous, dishonest or obnoxious premise should be shot down for what it is. >>
I do not consider the idea of changing the PNG Code of Ethics ridiculous or dishonest because it seems like it may not reflect the accepted behavior of their membership. On the contrary, changing the Code to reflect current behavior may make the PNG more honest. This is because it has been suggested there are coin doctors within the PNG. Presumably these coin doctors are violating the PNG Code of Ethics they agreed to and yet they are allowed to remain within the PNG. If the PNG feels it is okay to violate the Code or that they are powerless to do anything about it, perhaps the Code should be changed to reflect that view and their membership to avoid inconsistency and confusion. A simple solution could be to drop items #1 and #7 from the Code.
As for your other thoughts, I'm not sure I know enough to even comment except that I am in shock!
I have dipped coins and I have removed surface contaminants. Does that make me a coin doctor?
To me doctoring is adding something to the coin to mislead a purchaser.
I have thousands of coins that need to be sold. I want to sell them for a fair price. Am I supposed to qualify the purchaser as to his intent in buying my coins?
Attacking the PNG at every opportunity is not a good thing. Neither is attacking the ANA. Both organizations are for the betterment of numismatics.
How many professional numismatists have testified against people trying to defraud others thru numismatics? I have done it for over 25 years.
I am sure that something else will come up later.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
If the changes are for the better, then (almost by definition) they must make a difference.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>A few thoughts:
JL--I have dipped coins and I have removed surface contaminants. Does that make me a coin doctor?
Response--No. The definition of coin doctoring as written and addressed previously does not include dipping. Some may argue otherwise, but this is re-hashing old ground and not really furthering the conversation.
JL--To me doctoring is adding something to the coin to mislead a purchaser.
Response--OK..that is a start...it is also bad...now why not get the PNG to say that and to have its members attest that they will not knowingly sell a coin like that without full disclosure.
JL--I have thousands of coins that need to be sold. I want to sell them for a fair price. Am I supposed to qualify the purchaser as to his intent in buying my coins?
Response---I don't know what you mean by "qualifying the purchaser" but I'll tell you this...IMO it is your job to protect your purchaser/client. Maybe this is actually a point of contention. Maybe you believe that is not your responsibility, especially when dealing with other dealers. Maybe you are entitled to the benefit of your sophistication and expertise in all instances. My view as a consumer is that you have so much more expertise than the purchaser, who is presumably coming to for your expertise, it is your job to fully and honestly advise him. For my part, if I can't trust a coin dealer to refrain from knowingly selling me a doctored coin, that dealer is of little use to me. Frankly, I think the same rule should apply dealer to dealer, but I suppose that is open to some debate. It certainly would level the playing field as between a very knowledgeable dealer and a not so knowledgeable dealer. And I suppose that would be financially a bad thing for the knowledgeable dealer. But wouldn't it be worth it?
JL--Attacking the PNG at every opportunity is not a good thing. Neither is attacking the ANA. Both organizations are for the betterment of numismatics.
Response--Why not? Both deserve criticism. On this issue Laura Sperber's comments are accurate. And criticism, especially constructive criticism, is a good thing if it causes PNG or the ANA to act. Both organizations are for the betterment of numismatics; however, PNG and ANA both overstate their claims of consumer protection. The ANA made a statement a few years ago that it was to be the "standard bearer" for integrity in numismatics, or something to that effect. That is simply an untrue statement. In the June 27 issue of Coin World, Robert Brueggeman wrote the "Guest Commentary" touting what a great organization PNG is and how important it is for consumer protection. Given PNG's impotence in the area of coin doctoring I am inclined to write a response to that article. By creating a false sense of "consumer protection" among its the consumer public, I actually thing PNG is harming the numismatic community in some ways. It touts consumer protection, but acts like an indecisive follower rather than the great organization that it could be. I have said this before, but PNG adds nothing to a dealers credentials IMO. At a minimum, however, I think we can agree that often the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and if PNG did act positively as others have suggested, PNG could do more good, collectively, than any single collector or dealer could individually. That is what is so frustrating about PNG and its indecision, lack of action and lack of direction.
JL--How many professional numismatists have testified against people trying to defraud others thru numismatics? I have done it for over 25 years.
Response--I think that is wonderful for you and for numismatics and you should be commended. I and many people on these boards consider you a highly knowledgeable and reputable numismatist. That doesn't mean that we can't disagree. I still think that as a member of PNG, you should do more to combat coin doctoring.
JL--I am sure that something else will come up later. >>
Text
Tom
and I will respond as follows:
JL--To me doctoring is adding something to the coin to mislead a purchaser.
Response--OK..that is a start...it is also bad...now why not get the PNG to say that and to have its members attest that they will not knowingly sell a coin like that without full disclosure.
b]The PNG will continue to discuss the situation, but will probably not come up with their own definition of doctoring. The organization will take action against individuals when a complaint is made
JL--I have thousands of coins that need to be sold. I want to sell them for a fair price. Am I supposed to qualify the purchaser as to his intent in buying my coins?
Response---I don't know what you mean by "qualifying the purchaser" but I'll tell you this...IMO it is your job to protect your purchaser/client. Maybe this is actually a point of contention. Maybe you believe that is not your responsibility, especially when dealing with other dealers. Maybe you are entitled to the benefit of your sophistication and expertise in all instances. My view as a consumer is that you have so much more expertise than the purchaser, who is presumably coming to for your expertise, it is your job to fully and honestly advise him. For my part, if I can't trust a coin dealer to refrain from knowingly selling me a doctored coin, that dealer is of little use to me. Frankly, I think the same rule should apply dealer to dealer, but I suppose that is open to some debate. It certainly would level the playing field as between a very knowledgeable dealer and a not so knowledgeable dealer. And I suppose that would be financially a bad thing for the knowledgeable dealer. But wouldn't it be worth it?
On this subject, I was referring mostly to wholesale business. It is not my responsibility to know what the wholesale purchaser does with his purchase. I have every bit of responsibility to protect the retail customer and will continue to do so.
JL--Attacking the PNG at every opportunity is not a good thing. Neither is attacking the ANA. Both organizations are for the betterment of numismatics.
Response--Why not? Both deserve criticism. On this issue Laura Sperber's comments are accurate. And criticism, especially constructive criticism, is a good thing if it causes PNG or the ANA to act. Both organizations are for the betterment of numismatics; however, PNG and ANA both overstate their claims of consumer protection. The ANA made a statement a few years ago that it was to be the "standard bearer" for integrity in numismatics, or something to that effect. That is simply an untrue statement. In the June 27 issue of Coin World, Robert Brueggeman wrote the "Guest Commentary" touting what a great organization PNG is and how important it is for consumer protection. Given PNG's impotence in the area of coin doctoring I am inclined to write a response to that article. By creating a false sense of "consumer protection" among its the consumer public, I actually thing PNG is harming the numismatic community in some ways. It touts consumer protection, but acts like an indecisive follower rather than the great organization that it could be. I have said this before, but PNG adds nothing to a dealers credentials IMO. At a minimum, however, I think we can agree that often the whole is greater than the sum of its parts and if PNG did act positively as others have suggested, PNG could do more good, collectively, than any single collector or dealer could individually. That is what is so frustrating about PNG and its indecision, lack of action and lack of direction.
Keep the discussion going, Tom. Write your response to Bob's Commentary. The PNG is a professional organization. We are not law enforcement.
JL--How many professional numismatists have testified against people trying to defraud others thru numismatics? I have done it for over 25 years.
Response--I think that is wonderful for you and for numismatics and you should be commended. I and many people on these boards consider you a highly knowledgeable and reputable numismatist. That doesn't mean that we can't disagree. I still think that as a member of PNG, you should do more to combat coin doctoring.
I will continue to promote numismatics and work to eliminate fraud. The vast majority of coin dealers, in general, wish to eliminate fraud.
I firmly believe in numismatics as the world's greatest hobby, but recognize that this is a luxury and without collectors, we can all spend/melt our collections/inventories.
eBaystore
<< <i>Is it more ethical to do a job that can be detected by any competent numismatist, or to do a job that cannot be detected by anyone? >>
I feel the ethical issue involved is primarily the disclosure of the alternation rather than the competence of the job. The PNG Code of Ethics also requires disclosure so it would a appear the PNG also feels non-disclosure is an ethical violation, at least in words. The issue with this question is that if we were to say that ethics depends on the competence of the job, then the same doctor is likely to be both ethical and unethical depending on whether he or she was trying a new technique or one that he or she has already refined. If a person behaves both ethically and unethically, is he or she ethical or unethical overall? Perhaps the answer is clear and expected.
<< <i>And if it cannot be detected by anyone, how could it be a bad thing? >>
Using Andy's words, I feel this question may border on being ridiculous, dishonest or obnoxious. There have been many times when a doctoring job was not detectable by a customer or TPG at the time it was doctored, only to be revealed later. In these cases, there can be and has been substantial financial loss, reputation loss, embarrassment and disappointment. Undisclosed doctoring is a bad thing, even when the doctor thinks it is undetectable. If the doctor is so confident his or her work is undetectable, then why not be public and take financial responsibility for work if it goes bad by offering a warranty? The doctor can simply take the coin back if it goes bad. The reality is that coin doctors are being dishonest, operating in secret, and seeking financial gain while making others pay for their mistakes.