The arguement FOR conservation of coins and the wise use of services offered by NCS.
keets
Posts: 25,351 ✭✭✭✭✭
If you spend enough time at this forum it soon becomes clear that there exists within the Numismatic community a sizeable portion of collectors who hold very close-minded views on the use of the conservation service offered by NCS. This tends to ocurr on both sides of the discussion: some adamantly oppose anything which affects the current condition of a coin's surface, others believe it's OK to do anything to enhance the value of a coin and improve its saleability. I happen to belong to the third group, those who view conservation simply as a wise use of efforts to protect coins from further damage and assure that they pass through the ages in the best possible state of preservation. Let me explain.
Many tend to group conservation with the negative aspects of Coin Doctoring which I consider a misguided understanding. All thoughts of value enhancement aside(a sad reality in many cases) the main purpose of Conservation has always seemed to be the removal of things from a coin's surface or to prevent any damage already done from progressing. What comes readily to mind is things such as PVC contamination, carbon spots, shellac, tape residue, haze from improper storage and things of that nature. We all seem to agree that when contamination exists on a coin's surface that it will continue to degrade the surface, why would we argue about whether or not to remove it??
Strangely, I accept that many who oppose conservation would be supportive of efforts to save the most important Numismatic items that exist if that need arose for any number of reasons, perhaps a fire or flood. For the sake of arguement, what if a fire happened to contaminate the King of Siam coins or one of the most renowned collections we know were to be damaged/contaminated in some fashion while being transported for display at an ANA sponsored exhibit?? Should the coins be kept as they are, original?? Perhaps you'll think it a lame comparison but I'm sure you get the point. Also, while I tend to think all the recent comparisons to classic automobiles, furniture, paintings and what-have-you were also lame, they make a good point, especially the automobile comparison. Original is undoubtedly more craved for, but isn't a working car better than an original that won't run??
In the end we're all left to our own decisions and attitudes about conservation and other practices within the hobby. For myself, I do indeed dip coins with products like EZest, soak them in olive oil/mineral oil, rinse off contaminants with acetone or alcohol and readily use the services offered by NCS or PCGS in certain instances. To my way of thinking it seems the prudent and responsible thing to do if I really view myself as merely a custodian and not an owner. I have always thought it best to leave something in at least the same condition as I received it, hopefully better if it's in my power. What I've learned is that the most important aspect of a conservation attempt is the forethought and decision making process. Certainly it's true that a misguided attempt can ruin a coin so it shouldn't be something done without due consideration of the negative aspects possible. To that end, I have in the past held coins for as long as 1-2 years before attempting to do anything or sending them off for conservation.
In the end I realize that this is a delicate and prickly topic for many. I tend to think it's one of the hot-button issues of the day due to AT issues and all the coin doctor horror stories we hear. My hope is that the two can be viewed for what they are irrespective of the other and not linked as the same scourge on the hobby that some see them as. One tends to cause harm, the other seems to me to be a useful tool which will benefit us all if used wisely. That is, after all, the crux of the word Conservation, wise use!! Have a nice day and enjoy the Hobby of Kings.
Al H.
Many tend to group conservation with the negative aspects of Coin Doctoring which I consider a misguided understanding. All thoughts of value enhancement aside(a sad reality in many cases) the main purpose of Conservation has always seemed to be the removal of things from a coin's surface or to prevent any damage already done from progressing. What comes readily to mind is things such as PVC contamination, carbon spots, shellac, tape residue, haze from improper storage and things of that nature. We all seem to agree that when contamination exists on a coin's surface that it will continue to degrade the surface, why would we argue about whether or not to remove it??
Strangely, I accept that many who oppose conservation would be supportive of efforts to save the most important Numismatic items that exist if that need arose for any number of reasons, perhaps a fire or flood. For the sake of arguement, what if a fire happened to contaminate the King of Siam coins or one of the most renowned collections we know were to be damaged/contaminated in some fashion while being transported for display at an ANA sponsored exhibit?? Should the coins be kept as they are, original?? Perhaps you'll think it a lame comparison but I'm sure you get the point. Also, while I tend to think all the recent comparisons to classic automobiles, furniture, paintings and what-have-you were also lame, they make a good point, especially the automobile comparison. Original is undoubtedly more craved for, but isn't a working car better than an original that won't run??
In the end we're all left to our own decisions and attitudes about conservation and other practices within the hobby. For myself, I do indeed dip coins with products like EZest, soak them in olive oil/mineral oil, rinse off contaminants with acetone or alcohol and readily use the services offered by NCS or PCGS in certain instances. To my way of thinking it seems the prudent and responsible thing to do if I really view myself as merely a custodian and not an owner. I have always thought it best to leave something in at least the same condition as I received it, hopefully better if it's in my power. What I've learned is that the most important aspect of a conservation attempt is the forethought and decision making process. Certainly it's true that a misguided attempt can ruin a coin so it shouldn't be something done without due consideration of the negative aspects possible. To that end, I have in the past held coins for as long as 1-2 years before attempting to do anything or sending them off for conservation.
In the end I realize that this is a delicate and prickly topic for many. I tend to think it's one of the hot-button issues of the day due to AT issues and all the coin doctor horror stories we hear. My hope is that the two can be viewed for what they are irrespective of the other and not linked as the same scourge on the hobby that some see them as. One tends to cause harm, the other seems to me to be a useful tool which will benefit us all if used wisely. That is, after all, the crux of the word Conservation, wise use!! Have a nice day and enjoy the Hobby of Kings.
Al H.
0
Comments
For the people that know what they are doing the above is what should be done if a coin has a problem that needs to be taken care of. Know what they are doing is the key.
Flame on folks.....
Ken
Edited to add: A large part of the problem is that NCS seems to perform both unnecessary alteration and true conservation. I asked NCS a long time ago if it adhered to any particular code of ethics when it works on coins. The answer was a nicely phrased "no." As a result, as Al suggests, the responsibility rests with the collector to use wisely the services offered by NCS.
my early American coins & currency: -- http://yankeedoodlecoins.com/
I paid my own hard earned money for the things, and dammit, they're mine to do with as I want. I can soak 'em, I can dip 'em in anything from EZest to freaking battery acid if I want. If I was mad at my money, I could beat 'em with hammers and no one could do a thing. And since I'm neither Communist nor King of the World, I'm not going to tell you you've got to act any differently.
I do, however, know what I like when I BUY a coin. I have learned that I need to trust my instincts and try to find the most eye appealing coin possible. I don't much care for spots on my proof copper, and at the same time I don't think that most processed copper has a ton of eye appeal... It makes the search that much harder, but yet rewarding.
Dipped out and polished silver is easy - unless it's a rare date, it goes in the melt bucket. Keys and semi-keys will always find a buyer at a price, and the education of the neophyte collector will continue on eBay and the bourse, learning to identify originality. Bacause say what you want Al, the market does still place a unique value on that.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Ken
Aside from my teen years in the early 70's when I used Tarn-X to dip unc Morgans, the only dip I have used is Acetone on silver. I purchased EZest about a yr ago but really do not know that I will ever need it since I collect early silver. Granted, I have been a tad dismayed with BBs for questionable color on high end lightly and moderately toned coins submitted over the past year (none of which I personally questioned particularly since the toning did not conceal any problems and generally did not do much to enhance the coin save for the fact that it did not appear dipped). I suppose it may be better to give em a quick dip to avert another BB but then again I do not know that I would endorse that as a motive.
<< <i>
<< <i>Would you continue to let rust destroy a vintage automobile ?I see nothing wrong with saving a coin from damaging elements. >>
Toning is not equal to rust. Just keep repeating that over and over again
I said damaging elements.I don't consider toning damaging to a coin.
Personally, I believe conservation of any sort should generally be avoided except in extreme cases and/or involving great rarities and national treasures. This principle mainly applies to coins that I would consider buying. In other words, I look for original coins and avoid conserved coins.
But...if my own coins were somehow damaged in a fire or flood or some other tragedy, I would probably send some of them to NCS to see what they could do to help restore them.
1893 S Morgan = case in point.
However, a low cost coin < $100 may look prettier if "conserved," and
it's owner discretion.
you see, at least i got something right!!!
Plus, if memory serves, your argument is largely the one NCS uses to promote itself in its own literature.
However, every month I get their email newsletter, and 9 times out of the 10 their "preservation of the month" is a crusty coin that merely possessed 'unattractive' toning, that then emerges in the 'after' picture looking white & lifeless, which I think contradicts their mission statement but probably appeals to crack out artists.
>>>My Collection
Milk Spots-----these are actually the result of strike through on an improperly rinsed/dried planchet. no amount of dipping, rinsing or other methods will remove them or change them much, they are actually a part of the coin surface. this type of impairment is a bad candidate for conservation, yet collectors/dealers still try to remove them.
Haze-----this generally comes from the packaging and in the short term it is easily removed. my experience shows that quite often little/no after affect is noticeable. i can do this myself although NCS will do a better job. the trouble with haze in the long term, if left on the surface of the coin, is that it tends to impair the mirrored fields to the point where they start to look cloudy or weak and then nothing can be done, the coin is permanently damaged. i don't have enough experience with older hazed proofs to know if the surface of the coin will be etched somewhat, but i expect that it would be.
another problem that is often overlooked by collectors, even though many tend to understand it, is copper spots. we seem to agree that if left untreated these have the potential to grow, especially inside of a slab. i wonder why anyone would be against at least rinsing the surface contaminants away with acetone or something?? the same goes for PVC and other surface contaminants. that puzzles me but i agree that we should all be free to do as we choose.
In many cases, I believe someone is" passing the buck" just to make a few more.
That's not right or wrong. It's what we call "turning a buck" and a blind eye.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, Al. I just type random thoughts based on my beliefs.
Open dialogue and critical thinking would be void without the pros and cons.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>Years ago, when "blast white" was the choice for Gem coins, nearly everything was dipped. These days, when "toners" are popular, color coins are everywhere! The majority of these wonderful "color coins" are retoned examples of the previously "blast white" coins. This is especially true with Morgan Dollars. I know I'll get jumped on for making this statement, as everyone on this board can tell the "originality" of their "toner" from 10 paces... They ought to train the TPG's, as there are MANY retoned Morgans in NGC and PCGS holders..... >>
Not sure what you mean by "train the TPGs". Apparently, dipping is not a punishable offense. At the last
show I attended, there was a case full of blast white Seated dollars in PCGS holders and they all
had CAC stickers to boot.
Edited to add: I do believe in conservation in cases where the coin will deteriorate further if not treated.
Otherwise, not.
To be honest, I don't consider "cleaned" coins to be junk, as they are still a piece of history. Then again, it depends on just how "harsh" the cleaning was...
<< <i>If you spend enough time at this forum it soon becomes clear that there exists within the Numismatic community a sizeable portion of collectors who hold very close-minded views
you see, at least i got something right!!!
Yes, I suppose you did. I am pretty close-minded about this issue, as I described in my previous post. However, it's a personal decision. After all, when I buy a coin, I'm not spending your money.
<< <i>...If I was mad at my money, I could beat 'em with hammers and no one could do a thing... >>
<< <i>If I hear one more time some mealy-mouthed Communist puke forth "I'm not the owner of this coin, I'm mearly a conservator for future generations" I myself am going to blow chunks.
I paid my own hard earned money for the things, and dammit, they're mine to do with as I want. I can soak 'em, I can dip 'em in anything from EZest to freaking battery acid if I want. If I was mad at my money, I could beat 'em with hammers and no one could do a thing. And since I'm neither Communist nor King of the World, I'm not going to tell you you've got to act any differently. >>
Awesome post! I couldn't agree more, and have always considered the "rental/custodian" point of view as quite insane. My coins don't have a landlord, only an owner--and that owner is ME.
<< <i>Would you continue to let rust destroy a vintage automobile ?I see nothing wrong with saving a coin from damaging elements. >>
We went over this in another thread. This is what I gathered from others' posts...
Rust = original = higher priced car. Repair rust = bad because car is not original.
I did it my way !
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>Yo, Frank :
I did it my way ! >>
I'm totally burned out on that song. Living so close to New York, I've heard it sung too many times by too many drunks in too many karaoke bars, and heard too many old men say, "I did it my way, like Frank."
My favorite Sinatra song is "The Summer Wind."
Let's keep this coin-related--post a coin with a Summer Wind on it!!
<< <i>
<< <i>Would you continue to let rust destroy a vintage automobile ?I see nothing wrong with saving a coin from damaging elements. >>
We went over this in another thread. This is what I gathered from others' posts...
Rust = original = higher priced car. Repair rust = bad because car is not original. >>
I must have missed something because there is no way this is correct when it comes to true automotive rarities. An original rustbucket is nowhere near as valuable as a properly restored classic. "Properly restored" is subject to debate, of course. But the general sense is not debatable.
I think the same logic applies to cherished coins. A badly restored classic car is worth less than the original rustie. But if the coin was correctly conserved it will merit higher prices.
I lived with it for a while, but eventually decided that something had to be done. I carefully "conserved" it and am pleased with the results. The original luster remains, as does the toning. What do you think? Better, or not? (in case you're wondering, it's a Prussian Thaler of Friedrich Wilhelm III. Please forgive me for posting a darkside coin here) - Preussen
Realone, how many Morgan Toners are pedigreed and tracable?????
Here's the most famous example of Conservation (1893S Morgan/ one of 2 67's):
Upper image: PRE = PCGS67
Lower image: POST: = NGC 67
<< <i>Here's the most famous example of Conservation (1893S Morgan/ one of 2 67's):
Upper image: PRE = PCGS67
Lower image: POST: = NGC 67
That was a tragedy. The coin probably lost about $100,000 (or more) in value as well.
That being said, I think NCS does a fabulous job with coins that truly benefit from conservation (i.e. PVC damaged, fire damaged, gunked up, etc.). I just wish they would not mess with coins that are "gradeable" as is, and then reward the dip and strip job with a higer NGC grade. (although it did not work for the 93-S Morgan, heh heh!!)
<< <i>I truly love original coins. I usually hate to see them after they've been "improved," but I think that sometimes it is necessary to remove contaminants that will eventually destroy a coin. I normally try to avoid "problem" coins, but I took a chance on this one because I thought to myself - "self: that coin can't possibly look as bad as the seller's pics." It's a fairly scarce piece that was going for little money, offered on ebay by an overseas seller. Even through the crud, I could clearly see (well, sort of) that it had Unc details so I placed a bid. Fortunately, I got it cheap. Unfortunately, it looked just like the seller's pics
I lived with it for a while, but eventually decided that something had to be done. I carefully "conserved" it and am pleased with the results. The original luster remains, as does the toning. What do you think? Better, or not? (in case you're wondering, it's a Prussian Thaler of Friedrich Wilhelm III. Please forgive me for posting a darkside coin here) - Preussen
Without seeing the "before" coin in hand, I cannot tell what was wrong with it (i.e. what were the "contaminants"?). The after coin looks OK, but the before coin looks more original (which is was, in reality).
<< <i>i think a very big problem is indiscriminate use of NCS by collectors/dealers, or as you suggest, indiscriminate conservation by NCS. >>
I am in full agreement with you Al on all points and exercise the same practices!
As for the comments regarding "squeezing" every last dollar out of a coin, I think that anybody that ever attempted to sell a coin is trying to do exactly that. Either through catch phrases or photography.
However when that squeezing turns into "altering", it crosses the ethical line of what is proper and what is not. Certainly, any attempt to present a coin in its best possible condition is not necessarily a bad thing, otherwise, coin photography wouldn't be difficult at all.
And before you can slam my response, I subscribe to the philosophy that not every coin is a candidate for conservation as most coins are better left alone because not every "Ugly Duckling" is a Swan in disquise.
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Without seeing the "before" coin in hand, I cannot tell what was wrong with it (i.e. what were the "contaminants"?). The after coin looks OK, but the before coin looks more original (which is was, in reality). >>
Thanks for commenting. I'm not sure just what was on the coin; there was definitely extensive pvc residue, but I don't think that made the whole coin green. Technically speaking, it was a nasty green scum
<< <i>Preussen, "after conservation" coin is my preference. Nicely done. Green slime on coins can't be good. What technique did you use to get the gunk off? >>
Thanks. I'm pleased with it. I started with a soak in "koinsolv," then acetone, but these resulted in only a slight improvement. Just a few second dunk in white vinegar did the trick. I followed that with a thorough water rinse, then a final rinse in fresh acetone. -Preussen
<< <i>
<< <i>Without seeing the "before" coin in hand, I cannot tell what was wrong with it (i.e. what were the "contaminants"?). The after coin looks OK, but the before coin looks more original (which is was, in reality). >>
Thanks for commenting. I'm not sure just what was on the coin; there was definitely extensive pvc residue, but I don't think that made the whole coin green. Technically speaking, it was a nasty green scum
If it was PVC and gunk (i.e. tape residue), then yeah, you had to conserve it. I would have started with a longer soak in acetone (i.e. as long as a week), but probably would have had to move on to stronger stuff like you did to get rid of the gunk, but preserve as much of the toning as possible.