Win a Body Bagged Coin that is in Plastic.

Fairlaneman · January 14, 2006 3:22AM

Just tell me what you think is GOOD or BAD about conservation of coins. Basically I am talking about classic coins. The best answer pro or con, in my opinion, will win.

The winner will get a coin that is in NCS plastic and was not conserved because it had another problem so they bagged it. The coin was saved !!!!

This will end Sunday night at 6 PM Pacific Standard Time.

Ken

mercurydimeguy · January 14, 2006 3:33AM

Ken, there is no universally right answer but rather each circumstance requires a for or against decision.

For example, you have a beautiful proof coin that developed PVC and other bad surface contaminents as a result of improper storage, contaminents in the case, etc. This type of coin is a good candidate for conservation because with very little effort the coin can be brought back to life and salvaged. It would be wrong to let the coin go bad for no reason because there are non caustic techniques available today that can save the coin and let its owner enjoy its original beauty.

On the other hand, there are some "dirty" Gems out there that get no pricing respect because a large segment of the collecting public prefers white coins. Who are we -- the colorful people -- to tell them that they're wrong and we're right? Maybe we're wrong and they're right? It's all relative. An owner of a "dirty" Gem might choose to "enhance" the appeal of a coin to bring a stronger selling price. Although to each his own, I view this as altering a coin. It's not fair to the "true" well preserved on their own Gems that a "dirty" Gem can take a bath and suddenly be in their league.

So here's my position: I think intentionally altering the appearence of a non problem coin in an effort to get a higher grade, or to artificially make a coin look like it was just minted should not be allowed. Taking coins that have environmental challenges and saving those coins from certain doom by applying modern non-caustic techniques should be allowed, and I for one have done it myself. Taking PVC off of an otherwise nice coin was a pleasure because I saved the coin from certain doom.

Best, Mike.

1jester · January 14, 2006 3:41AM

To me, the best thing about conserving coins is preventing, halting or reversing the damage done to some coins, especially by today's notorious killer PVC.

As an aside, I believe every single dealer who uses PVC, even for a "short" time, should be strung up by his balls.

Moose1913 · January 14, 2006 4:02AM

What is good about conversation of coins?

Two words: preserving history.

777 · January 14, 2006 4:35AM

The best reason why consevation of coins is essential is due to the fact when the coin is in its plastic it guarantees authenticity, Like all the 5000+ conserved 1857s $20. double eagles from the famous ss central america steamship discovery by Tommy Thompson and his crew .. Now these coins reside in PCGS GOLD Holders..

Bochiman · January 14, 2006 4:36AM

As long as one doesn't got "too" far overboard (ie.....dipping anythng and everything), I, personally, think conservation is good.
1) Keep bad material from harming the coin and its surfaces (pvc, etc)
2) Allow people to view the coin as it was made (ie...too much dirt/grime/etc)
3) I like nice toning but if it were pitch black and ugly, I wouldn't like it....so, conservation can keep people interested in coins and not discourage them

Those are my main reason with #1 being the leader and main reason by far.

dtkk49a · January 14, 2006 4:41AM

The Good - Enhancing the beauty of a rare coin for the enjoyment of all.
The Bad - Allows dealers to sell "conserved" garbage to unsuspecting public.

Russ · January 14, 2006 4:44AM

This is why conservation of coins is good:

Russ, NCNE

Rollerman · January 14, 2006 4:45AM

Yours is an interesting question which may not have a good or bad answer. First, the potentially "good".

Most of the coins that are sent in for conservation are problem coins and unattractive coins, in many case terribly unattractive pieces. Some are coins that have suffered PCV damage which are restored and protected from future damage.

They conserve art, books, and antiques in some cases so why not recover and protect classic coins, at least those with problems. I think many of us fear that attractively toned specimens will be dipped and otherwise made "blast white", but with the popularity of such toned coins growing and the cost associated with conservation process, I think (or at least HOPE) these old coins will be safe and perhaps with our improved storage methods, more likely to be preserved the way time and nature has left them.

There is potentially a "Bad" side as well. In the relative short term, 20 to 30 years, it would seem most coins that have been dipped properly have not changed over time. We assume that this NCS process will preserve and protect the coins for ions but there is a haunting doubt in many of our minds that these "treated coins" will somehow become ugly (again) or worse case, suffer some long term damage.

Either way, I hope that coins that are conserved will be only those that desperately need it, leaving the origin coins alone.

I'm usually an optimist, so I assume things will work out fine in the long run.
Best wishes, Pete

Myqqy · January 14, 2006 4:56AM

Those pics that Russ posted are amazing....
As far as conservation goes, here is my arguement. For me, the primary goal for numismatists is to preserve coins for the future and for future collectors. True conservation work can repair a coin's surface and serve a very important restorative function that helps the future of numismatics....

Shamika · January 14, 2006 5:04AM

Because it gives us something to talk about.

Also, it can, in some cases, arrest further degradation.

Steve27 · January 14, 2006 5:07AM

" Just tell me what you think is GOOD or BAD about conservation of coins."

Once you accept the fact that conserved coins are NOT cleaned coins, there is nothing bad about conservation. Simply, conservation is the act of protecting an item from injury. Thus removing contaminants as part of the conservation process ensures that the coin will not degrade further. If you think of yourself as the temporary custodian of a rare coin, then conservation should be considered a requirement.

VirtualWon · January 14, 2006 6:38AM

A well cleaned coin is usually considered a more valued item; at least in non-collectors eyes.

However I prefer any coin that is not conserved and then slabbed, that way you can feel the history, and imagine the life the coin had lived .... after all it has lived thru what we only can dream!

eyoung429 · January 14, 2006 7:15AM

The bad side of some of the cleaning that is if it's not done correctly, you may have a killer 67-69 coin but in a couple of years it can/may develop undesirable toning or milk spots. I feel that a coin should only be conserved to halt damage to a coin via carbon spotting, bad "doctoring" or PVC damage. I have seen some killer examples of coins that look magnificent after conserved but then obtain bad colouring *ie... cleaned wheaties that turn pink....

airplanenut · January 14, 2006 7:40AM

Conservation doesn't equate to damage. Numerous coins are hurt in the long run, but if problems are caught quickly, damage is avoided. For example, I bought a beautiful toned walking liberty half that, over a few months, had a spot start to grow. NCS was able to remove and neutralize the spot before it ate away at the coin or toning. The spot is gone, and no trace is left to be seen. That's what conservation should be about.

Jeremy

pursuitofliberty · January 14, 2006 7:53AM

Ken, Good question ... but I think that it's hard to define what is needed conservation, and what is nothing more than a hopeful apperance upgrade.

To me;

Removing PVC, tape residue, corrosion, heavy carbon or potentially damaging debris and it's residue = generally good (and rightly called conservation)

Removing normal toning, removing evidence of (mis)handling and possible circulation, most "repairs" and almost all surface alterations = generally bad (and should not be considered conservation)

my 2 bits anyway

carl · January 14, 2006 8:50AM

This tread made me wonder if there are coins put into those time capsules that are buried or put into corner blocks of buildings or where ever they put those things. So many things we take for grated today may not exist in the future such as coins for purchasing. All elements, compounds, mixtures, if left alone return to a more stable state or combine with others to form something different than what they were in the past. Now what about coins. If put into plastic of some type, buried in some concrete block or something, would it still be there in a million years? Will there be any coin collectors in a few thousand years? Will there be any coins left to collect in a few thousand years? So many worry about making a time capsule with items of the present but what will the future think of our coins? How many of our coins state who the people on them are or the name of the animal? Great thread. Lets all make a time capsule with coins. I'll take care of it.

RedTiger · January 14, 2006 10:16AM

The bad side is human nature and greed. It would be wonderful if conservers were all motivated by love of the hobby. The vast majority are not. They are interested in profit and will do anything in the pursuit of profit. Some history is destroyed when pedigreed coins are stripped and dipped in the name of one point upgrades. That history is gone forever. Some of the coins may retone over time, and again appear natural, however, some of them are ruined forever.

GaCoinGuy · January 14, 2006 6:55PM

I am like the others who have posted. I think conservation, when left to the experts, is a good thing when it comes to removing surface damaging contaminents(ie........PVC, dip residue), or to salvage a rare(read key date) coin from a jewelry doodad. Dug coins as well, need care if they are of a rare date/variety to prevent further damage from whatever elements it was found in.

Conservation becomes bad when it is used to "repair" coins(ie.......close up holes, gouges etc) Holes and normal wear and tear marks give classic coins character and hold untold volumes of history.

sellsatan · January 14, 2006 7:07PM

If it were up to me Russ would win. A picture is, after all, worth 1000 words.

TheKidCollector1991 · January 14, 2006 7:30PM

Well, As a young one I can tell that

Conserving coins gives the coin a second life.
It depends, If in vaccuum it is safe against all forces, air, bacteria and hmidity, water.

It gives a damaged coin a safer life.

That is my explanation

Thanks!

MrSpud · January 14, 2006 10:46PM

For long term thinking regarding the preservation of coins (so future generations can see them in as good a state as possible), cleaning or conserving should be done only with the intent of stopping or slowing down an active corrosive agent. If something isn't actively eating the coin, it should be put into an inert holder and stored in an airtight container (without any paper or wood or other sources of corrosion present) with dessicant present to maintain low humidity and not be exposed to temperature fluctuations. The reason that coins with an unattractive deposition of a foreign substance on their surface shouldn't be messed with is because future generations may invent safer more effective means of conservation than exist today.

The same is true of archaelogical finds. Modern archaeolgists have much better techniques of conservation today than what existed when the science of archaelogy was in its infancy. Many artifacts exhibit damage that was unnecessary in the name of conservation and preservation.

On the other hand, if people want to get more enjoyment (or profit) out of their coins in the near term, they may choose to try an improve the appearance of a coin that has been lightly damaged due to storage conditions or impurities present on the surface of the coins (from either before or after the minting process). If they choose to do so, they should keep in mind that in the long term future the coins they are conserving may end up worse than if they left them alone and, at the very least, should do enough research to allow them to use the least destructive means possible. They should also keep in mind that if they strip the oxidation layer skin off the coin, that the underlying metal will be in a more reactive state and that the metal will practically "seek out" something to chemically combine with to form a more stable "skin" on its surface. In other words, storage conditions are even more important for a conserved coin than for one with a skin or patina on it.

Or something like that...

Glavin · January 15, 2006 8:13AM

During the Confederation era there was a real need for small change copper coins since much of the colonial era copper coinage had been used to make military products during the Revolutionary War. Authorized coppers were minted in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and the Republic of Vermont as well as by the Federal Government the Fugio cent there were also several limited edition patterns and some private issues like the Nova Eborac coppers as well as the inevitable counterfeiting. In addition to all these products some individuals chose to go into the business of producing illegal British halfpence, sometimes known as Tory coppers. A few operations were full scale mints, as at Machin's Mills, where illegal halfpence were struck on presses to supplement the income the mint received from legal contracts, while other operations were smaller part time family enterprises where individuals simply cast base metal halfpence using sand molds. Since British law was not applicable in the United States these American made halfpence were not technically counterfeits but rather imitations. However, they were illegal in that their production was not authorized by a governmental authority; according to the Articles of Confederation only the states and the federal government had the right to issue coinage.
These surreptitious minters produced struck halfpence as light in weight as possible. A regal British halfpence weighed about 150-155 grains, but the imitations averaged only about 110-115 grains, or some 40 grains underweight, thus more coins could be produced per pound of copper. This yielded a substantial profit, as the copper in a full weight regal halfpenny was worth only about half of the face value of the coin. Of course, unlike the legal state authorized mints, these individuals did not pay any royalties to the government.
In order to make the coins easier to put into circulation the minters purposefully cut shallow dies so the newly minted coins would lack sharp details and would thus appear worn. They also back dated there products using dates that included: 1747, 1771, 1772 and 1774-1778 as well as using the contemporary (or recent back dates) of 1787 and 1788. Interestingly, legitimate regal halfpence were not minted every year during this period; in fact no legitimate halfpence were produced during 1776-1778 or in 1787 or 1788. It seems the minters did not even try to keep their backdating accurate! Apparently this oversight was either not recognized by the general public or was intentionally overlooked as long as individuals felt the coins would be generally accepted.
Halfpence produced in sand molds as opposed to those struck from dies on a press were made of copper alloyed with less expensive metals such as lead or pewter. Depending on the alloy used these coins might weigh more than the struck imitation halfpence but their intrinsic value was usually even lower. Sand cast coppers had a grainy, worn appearance with indistinct lettering. They were also slightly smaller in size and often somewhat irregular in shape. For details on the production of sand mold halfpence see the introduction to British counterfeit halfpence.
The attribution of imitation British halfpence to an American mint is a difficult problem that has recently received much attention in numismatic literature. What complicates the situation is that at the same time these lightweight imitation coppers were being produced locally, a significant number of lightweight counterfeit halfpence were being imported into the U.S. from England and Ireland. Many numismatists have tended to associate the more crude coppers with American mints while the better quality counterfeits were associated with British mints. Byron Weston has questioned this tendency and has suggested using the term "anonymous" counterfeit for any non regal halfpenny that cannot be attributed to a specific mint.
Clearly, both imported and locally produced counterfeits circulated side by side in America and both are important to the history of what has been called "North American coppers." Imitation halfpence associated with an American origin are discussed in the following sections, all others are included under British coinage in a section on counterfeit copper.
British halfpence now considered to be of American origin those that have been associated with New York City, those assigned to Machin's Mills and , a final group of unattributed imitation halfpence considered to have been produced in America.

I did not write this artical, I think it is related to some of the same problems of today in modern History. Coins will have a special place in the heart of collectors of today and, in the future..

Conservation Is good because, History is an important part of our
heritage. We should all learn from example , but we choose to learn from mistakes. Yet we keep making the same mistakes over and, over till we learn... If i only had my baseball card collection and my Babe Ruth rookie cards !

Peace out

pharmer · January 15, 2006 8:37AM

Well said, Glavin

Now, what do you think is good or bad about coin conservation

TorinoCobra71 · January 15, 2006 8:51AM

Russ is out to increase his profit margin by shining up those CAM proofs!

TorinoCobra71

Fairlaneman · January 15, 2006 9:07PM

<< <i>For long term thinking regarding the preservation of coins (so future generations can see them in as good a state as possible), cleaning or conserving should be done only with the intent of stopping or slowing down an active corrosive agent. If something isn't actively eating the coin, it should be put into an inert holder and stored in an airtight container (without any paper or wood or other sources of corrosion present) with dessicant present to maintain low humidity and not be exposed to temperature fluctuations. The reason that coins with an unattractive deposition of a foreign substance on their surface shouldn't be messed with is because future generations may invent safer more effective means of conservation than exist today.

The same is true of archaelogical finds. Modern archaeolgists have much better techniques of conservation today than what existed when the science of archaelogy was in its infancy. Many artifacts exhibit damage that was unnecessary in the name of conservation and preservation.

On the other hand, if people want to get more enjoyment (or profit) out of their coins in the near term, they may choose to try an improve the appearance of a coin that has been lightly damaged due to storage conditions or impurities present on the surface of the coins (from either before or after the minting process). If they choose to do so, they should keep in mind that in the long term future the coins they are conserving may end up worse than if they left them alone and, at the very least, should do enough research to allow them to use the least destructive means possible. They should also keep in mind that if they strip the oxidation layer skin off the coin, that the underlying metal will be in a more reactive state and that the metal will practically "seek out" something to chemically combine with to form a more stable "skin" on its surface. In other words, storage conditions are even more important for a conserved coin than for one with a skin or patina on it.

Or something like that... >>

Over all this is the answer I like the best.

Many good answers were extended and hopefully the view points were read by other members of the forum so that they may ponder the pro's and con's of conserving a coin.

Mr Spud I will PM you for your address.

Thanks to all for joining in.

Ken

MrSpud · January 15, 2006 9:14PM

Thanks !

mercurydimeguy · January 15, 2006 10:38PM

I never win

Fairlaneman · January 15, 2006 11:02PM

<< <i>I never win

>>

Oh Yes you do. You have made some very nice coins, slab wise, because of your keen eye.

Like I said there were some very good answers and yours was one of them....

Ken

mercurydimeguy · January 15, 2006 11:30PM

<< <i>

<< <i>I never win

>>

Oh Yes you do. You have made some very nice coins, slab wise, because of your keen eye.

Like I said there were some very good answers and yours was one of them....

Ken >>

OK, I feel better now

VirtualWon · January 22, 2006 5:54AM

Hey now damn it that's what I said!!!

Quit rewriting my answers Spud!!!

MrSpud · January 22, 2006 6:36AM

I received the bodybagged coin yesterday. Thank you very much. It is a 1935 Mercury Dime w/Unc Details Reverse Improperly Cleaned. The coin has lots of die polish making it very hard to see what they are talking about. I think they mean some hairlines in the bottom right quadrant of the reverse that look at first like more die polish, but if you look at the cartwheel that section has a disruption in the lucter. I might try and take a picture.

MrSpud · January 22, 2006 7:29AM

Here is a quick picture with the lighting just right on the reverse to show the problem area.

Fairlaneman · January 22, 2006 7:35AM

Thats the spot they were talking about. Also take a good look at her cheek. To me some cleaning was present there. Maybe it was within limits for them.

Actually this coin is better looking than some of the conserved pieces I got stuck with.

Ken

MrSpud · January 22, 2006 7:38AM

So, was the coin sent to NCS like this or did it have toning covering the hairlines that became evident after NCS attempted to conserve it. I'm asking, because I can't figure out why someone would send it to NCS as is.

Fairlaneman · January 22, 2006 7:47AM

This was one of 14 coins that I won in a Auction. I knew that some of them were NCS rejects but what I did not know was that the others had went through NCS. I was with you, I could not figure out why someone would send 13 of the coins in. One, in my opinion, was worth sending in.

I do not think this coin was conserved. As white as it is why would it be there in the first place. It is a prime example of conservation Mis-Use in my very humble opinion.

I used the NCS Service one time when it first came out. The result was horrid and the service will not be used by myself again.

Ken

DNADave · January 22, 2006 7:52AM

Fairlaneman · January 22, 2006 8:11AM

MikeJessie1 · January 22, 2006 12:01PM

Hey Russ, who do I have to kill for that WONDERFUL 56 Franklin Cameo?

KISHU1 · January 22, 2006 12:10PM

Think about this at your next show, how many coins are truly original? 10% 20% How could so many silver coins not tone or tarnish in 100-200 years? If the coin is is in such a serious state that the beauty is gone and by leaving it the way it is will only cause the deterioration to continue until one day it is beyond saving and lost to the collecting world, then it is woth restoring by true professionals.

Win a Body Bagged Coin that is in Plastic.

Comments

Leave a Comment