Interesting definition and it is good that the PNG has taken this action.
One point that leaps out to me is that the definition's three components all speak to a coin "appears to be in a better state of preservation, or more valuable than it otherwise would be".
The quoted language would seem to indicate that the presence or absence of "coin doctoring" depends upon the results of subjecting of a coin to one or more of the three described processes.
If the result is a failure (i.e. a coin that appears to be in an equal or worse state of preservation or appears to be of of equal or lesser value) then there is no "coin doctoring".
However, if the result is a success (i.e. a coin that appears to be in a better state of preservation or appears to be of greater value) then there is "coin doctoring".
Thus one can only be a "coin doctor" only if he/she is good at it. If you are good enough you are a "COIN DOCTOR" and that is a bad thing. If you are not good enough, you are a FAILURE and that also, in general, is a bad thing.
Further, the definition talks of a coin that "appears to be....." instead of a coin "that is.........". Who can determine whether a given coin is one that "appears to be....." as opposed to whether a given coin is one "that is.............."?
Any activity in which humans are involved can never be made objective and quantifiable since humans by nature are subjective, different and unpredictable. Notwithstanding the above, knowledge and experience can and do result in the creation of definitions and systems which can be adopted and applied to govern and regulate specified activities in a manner by which stability, predictability, consistency are promoted allowing the activity to flourish and thrive. Such it will be in the hobby with regards to "coin doctoring".
...and don't forget "coin restoration/preservation"...or whatever the Big Boys are calling that type of high-end shenanigans...I mean restoration...these days.
Kinda like when they "restored" the Sistene Chapel a few years back...by adding new colors...and losing some of the original details by Michelangelo!
This is actually much better than I was expecting. It's not perfect and won't please everybody, but it looks like they spent a lot of time and made a genuine effort.
IHC08: << This is actually much better than I was expecting. It's not perfect and won't please everybody, but it looks like they spent a lot of time and made a genuine effort. >>
I agree wholeheartedly. It is much better than I was expecting as well. John Albanese and the members of the PNG board deserve a great deal of credit. It is a tremendous move in the right direction.
AstroRat: << Sadly, enforcement by the ANA or PNG can lead to nothing more serious than membership removal. Not until legal authorities are involved where fines and/or incarceration can be effectively levied will the plague of coin doctoring be blunted. Coin doctoring is fraud and should be dealt with as such.>>
I do not entirely agree with AstroRat. As for the PNG, it depends upon how a coin doctor is removed. If an offender is permitted to quietly resign, without any public statement from the PNG board regarding coin doctoring, then AstroRat would be right. A quiet resignation by a coin doctor would accomplish little. If the PNG board issues a statement, however, that dealers X, Y and Z have been expelled because of involvement in coin doctoring, then a good deal may be accomplished. There are collectors and many dealers who buy doctored coins from coin doctors without knowing that the respective coins have been doctored.
As for the ANA, the board could ban coin doctors from having tables or obtaining dealer badges at ANA Conventions. This would be a tremendous deterrent.
As for the legalities, please read my discussions of the PCGS lawsuit in 2010 against alleged coin doctors. To an extent, I covered the matter. I was surprised that a Federal Judge pared down this lawsuit, and removed it from Federal Court, even before any evidence was presented. AstroRat’s remarks about criminal cases in the future are puzzling.
AstroRat: << … before we take the next meaningful step. >>
What is the next meaningful step and how can we take it?
If somebody has been harmed by the activities of a coin doctor that happens to be a member of the PNG, he can file a complaint with the PNG and seek compensation for damages. With respect to slabs, I would expect any such complaints to be filed by the TPGs. First, because anyone else would look to the TPG guaranty for recourse. And second, because nobody else would know who submitted the coin.
As for the "qualified professional" language, I agree that it probably doesn't belong in the definition. However, my best guess is that the authors feel it necessary to remind the public at every turn that amateurs should avoid cleaning coins. I wouldn't read anything more into it than that.
Finally, keep in mind that this definition is, like the rest of the PNG bylaws, going to be subject to constant revision. The kinks will be worked out in time.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
MrEureka: << If somebody has been harmed by the activities of a coin doctor that happens to be a member of the PNG, he can file a complaint with the PNG and seek compensation for damages. With respect to slabs, I would expect any such complaints to be filed by the TPGs. First, because anyone else would look to the TPG guaranty for recourse. And second, because nobody else would know who submitted the coin.>>
Suppose that the TPGs do not file “any such complaints”! Is MrEureka saying that the PNG definition would then be of little help? It is plausible that the TPGs will not file such complaints. Some of the coin doctors are large submitters and/or influential people in the coin business.
MrEureka should not give the impression that only TPGs should file complaints regarding doctored coins in TPG holders. If PNG member X is a coin doctor and sells doctored coins to person Y, then person Y should be able to file a complaint with the PNG. Why would it really be necessary to prove that person Y submitted the coins in question to the TPG? Do coin doctors often route TPG submissions through third parties?
One point that leaps out to me is that the definition's three components all speak to a coin "appears to be in a better state of preservation, or more valuable than it otherwise would be".
The quoted language would seem to indicate that the presence or absence of "coin doctoring" depends upon the results of subjecting of a coin to one or more of the three described processes.
Perhaps the language can be cleaned up. However, keep in mind that if the doctored coin does not "appear to be in a better state of preservation, or more valuable than it otherwise would be", then the only financial damages inflicted by the doctor were upon himself, and no complaint will be filed. Only a successful doctor will cause financial damages to other parties, and only successful cases of doctoring will come before the PNG arbitration panel.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
MrEureka<<… if the doctored coin does not "appear to be in a better state of preservation, or more valuable than it otherwise would be", then the only financial damages inflicted by the doctor were upon himself, and no complaint will be filed.>>
Is this true? Suppose, hypothetically, that a coin is certified as being Proof-64 and is ‘cracked out’ by a PNG member coin doctor, who then lasers the coin with the intention of ‘getting’ a Proof-65 or Proof-66 certification. Further, suppose that the coin is certified (again) by the same TPG as Proof-64 after it was lasered, and the coin doctor then sells the coin, at a loss, to a collector.
Is MrEureka saying that, because the PNG member coin doctor lost money, the collector did not suffer damages? A coin that has been lasered is irreparably damaged. Is it fraudulent for the PNG member coin doctor not to disclose to the buyer that the coin was lasered? Should the buyer be able to pursue damages trough the PNG, even though the coin doctor suffered a loss in the pertinent transaction? It is fair to assume that most collectors do not want to buy irreparably damaged coins that are certified as Proof-64?
I repeat that this is a hypothetical scenario, though the examples given in the PCGS lawsuit suggest that it is plausible.
<< <i>MrEureka<<… if the doctored coin does not "appear to be in a better state of preservation, or more valuable than it otherwise would be", then the only financial damages inflicted by the doctor were upon himself, and no complaint will be filed.>>
Is this true? Suppose, hypothetically, that a coin is certified as being Proof-64 and is ‘cracked out’ by a PNG member coin doctor, who then lasers the coin with the intention of ‘getting’ a Proof-65 or Proof-66 certification. Further, suppose that the coin is certified (again) by the same TPG as Proof-64 after it was lasered, and the coin doctor then sells the coin, at a loss, to a collector.
Is MrEureka saying that, because the PNG member coin doctor lost money, the collector did not suffer damages? A coin that has been lasered is irreparably damaged. Is it fraudulent for the PNG member coin doctor not to disclose to the buyer that the coin was lasered? Should the buyer be able to pursue damages trough the PNG, even though the coin doctor suffered a loss in the pertinent transaction? It is fair to assume that most collectors do not want to buy irreparably damaged coins that are certified as Proof-64?
I repeat that this is a hypothetical scenario, though the examples given in the PCGS lawsuit suggest that it is plausible [....] >>
I see what SanctionII and MrEureka are saying and it does appear to be a weakness in the definition. All 3 PNG definition descriptions have "better state of preservation" in the wording. Using the PNG wording, it appears that if the coin is damaged via lasering and appears worse, the PNG would not consider that to be doctoring. Further, if the doctoring definition does not apply, I'm not sure it would be fraudulent for a PNG dealer to not disclose that. After all, the fallback would be to the existing PNG Code of Ethics which states "7. To refrain from knowingly dealing in counterfeit, altered or repaired numismatic items without fully disclosing their status to my customer." However, it appears that the doctoring issue has come about because existing Code of Ethics was felt to not cover doctoring.
That being said, this appears to be a good start. Hopefully, there will be improvements down the line.
<< <i><< "by qualified professionals is not considered coin doctoring" >>
This statement probably refers to PCGS and NGC to help exempt them from their abetting in coin 'doctoring'.........you know, those sea-salvaged encrusted treasure coins that have been "professionally preserved" and certified as if nothing had been done to them........hypocracy >>
Yep, I'm pretty cynical about it too. It's like saying "We are the ones making a boatload of money off the hobby so by default we're qualified"
<< <i>If the PNG board issues a statement, however, that dealers X, Y and Z have been expelled because of involvement in coin doctoring, then a good deal may be accomplished. >>
There is ZERO probability that PNG (or the ANA) will make ANY public statement calling somebody a "coin doctor" without support of the legal system. It would be slander. Don't think so? Then publicly "out" a dealer as a coin doctor and see how little time it takes for his/her lawyer to chat with you. There is a reason why a well-known, vocal opponent of known coin doctors won't name anybody. He/she may have a "big mouth" but he/she also has a big brain.
<< <i>As for the ANA, the board could ban coin doctors from having tables or obtaining dealer badges at ANA Conventions. This would be a tremendous deterrent. >>
Tremendous deterrent? Not really. It would just change the distribution pattern for the doctored coins. The doctored coins would just not be sold by the "banned" dealer, but would appear at auction, or at FUN, Baltimore, Central States, etc. No need to even touch the fact that the Board would not "ban" a dealer unless there was legal support. The ANA is flaccid and will fold like a cheap table if threatened with yet another lawsuit.
<< <i>AstroRat’s remarks about criminal cases in the future are puzzling. >>
You're correct, it is puzzling since I didn't mention criminal cases. I stated that coin doctoring is fraud and it shouldn't take the legal mind of Clarence Darrow to prove that altering the surfaces of a coin with the intent to "hide" problems without disclosing the same is fraud. Is there an argument that it is not fraud?
<< <i>What is the next meaningful step and how can we take it? >>
Work with law enforcement, legislature, FTC, whomever, to establish a legal definition of "coin doctoring" and create the appropriate penalties. Self-policing is NOT working ... obviously.
Edited to correct grammar ...
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
As one of the collector member of the coin doctoring committee, I must admit that there was a truly honest effort to craft an understandable definition of "coin doctoring."
The dealer members of this committee were truly amazing in their comprehension that less was more. A previous effort to craft a detailed and comprehensive definition of coin doctoring became so bogged down that it began to resemble the Internal Revenue Code in which it became nearly useless. It then became clear that conciseness was paramount.
It is certainly not perfect, but a heck of a good start. Indeed, the little kinks can be worked out over time.
As far as dipping, it was essentially tabled as more research is needed. The "problem" inherent with coin dipping is that there is market acceptable dipping as well as coin dipping that is NOT market acceptable. A second "problem" s that experienced dealers and collectors easily detect coins that are dipped. A third "problem" is market acceptable dipping versus over dipping or improper dipping. As Andy stated, improper dipping is obviously a coin that has not been improved look-wise so deception is no longer happening.
Dipping has been studied previously by numismatic authors but there wasn't enough time to get a complete handle on the dipping issue so it will continued to be studied and gain a more complete scientific understanding of the "loss of metal" inherent in dipping versus over dipping.
I must also state that John Albanese did an outstanding job as well acting as the moderator.
It's better than it was... Plus, who is not looking forward because of this place and those who stand strong for what is right ? I wanted so much to meet many of you this week. It's a drag in a shop, really.
<< <i>As far as dipping, it was essentially tabled as more research is needed. The "problem" inherent with coin dipping is that there is market acceptable dipping as well as coin dipping that is NOT market acceptable. A second "problem" s that experienced dealers and collectors easily detect coins that are dipped. A third "problem" is market acceptable dipping versus over dipping or improper dipping. As Andy stated, improper dipping is obviously a coin that has not been improved look-wise so deception is no longer happening. >>
There is a much more pragmatic reason why there is "difficulty" in defining "dipping" as coin doctoring ... nearly every, if not all, professional numismatists dip coins to improve the coin's eye appeal, value, and saleability (some, heaven forbid, may not even disclose it!). How can the PNG declare a practice as "bad" if their own members practice it so actively?
More research is needed? What a great euphemism for not wanting to take a stand. A few years back when I was putting together material for one of the ANA's grading classes I spoke with JP Martin and he told me that the ANACS (when he was on staff at it was still at the ANA) studied the effect of dipping coins in a commercial dilute acid coin cleaning solution (sulfuric acid and thiourea solution). Through electron microscopy (at Colorado College) the evidence was clear that the acid solution removed metal.
Why does a coin loose its luster when "over-dipped?" The minute flow lines that impart luster are reshaped by the erosion of metal from the surface of the flow lines (think water erosion of a mountain range). Enough erosion and the coin's luster will be dulled (and that's when dipping is no longer market acceptable).
More research? A study to answer the question could be done easily and inexpensively. The PNG could work with an inorganic chemist at any number of community, private, or state universities and have the answer in short order. A faculty member is always interested in interesting research and publishing the results. The real question is, "Does the PNG want to know the answer?"
This isn't rocket science ... science, yes, but not rocket science.
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Writing a definition (or ANYTHING) with the intent to get full support from a disparate group of individuals is a very difficult and time consuming task.
Kudos to the PNG for arriving at a definition that was one vote away from unanimous approval.
The only comment I would have on the definition is that it could have included a more blanket statement that doctoring is anything that alters the original condition of the coin. That type of statement ("don't mess with the coin") is easier for a new or less experienced collector/investor to grasp.
Vague and open to all kinds if interpretation, but none the less, a good start: The use of solvents and/or commercially available dilute acids, such as Jeweluster, by qualified professionals is not considered coin doctoring.
Analyst on 04/19: << If the PNG board issues a statement, however, that dealers X, Y and Z have been expelled because of involvement in coin doctoring, then a good deal may be accomplished. >>
AstroRat: <<There is ZERO probability that PNG (or the ANA) will make ANY public statement calling somebody a "coin doctor" without support of the legal system. It would be liable slander. Don't think so?>>
In the past, when the PNG suspends or expels someone, a reason is publicly mentioned in some cases and not in others. In cases where a reason was publicly mentioned, was the PNG, or anyone at the PNG, ever sued for libel or slander? I doubt it. Moreover, by becoming and remaining a member of the PNG, an accused coin doctor, in such a situation, would be consenting to the process and agreeing to accept the outcome. In contrast to AstroRat’s assertions, a public announcement of the conclusion of such a process is much different from the notion of an ‘outing’ of coin doctors by commentators or researchers.
Additionally, if a PNG panel finds that a PNG member has engaged in a certain kind of wrongdoing, and the PNG Board sustains the finding, such a finding and a corresponding action (if any) by the PNG board would be ‘news’ that may be legally announced and reported upon. I am skeptical as to whether AstroRat is very familiar with laws relating to libel and slander. I admit, though, that I am not a lawyer either.
Analyst on 04/19<< As for the ANA, the board could ban coin doctors from having tables or obtaining dealer badges at ANA Conventions. This would be a tremendous deterrent. >>
AstroRat: <<Tremendous deterrent? Not really. It would just change the distribution pattern for the doctored coins. The doctored coins would just not be sold by the "banned" dealer, appear at auction, or at FUN, Baltimore, Central States, etc.>>
Among doctored pre-1934 U.S. coins in PCGS or NGC holders, my impression is that most of them are sold at major shows or through major auctions. Is it fair to assume that coin doctors do a lot of business at major conventions?
I did not say that an overall banning would occur if a coin doctor was denied an ANA dealer badge. For some coin doctors, being denied tables and dealer badges at ANA Conventions would severely harm their respective businesses, even if the reason for the denials were not publicly announced. If just one coin doctor was denied a table, others (though not everyone) would be discouraged from coin doctoring. As a consequence, much fewer classic U.S. coins would be doctored by experts.
Analyst: << AstroRat’s remarks about criminal cases in the future are puzzling. >>
AstroRat: <<You're correct, it is puzzling since I didn't mention criminal cases.>>
Yes, AstroRat did in the abstract, AstroRat said, << Not until legal authorities are involved where fines and/or incarceration can be effectively levied … >> Situations where fines are imposed and/or incarceration ordered would be criminal cases, in this context. Impositions of fines for speeding tickets or for civil violations of environmental law are not relevant.
AstroRat: <<… coin doctoring is fraud and it shouldn't take the legal mind of Clarence Darrow to prove that altering the surfaces of a coin with the intent to ‘hide’ problems without disclosing the same is fraud. >>
I do not have a problem with this statement by AstroRat. Also, more than once, I have quoted John Albanese as clearly asserting that coin doctoring is fraud.
I really suggest reading the PCGS lawsuit and my analyses of it. Also, there is a need to consider that the portions of the PCGS lawsuit that are based upon Federal Law, including allegations of federal crimes, were dismissed by a federal judge.
Analyst << What is the next meaningful step and how can we take it? >>
AstroRat: <<Work with law enforcement, legislature, FTC, whomever, to establish a legal definition of "coin doctoring" and create the appropriate penalties. Self-policing is NOT working ... obviously.>>
<<Self-policing>> really has not been tried.
In addition to my articles about natural toning, the PCGS lawsuit, and the PCGS Coin Sniffer, I have referred to coin doctoring, sometimes subtly, in a large number of other articles. Indeed, I have probably written the most about the ‘coin doctoring problem.’
Laura, Scott Travers and I have, separately, seriously addressed the coin doctoring problem in multiple published writings. Has anyone else done so?
While the adoption of the PNG definition is a tremendous step in the right direction, AstroRat and I agree that it is just one step and more steps are needed, though we may disagree on proposed steps. I am interested in communicating with collectors and dealers who are serious about addressing the problem. I strongly prompted AstroRat to publicly voice his suggestions because he seems to understand the severity of the coin doctoring problem and the need for a great deal to be done about it.
"In order to understand the scarce coins that you own or see, you must learn about coins that you cannot afford." -Me
The issue of coin dipping came up after the main definition of coin doctoring was nearly completed and the committee had only a couple of days to discuss coin dipping and digest Scott Travers published research on dipping of which a number of committee members was not aware of it.
To have forced a quick decision on coin dipping as a form of coin doctoring would have been too hasty and too forced when i understand even TPG services do sometimes dip modern coins when it is market acceptable.
Rome was not built in a day and the best approach now is just to keep the issue of coin dipping front and center plus making sure we do not drop the ball on this issue rather than condemn the committee for being cautious due to lack of time.
believe me, I wanted to push the coin dipping agenda as well but saw that many members were not as well versed on the previous research. Even I will admit that I had forgotten about Traver's research.
Oreville, if you are writing about the reference that I had shared with you and others on dipping, then that was not research conducted by Scott Travers. Rather, it was a summary of research previously published by Maurice Rosen that was then published by Scott Travers. The difference is subtle, but important to better give credit.
I only joined the committee several months ago and it seemed like it was only getting into high gear at that time with a deadline only two months away.
I cannot speak of what happened previously.
As I understood, it the committee was given a deadline prior to the April show.
Even I recognize that coin dipping is very controversial since so many collectors as well as dealers find it market acceptable.
I believe we had only a week or so left. It was not enough time.
<< <i>The issue of coin dipping came up after the main definition of coin doctoring was nearly completed and the committee had only a couple of days to discuss coin dipping and digest Scott Travers published research on dipping of which a number of committee members was not aware of it. >>
Is this related to the discussion in his book "The Coin Collector's Survival Manual" where he compares the surface of a non dipped coin with one that was dipped for fifteen seconds?
<< <i><< "by qualified professionals is not considered coin doctoring" >>
This statement probably refers to PCGS and NGC to help exempt them from their abetting in coin 'doctoring'.........you know, those sea-salvaged encrusted treasure coins that have been "professionally preserved" and certified as if nothing had been done to them........hypocracy >>
Yep, I'm pretty cynical about it too. It's like saying "We are the ones making a boatload of money off the hobby so by default we're qualified" >>
TomB: <<Oreville, if you are writing about the reference that I had shared with you and others on dipping, then that was not research conducted by Scott Travers. Rather, it was a summary of research previously published by Maurice Rosen that was then published by Scott Travers. The difference is subtle, but important to better give credit.>>
While I am not sure as to the reference being cited, it is worth noting that ‘before and after’ pictures of a dipped 1964 Kennedy Half Dollar appeared in multiple editions of Scott Travers’ most famous book, The Coin Collector’s Survival Manual.
The pictures and accompanying ‘research’ were originally published in a newsletter by Anthony Swiatek. I believe that pictures of this half dollar were taken with an electron microscope at Bell Labs in New Jersey. Many of the grooves, metal flow lines, and mounds on the surface were obliterated by a standard dipping.
Oreville: << Even I recognize that coin dipping is very controversial since so many collectors as well as dealers find it market acceptable.>>
Oreville: << To have forced a quick decision on coin dipping as a form of coin doctoring would have been too hasty and too forced when I understand even TPG services do sometimes dip modern coins when it is market acceptable. >>
The PCGS dips Walkers and Morgans, among other coins, on a regular basis, or did so in the past. Moreover, more than half of all uncirculated, 19th century silver coins have been dipped. It would not make sense to refer to all those as having been doctored.
Keep in mind that a doctored coin is (or should be) not gradable. If dipping were included in each definition of coin doctoring, it would then be impossible to contain the coin doctoring problem. Indeed, including dipping in a proposed definition would make the definition untenable and would benefit coin doctors who are adding putty, films, gels, Turtle Wax, etc.
IMO, dipping is harmful, though dipping is not ‘coin doctoring.’ Given the realities of the coin collecting community, it would be illogical to classify dipping as doctoring.
TDN: << Dipping is fine. Overdipping is not. The difference is debatable. >>
When an Eliasberg, Norweb or Garrett coin is dipped, its pedigree may be lost forever. Part of the history of a coin is destroyed when it is dipped. The fact that dipping is not coin doctoring does not mean that it “is fine.”
We can try to discourage dipping through education. It is important, though, to separate the dipping topic from the more pressing topic of coin doctoring.
<< <i>The pictures and accompanying ‘research’ were originally published in a newsletter by Anthony Swiatek. I believe that pictures of this half dollar were taken with an electron microscope at Bell Labs in New Jersey. Many of the grooves, metal flow lines, and mounds on the surface were obliterated by a standard dipping. >>
According to my issue of the The Coin Collector’s Survival Manual, the dipped coin was in the dip for fifteen seconds. Is this the typical length of time for the average dip?
<< <i>So the folks who do collectible cars cant restore them because that would be doctoring? Or if they wash the car that would be doctoring?
And what % of coins has been played with out there..... an awful lot.... so many so that most people dont know what an original coin even looks like >>
A big difference between restoring collectible cars and doctoring coins appears to be that car restorers are open about their work and keep detailed records for review so there is no deception. When buying a collectible car, you tend to get all the paperwork on all the service and work that was done on the car. While a few coin restorers are open about their work (e.g. Allen Stockton of the excellent Coin Restoration Service), many others do not disclose their work to deceive (and create financial losses for) collectors and TPGs. Why are coin doctors, on average, less open about their work to collectors than car restorers? Why do coin doctors seek to fool collectors and TPGs to the point of creating major financial loss and disappointment? It would be nice if coin doctors learned a few lessons from car restorers and were more honest and open about their work. I think more honesty and openness would help build confidence in the hobby.
One reason it may be difficult for some to tell what an original coin looks like is that coin doctors seek to fool collectors and graders while car restorers do not. Things may have gotten this bad because many people tended to look the other way on doctoring, giving tacit approval. Hopefully things are starting to change.
By the way, I've purchased collectible cars with lots of documentation. It's fun to read the history and very different than the cloak and dagger associated with coin doctoring. I'm also helping restore a classic car now so I might get a chance to help document as well.
"TomB: <<Oreville, if you are writing about the reference that I had shared with you and others on dipping, then that was not research conducted by Scott Travers. Rather, it was a summary of research previously published by Maurice Rosen that was then published by Scott Travers. The difference is subtle, but important to better give credit.>>
While I am not sure as to the reference being cited, it is worth noting that ‘before and after’ pictures of a dipped 1964 Kennedy Half Dollar appeared in multiple editions of Scott Travers’ most famous book, The Coin Collector’s Survival Manual.
The pictures and accompanying ‘research’ were originally published in a newsletter by Anthony Swiatek. I believe that pictures of this half dollar were taken with an electron microscope at Bell Labs in New Jersey. Many of the grooves, metal flow lines, and mounds on the surface were obliterated by a standard dipping."
Thank you, Analyst! I royally messed up when I mentioned in the thread that Maurice Rosen was the source when in reality Anthony Swiatek gets credit given in the Travers book. I apologize to all for giving out misleading or completely inaccurate information on the matter. Truly, it was simply a matter of my going by memory instead of looking up the reference myself. Ugh.
TDN: << Dipping is fine. Overdipping is not. The difference is debatable. >>
When an Eliasberg, Norweb or Garrett coin is dipped, its pedigree may be lost forever. Part of the history of a coin is destroyed when it is dipped. The fact that dipping is not coin doctoring does not mean that it “is fine.”
We can try to discourage dipping through education. It is important, though, to separate the dipping topic from the more pressing topic of coin doctoring.
I just don't mind a dipped coin. And honestly, if the provenance isn't important enough to discourage the dipping, then I don't much care enough about the coin to discourage it.
Note that we're not talking about the amazing naturally toned wonder coins - they just wouldn't be dipped in the first place. The coin that comes to mind is the Norweb 1794 dollar that's currently in a PCGS MS64 holder. I am head over heels in love with the coin - even tho it's been dipped. I would not kick that coin out of bed for eating crackers, let alone because it's too shiny.
Comments
One point that leaps out to me is that the definition's three components all speak to a coin "appears to be in a better state of preservation, or more valuable than it otherwise would be".
The quoted language would seem to indicate that the presence or absence of "coin doctoring" depends upon the results of subjecting of a coin to one or more of the three described processes.
If the result is a failure (i.e. a coin that appears to be in an equal or worse state of preservation or appears to be of of equal or lesser value) then there is no "coin doctoring".
However, if the result is a success (i.e. a coin that appears to be in a better state of preservation or appears to be of greater value) then there is "coin doctoring".
Thus one can only be a "coin doctor" only if he/she is good at it. If you are good enough you are a "COIN DOCTOR" and that is a bad thing. If you are not good enough, you are a FAILURE and that also, in general, is a bad thing.
Further, the definition talks of a coin that "appears to be....." instead of a coin "that is.........". Who can determine whether a given coin is one that "appears to be....." as opposed to whether a given coin is one "that is.............."?
Any activity in which humans are involved can never be made objective and quantifiable since humans by nature are subjective, different and unpredictable. Notwithstanding the above, knowledge and experience can and do result in the creation of definitions and systems which can be adopted and applied to govern and regulate specified activities in a manner by which stability, predictability, consistency are promoted allowing the activity to flourish and thrive. Such it will be in the hobby with regards to "coin doctoring".
Kinda like when they "restored" the Sistene Chapel a few years back...by adding new colors...and losing some of the original details by Michelangelo!
It's not perfect and won't please everybody, but it looks like they spent a lot of time and made a genuine effort.
<< <i>I can't wait to see what Laura has to say.
Me too. I think the definition is a huge step; however, I am concerned about the potential lack of an enforcement mechanism.
I agree wholeheartedly. It is much better than I was expecting as well. John Albanese and the members of the PNG board deserve a great deal of credit. It is a tremendous move in the right direction.
AstroRat: << Sadly, enforcement by the ANA or PNG can lead to nothing more serious than membership removal. Not until legal authorities are involved where fines and/or incarceration can be effectively levied will the plague of coin doctoring be blunted. Coin doctoring is fraud and should be dealt with as such.>>
I do not entirely agree with AstroRat. As for the PNG, it depends upon how a coin doctor is removed. If an offender is permitted to quietly resign, without any public statement from the PNG board regarding coin doctoring, then AstroRat would be right. A quiet resignation by a coin doctor would accomplish little. If the PNG board issues a statement, however, that dealers X, Y and Z have been expelled because of involvement in coin doctoring, then a good deal may be accomplished. There are collectors and many dealers who buy doctored coins from coin doctors without knowing that the respective coins have been doctored.
As for the ANA, the board could ban coin doctors from having tables or obtaining dealer badges at ANA Conventions. This would be a tremendous deterrent.
As for the legalities, please read my discussions of the PCGS lawsuit in 2010 against alleged coin doctors. To an extent, I covered the matter. I was surprised that a Federal Judge pared down this lawsuit, and removed it from Federal Court, even before any evidence was presented. AstroRat’s remarks about criminal cases in the future are puzzling.
AstroRat: << … before we take the next meaningful step. >>
What is the next meaningful step and how can we take it?
The Formal Introduction of the PCGS ‘Coin Sniffer’ at the PCGS Luncheon
Defining Coin Doctoring and Dipping, Additions to the PCGS Lawsuit Against Alleged Coin Doctors – 09/08/10
Second Amended Version of the CU-PCGS lawsuit against Alleged Coin Doctors – Filed 08/10/10
Analysis of the PCGS Lawsuit Against Alleged Coin Doctors – June 2, 2010
If somebody has been harmed by the activities of a coin doctor that happens to be a member of the PNG, he can file a complaint with the PNG and seek compensation for damages. With respect to slabs, I would expect any such complaints to be filed by the TPGs. First, because anyone else would look to the TPG guaranty for recourse. And second, because nobody else would know who submitted the coin.
As for the "qualified professional" language, I agree that it probably doesn't belong in the definition. However, my best guess is that the authors feel it necessary to remind the public at every turn that amateurs should avoid cleaning coins. I wouldn't read anything more into it than that.
Finally, keep in mind that this definition is, like the rest of the PNG bylaws, going to be subject to constant revision. The kinks will be worked out in time.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Suppose that the TPGs do not file “any such complaints”! Is MrEureka saying that the PNG definition would then be of little help? It is plausible that the TPGs will not file such complaints. Some of the coin doctors are large submitters and/or influential people in the coin business.
MrEureka should not give the impression that only TPGs should file complaints regarding doctored coins in TPG holders. If PNG member X is a coin doctor and sells doctored coins to person Y, then person Y should be able to file a complaint with the PNG. Why would it really be necessary to prove that person Y submitted the coins in question to the TPG? Do coin doctors often route TPG submissions through third parties?
Defining Coin Doctoring and Dipping, Additions to the PCGS Lawsuit Against Alleged Coin Doctors – 09/08/10
Second Amended Version of the CU-PCGS lawsuit against Alleged Coin Doctors – Filed 08/10/10
Analysis of the PCGS Lawsuit Against Alleged Coin Doctors – June 2, 2010
One point that leaps out to me is that the definition's three components all speak to a coin "appears to be in a better state of preservation, or more valuable than it otherwise would be".
The quoted language would seem to indicate that the presence or absence of "coin doctoring" depends upon the results of subjecting of a coin to one or more of the three described processes.
Perhaps the language can be cleaned up. However, keep in mind that if the doctored coin does not "appear to be in a better state of preservation, or more valuable than it otherwise would be", then the only financial damages inflicted by the doctor were upon himself, and no complaint will be filed. Only a successful doctor will cause financial damages to other parties, and only successful cases of doctoring will come before the PNG arbitration panel.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Is this true? Suppose, hypothetically, that a coin is certified as being Proof-64 and is ‘cracked out’ by a PNG member coin doctor, who then lasers the coin with the intention of ‘getting’ a Proof-65 or Proof-66 certification. Further, suppose that the coin is certified (again) by the same TPG as Proof-64 after it was lasered, and the coin doctor then sells the coin, at a loss, to a collector.
Is MrEureka saying that, because the PNG member coin doctor lost money, the collector did not suffer damages? A coin that has been lasered is irreparably damaged. Is it fraudulent for the PNG member coin doctor not to disclose to the buyer that the coin was lasered? Should the buyer be able to pursue damages trough the PNG, even though the coin doctor suffered a loss in the pertinent transaction? It is fair to assume that most collectors do not want to buy irreparably damaged coins that are certified as Proof-64?
I repeat that this is a hypothetical scenario, though the examples given in the PCGS lawsuit suggest that it is plausible.
Defining Coin Doctoring and Dipping, Additions to the PCGS Lawsuit Against Alleged Coin Doctors – 09/08/10
Second Amended Version of the CU-PCGS lawsuit against Alleged Coin Doctors – Filed 08/10/10
Analysis of the PCGS Lawsuit Against Alleged Coin Doctors – June 2, 2010
<< <i>MrEureka<<… if the doctored coin does not "appear to be in a better state of preservation, or more valuable than it otherwise would be", then the only financial damages inflicted by the doctor were upon himself, and no complaint will be filed.>>
Is this true? Suppose, hypothetically, that a coin is certified as being Proof-64 and is ‘cracked out’ by a PNG member coin doctor, who then lasers the coin with the intention of ‘getting’ a Proof-65 or Proof-66 certification. Further, suppose that the coin is certified (again) by the same TPG as Proof-64 after it was lasered, and the coin doctor then sells the coin, at a loss, to a collector.
Is MrEureka saying that, because the PNG member coin doctor lost money, the collector did not suffer damages? A coin that has been lasered is irreparably damaged. Is it fraudulent for the PNG member coin doctor not to disclose to the buyer that the coin was lasered? Should the buyer be able to pursue damages trough the PNG, even though the coin doctor suffered a loss in the pertinent transaction? It is fair to assume that most collectors do not want to buy irreparably damaged coins that are certified as Proof-64?
I repeat that this is a hypothetical scenario, though the examples given in the PCGS lawsuit suggest that it is plausible [....] >>
I see what SanctionII and MrEureka are saying and it does appear to be a weakness in the definition. All 3 PNG definition descriptions have "better state of preservation" in the wording. Using the PNG wording, it appears that if the coin is damaged via lasering and appears worse, the PNG would not consider that to be doctoring. Further, if the doctoring definition does not apply, I'm not sure it would be fraudulent for a PNG dealer to not disclose that. After all, the fallback would be to the existing PNG Code of Ethics which states "7. To refrain from knowingly dealing in counterfeit, altered or repaired numismatic items without fully disclosing their status to my customer." However, it appears that the doctoring issue has come about because existing Code of Ethics was felt to not cover doctoring.
That being said, this appears to be a good start. Hopefully, there will be improvements down the line.
<< <i><< "by qualified professionals is not considered coin doctoring" >>
This statement probably refers to PCGS and NGC to help exempt them from their abetting in coin 'doctoring'.........you know, those sea-salvaged encrusted treasure coins that have been "professionally preserved" and certified as if nothing had been done to them........hypocracy >>
Yep, I'm pretty cynical about it too. It's like saying "We are the ones making a boatload of money off the hobby so by default we're qualified"
<< <i>If the PNG board issues a statement, however, that dealers X, Y and Z have been expelled because of involvement in coin doctoring, then a good deal may be accomplished. >>
There is ZERO probability that PNG (or the ANA) will make ANY public statement calling somebody a "coin doctor" without support of the legal system. It would be slander. Don't think so? Then publicly "out" a dealer as a coin doctor and see how little time it takes for his/her lawyer to chat with you. There is a reason why a well-known, vocal opponent of known coin doctors won't name anybody. He/she may have a "big mouth" but he/she also has a big brain.
<< <i>As for the ANA, the board could ban coin doctors from having tables or obtaining dealer badges at ANA Conventions. This would be a tremendous deterrent. >>
Tremendous deterrent? Not really. It would just change the distribution pattern for the doctored coins. The doctored coins would just not be sold by the "banned" dealer, but would appear at auction, or at FUN, Baltimore, Central States, etc. No need to even touch the fact that the Board would not "ban" a dealer unless there was legal support. The ANA is flaccid and will fold like a cheap table if threatened with yet another lawsuit.
<< <i>AstroRat’s remarks about criminal cases in the future are puzzling. >>
You're correct, it is puzzling since I didn't mention criminal cases. I stated that coin doctoring is fraud and it shouldn't take the legal mind of Clarence Darrow to prove that altering the surfaces of a coin with the intent to "hide" problems without disclosing the same is fraud. Is there an argument that it is not fraud?
<< <i>What is the next meaningful step and how can we take it? >>
Work with law enforcement, legislature, FTC, whomever, to establish a legal definition of "coin doctoring" and create the appropriate penalties. Self-policing is NOT working ... obviously.
Edited to correct grammar ...
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
The dealer members of this committee were truly amazing in their comprehension that less was more. A previous effort to craft a detailed and comprehensive definition of coin doctoring became so bogged down that it began to resemble the Internal Revenue Code in which it became nearly useless. It then became clear that conciseness was paramount.
It is certainly not perfect, but a heck of a good start. Indeed, the little kinks can be worked out over time.
As far as dipping, it was essentially tabled as more research is needed. The "problem" inherent with coin dipping is that there is market acceptable dipping as well as coin dipping that is NOT market acceptable. A second "problem" s that experienced dealers and collectors easily detect coins that are dipped. A third "problem" is market acceptable dipping versus over dipping or improper dipping. As Andy stated, improper dipping is obviously a coin that has not been improved look-wise so deception is no longer happening.
Dipping has been studied previously by numismatic authors but there wasn't enough time to get a complete handle on the dipping issue so it will continued to be studied and gain a more complete scientific understanding of the "loss of metal" inherent in dipping versus over dipping.
I must also state that John Albanese did an outstanding job as well acting as the moderator.
I wanted so much to meet many of you this week. It's a drag in a shop, really.
<< <i>As far as dipping, it was essentially tabled as more research is needed. The "problem" inherent with coin dipping is that there is market acceptable dipping as well as coin dipping that is NOT market acceptable. A second "problem" s that experienced dealers and collectors easily detect coins that are dipped. A third "problem" is market acceptable dipping versus over dipping or improper dipping. As Andy stated, improper dipping is obviously a coin that has not been improved look-wise so deception is no longer happening. >>
There is a much more pragmatic reason why there is "difficulty" in defining "dipping" as coin doctoring ... nearly every, if not all, professional numismatists dip coins to improve the coin's eye appeal, value, and saleability (some, heaven forbid, may not even disclose it!). How can the PNG declare a practice as "bad" if their own members practice it so actively?
More research is needed? What a great euphemism for not wanting to take a stand. A few years back when I was putting together material for one of the ANA's grading classes I spoke with JP Martin and he told me that the ANACS (when he was on staff at it was still at the ANA) studied the effect of dipping coins in a commercial dilute acid coin cleaning solution (sulfuric acid and thiourea solution). Through electron microscopy (at Colorado College) the evidence was clear that the acid solution removed metal.
Why does a coin loose its luster when "over-dipped?" The minute flow lines that impart luster are reshaped by the erosion of metal from the surface of the flow lines (think water erosion of a mountain range). Enough erosion and the coin's luster will be dulled (and that's when dipping is no longer market acceptable).
More research? A study to answer the question could be done easily and inexpensively. The PNG could work with an inorganic chemist at any number of community, private, or state universities and have the answer in short order. A faculty member is always interested in interesting research and publishing the results. The real question is, "Does the PNG want to know the answer?"
This isn't rocket science ... science, yes, but not rocket science.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
Doesn't really matter as the organization has no teeth.
<< <i>From their definition, I guess puttying is still OK. >>
Wrong. Provision #2.
Kudos to the PNG for arriving at a definition that was one vote away from unanimous approval.
The only comment I would have on the definition is that it could have included a more blanket statement that doctoring is anything that alters the original condition of the coin. That type of statement ("don't mess with the coin") is easier for a new or less experienced collector/investor to grasp.
<< <i>where's the DCarr discussion? >>
Carr is not a coin doctor, he is a coin surgeon.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
AstroRat: <<There is ZERO probability that PNG (or the ANA) will make ANY public statement calling somebody a "coin doctor" without support of the legal system. It would be liable slander. Don't think so?>>
In the past, when the PNG suspends or expels someone, a reason is publicly mentioned in some cases and not in others. In cases where a reason was publicly mentioned, was the PNG, or anyone at the PNG, ever sued for libel or slander? I doubt it. Moreover, by becoming and remaining a member of the PNG, an accused coin doctor, in such a situation, would be consenting to the process and agreeing to accept the outcome. In contrast to AstroRat’s assertions, a public announcement of the conclusion of such a process is much different from the notion of an ‘outing’ of coin doctors by commentators or researchers.
Additionally, if a PNG panel finds that a PNG member has engaged in a certain kind of wrongdoing, and the PNG Board sustains the finding, such a finding and a corresponding action (if any) by the PNG board would be ‘news’ that may be legally announced and reported upon. I am skeptical as to whether AstroRat is very familiar with laws relating to libel and slander. I admit, though, that I am not a lawyer either.
Analyst on 04/19<< As for the ANA, the board could ban coin doctors from having tables or obtaining dealer badges at ANA Conventions. This would be a tremendous deterrent. >>
AstroRat: <<Tremendous deterrent? Not really. It would just change the distribution pattern for the doctored coins. The doctored coins would just not be sold by the "banned" dealer, appear at auction, or at FUN, Baltimore, Central States, etc.>>
Among doctored pre-1934 U.S. coins in PCGS or NGC holders, my impression is that most of them are sold at major shows or through major auctions. Is it fair to assume that coin doctors do a lot of business at major conventions?
I did not say that an overall banning would occur if a coin doctor was denied an ANA dealer badge. For some coin doctors, being denied tables and dealer badges at ANA Conventions would severely harm their respective businesses, even if the reason for the denials were not publicly announced. If just one coin doctor was denied a table, others (though not everyone) would be discouraged from coin doctoring. As a consequence, much fewer classic U.S. coins would be doctored by experts.
Analyst: << AstroRat’s remarks about criminal cases in the future are puzzling. >>
AstroRat: <<You're correct, it is puzzling since I didn't mention criminal cases.>>
Yes, AstroRat did in the abstract, AstroRat said, << Not until legal authorities are involved where fines and/or incarceration can be effectively levied … >> Situations where fines are imposed and/or incarceration ordered would be criminal cases, in this context. Impositions of fines for speeding tickets or for civil violations of environmental law are not relevant.
AstroRat: <<… coin doctoring is fraud and it shouldn't take the legal mind of Clarence Darrow to prove that altering the surfaces of a coin with the intent to ‘hide’ problems without disclosing the same is fraud. >>
I do not have a problem with this statement by AstroRat. Also, more than once, I have quoted John Albanese as clearly asserting that coin doctoring is fraud.
I really suggest reading the PCGS lawsuit and my analyses of it. Also, there is a need to consider that the portions of the PCGS lawsuit that are based upon Federal Law, including allegations of federal crimes, were dismissed by a federal judge.
Analyst << What is the next meaningful step and how can we take it? >>
AstroRat: <<Work with law enforcement, legislature, FTC, whomever, to establish a legal definition of "coin doctoring" and create the appropriate penalties. Self-policing is NOT working ... obviously.>>
<<Self-policing>> really has not been tried.
In addition to my articles about natural toning, the PCGS lawsuit, and the PCGS Coin Sniffer, I have referred to coin doctoring, sometimes subtly, in a large number of other articles. Indeed, I have probably written the most about the ‘coin doctoring problem.’
Laura, Scott Travers and I have, separately, seriously addressed the coin doctoring problem in multiple published writings. Has anyone else done so?
While the adoption of the PNG definition is a tremendous step in the right direction, AstroRat and I agree that it is just one step and more steps are needed, though we may disagree on proposed steps. I am interested in communicating with collectors and dealers who are serious about addressing the problem. I strongly prompted AstroRat to publicly voice his suggestions because he seems to understand the severity of the coin doctoring problem and the need for a great deal to be done about it.
The issue of coin dipping came up after the main definition of coin doctoring was nearly completed and the committee had only a couple of days to discuss coin dipping and digest Scott Travers published research on dipping of which a number of committee members was not aware of it.
To have forced a quick decision on coin dipping as a form of coin doctoring would have been too hasty and too forced when i understand even TPG services do sometimes dip modern coins when it is market acceptable.
Rome was not built in a day and the best approach now is just to keep the issue of coin dipping front and center plus making sure we do not drop the ball on this issue rather than condemn the committee for being cautious due to lack of time.
believe me, I wanted to push the coin dipping agenda as well but saw that many members were not as well versed on the previous research. Even I will admit that I had forgotten about Traver's research.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Where did that deadline come from? Why the sudden rush?
Why not take all the time you needed to address the coin dipping issue? Don't you think it's important?
I only joined the committee several months ago and it seemed like it was only getting into high gear at that time with a deadline only two months away.
I cannot speak of what happened previously.
As I understood, it the committee was given a deadline prior to the April show.
Even I recognize that coin dipping is very controversial since so many collectors as well as dealers find it market acceptable.
I believe we had only a week or so left. It was not enough time.
<< <i>The issue of coin dipping came up after the main definition of coin doctoring was nearly completed and the committee had only a couple of days to discuss coin dipping and digest Scott Travers published research on dipping of which a number of committee members was not aware of it. >>
Is this related to the discussion in his book "The Coin Collector's Survival Manual" where he compares the surface of a non dipped coin with one that was dipped for fifteen seconds?
You are right. I was sorely inaccurate in my posting.
Apologies to Maurice Rosen and Anthony Swiatek.
<< <i>
<< <i><< "by qualified professionals is not considered coin doctoring" >>
This statement probably refers to PCGS and NGC to help exempt them from their abetting in coin 'doctoring'.........you know, those sea-salvaged encrusted treasure coins that have been "professionally preserved" and certified as if nothing had been done to them........hypocracy >>
Yep, I'm pretty cynical about it too. It's like saying "We are the ones making a boatload of money off the hobby so by default we're qualified" >>
This is just silly.
While I am not sure as to the reference being cited, it is worth noting that ‘before and after’ pictures of a dipped 1964 Kennedy Half Dollar appeared in multiple editions of Scott Travers’ most famous book, The Coin Collector’s Survival Manual.
The pictures and accompanying ‘research’ were originally published in a newsletter by Anthony Swiatek. I believe that pictures of this half dollar were taken with an electron microscope at Bell Labs in New Jersey. Many of the grooves, metal flow lines, and mounds on the surface were obliterated by a standard dipping.
Oreville: << Even I recognize that coin dipping is very controversial since so many collectors as well as dealers find it market acceptable.>>
Oreville: << To have forced a quick decision on coin dipping as a form of coin doctoring would have been too hasty and too forced when I understand even TPG services do sometimes dip modern coins when it is market acceptable. >>
The PCGS dips Walkers and Morgans, among other coins, on a regular basis, or did so in the past. Moreover, more than half of all uncirculated, 19th century silver coins have been dipped. It would not make sense to refer to all those as having been doctored.
Keep in mind that a doctored coin is (or should be) not gradable. If dipping were included in each definition of coin doctoring, it would then be impossible to contain the coin doctoring problem. Indeed, including dipping in a proposed definition would make the definition untenable and would benefit coin doctors who are adding putty, films, gels, Turtle Wax, etc.
IMO, dipping is harmful, though dipping is not ‘coin doctoring.’ Given the realities of the coin collecting community, it would be illogical to classify dipping as doctoring.
TDN: << Dipping is fine. Overdipping is not. The difference is debatable. >>
When an Eliasberg, Norweb or Garrett coin is dipped, its pedigree may be lost forever. Part of the history of a coin is destroyed when it is dipped. The fact that dipping is not coin doctoring does not mean that it “is fine.”
We can try to discourage dipping through education. It is important, though, to separate the dipping topic from the more pressing topic of coin doctoring.
Defining Coin Doctoring and Dipping, Additions to the PCGS Lawsuit Against Alleged Coin Doctors – 09/08/10
Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring, Part 1
Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring, Part 2
Natural Toning, Dipping and Coin Doctoring, Part 3
<< <i>The pictures and accompanying ‘research’ were originally published in a newsletter by Anthony Swiatek. I believe that pictures of this half dollar were taken with an electron microscope at Bell Labs in New Jersey. Many of the grooves, metal flow lines, and mounds on the surface were obliterated by a standard dipping. >>
According to my issue of the The Coin Collector’s Survival Manual, the dipped coin was in the dip for fifteen seconds. Is this the typical length of time for the average dip?
And what % of coins has been played with out there..... an awful lot.... so many so that most people dont know what an original coin even looks like
<< <i>So the folks who do collectible cars cant restore them because that would be doctoring? Or if they wash the car that would be doctoring?
And what % of coins has been played with out there..... an awful lot.... so many so that most people dont know what an original coin even looks like >>
A big difference between restoring collectible cars and doctoring coins appears to be that car restorers are open about their work and keep detailed records for review so there is no deception. When buying a collectible car, you tend to get all the paperwork on all the service and work that was done on the car. While a few coin restorers are open about their work (e.g. Allen Stockton of the excellent Coin Restoration Service), many others do not disclose their work to deceive (and create financial losses for) collectors and TPGs. Why are coin doctors, on average, less open about their work to collectors than car restorers? Why do coin doctors seek to fool collectors and TPGs to the point of creating major financial loss and disappointment? It would be nice if coin doctors learned a few lessons from car restorers and were more honest and open about their work. I think more honesty and openness would help build confidence in the hobby.
One reason it may be difficult for some to tell what an original coin looks like is that coin doctors seek to fool collectors and graders while car restorers do not. Things may have gotten this bad because many people tended to look the other way on doctoring, giving tacit approval. Hopefully things are starting to change.
By the way, I've purchased collectible cars with lots of documentation. It's fun to read the history and very different than the cloak and dagger associated with coin doctoring. I'm also helping restore a classic car now so I might get a chance to help document as well.
While I am not sure as to the reference being cited, it is worth noting that ‘before and after’ pictures of a dipped 1964 Kennedy Half Dollar appeared in multiple editions of Scott Travers’ most famous book, The Coin Collector’s Survival Manual.
The pictures and accompanying ‘research’ were originally published in a newsletter by Anthony Swiatek. I believe that pictures of this half dollar were taken with an electron microscope at Bell Labs in New Jersey. Many of the grooves, metal flow lines, and mounds on the surface were obliterated by a standard dipping."
Thank you, Analyst! I royally messed up when I mentioned in the thread that Maurice Rosen was the source when in reality Anthony Swiatek gets credit given in the Travers book. I apologize to all for giving out misleading or completely inaccurate information on the matter. Truly, it was simply a matter of my going by memory instead of looking up the reference myself. Ugh.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
When an Eliasberg, Norweb or Garrett coin is dipped, its pedigree may be lost forever. Part of the history of a coin is destroyed when it is dipped. The fact that dipping is not coin doctoring does not mean that it “is fine.”
We can try to discourage dipping through education. It is important, though, to separate the dipping topic from the more pressing topic of coin doctoring.
I just don't mind a dipped coin. And honestly, if the provenance isn't important enough to discourage the dipping, then I don't much care enough about the coin to discourage it.
Note that we're not talking about the amazing naturally toned wonder coins - they just wouldn't be dipped in the first place. The coin that comes to mind is the Norweb 1794 dollar that's currently in a PCGS MS64 holder. I am head over heels in love with the coin - even tho it's been dipped. I would not kick that coin out of bed for eating crackers, let alone because it's too shiny.