Ethics of doctoring
Frankcoins
Posts: 4,572 ✭✭✭
While PCGS has taken a firm stand against coin doctoring, a respected company that grades paper money has this rather
lax ethical stand on doctoring:
Good note restorers are sometimes capable of amazing feats, and even the best experts are sometimes hard-pressed to determine what (if any) work has been done to a note. A minor corner bend or light fold can sometimes be removed with careful and skillful work so that even the closest examination cannot reveal its previous existence. Many notes that have been lightly circulated now appear to be fully New or uncirculated, as they have been pressed or ironed out. Pinholes can be filled or closed, handling marks or finger smudges can be erased, ink marks or stains can be lightened or removed entirely, tears or splits can be closed, and virtually any problem can be attacked to improve the appearance or remove its visual signs. Sometimes, the skill with which these repairs or restorations are executed makes detection difficult or even impossible.
The problem is not so much the existence of these gray areas, but their impact on a note’s value. While purists cringe at the fact that many notes that were once AU or even XF are now sold as uncirculated, it boils down to fundamental economics. When a circulated note is pressed and the folds are entirely removed, it again appears “uncirculated.” Because the market currently dictates that most notes are worth more as pressed “uncirculated” notes than in their original state, such restoration is financially rewarded. Any time profit is available the opportunity will be exploited. If the demand remains for such pressed notes, supply will follow and restoration will continue.
lax ethical stand on doctoring:
Good note restorers are sometimes capable of amazing feats, and even the best experts are sometimes hard-pressed to determine what (if any) work has been done to a note. A minor corner bend or light fold can sometimes be removed with careful and skillful work so that even the closest examination cannot reveal its previous existence. Many notes that have been lightly circulated now appear to be fully New or uncirculated, as they have been pressed or ironed out. Pinholes can be filled or closed, handling marks or finger smudges can be erased, ink marks or stains can be lightened or removed entirely, tears or splits can be closed, and virtually any problem can be attacked to improve the appearance or remove its visual signs. Sometimes, the skill with which these repairs or restorations are executed makes detection difficult or even impossible.
The problem is not so much the existence of these gray areas, but their impact on a note’s value. While purists cringe at the fact that many notes that were once AU or even XF are now sold as uncirculated, it boils down to fundamental economics. When a circulated note is pressed and the folds are entirely removed, it again appears “uncirculated.” Because the market currently dictates that most notes are worth more as pressed “uncirculated” notes than in their original state, such restoration is financially rewarded. Any time profit is available the opportunity will be exploited. If the demand remains for such pressed notes, supply will follow and restoration will continue.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
0
Comments
Also looking for VF-EF Seated halves.
Sell me your old auction catalogs...
<< <i>This should help a lot with this discussion >>
The point of this is to contrast the view that it's OK to alter NOTES for financial gain, even to the point of repairing holes and such, and if
it's done well enough to get graded as NEW, then it's just as good as NEW.
Where is the condemation of this practice...the threats to notify the FBI (as with coin doctors) when in fact coin doctoring (putty, nose grease, AT) are MINOR
alterations to a coin compared to reweaving new paper fibers into a note to fix a damaged edge or fill pinholes.
Many coin people, on the other hand, actually fret over whether a toned coin "knows" it was put in an album with the intention of obtaining toning, versus the same coin/same album which toned the same way, except it was placed in the album hoping it would NOT tone, but it did anyway.
<< <i>
<< <i>This should help a lot with this discussion >>
The point of this is to contrast the view that it's OK to alter NOTES for financial gain, even to the point of repairing holes and such, and if
it's done well enough to get graded as NEW, then it's just as good as NEW.
Many coin people, on the other hand, actually fret over whether a toned coin "knows" it was put in an album with the intention of obtaining toning, versus the same coin/same album which toned the same way, except it was placed in the album hoping it would NOT tone, but it did anyway. >>
One thing I can see with doctoring notes to become uncirculated, means more uncs will be available. So while there will likely always be some kind of price increase for AU/XF up to Uncs, as more and more AU/XF notes are doctored undetectably to become Uncs, it will bring down Unc prices over time as more come into the market. It's somewhat the same as what's happened with toners, especially Morgans... a lot have come on to the market, dealers that didn't know the toned coin market asked outrageous prices for mediocre toned coins, and doctors attempted to deceive people with fake toners. Fortunately, most of the time, those fake toners are pretty obvious. But the fakes have certainly had an effect on the toned coin market, as we are now no longer seeing the outrageous stupid prices for monster toners, but instead are at least seeing nice premiums, but not moon money.
42/92
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>Wrong will never be right and right will never be wrong. >>
-Randy Newman
K S
"Market acceptable" seems to take on a different meaning for currency.
<< <i>Perhaps in currency, collectors realize that a good percentage of their paper has been repaired or enhanced in some way. Rejecting all those pieces might mean only 10% or so can be certified. The analogy would be the "market acceptable" level of dipping. If all the dipped or suspect coins were rejected, in some series only 10% or less would be holdered, and the grading company wouldn't deliver on their business model.
"Market acceptable" seems to take on a different meaning for currency. >>
I guess if the number of fraudulent items in the marketplace is so great that their business model doesn't work grading only
original untampered-with items, the definition of "market acceptable" expands to keep Wall Street happy....
<< <i>Wrong will never be right and right will never be wrong. >>
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
Interesting topic.
I didn't know that about paper money, having had little experience with paper.
I'm glad that coins are metal, and that circulated coins cannot suddenly be "transformed" into "Uncirculated" ones!
Collector since 1976. On the CU forums here since 2001.
Didn't wanna get me no trade
Never want to be like papa
Working for the boss every night and day
--"Happy", by the Rolling Stones (1972)
This is part of the problem. Some of these notes have escaped detection in the past and have a history of a good grade. This one passed through very some well known hands and resided in a top notch collection without the repairs ever being detected. Hell I 'm looking at it now with a magnifying glass and a UV light and I can't see the repairs.
Good note restorers are sometimes capable of amazing feats, and even the best experts are sometimes hard-pressed to determine what (if any) work has been done to a note. A minor corner bend or light fold can sometimes be removed with careful and skillful work so that even the closest examination cannot reveal its previous existence. Many notes that have been lightly circulated now appear to be fully New or uncirculated, as they have been pressed or ironed out. Pinholes can be filled or closed, handling marks or finger smudges can be erased, ink marks or stains can be lightened or removed entirely, tears or splits can be closed, and virtually any problem can be attacked to improve the appearance or remove its visual signs. Sometimes, the skill with which these repairs or restorations are executed makes detection difficult or even impossible.
The problem is not so much the existence of these gray areas, but their impact on a note’s value. While purists cringe at the fact that many notes that were once AU or even XF are now sold as uncirculated, it boils down to fundamental economics. When a circulated note is pressed and the folds are entirely removed, it again appears “uncirculated.” Because the market currently dictates that most notes are worth more as pressed “uncirculated” notes than in their original state, such restoration is financially rewarded. Any time profit is available the opportunity will be exploited. If the demand remains for such pressed notes, supply will follow and restoration will continue.
I read this post with great interest, considering that I wrote the above sentences and that it comes directly from our published grading standards. I would submit that the above two paragraphs are taken out of context, and that the entire work should be read to give a clearer picture of what we were trying to convey.
PCGS Currency does reward notes for originality (with our PPQ designation, for "Premium Paper Quality" notes that are strictly original and are problem-free for the grade), and therefore does in effect "punish" notes that have been pressed or doctored by not awarding that designation. Our "Apparent" grades, for notes with major problems, help disclose major restorations, repairs, or other problems.
The fact that perhaps as much as 80-90% of the population of high grade large size notes in existence have been "improved" to one degree or another is one of the major reasons that we chose to create grading standards that effectively dealt with the problem. The driving factor behind the decision to so structure our grading standards was, in fact, to make note doctoring less profitable and therefore less prevalent. I think we've done our job, and the market has finally begun to recognize and reward originality to the point where many AU58PPQ notes are selling for more than 62, 63, or 64 grade notes that lack that designation.
President, PCGS Currency
jbradford@pcgscurrency.com
Does the lack of a designation of 'ppq' on the holder imply that the note inside is likely to have been fussed with in some way?
Does PCGS always note the presence of deliberate alterations on the holder, along with the 'apparent grade?'
thanks for your time, if the above questions can be answered by providing me with a link, that would be fine too.
As for the real question.
Doctoring is doctoring is doctoring... there is no ethical component of doctoring simply because doctoring is simply unethical.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
The grading standards were designed to address the problem of note doctoring, and to help create a market in which originality is valued so highly that it takes the incentive away from doctoring any note.
Here is a link to our grading standards. I hope that this will answer your question.
PCGS Currency Grading Standards
President, PCGS Currency
jbradford@pcgscurrency.com
<< <i>
<< <i>This should help a lot with this discussion >>
The point of this is to contrast the view that it's OK to alter NOTES for financial gain, even to the point of repairing holes and such, and if
it's done well enough to get graded as NEW, then it's just as good as NEW.
Where is the condemation of this practice...the threats to notify the FBI (as with coin doctors) when in fact coin doctoring (putty, nose grease, AT) are MINOR
alterations to a coin compared to reweaving new paper fibers into a note to fix a damaged edge or fill pinholes.
Many coin people, on the other hand, actually fret over whether a toned coin "knows" it was put in an album with the intention of obtaining toning, versus the same coin/same album which toned the same way, except it was placed in the album hoping it would NOT tone, but it did anyway. >>
Should I "fret" if this coin:
Turns into this coin:
You tell me, Frank.
<< <i>The obviously fake toners are made by amateurs or just plain crooks... the amateurs are aspiring 'doctors'.... and no one detects the really good AT coins... they are legion... Cheers, RickO >>
I so strongly agree with this.
Through my many years of collecting coins, talking with dealers, collectors and other experts, I am convinced that there is a handful of coin doctors out there that can improve and tone just about any coin to such a great degree of perfection that the coin will pass examination 10 out of 10 times.
"“Those who sacrifice liberty for security/safety deserve neither.“(Benjamin Franklin)
"I only golf on days that end in 'Y'" (DE59)
<< <i>The lack of "PPQ" infers either a lack of originality (i.e., it has been pressed or a pinhole has been closed) or that there is a minor problem for the grade (such as a pinhole on a high grade note, or a small margin tear on a lower grade note). Keep in mind that any problems are factored into the grade...for example, a pressed note that would otherwise grade 58 may be "netted" to a lower grade depending on how heinous the press job was and if the note was reembossed. Any major problems will be mentioned individually with an "Apparent" grade.
The grading standards were designed to address the problem of note doctoring, and to help create a market in which originality is valued so highly that it takes the incentive away from doctoring any note.
Here is a link to our grading standards. I hope that this will answer your question.
PCGS Currency Grading Standards >>
Thank you for answering questions on a message board.
<< <i>
Should I "fret" if this coin:
Turns into this coin:
You tell me, Frank. >>
I am unable to follow what you are talking about. The only "fretting" I am referrring to is the long "what if" strings that show up
on here wondering about if a coin's natural toning becomes artificial if the coin was stored in such a way that natural toning
develops, but the coin "knows" that it was placed in that environment for the purpose of obtaining such toning....
<< <i>Well I have just been talked out of collecting notes, if the TPG's can't detect repairs it isn't worth collecting. Now if more don't or stop collecting them maybe the message will be sent to both the TPG's and the alterer's. >>
Learn to grade for yourself.
<< <i>
<< <i>
Should I "fret" if this coin:
Turns into this coin:
You tell me, Frank. >>
I am unable to follow what you are talking about. The only "fretting" I am referrring to is the long "what if" strings that show up
on here wondering about if a coin's natural toning becomes artificial if the coin was stored in such a way that natural toning
develops, but the coin "knows" that it was placed in that environment for the purpose of obtaining such toning.... >>
The point I was making is that sometimes "doctored" coins turn bad subsequent to their being "doctored". It happens with AT coins, and it happens to coins with other "problems". More often than not, the collector is the one who gets bunt, yet it was the doctor, who relied on deception to make a profit, whose lack of ethics was the ROOT CAUSE of the problem. That's not to deny the collector's responsibility when purchasing the coin, but rather to point out where the problem originated -- with those that think that deception in the name of profit is acceptable.
Respectfully...Mike
<< <i>
The point I was making is that sometimes "doctored" coins turn bad subsequent to their being "doctored". It happens with AT coins, and it happens to coins with other "problems". More often than not, the collector is the one who gets bunt, yet it was the doctor, who relied on deception to make a profit, whose lack of ethics was the ROOT CAUSE of the problem. That's not to deny the collector's responsibility when purchasing the coin, but rather to point out where the problem originated -- with those that think that deception in the name of profit is acceptable.
Respectfully...Mike >>
Wait until you see a paper note with ink removed using oxalic acid after about 5 years...