<< <i>No matter how you spin it, one can't help but think that a dipped coin is a little bit tainted. >>
I had to laugh... tainted means to tarnish... so there's no way a dipped coin could be tainted! >>
Taint necessarily so. That is obsolete usage anyway. Its history would be tainted IMO. If you as say a dealer would deceive someone in order to purchase a coin at a low price and resell it for more, your profit would be tainted [with no added color] and if it became general knowledge your reputation might be tarnished too.
Of course it's doctoring. The intention is to remove part of the original material from which the coins was made. That the surfaces have interacted chemically with outside agents is irrelevant. The new chemical compound is now an integral part of the coin. This acid wash is preferred over mechanically removing it.
Try out the "ethics" of these:
1) A coin has a cloudy film suspected to be PVC on it. Hairlines or other "traps" might be hidden below the surface of the schmutz. The coin is placed horizontally on a flat surface. A few drops of acetone are placed on the surface of the coin without overflowing the rim. The foreign material clears up (emulsification) and rearranges itself. Rather than finding the hairlines feared to be below the schmutz, bright lustre and pretty color are now visible.
Was the coin doctored?
Wait. There are definitely hairlines under there. But the PVC was absorbed into the end of a Qtip and, now that the hairlines are visible, a little more acetone drizzled onto the opposite end of the Qtip redeposits the PVC and other schmutz back on the coin and when the acetone has evaporated, the hairlines are visible no more.
Is this coin doctoring?
Please don't spend a lot of time on this.
Many different areas of collecting are affected by "doctoring". Restoration, conservation, whatever you call it, the argument has been going on for 500+ years.
Surely it is something more than a slight conceit that we will resolve this issue thru "science" and spirited moral discussion.
Waxing Large Cents? How dare the TPG's maintain the conceit that their standards have more relevance than those of the great mass of collectors who specialize in this area.
They dare. They will have their influence.
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Geo. Orwell
Of course it's NOT doctoring! Doctoring is when you add something to a coin, such as putty or toning. Dipping is when you remove something from a coin, such as toning; thus, it's a form of conservation.
"It's far easier to fight for principles, than to live up to them." Adlai Stevenson
I'm not a fan of dipping and I don't like it but it's accepted so it is what it is. MJ
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
<< <i>Of course it's NOT doctoring! Doctoring is when you add something to a coin, such as putty or toning. Dipping is when you remove something from a coin, such as toning; thus, it's a form of conservation. >>
So lasering a proof gold coin (which removes hairlines) isn't doctoring, because nothing was added to the coin? Your definition is in serious need of refinement.
<< <i>Of course it's NOT doctoring! Doctoring is when you add something to a coin, such as putty or toning. Dipping is when you remove something from a coin, such as toning; thus, it's a form of conservation. >>
So lasering a proof gold coin (which removes hairlines) isn't doctoring, because nothing was added to the coin? Your definition is in serious need of refinement. >>
Agree that moving metal using heat or an engraving tool is definitely coin doctoring.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
My impression is that some of the contributors to this thread are assuming that any practice that harms a coin is coin doctoring. This is not true and shows a misunderstanding of the concept of coin doctoring.
By reading the PCGS lawsuit, relevant discussions in Scott Travers’ books, and my pertinent writings (which are supported by material from John Albanese, Dr. Steven Duckor and others), it should be clear that coin doctoring is terribly deceptive and fraudulent. Coin Doctoring is a concept that is different from dipping and different from the conservation of coins found in archaeological excavations.
Lawyers for the PCGS argue that coin doctoring is a Federal crime. As I am not a lawyer, I will not comment here as to whether coin doctoring really is a crime. While generally harmful to coins, dipping is certainly not a crime. There is a tremendous difference between coin doctoring and dipping. Again, I implore coin enthusiasts to read my writings on this topic.
<< <i>Of course it's NOT doctoring! Doctoring is when you add something to a coin, such as putty or toning. Dipping is when you remove something from a coin, such as toning; thus, it's a form of conservation. >>
So lasering a proof gold coin (which removes hairlines) isn't doctoring, because nothing was added to the coin? Your definition is in serious need of refinement. >>
A lot of heat was added to the coin, and if it left the surface unchanged except for the removal of hairlines, it would probably be considered an acceptable practice.
"It's far easier to fight for principles, than to live up to them." Adlai Stevenson
<< <i>Of course it's NOT doctoring! Doctoring is when you add something to a coin, such as putty or toning. Dipping is when you remove something from a coin, such as toning; thus, it's a form of conservation. >>
So lasering a proof gold coin (which removes hairlines) isn't doctoring, because nothing was added to the coin? Your definition is in serious need of refinement. >>
A lot of heat was added to the coin, and if it left the surface unchanged except for the removal of hairlines, it would probably be considered an acceptable practice. >>
So, you think that lasering a coin and thereby removing hairlines, might be acceptable? I don't know many non-coin doctors who would agree with that. As I said previously, your definition is in serious need of refinement.
<< <i> Immersing a coin in an ACIDIC solution for the purpose of tearing a layer off the coin to brighten, remove toning and/or remove other matter (that has formed on the coin) is DIPPING. >>
The problem here, is that people don't understand the chemical basis of how thiourea-based "coin dip" works. It's not using acid to remove a layer of the metal. The mildly acidic liquid (in the lemon juice and vinegar range) is to allow the thiourea to work. Under acidic conditions thiourea destroys the bonding between silver and sulphide. That's where the rotten egg smell (hydrogen sulphide gas) comes from. So chemically it "reverses" the tarnishing process, rather than stripping off metal. This DOES cumulatively affect the luster, but the effect of the acid content is negligible.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
This supposed frame grab from a Certified Coin Exchange post is being circulated as "proof" that PCGS dips coins in bulk, and is therefore just as guilty of "doctoring" as the dealers it has caught puttying and adding metal to submitted coins. I have been a PCGS dealer since 1992, and read all the monthly snail mail letters about new PCGS products and services, I have the big binder of all the information for submitters, and have NEVER seen anything that PCGS offers bulk dipping services. I know one or two instances where PCGS, under its grading guarantee, has offered to dip silver coins that have turned brown in the slabs because a PREVIOUS dipping was not properly neutralized. (They usually turned out beautiful, and if they didn't, PCGS bought them back.) Does this seem like a genuine CCE post? My nose says it stinks like a smear job against PCGS.
Frank Provasek - PCGS Authorized Dealer, Life Member ANA, Member TNA. www.frankcoins.com
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>No matter how you spin it, one can't help but think that a dipped coin is a little bit tainted. >>
I had to laugh... tainted means to tarnish... so there's no way a dipped coin could be tainted!
Taint necessarily so. That is obsolete usage anyway. Its history would be tainted IMO. If you as say a dealer would deceive someone in order to purchase a coin at a low price and resell it for more, your profit would be tainted [with no added color] and if it became general knowledge your reputation might be tarnished too.
Try out the "ethics" of these:
1) A coin has a cloudy film suspected to be PVC on it. Hairlines or other "traps" might be hidden below the surface of the schmutz. The coin is placed horizontally on a flat surface. A few drops of acetone are placed on the surface of the coin without overflowing the rim. The foreign material clears up (emulsification) and rearranges itself. Rather than finding the hairlines feared to be below the schmutz, bright lustre and pretty color are now visible.
Was the coin doctored?
Wait. There are definitely hairlines under there. But the PVC was absorbed into the end of a Qtip and, now that the hairlines are visible, a little more acetone drizzled onto the opposite end of the Qtip redeposits the PVC and other schmutz back on the coin and when the acetone has evaporated, the hairlines are visible no more.
Is this coin doctoring?
Please don't spend a lot of time on this.
Many different areas of collecting are affected by "doctoring". Restoration, conservation, whatever you call it, the argument has been going on for 500+ years.
Surely it is something more than a slight conceit that we will resolve this issue thru "science" and spirited moral discussion.
Waxing Large Cents? How dare the TPG's maintain the conceit that their standards have more relevance than those of the great mass of collectors who specialize in this area.
They dare. They will have their influence.
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
World Collection
British Collection
German States Collection
<< <i>Of course it's NOT doctoring! Doctoring is when you add something to a coin, such as putty or toning. Dipping is when you remove something from a coin, such as toning; thus, it's a form of conservation. >>
So lasering a proof gold coin (which removes hairlines) isn't doctoring, because nothing was added to the coin? Your definition is in serious need of refinement.
<< <i>
<< <i>Of course it's NOT doctoring! Doctoring is when you add something to a coin, such as putty or toning. Dipping is when you remove something from a coin, such as toning; thus, it's a form of conservation. >>
So lasering a proof gold coin (which removes hairlines) isn't doctoring, because nothing was added to the coin? Your definition is in serious need of refinement. >>
Agree that moving metal using heat or an engraving tool is definitely coin doctoring.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
By reading the PCGS lawsuit, relevant discussions in Scott Travers’ books, and my pertinent writings (which are supported by material from John Albanese, Dr. Steven Duckor and others), it should be clear that coin doctoring is terribly deceptive and fraudulent. Coin Doctoring is a concept that is different from dipping and different from the conservation of coins found in archaeological excavations.
Lawyers for the PCGS argue that coin doctoring is a Federal crime. As I am not a lawyer, I will not comment here as to whether coin doctoring really is a crime. While generally harmful to coins, dipping is certainly not a crime. There is a tremendous difference between coin doctoring and dipping. Again, I implore coin enthusiasts to read my writings on this topic.
Defining Coin Doctoring and Dipping, Additions to the PCGS Lawsuit Against Alleged Coin Doctors – 09/08/10
Analysis of the PCGS Lawsuit Against Alleged Coin Doctors – 06/02/10
Second Amended Version of the CU-PCGS lawsuit against Alleged Coin Doctors – Filed 08/10/10
<< <i>
<< <i>Of course it's NOT doctoring! Doctoring is when you add something to a coin, such as putty or toning. Dipping is when you remove something from a coin, such as toning; thus, it's a form of conservation. >>
So lasering a proof gold coin (which removes hairlines) isn't doctoring, because nothing was added to the coin? Your definition is in serious need of refinement. >>
A lot of heat was added to the coin, and if it left the surface unchanged except for the removal of hairlines, it would probably be considered an acceptable practice.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Of course it's NOT doctoring! Doctoring is when you add something to a coin, such as putty or toning. Dipping is when you remove something from a coin, such as toning; thus, it's a form of conservation. >>
So lasering a proof gold coin (which removes hairlines) isn't doctoring, because nothing was added to the coin? Your definition is in serious need of refinement. >>
A lot of heat was added to the coin, and if it left the surface unchanged except for the removal of hairlines, it would probably be considered an acceptable practice. >>
So, you think that lasering a coin and thereby removing hairlines, might be acceptable? I don't know many non-coin doctors who would agree with that. As I said previously, your definition is in serious need of refinement.
<< <i>No matter how you spin it, one can't help but think that a dipped coin is a little bit tainted. >>
The most egregious of sins, no. A sin never the less, yes. I agree with BAJJERFAN
<< <i> Immersing a coin in an ACIDIC solution for the purpose of tearing a layer off the coin to brighten, remove toning and/or remove other matter (that has formed on the coin) is DIPPING. >>
The problem here, is that people don't understand the chemical basis of how thiourea-based "coin dip" works. It's not using acid to remove a layer of the metal. The mildly acidic liquid (in the lemon juice and vinegar range) is to allow the thiourea to work. Under acidic conditions thiourea destroys the bonding between silver and sulphide. That's where the rotten egg smell (hydrogen sulphide gas) comes from. So chemically it "reverses" the tarnishing process, rather than stripping off metal. This DOES cumulatively affect the luster, but the effect of the acid content is negligible.
<< <i>NO! >>
Ditto.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
dips coins in bulk, and is therefore just as guilty of "doctoring" as the dealers it has caught puttying and adding
metal to submitted coins. I have been a PCGS dealer since 1992, and read all the monthly snail mail letters about new
PCGS products and services, I have the big binder of all the information for submitters, and have NEVER seen anything
that PCGS offers bulk dipping services. I know one or two instances where PCGS, under its grading
guarantee, has offered to dip silver coins that have turned brown in the slabs because a PREVIOUS dipping was
not properly neutralized. (They usually turned out beautiful, and if they didn't, PCGS bought them back.) Does this seem
like a genuine CCE post? My nose says it stinks like a smear job against
PCGS.