The conservation dilemma
Blade
Posts: 1,744 ✭
There was a lot of discussion about gold conservation in yesterday's posts about the Odyssey, so I thought I would see what people thought about this conservation dilemma.
Let's say you have a really nice gold coin in AU58. It's certified, and a bright coin, but there is a thin layer of untoned film over parts of the coin.
After consulting with experts, including showing the coin to a reputable certification service at a show, many think that the coin has MS62 virtues and that if the film was removed, you have over a 90% chance that it will get bumped to uncirculated.
You decide to learn more, and find out that the conservation does not involve dipping. Since only film is being removed, they will use a different process that does not distrub the gold or it's luster.
Finally, you talk to NGC and they tell you that if NCS performs the conservation, the coin will be guaranteed a minimum grade of AU58 after conservation but they will evaluate upgrading to MS62.
Final piece of info. In AU58, the coin is worth $2,000. In MS62, the coin is worth $5,000.
Do you do it? Does it make a difference if you are an investor or collector? What if NCS can bring out that hidden luster and make the coin decidedly nicer?
Let's say you have a really nice gold coin in AU58. It's certified, and a bright coin, but there is a thin layer of untoned film over parts of the coin.
After consulting with experts, including showing the coin to a reputable certification service at a show, many think that the coin has MS62 virtues and that if the film was removed, you have over a 90% chance that it will get bumped to uncirculated.
You decide to learn more, and find out that the conservation does not involve dipping. Since only film is being removed, they will use a different process that does not distrub the gold or it's luster.
Finally, you talk to NGC and they tell you that if NCS performs the conservation, the coin will be guaranteed a minimum grade of AU58 after conservation but they will evaluate upgrading to MS62.
Final piece of info. In AU58, the coin is worth $2,000. In MS62, the coin is worth $5,000.
Do you do it? Does it make a difference if you are an investor or collector? What if NCS can bring out that hidden luster and make the coin decidedly nicer?
Tom
NOTE: No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
Type collector since 1981
Current focus 1855 date type set
NOTE: No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
Type collector since 1981
Current focus 1855 date type set
0
Comments
A really nice AU58 Gold Coin is just that. A really nice coin. I would leave as is for my collection. Obviously if profit is your motive then you should have the conservation performed.
I am not anti-NCS. In fact I will be taking several coins to FUN for them to look at. I believe conservation is a good thing when it can be used to make an ugly duckling into a swan. But only for the unappealing lonely coins.
Yep, saw the smiley. Dilemma is to those hard core coin collectors who believe conservation is a type of sin and also to see whether someone is willing to take the risk. What if the coin comes back all shiny?
NOTE: No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
Type collector since 1981
Current focus 1855 date type set
Wear / circulation, not a thin film, should make an otherwise-MS62, an AU58.
You would think so, but I am in this exact situation with a coin. PCGS says it's wear (AU58). NGC, ANACs grader and 3 experts say it is film over the luster.
NOTE: No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
Type collector since 1981
Current focus 1855 date type set
So why not?
the conservation issue aside, the subject you raise is indeed a most interesting one. it seems apparent to me that the various grading services have a different philosophy towards assigning grades and evaluating a coins surfaces. perhaps it's a different order of importance each assigns to the various components which make up a grade, but it's something. ACG, for all the negative pulp they receive, at least says up front that they have their own grading standards. ANACS seems to be the closest to ANA outlined standards. the others, PCGS and NGC included, are a bit more vague. the bottom line for me is to learn what each offers in the way of assessing a coin, judge accordingly and use whichever suits my needs.
regarding NCS and conservation in general, i believe the biggest misconception about the service is that it's a blanket cleaning of a coin. i would imagine that NCS rejects or does nothing to a very high percentage of what's submitted to them for evaluation. the key word being "evaluation" which is the best part of the service. they have a better understanding of what can be accomplished by their methods and i trust that. of the few submissions i've made to NCS, i don't believe they've conserved anything thus far, either returning to me or holdering untouched by NGC.
for your coin in question, it seems foolish to hold it hostage to it's past mistreatment for reasons of originality or anything else. allow a professional to evaluate the coin and restore it's luster and lost dignity!!
al h.
This Kellogg grades NGC AU58. It is a crusty original coin with orangish-green skin. The fields have enough wear that only the areas around the devices (especially the stars) shows untouched original luster. Removing the crusty skin on this coin would not hide the fact that the coin has wear. If I thought I could send this coin in to NCS and get an upgrade to MS61-MS62 I'd do it in a second, but I have my doubts.
So far as thin film of toning goes, I'd sooner leave the coin alone. This 1811 half eagle has the thin film. It might get an NGC MS-61 or 62 if I messed with it, but that does not interest me as a collector. If you want to maximize your bucks, sadly
<< <i>Hey it's all about $$$$$$. Dip that sucker!!! >>
But it's been said the we are custodians of coins and tokens for the next generations. The fad now is fake toning, fake red, fake white silver and "buzzed out" shinny gold. Good grief! Before long there will be very few nice original coins because of all of the fooling around.
I'm not anti-conservation. Some coins like the gold piece I had with ugly copper stain need to be worked on to make them reasonablely attractive and saleable. Still collectors should develop a taste for original coins.
BTW I once had an 1813 half eagle in PCGS AU-50. I would have kept the coin, but it had been stripped to make it shinny. It just didn't do enough for me to hold on to it.
Something like a film on Blade's coin that could probably be removed with acetone or ms70 is ok but the surface altering voodoo they do, well I just don't like it.
I remember when NCS first started up. I thought it was a good idea to restore damaged coins like those that had been in a fire, flood etc & had black gobs of melted plastic stuck to them or ones stored improperly in flips and were suffering from PVC damage etc etc instead of just letting them rot away.
But now days it seems like they are just a dipping service that people send coins to to remove some blemish which really isn't damaging to the coin but rather to increase the value of it at sale time.
That's what I really don't like about it because I would rather have an original coin with an original problem than something that was sold to me as "original" but shows obvious signs of cleaning like so much of the gold & copper does. What will it look like in 10 years? Well it really won't matter since it would have changed owners eleventeen times on ebay and nobody really knows what it is sposed to look like anyway.
You people might think I'm crazy but here's an ORIGINAL bag toned Morgan, like most original toned Morgans it's not the most prettiest thing in the world but original means more to me than dipped restored & curated.
I'm glad the coin doctors didn't get ahold to this one!
that puts you in the running for understatement of the year!! the best help that Morgan could get would be a one way ticket out the door.
al h.
You're right about the look of that Morgan. It may not be the prettiest coin on the forum, but it's sure "original"! I'd rather have a coin like your's, than one just like it that's been dipped and has that dipped look.
In the late 60s, I picked up a nice Walker at an auction with the layer of oxidation on its surface. 30 years later, the coin was dipped & the film on the coin's surface was gone. The Walker is now in a 6 holder & I will compare it with others in 7 holders.
Without the dip, the coin's luster was a bit impaired, & it would have been slabbed in a lower grade of Unc. because of it. In this instance, the dip removed build-up from the coin's surfaces.
However, removing a blemish on a coin's surfaces is altering the surfaces themselves, which to me is a different animal.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
The fact remains that some coins achieve an improvement from cleaning while others are harmed.
The Dollar image posted above is a great example of a coin that I would not hesitate to conserve-clean should the value improvement warrant it. I guess I look at it as a Doctor would look at a patient and say to himself, "first, do no harm."
When we are planning for posterity, we ought to remember that virtue is not hereditary.
Thomas Paine
<< <i>The Dollar image posted above is a great example of a coin that I would not hesitate to conserve-clean should the value improvement warrant it. >>
Conservation is a fine thing when its purpose is to prevent the further deterioration of the coin. No one would argue with the removal of active PVC contamination, foreign substances or active corrosion because if they aren't removed the coin will eventually be destroyed. But to "conserve"-clean a coin and alter its surfaces simply to enhance its resale value? This is a mistake in my opinion and I wish the services wouldn't do it. I worry that it starts us on a slippery slope that can lead to much worse things. It is a small step from todays altering of the surfaces to brighten them, as would be done with that dollar, to altering the surfaces of a dipped out or hairlined coin by adding toning to make it more attractive and more saleable. Then with the same argument "to improve the marketablity of the coin" we can justify other "Improvements". Today we remove a carbon spot, tomorrow (or some day) a rim rick, smooth a scratch, fill a hole, re-engrave details, and still have the coin slabbed without mentioning the alteration. Unneccessary cleaning to brighten and raise the value is the camels nose, the rest of him is waiting to come in and the tent isn't big enough for both of us. Better swat that nose quick. But that means denying money going into our own pockets. I really don't expect that to happen on a widespread scale. After all in just a couple short years we have gone from proclaiming that cleaning coins is bad and should only be done if it has to be, to sending coins into a professional cleaning service by the truckload.
<< <i>I don't like a lot of these "conserved" gold coins. I had one done at NCS because it had an ugly copper stain. The copper stain disappeared but the rest of the coin had a bright unnatural color, that I did not care for. >>
Exactly my thoughts. These NCS conserved coins stick ou like a sore thumb after you have seen a few. Also the copper spot will come back but it will be pink like dipped copper. mike
<< <i>Let's say you have a really nice gold coin in AU58. It's certified, and a bright coin, but there is a thin layer of untoned film over parts of the coin.
After consulting with experts, including showing the coin to a reputable certification service at a show, many think that the coin has MS62 virtues and that if the film was removed, you have over a 90% chance that it will get bumped to uncirculated. >>
I fail to see how a thin layer of film will restore a coin from Almost Uncirculated (ie: the coin has seen some circulation) to UNC. If the grading services are true to their word, uncirculated is just that - no wear on the coin whatsoever. I'd send it - and then ditch the coin - there's no dilema here - there's just weird science going on at NGC.
Frank
Unneccessary cleaning to brighten and raise the value is the camels nose, the rest of him is waiting to come in and the tent isn't big enough for both of us. Better swat that nose quick.
Dude, I have never heard this camel-tent aphorism before, but I like it!
I am also bothered that NCS and NGC are related companies, so that it is in NGC's interests to grade according to the processes used by NCS. In other words, whatever chemical magic NCS uses to get the film off are already OK'd in advance by NGC. I think conservation should be done independently and not by a company related to the grading company; otherwise, isn't there a conflict of interest here?
As to the money, that's a no-brainer. While I can fancily opine as above, the money is as important to me as the next guy. If I can pay NCS a few hundred dollars (or whatever they charge-- I have yet to partake of their services and know not how they charge) and be guaranteed that the coin won't be graded afterwards any lower than the 58 that it is now, and my upside at 62 is a hefty $3000 gain, well, of course I'd do it. Who wouldn't?
to your case, there are very, very few coins w/ that big a jump from au-58 to ms+. 1 example is obviously the 1884-s dollar. i assume your talking plastic grades, & you would hope that w/ that huge a dump the plastic co's would really do their research grading the coin. what coin is it?
bottom line - sounds like your wasting your time messing w/ it.
K S
the root word conserve means to save and conservation in it's basic understanding means "wise use" of something. i really think that's what NCS does and has at the forefront of their evaluations, wise use of whatever methods they have at their disposal. way too many people think that they are a blanket service who work on whatever is submitted to them. what i find rather amusing is comments which state in no uncertain terms that conserved coins can be identified and the appearance is unnatural or unattractive. while that may be true in some cases, i wonder how the coin looked pre-NCS when it can be positively identified as post-NCS?? as for RYK's original-conserved-ugly-attractive theme, what about the "can't tell, looks so-so" category? to discern a coin as being conserved or original isn't as easy as that, it's often no more than an opinion in the same vein as a grade. sometimes it's clear, sometimes not. i find that there's way more gray area in most things than black-and-white.
...........an aside to condor101-----It is a small step from todays altering of the surfaces to brighten them, as would be done with that dollar, to altering the surfaces of a dipped out or hairlined coin by adding toning to make it more attractive and more saleable. Then with the same argument "to improve the marketablity of the coin" we can justify other "Improvements". Today we remove a carbon spot, tomorrow (or some day) a rim rick, smooth a scratch, fill a hole, re-engrave details, and still have the coin slabbed without mentioning the alteration. you can't know how refreshed it makes me feel to know that none of these things are being done already!!
once again, NCS isn't a blanket service. if you don't believe that, submit some coins to them and see what they return untouched. you'll be suprised.
what's that saying about contempt prior to investigation??
al h.