"I’d estimate that close to 90% of all United States gold coins have been “messed with” at one

RYK · February 12, 2006 7:59AM

From Doug Winter's 2/12/06 market report.

I would have to agree. It is probably even higher if you throw out the generics and coins in which there is little interest (ie. VF and below P mint eagles, etc.).

dwssws · February 12, 2006 8:07AM

Oh! I thought you had "messed" with 90% of the gold coins

mirabela · February 12, 2006 8:11AM

Maybe among the rarities & high grades, where the incentive is strong, but this brush looks a bit broad. MS63 & 64 Saints, for instance -- what's the point? Ditto AU-MS62 gold type, Liberty types & forward...

I don't dispute that lots of even these coins get fiddled with, but 90%? I'm not convinced.

Barry · February 12, 2006 8:18AM

In his market report DW said, "I had the chance recently to view two different sets of 20th century gold coins. Both were highly ranked in the PCGS Set Registry within their respective series. And both sets, in all honesty, were full of problem coins..."

It all depends how you define problem coins. Apparently what Doug sees as problem coins, the TPGs find them market-acceptable. Is any coin touched by NCS a problem coin?

coinkat · February 12, 2006 8:41AM

That is not the biggest problem... it is the crap that has been enhanced, dipped and cleaned and some believe is it is still market acceptable. This is the sad part and yet it continues and will continue because no one wants to do anything constructive to prevent it from continuing... sorry, but... I am collecting other coins now and yes... I feel better.

fc · February 12, 2006 8:50AM

I had the chance recently to view two different sets of 20th century gold coins. Both were highly ranked in the PCGS Set Registry within their respective series. And both sets, in all honesty, were full of problem coins;

Well it was not the PCGS set registry for half eagles, that much
I know is fact. Cough, only like 5 of us in it with the most done at
30%. So just what was he looking at? Way too vague for me, the
author can do better than that.

bah, this article is just setting the author up for new customers
down the road. I wish for more facts and less damned statistics.

Shamika · February 12, 2006 9:12AM

90% seems about right.

MrEureka · February 12, 2006 9:14AM

I agree with Doug's basic premise. Most rare gold on the market has been cleaned or doctored. Simple fact.

BTW, I am compelled to point out that a coin can be "messed with" AND accurately graded. That doesn't mean I want that slop in my clients' collections, nor does it mean that accurately graded slop will not one day be discounted to a much greater extent than it is today.

chabot510 · February 12, 2006 9:17AM

<< I had the chance recently to view two different sets of 20th century gold coins. Both were highly ranked in the PCGS Set Registry within their respective series. And both sets, in all honesty, were full of problem coins;

Well it was not the PCGS set registry for half eagles, that much
I know is fact. Cough, only like 5 of us in it with the most done at
30%. So just what was he looking at? Way too vague for me, the
author can do better than that.

bah, this article is just setting the author up for new customers
down the road. I wish for more facts and less damned statistics. >>

i agree with you 100%

RYK · February 12, 2006 9:22AM

i agree with you 100%

What percent would you say has been "messed with". You are a dealer, so you should have a knowledgeable opinion on this.

chabot510 · February 12, 2006 9:25AM

I would say about 60-70% if I were to make a guess. Although you may disregard this bit of info because I am not as well known as Doug Winter (who I admire tremendously), 90% is an extremely high number of coins that have been messed with. JMO

coinkat · February 12, 2006 9:35AM

After spending years looking at shows for no motto Libs... mostly 10's, the number is 90% or even likely higher. Doesn't leave alot of room...

keets · February 12, 2006 9:39AM

Marketing Hype.

fc · February 12, 2006 9:45AM

does the defintion "messed with" include almost every circulation
situation?

does a child being shown a gold coin by his grandpa count as
being messed with, when the child rubs his thumb against it
to feel the texture?

poor lad was cleaning it huh.

i am just trying to figure out where one draws the line with
being messed with. A MS coin for example, should not be
"messed with", but a XF coin should show significant wear,
thus it has been "messed with".

sorry. i am out there. need more coffee.

edited to add: well if you count up all the MS63 and above coins,
and that is probably, what? 3-5% of the remaining examples?

especially if you remove the bullion type coins. ala 20s

coinguy1 · February 12, 2006 9:52AM

<< i am just trying to figure out where one draws the line with being messed with. A MS coin for example, should not be"messed with", but a XF coin should show significant wear, thus it has been "messed with". >>

I'm confident that "messed with" was not being equated with "significant wear" due to circulation. In fact, the author provides the following (examples of "messed with") in his article:
"This degree of messing ranges from light old cleanings to recoloring, to application of putty or other foreign substances to hide hairlines to massive reworking of the coin’s surfaces."

keets · February 12, 2006 9:53AM

i think the term "messed with" is generally used to mean altered in some fashion to improve appearance and deceive collectors/dealers, recently stretched to mean anything done to a coin that interrupts it's ultimate change after mintage, whether that might be something to stop damage that's started or to remove dirt or contaminants. some purists perceive anything done to a coin to be "messing" with it, and thus, bad.

i'm not in that group.

chabot510 · February 12, 2006 9:53AM

mark what is your take on the percentage of "messed with" gold coins?

Longacre · February 12, 2006 9:55AM

I agree.

RYK · February 12, 2006 10:01AM

"Messed with"

Altered in such a way to (temporarily or permanently) improve a coin's appearance with the intent of deceiving a buyer, especially an unknowledgeable one.

I have looked at hundreds of auction lots of 19th century US gold coins and 90% seems spot on. Doug Winter has probably looked at thousands and thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of auction lots. I am confiednt that he knows what he is talking about. When I was buying coins without help via the internet (ebay and Heritage auction lots mostly), at least two out of three coins that I purchased were "messed with". I just did not realize it at the time. Fortunately, there are enough others who shop the same way, so the coins were very easy to dispose of.

fc · February 12, 2006 10:06AM

I am trying to get away from the obvious bias of the article, which
clearly leads one to think, "shop with me, your coins will not be
messed with", and talk about the main subject of:

"I’d estimate that close to 90% of all United States gold coins have been “messed with” at one time."

"messed with" meaning in the author's article:

This degree of messing ranges from light old cleanings to recoloring, to application of putty or other foreign substances to hide hairlines to massive reworking of the coin’s surfaces.

i am beginning to think the class of coins he is talking about is
not what I am buying. It is hard for me to continue that topic
when I think he is talking about oranges and I am buying apples.

keets · February 12, 2006 10:08AM

Fortunately, there are enough others who shop the same way, so the coins were very easy to dispose of.

i sure hope Mark scolds you when he reads that. bad, very bad if done without disclosure, risking disbarrment from the circle of trust™............................

chabot510 · February 12, 2006 10:12AM

RYK,
perhaps my view is slightly flawed as well, similar to fc's. I am not out there buying world class rarities as of right now (such as the 1854-S that I believe doug picked up last year), so I can not comment on that aspect of the market. However, i would say again about 6-7 out of every 10 gold coins in the $250-$5,000 range have been messed with according to the authors definition of being messed with.

coinguy1 · February 12, 2006 10:13AM

<< mark what is your take on the percentage of "messed with" gold coins? >>

Nick, if the massive quantities of generic gold coins (many of which have not been messed with) which trade, are included, my guess would be in the 50%, rather than 90% range. That is simply my off the top of my head estimate, and I might feel differently if I were to start keeping count at my next show or two.

Reece · February 12, 2006 10:23AM

After looking at the Goldberg sale and the Heritage sale this last weekend I think it is around 95-98%

chabot510 · February 12, 2006 10:24AM

one or two auctions should not be an indicator of how the rest of the coins in the market are

TheRaven · February 12, 2006 10:26AM

Are we talking about average collector gold coins (up to say 5K) or are we talking about big dollar gold coins.....

This also sounds like it is kinda a sales pitch for his website.....

RYK · February 12, 2006 10:28AM

i sure hope Mark scolds you when he reads that. bad, very bad if done without disclosure, risking disbarrment from the circle of trust™...

No forum members were stung with these losers. I would be ashamed to have my name associated with these. Most were sold to dealers, and a few were sold on ebay.

one or two auctions should not be an indicator of how the rest of the coins in the market are

Reece is a collector and an expert on southern gold coins, and I would trust his opinion ahead of my own.

Every auction that I have viewed since 2003 has been about the same. How many auctions have you viewed?

Reece · February 12, 2006 10:30AM

OK after spending two full days at the Long Beach show and looking at 95% of the gold in dealers cases the amount of messed with gold is still over 90%. Not generic, everything else.

fc · February 12, 2006 10:32AM

Every auction that I have viewed since 2003 has been about the same. How many auctions have you viewed?

ah, and this is where we significantly differ. I can say I have been
watching half eagles pretty closely before the run up in gold but
you have been "studying southern examples" while I have been
examining P and S mainly.

and boy. the last years auctions of C and early D had me thinking
what is this crap people are paying 2000 for an XF example
that looks like a dog turd.

so if you mean that area of gold, I agree 90% is accurate.

mirabela · February 12, 2006 10:37AM

I think there's probably the 'hot potato' factor at work, too --

The % of messed-with coins on the market is probably higher than the % of messed with coins extant among all coins as the best coins are the ones that get held onto. What do you do when you get a coin that sucks? Why, kick it on down the road, of course! Isn't that what everybody does? Some disclose everything to a fault and others disclose nothing, but when you go to sell -- I'm talking to collectors here -- isn't it usually the weakest stuff you've got that goes first?

It stands to reason that the good coins leave the market before very long -- they are placed with an "end user" who treasures them and keeps them -- whereas the crappy ones go around and around and around as one trader after another tries to squeeze a buck from it in between the collectors who buy it, realize it stinks, and sell at a loss.

So, even if 90% of a given issue on the market is junk, that doesn't mean that 90% of them that actually exist are.

chabot510 · February 12, 2006 10:37AM

<< i sure hope Mark scolds you when he reads that. bad, very bad if done without disclosure, risking disbarrment from the circle of trust™...

No forum members were stung with these losers. I would be ashamed to have my name associated with these. Most were sold to dealers, and a few were sold on ebay.

one or two auctions should not be an indicator of how the rest of the coins in the market are

Reece is a collector and an expert on southern gold coins, and I would trust his opinion ahead of my own.

Every auction that I have viewed since 2003 has been about the same. How many auctions have you viewed? >>

As fc pointed out, it is what area of gold you are looking at. With southern gold, I would agree that the percentage of messed with coins is higher. however, with the majority of gold coins being from philly, i would say that 90% is too high. 90% may be correct for charlotte or NO, but not for the whole gold coin market.

i have previewed many auctions

oreville · February 12, 2006 10:41AM

Whether it is 50% or close to 90% is still a scary wake-up call in my view.

coinguy1 · February 12, 2006 10:42AM

<< Every auction that I have viewed since 2003 has been about the same. How many auctions have you viewed? >>

Robert, that's not really relevant to the thread's opening topic. The number of coins sold via public auction in a given year is a tiny, tiny fraction of "all United States gold coins". And, while it might be potentially worthwhile, financially, for people to mess with rare, non-generic coins of the type you collect, those represent a very small segment of the market in terms of "all United States gold coins".

I think that the original point would have been much closer to accurate and subject to far less debate, had it read "I’d estimate that close to 90% of all United States gold coins of the type I typically handle, have been 'messed with' at one time."

coinkat · February 12, 2006 10:43AM

I agree with you Oreville...

jcping · February 12, 2006 10:43AM

> I had the chance recently to view two different sets of 20th century gold coins. Both were highly ranked in the PCGS Set Registry within their respective series. And both sets, in all honesty, were full of problem coins ......

Are you telling me that 90% of gold coins in PCGS holders are problem coins.

chabot510 · February 12, 2006 10:44AM

>>

I think that the original point would have been much closer to accurate and subject to far less debate, had it read "I’d estimate that close to 90% of all United States gold coins of the type I typically handle, have been 'messed with' at one time." >>

RYK · February 12, 2006 10:48AM

Robert, that's not really relevant to the thread's opening topic. The number of coins sold via public auction in a given year is a tiny, tiny fraction of "all United States gold coins".

I cannot disagree with that. The coins I see on the bourse are even worse. At least in an auction, you have a fighting chance of seeing some cool and fresh coins.

I think that the original point would have been much closer to accurate and subject to far less debate, had it read "I’d estimate that close to 90% of all United States gold coins of the type I typically handle, have been 'messed with' at one time."

Kudos for Mark! IAt looks like we have all found something in it upon which we can agree.

fc · February 12, 2006 10:53AM

interesting if we all agree on a percentage in a certain realm
of gold collecting, our discussion should naturally lead to

coinkat's thread about originality and when do you compromise it.

http://forums.collectors.com/messageview.cfm?catid=26&threadid=476277

TommyType · February 12, 2006 10:55AM

While gold isn't my thing, this whole question is applicable to the entire market. Let's take the discussion in another direction....

If we assume that many gold coins were "messed with", (which I assume for the most part translates to "dipped"), then we have to assume the person doing the dipping had a reason to dip. Copper spots, splotchy, fly specks, whatever. So, I have some questions:

- How do you convince the collectors that these problems are NOT problems, and take away the need to "improve" coins?

- Do you buy such marked coins, or do you pass them by looking instead for the clean, bright, unmarked surfaces?

- If you don't buy them, aren't you asking a lot for the owners to leave them alone, when they can't sell them that way?

Kind of a "Not In My Back Yard" (NIMBY) problem. I want all coins to be original, but I'm not buying no ugly-ass coins!!

RYK · February 12, 2006 11:00AM

Here is a coin in my collection that has been "messed with".

I believe that there was PVC damage and the coin was dipped in acetone to remove it. It is a little brighter than you would expect to see but has a very pleasing appearance and is more original and pleasing than most NGC or PCGS MS-61's that I have seen.

coinlieutenant · February 12, 2006 11:03AM

Robert,

I wouldnt qualify acetone as messing with coins. Putty, tooling, lasing, cleaning, dipping, baking...that is messed with, but acetone is not to me. Anyone else feel the same or differently?

J

fc · February 12, 2006 11:05AM

I believe that there was PVC damage and the coin was dipped in acetone to remove it. It is a little brighter than you would expect to see but has a very pleasing appearance and is more original and pleasing than most NGC or PCGS MS-61's that I have seen.

Ok, I can go with that train of thought because the coin is so clean.
But if I did not know what you told me, I see a coin with a darn
good strike from a mint known for lousy ones. I see obvious luster
in all the right places. What I think is wear, is probably where it
did not strike up fully.

If I had the money i would try to buy that coin. It is market
acceptable to me. Would the author of the article pass it by???
I highly doubt it if the price was right to make a profit.

CL said,

I wouldnt qualify acetone as messing with coins. Putty, tooling, lasing, cleaning, dipping, baking...that is messed with, but acetone is not to me. Anyone else feel the same or differently?

In the realm of original gold, this is messing with them. I would be
much more comfortable owning a MS61 with grime in the shield
and a bit of color/dirt/dust/grime/type of handling.

chabot510 · February 12, 2006 11:07AM

<< Robert,

I wouldnt qualify acetone as messing with coins. Putty, tooling, lasing, cleaning, dipping, baking...that is messed with, but acetone is not to me. Anyone else feel the same or differently?

J >>

I would agree with you to some extent. In many cases, acetone can save a coin, such as RYKs nice 56-D. however, many times acetone is used to brighten a coin and make it appear more lusterous, which I then deem as messing with

WTCG · February 12, 2006 11:16AM

The percentage of gold coins "messed with" is probably much lower for generic and common date gold such as type 3 Liberty Doubles or Saints.

Doug's estimate is probably correct for better dated gold and proof gold coins.

coinkat · February 12, 2006 11:19AM

Acetone to remove PVC is necessary to prevent the risk of damage... unfortunately, the coin is no longer original. As in the case of the 1856-D 1/2 eagle, we know the coin is not original, but it has eye appeal and is attractive for the date. And this begs the questions... Is this coin any less desirable or less valuable?

Would you not be proud to own this coin? Consider the surviving population and overal quality of the coin in your answer...

Longacre · February 12, 2006 11:21AM

I'm waiting for more inventory and pics to make it to the DW site! Can't wait!

roadrunner · February 12, 2006 11:24AM

An analogy can be made for silver coins of the 19th century as well.
Somewhere between 50-90% have beem messed with as well:

Dipped, conserved, cleaned, and surfaces altered. So I don't find it any wonder that gold coins fall into the same category. Morgans and other hoarded coins would not have the same higher %.

And I would suspect that way too many seated, bust, barber coins in people's registry sets have similar problems to what Winter describes.

roadrunner

DaveG · February 12, 2006 11:50AM

My understanding is that acetone will only remove surface contaminants, such as dirt, grease and PVC damage, but will not affect the underlying metal, which "dip" will.

Of course a coin that has been in an acetone bath will appear "brighter" - it's clean now.

I'd like to hear Mark Feld's opinion, but, subject to his correction, I wouldn't consider such a coin "messed with."

TheRaven · February 12, 2006 11:54AM

This entire thread is rather terrifying to collectors of gold coins that are not experts and in all reality to all coins in general that are of Barber times and older.....

TommyType · February 12, 2006 11:56AM

<< This entire thread is rather terrifying to collectors of gold coins that are not experts and in all reality to all coins in general that are of Barber times and older..... >>

With all due respect to Doug Winter, that was his intent.

RYK · February 12, 2006 12:01PM

Here's another from my collection what has been "messed with".

I knew it when I bought it. I wanted an inexpensive example for my collection that demonstrates the diagnostic (for the date) unusual raised lines on the neck. The strke detail is great, but the color is obviously wrong wrong wrong! The price was right (in a Scotsman auction). Oh, for those of you who contend that PCGS does not holder problem coins, it is in a PCGS XF-40 old green holder.

"I’d estimate that close to 90% of all United States gold coins have been “messed with” at one

Comments

Leave a Comment

&quot;I’d estimate that close to 90% of all United States gold coins have been “messed with” at one

Comments

Leave a Comment

"I’d estimate that close to 90% of all United States gold coins have been “messed with” at one