Options
Doctoring – My Definition and Other Random Thoughts
MidLifeCrisis
Posts: 10,613 ✭✭✭✭✭
My simple definition of doctoring: Adding something to a coin, or removing something from a coin, to make it look better.
This includes dipping.
New collectors are taught to never clean their coins. But then they learn that if dealer or some other “professional” dips a coin or otherwise conserves it, then that’s ok. To me, that’s BS.
There will always be collectors who think dipping is ok. Indeed, there will always be collectors who think oiling, waxing, lacquering or artificially toning a coin is ok.
I don’t think dipping or any other form of doctoring is ok, but as a collector I have to live with it because so many coins have been dipped or otherwise doctored over the years. Frankly, it’s hard and sometimes nearly impossible to tell.
But if I know that a coin I’m considering buying has been doctored, I will not buy it…even if it is a very rare coin. If I bought it, I know that I would soon regret it and want to sell it.
Most coins are downright common, with many examples to choose from. Why settle for a coin that has been dipped or otherwise doctored?
I have a theory that if collectors were considerably more selective, picky, hard to please – whatever you want to call it – this would be an even better hobby. The search for originality would intensify and the value of originality would increase dramatically, while the value of doctored coins would plummet.
This includes dipping.
New collectors are taught to never clean their coins. But then they learn that if dealer or some other “professional” dips a coin or otherwise conserves it, then that’s ok. To me, that’s BS.
There will always be collectors who think dipping is ok. Indeed, there will always be collectors who think oiling, waxing, lacquering or artificially toning a coin is ok.
I don’t think dipping or any other form of doctoring is ok, but as a collector I have to live with it because so many coins have been dipped or otherwise doctored over the years. Frankly, it’s hard and sometimes nearly impossible to tell.
But if I know that a coin I’m considering buying has been doctored, I will not buy it…even if it is a very rare coin. If I bought it, I know that I would soon regret it and want to sell it.
Most coins are downright common, with many examples to choose from. Why settle for a coin that has been dipped or otherwise doctored?
I have a theory that if collectors were considerably more selective, picky, hard to please – whatever you want to call it – this would be an even better hobby. The search for originality would intensify and the value of originality would increase dramatically, while the value of doctored coins would plummet.
0
Comments
Coin doctoring refers to the alteration of any portion of a coin, when that process includes any of the following: 1) Movement, addition to, or otherwise altering of metal, so that a coin appears to be in a better state of preservation, or more valuable than it otherwise would be. A few examples are plugging, whizzing, polishing, engraving, "lasering" and adding or removing mint marks. 2) Addition of any substance to a coin so that it appears to be in a better state of preservation or more valuable than it otherwise would be. The use of solvents and/or commercially available dilute acids, such as Jeweluster, by qualified professionals is not considered coin doctoring. 3) Intentional exposure of a coin to any chemicals, substances, or processes which impart toning, such that the coin appears to be in a better state of preservation or more valuable than it otherwise would be. Naturally occuring toning imparted during long-term storage using established/traditional methods, such as coin albums, rolls, flips, or envelopes, does not constitute coin doctoring.
Ike Specialist
Finest Toned Ike I've Ever Seen, been looking since 1986
Dipping seems to be an issue which is so pervasive that if it was considered doctoring by the PNG, nothing could be done about other forms of doctoring, e.g. putty, artificial frost, artificial heads, lasering, etc. My guess is that the PNG compromised on dipping in the hopes of making some progress vs. none.
The hobby organizations seem to be about compromise. The collector doesn't have to.
most dipped coins are indistinguishable as such.
<< <i>Why settle for a coin that has been dipped
most dipped coins are indistinguishable as such. >>
I don't think so.
Many dipped coins are obvious. Think of how many 19th century coins we see that are blast white or nearly so. For others, I think it's a good idea to have a healthy dose of scepticism. It all comes down to forming your own opinion.
<< <i>Would this be an example of a coin you believe has been dipped and thus is doctored? >>
Proofs are tough, but I assume it has been dipped and I would not buy it.
It doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong about the dipping. What matters is the opinion I form about the coin and whether it fits within my collecting criteria.
You should form your own opinion.
<< <i>Would this be an example of a coin you believe has been dipped and thus is doctored? >>
The seller thinks it's a PQ Cameo. The photos could be better.
Hoard the keys.
that is a given, but I was thinking in the other direction-----there are many, many toned coins which arrived at that state after having been dipped white decades ago. as new member Wooly so astutely posted, much of the 19th Century coinage we so cherish in its "original, nicely toned" state is in reality re-toned. also, why is Red Copper from the 19th Century never questioned??
<< <i>My simple definition of doctoring: Adding something to a coin, or removing something from a coin, to make it look better. >>
So, do you think it's wrong to dip a coin in acetone to remove PVC or tape residue?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>Why settle for a coin that has been dipped
most "properly" dipped coins are indistinguishable as such. >>
I fixed it for ya.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>Why settle for a coin that has been dipped
most "properly" dipped coins that are uncirculated and show NO wear nor had heavy toning before the dip are indistinguishable as such. >>
I fixed it for ya. >>
and I fixed it for "ya"
it is blatantly obvious when a circulated coin or heavily toned coin is dipped. A gem coin with light toning or a fingerprint properly dipped off.. undetectable.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>
<< <i>My simple definition of doctoring: Adding something to a coin, or removing something from a coin, to make it look better. >>
So, do you think it's wrong to dip a coin in acetone to remove PVC or tape residue? >>
By the very definition of "removing something from a coin, to make it look better", then probably yes.
To the purist, these coins just need to be melted or spent.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>
<< <i>My simple definition of doctoring: Adding something to a coin, or removing something from a coin, to make it look better. >>
So, do you think it's wrong to dip a coin in acetone to remove PVC or tape residue? >>
I would not buy the coin if I knew (or even suspected) it had been dipped.
I think a coin should be left alone in its most original state, in most cases. This allows the potential buyer to make a decision knowing the truth about the coin. And I think our hobby would be better if more collectors said "No" to such a coin and walked away.
If a truly rare coin needs a dip or some other conservation method to keep it from developing further damage, that should be fully disclosed.
In all cases, I think dipping a coin is doctoring - even when the coin is dipped in acetone to remove PVC or tape residue.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>My simple definition of doctoring: Adding something to a coin, or removing something from a coin, to make it look better. >>
So, do you think it's wrong to dip a coin in acetone to remove PVC or tape residue? >>
I would not buy the coin if I knew (or even suspected) it had been dipped.
I think a coin should be left alone in its most original state, in most cases. This allows the potential buyer to make a decision knowing the truth about the coin. And I think our hobby would be better if more collectors said "No" to such a coin and walked away.
If a truly rare coin needs a dip or some other conservation method to keep it from developing further damage, that should be fully disclosed.
In all cases, I think dipping a coin is doctoring - even when the coin is dipped in acetone to remove PVC or tape residue. >>
I have a major problem with your position.
If you don't want to buy coins that you believe have been dipped, you are perfectly free to reject them. The problem arises when you advocate that the industry standard should be changed to conform to your beliefs. That affects the value of other collectors' holdings, and you should not have that power.
For the record I think that a lot of the coins that we think are beautifully toned and "original" were dipped at some point and have re-toned in an album or envelop. I have a number of pieces in my collection, which I suspect fall into that category. I find their appearance pleasing so it does not bother me. So long as they remain stable, given proper storage, they are perfectly acceptable. The same is true of dipped white coins, which have full luster. Once more stability is the key.
To me there are two big problems with dipping. First when it is improperly done and the coin turns color, or worse yet goes completely bad in the holder, that is a huge problem. That's why I tend to avoid white silver coins in new holders. If it has been in a holder for a decade or so and has not toned, that usually means that the piece is stable. Second is the lesser problem with a coin looks totally unnatural as is the case with an older coin that takes on a fake "steely" look.
One of the difficulties with the "I think that all coins that have been dipped should be given the mark of Cain" position is that it leaves no options for those who have coins with ugly toning. If you leave it alone, you can't sell it because the piece has no eye appeal. If you do dip it, it's been dipped and is therefore "unacceptable." When you leave people with penalties and no options, you will find that they usually will not flock to your camp.
<< <i>In all cases, I think dipping a coin is doctoring - even when the coin is dipped in acetone to remove PVC or tape residue. >>
I disagree, an acetone dip may protect a coin from future damage or changes caused by contaminants.
for example (from Wikipedia):
...The Mona Lisa has survived for more than 500 years, and an international commission convened in 1952 noted that "the picture is in a remarkable state of preservation."[37] This is partly due to the result of a variety of conservation treatments the painting has undergone. A detailed analysis in 1933 by Madame de Gironde revealed that earlier restorers had "acted with a great deal of restraint."[37] Nevertheless, applications of varnish made to the painting had darkened even by the end of the 16th century, and an aggressive 1809 cleaning and revarnishing removed some of the uppermost portion of the paint layer, resulting in a washed-out appearance to the face of the figure. Despite the treatments, the Mona Lisa has been well cared for throughout its history, and although the panel's warping caused the curators "some worry",[38] the 2004–05 conservation team was optimistic about the future of the work...
The same thing holds true for many early U.S. copper coins. Copper is the most reactive of the three classic coinage metals, and it is not surprising that pure copper deteriorates over time.
<< <i>The problem arises when you advocate that the industry standard should be changed to conform to your beliefs. That affects the value of other collectors' holdings, and you should not have that power. >>
If you read through my posts in this thread, I think you will see that I'm not talking about the industry standard. I'm talking about my personal standard and the personal standards of other collectors.
If the industry standard changes because the personal standards of collectors change, that would be a good thing for the hobby overall, in my opinion, regardless how it affects the value of other collectors' - and dealers' - holdings.
The hobby evolves. Sometimes this means changes to industry standards or other aspects of the hobby that have affected the value of our coins. The registry, the TPGs, and CAC come to mind. Sometimes change is needed.
<< <i>
<< <i>Would this be an example of a coin you believe has been dipped and thus is doctored? >>
Proofs are tough, but I assume it has been dipped and I would not buy it.
It doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong about the dipping. What matters is the opinion I form about the coin and whether it fits within my collecting criteria.
You should form your own opinion. >>
I have, long before this thread was conceptualized.
I simply wanted to flesh out your thoughts so I could understand you more correctly.
This is an interesting thread.
On the one hand I think you're fundamentally wrong, yet on the other, I agree with you.
The fact that most ancient coins, early copper, and many other coins have been dipped or otherwise conserved doesn't change the fact that I still consider it doctoring. A lot of people get high on meth, but that doesn't make it ok.
<< <i>Comparing most coins, which are common and readily available, to original pieces of art, which are usually unique or nearly so, is like comparing apples to car parts.
There are junk coins and there is junk art. Comparing rare and stunningly beautiful coins to fine art is compatible just as coin widgets to widget art is equally so.
The fact that most ancient coins, early copper, and many other coins have been dipped or otherwise conserved doesn't change the fact that I still consider it doctoring. A lot of people get high on meth, but that doesn't make it ok. >>
Your meth analogy is false. Most people get 'high' on life experiences (hobbies such as surfing/race car driving/parasailing/hiking/road bike; mountain bike adventures/traveling/and yes, even coin collecting (such as auction attending along with shows). Stating, "A lot of people get high on meth, but that doesn't make it ok" within your
coin doctoring thread is a straw man argument. One has nothing to do with the other as no one here would agree smoking meth to get high is ok.
<< <i>Your meth analogy is false. >>
My meth analogy simply illustrates the point that I don't have to agree with something even if a lot of other people do it or agree with it. A lot of people accept dipping and other forms of doctoring on early copper and ancients. I don't.
Most of the Ikes with ravishing toning that may look natural, are cooked by very clever "doctors" (IMHO) yet the market has and continues to buy the best of these creations. Those with "proper color progression" and other features of NT have a decent chance of getting holdered. (I suspect the sniffer may not pick up a cooked Ike if the cooking is stabilized.)
By definition, such colorful Ikes are "market acceptible".
This is an important issue that needs a thorough airing so collectors can make intelligent decisions when contemplating toned Ike purchases.
For Ikes, dipping is a different story. Dipping Ikes is proper conservation in many or most cases, period. I acetone dip almost all the Ikes I send in to TPG's so they do not turn in their plastic holders. I also expose the freshly dipped Ikes to close-up 100 watt incandescent light for a few minutes to provide a touch of protective oxidation to the fresh surfaces.
An otherwise higher-grade Ike that has already acquired ugly toning may also benefit from quick gentle swabbing with MS70. As long as the subsequent rinse is copiously thorough, no harm is done and the coin is properly conserved.
Planchets and coin presses are lubricated. Some lubricants were/are water-based like WD-40, and mist or spatter can get on planchets and struck coins. Reactivity can be delayed (ie, ASE spotting). Acetone dipping can help conserve the coins as several on this forum have said (acetone-dipped ASE's seem not to develope milk spots in PCGS holders).
The key to dipping modern coins is knowing why one is dipping and using the safest dip in the lowest effective concentration for the shortest period of time. Just MHO.
Questions about Ikes? Go to The IKE GROUP WEB SITE
coins have been conserved?
Each collector should evaluate coins and decide what is acceptable to them. I have some
"details" or "genuine" coins that I love. I have coins that are graded that I am sure have been cleaned.
PCGS example "scratched":
From some perspectives, being defined as doctoring only means that it needs to be disclosed. Is disclosing dipping so bad and why does there seem to be a fear of saying a coin has been dipped? Is it really so terrible or is it more like saying a collectible car has been waxed?
<< <i>Most ancient coins have also been restored (cleaned), and collectors have no problem with it. It's just a fact of life that something that old will accumulate oxidation and grime that needs to be removed to restore and protect the piece from further deterioration.
The same thing holds true for many early U.S. copper coins. Copper is the most reactive of the three classic coinage metals, and it is not surprising that pure copper deteriorates over time. >>
If ancient and early copper collectors have no problem with their coins being restored, why do people think collectors of later coins will have a problem if told the reality that their coin has likely been dipped? Do collectors of later coins want to live with a false reality or is there a desire to have them believe they are?
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
You should see what this lady did one time. She called me on the phone and asked about the value of coins and the dates... I told her what kind of money she was looking at.
Then when she got to the shop i was looking at all these cleaned coins and said, "awwww, too bad these were cleaned, they're only worth X amount to me".
Disgusted, she got up, snatched the coins off the counter and bolted for the door. She said, "It took me an extra hour to get here because I cleaned them for you because you were so nice on the phone".
I wanted to take up drinking that day.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>I agree that cleaning is cleaning. Sometimes it looks good and sometimes it still looks dirty, even after it's clean.
You should see what this lady did one time. She called me on the phone and asked about the value of coins and the dates... I told her what kind of money she was looking at.
Then when she got to the shop i was looking at all these cleaned coins and said, "awwww, too bad these were cleaned, they're only worth X amount to me".
Disgusted, she got up, snatched the coins off the counter and bolted for the door. She said, "It took me an extra hour to get here because I cleaned them for you because you were so nice on the phone".
I wanted to take up drinking that day. >>
Very interesting. It seems like more collector education may be in order.
<< <i>
<< <i>I agree that cleaning is cleaning. Sometimes it looks good and sometimes it still looks dirty, even after it's clean.
You should see what this lady did one time. She called me on the phone and asked about the value of coins and the dates... I told her what kind of money she was looking at.
Then when she got to the shop i was looking at all these cleaned coins and said, "awwww, too bad these were cleaned, they're only worth X amount to me".
Disgusted, she got up, snatched the coins off the counter and bolted for the door. She said, "It took me an extra hour to get here because I cleaned them for you because you were so nice on the phone".
I wanted to take up drinking that day. >>
Very interesting. It seems like more collector education may be in order. >>
Yes, I'm pretty sure I am to blame.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
I was with you 100% until you made that statement. Seems to me that if you are removing foreign material from a coin it is not the same as removing an atomic layer of oxidized original metal of the coin. Anyway, while I agree with the op about the claim that dipping is a form of doctoring I also realize that there may be some forms of doctoring that the collecting community might consider acceptable if done in moderation and that seems reasonable to me even though purists will always be around.
<< <i>The TPGs offer coin conservation services. What is the difference? Do the slab labels indicate that the
coins have been conserved?
Each collector should evaluate coins and decide what is acceptable to them. I have some
"details" or "genuine" coins that I love. I have coins that are graded that I am sure have been cleaned.
PCGS example "scratched":
This just doesn't make any sense to me. I have seen far worse scratches on coins that are graded than this one.
What exactly is the determining factor ?
<< <i>
<< <i>The TPGs offer coin conservation services. What is the difference? Do the slab labels indicate that the
coins have been conserved?
Each collector should evaluate coins and decide what is acceptable to them. I have some
"details" or "genuine" coins that I love. I have coins that are graded that I am sure have been cleaned.
PCGS example "scratched":
This just doesn't make any sense to me. I have seen far worse scratches on coins that are graded than this one.
What exactly is the determining factor ? >>
Ouch. Seems I have seen a few graded Morgans with bag marks worse than that. I could see it if it looked like intentional damage but my eyes do not see it.
A. A fairly common silver coin with "ugly" toning (which 99% of seasoned numismatists would agree on) is dipped, (hopefully) changing an ugly, unsalable coin to an attractive, salable one. The coin is anonymous in the market place and nobody even notices.
Z. The Dukes Creek 1838-D Half Eagle (Ex-Stack's Coles auction), which is legendary among Dahlonega Mint aficionados due to its high grade and marvelous, original coloration, is dipped (as part of a complete set regrading). The piece still retains its identity but, among Dahlonega specialists, everyone knows that the piece no longer has the beautiful color that distinguished it from the many other high-grade 1838-D Half Eagles. As a Sanity Check, in the antique firearms field, stripping the original finish from the finest-known set of 19th Century English dueling pistols (for example), would be considered crazy.
<< <i>All coins should be THIS original!
Oh . . . So that's what those things look like without all that nasty tarnish ! ! !
Edited to add: I like a lil tarnish . . .
HH
1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S.
Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
<< <i>
<< <i>In all cases, I think dipping a coin is doctoring - even when the coin is dipped in acetone to remove PVC or tape residue. >>
I disagree, an acetone dip may protect a coin from future damage or changes caused by contaminants. >>
So I guess if your house gets invaded by termites you just let them chew it into sawdust because that is nature's way, and any action to save your home or your coins from PVC will leave them "unnatural" and unmarketable. These musings have more than their share of self serving nonsense and this comment about the PVC removal for the sake of preservation leads the list.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>In all cases, I think dipping a coin is doctoring - even when the coin is dipped in acetone to remove PVC or tape residue. >>
I disagree, an acetone dip may protect a coin from future damage or changes caused by contaminants. >>
So I guess if your house gets invaded by termites you just let them chew it into sawdust because that is nature's way, and any action to save your home or your coins from PVC will leave them "unnatural" and unmarketable. These musings have more than their share of self serving nonsense and this comment about the PVC removal for the sake of preservation leads the list. >>
Termites are a good analogy for PVC but it's slightly different than dipping because sellers are often required, by law, to reveal termite activity and damage. With dipping and even acetone, what we've been talking about is non-disclosure by the seller.
Some world moderns are now marketed as having been acetone dipped or stabilized. Why is it so taboo to talk about dipping and otherwise modifying US coins other than early copper? Do people think collectors can't handle the truth?