I'd be glad to do that if I could figure out exactly what I'd like them to do. (Squealing "Make them stop! Make them stop!" is not my style.)
I suggest that you pledge not to do business with known coin docs.
On the buy side, I already avoid doctored coins. On the sell side, I see no purpose in refusing to sell coins to the doctors, because anything that I sell to a non-doctor can be re-sold to a doctor.
I suggest that you run for the Board of PNG on an anti doctoring platform. I suggest that you request those you do biz with do the same.
If I thought I had a good plan for battling the doctors, I'd do it. Unfortunately, I have no such plan. (Again, I welcome your suggestions!)
I suggest that the PNG adopt a suspension policy for those implicated with submitting doctored material.
Who will decide if the coins are doctored? What would be the process by which the coins would be presented to "the decider(s)" for evaluation? Do you expect "the decider(s)" to do a better job than the TPGs?
I suggest they adopt a very strong anti doctoring platform.
Again, I'd like to hear your suggestions for the details of such a platform.
I suggest that they request known coin docs to leave the group.
Some coin doctors are worse than others, and I don't believe that they all deserve the boot. And I'm not sure where the line should be drawn between those that should be asked to leave and those that would be welcome to remain.
I suggest that neither of you continue as is.
Once again, I'd welcome specific suggestions.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I suggest that you pledge not to do business with known coin docs.
I don't have a problem supporting this statement with actions, but for those of us that are not "in the know", please enlighten us. How are we supposed to know who to avoid?
I have seen Legend do nothing but bark about the issue and tell everyone else what they should do. I have read some rumors that they have actually done something more than barked, but I have seen nothing. Please, someone show me what they have done.
If they know if a doctor, why don't they post the name of their company and their name on the Legend website. What are they scared of? Getting sued? They can word their claim carefully. Plus they got the funds and the truth to defend themselves, in addition to popular support.
There is no "AT" or "NT". We only have "market acceptable" or "not market acceptable.
If every dealer had your attitude, there would not be one single coin left unmolested.
You are certainly appearing to be part of the problem.
ecichlid-and what have you done about coin docs other then bust Legends chops? Legend has done as much about the fight against coin docs as David Hall, John Albanese and Mark Salzberg. Laura went in front of the PNG, she reported on their lame postion. Do you see any other dealers talking about it? Other then sitting behind a keyboard, what have you done?
<< <i>ecichlid-and what have you done about coin docs other then bust Legends chops? Legend has done as much about the fight against coin docs as David Hall, John Albanese and Mark Salzberg. Laura went in front of the PNG, she reported on their lame postion. Do you see any other dealers talking about it? Other then sitting behind a keyboard, what have you done? >>
I'm just a collector. I'm not a large and prestigious dealer that posts these hot topics periodically. I have done nothing and I think I have accomplished about the same as Legend has.
There is no "AT" or "NT". We only have "market acceptable" or "not market acceptable.
<< <i> I suggest that the PNG adopt a suspension policy for those implicated with submitting doctored material.
Who will decide if the coins are doctored? What would be the process by which the coins would be presented to "the decider(s)" for evaluation? Do you expect "the decider(s)" to do a better job than the TPGs? >>
I like this last point. AFAIK, the PCGS sniffer is currently the most advanced technology available to detect "doctoring" as it relates to applied substances. Does anyone here dispute this?
<< <i>ecichlid-and what have you done about coin docs other then bust Legends chops? Legend has done as much about the fight against coin docs as David Hall, John Albanese and Mark Salzberg. Laura went in front of the PNG, she reported on their lame postion. Do you see any other dealers talking about it? Other then sitting behind a keyboard, what have you done? >>
I'm just a collector. I'm not a large and prestigious dealer that posts these hot topics periodically. I have done nothing and I think I have accomplished about the same as Legend has. >>
<< <i>Some coin doctors are worse than others, and I don't believe that they all deserve the boot. And I'm not sure where the line should be drawn between those that should be asked to leave and those that would be welcome to remain. >>
What are some characteristics or activities of the doctors that are worse and those that are not as bad in your opinion?
Why is this silly Bruce? I think you and Laura have the best of intentions, I really do. And intent is important. But when the rantings do nothing but get your customers to come out and spout out about how other dealers are doing nothing, then I think that is just silly. It's insulting to the other dealers who hate the doctors just as much.
Out 'em!
There is no "AT" or "NT". We only have "market acceptable" or "not market acceptable.
I did read Rick's reply. He wrote the PNG didn't have anything to do because they couldn't police B&M shops and eBay sellers who are not PNG members. These are not the dealers we're talking about here.
I was there when Laura met w/ DH and urged him to do something about rampant doctoring. The result - secure plus. I was there when laura egged JA on to form CAC. The result is rising prices for original coins and lower prices for dreck and messed with coins thus lowering demand for the doctors' ware. I was there when she urged PNG to actually do something rather than sit on their collective arses.
Laura is doing far more than her fair share in this matter.
Brice, businesses take action for profit, plain and simple. You are asking for an organization to do something whose intentions have no profit. Apples and oranges comparison.
Zoins, Rick stated:"Why the silence? Who is silent? Does every dealer need to rant like Laura? She's doing enough for everyone. We all do our part, but in a positive way. The use of fear-mongering to stop coin doctoring will back-fire and destroy collector confidence instead. Promote CAC, since that is a positive way to combat doctoring and overgrading abuses. Playing a MaCarthyist game of outing those who are silent as secretly condoning coin doctoring is misguided and wrong. "
See, you need to read repetitively. It's a comprehension issue for you.
There is no "AT" or "NT". We only have "market acceptable" or "not market acceptable.
I see you're ignoring my response to Rick on that post where I mentioned talking about doctoring helps improve collector confidence in knowing which dealers to work with. By cultivating a pro-collector reputation, dealers can improve business and profits.
<< <i>short of having everyone buy all of their coins from Legend, what can we do to make things better? >>
We can have more dealers take a stand and speak up against doctoring like Legend
The silence is deafening.... >>
And her complaining is boring me. I remember a famous movie quote that goes something like this..
"Are you going to bark all day, little doggy, or are you going to bite?"
Out a dealer, what is he afraid of. She has the truth. lots of money and popular support on her side. >>
Actually, I believe she has outed a dealer, two even
I'm assuming she stopped only after receiving some legal guidance. So I'd say she walked the talk on that one. >>
Ok, who did she out? >>
I don't remember the names. It was on these forums several years ago when she still posted here. Threads have a way of disappearing here. >>
I have been here a while and i think i would remember if she outed 2 dealers for doctoring, that would not be hard to recall. I could have missed a thread or 2 but the only one to my knowlege that has been cought doctoring coins was a member here and he is still a member here, and post regularly. While he is not a big time dealer he did not suffer for his actions.
Pcgs sniffed coins with a bean is about the best you can do. You have a lot of certified coins that have questionable tonning and no way to remove them from the market. When you have a doctored 20k coin it is not going to be tossed in the trash can, who is suppose to eat the 20k to get rid of the coin? The dealer, the collector or the company that graded it?
Mark NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!! working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
<< <i>Brice, businesses take action for profit, plain and simple. You are asking for an organization to do something whose intentions have no profit. Apples and oranges comparison.
Zoins, Rick stated:"Why the silence? Who is silent? Does every dealer need to rant like Laura? She's doing enough for everyone. We all do our part, but in a positive way. The use of fear-mongering to stop coin doctoring will back-fire and destroy collector confidence instead. Promote CAC, since that is a positive way to combat doctoring and overgrading abuses. Playing a MaCarthyist game of outing those who are silent as secretly condoning coin doctoring is misguided and wrong. "
See, you need to read repetitively. It's a comprehension issue for you. >>
Sorry that you aren't impressed. Next to others' justifications for doing NOTHING, her track record is impressive. And there's no need to be rude here.
<< <i>I have been here a while and i think i would remember if she outed 2 dealers for doctoring, that would not be hard to recall. >>
That's why it stuck in my mind. Dave mentioned the following which may be the same event I was thinking of:
<< <i>Laura outted at last two real coin docs over a year ago. I heard one of them (not because of her) but because of all the other pressure actually retired. >>
The open defense of doctoring and doctors in this thread is disturbing and worrisome.
I didn't see any one defending coin doctoring or coin doctors in this thread.
I believe you just proved that my McCarthyism analogy is right on target. By going after a nebulous group whom anyone can point a finger at anyone at anytime and scream, like Donald Sutherland in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", you create an atmosphere of fear and distrust. McCarthy used the red scare to boost his career. Of course no one wanted to condone Communism, lest they be accused as being one themselves, he was able to continue attacking people at will. You were labeled un-American if you didn't assist in targeting commies.
No one condones coin doctoring, but equating a rejection of the tactics used to some kind of acceptance of the act is way off base. That, my friend, is disturbing and worrisome.
The best way to combat coin doctoring is to label the undoctored coins, give a guarantee on those coins, and let the rest drift like sediment to the bottom feeders.
<< <i>The open defense of doctoring and doctors in this thread is disturbing and worrisome. >>
I didn't see any one defending coin doctoring or coin doctors in this thread. >>
<< No one condones coin doctoring >>
For clarification, I was referring to the following statements which, to me, appear to condone doctoring to some degree. I've asked Andy if he could provide some examples of doctoring that he feels are more, and less, acceptable to him, but he hasn't replied as of yet. I think a more in-depth discussion on what people feel is acceptable can move this issue forward.
<< I do not think that every case of "submitting doctored coins to the TPG's" is "unethical and fraudulent >>
<< Some coin doctors are worse than others, and I don't believe that they all deserve the boot. And I'm not sure where the line should be drawn between those that should be asked to leave and those that would be welcome to remain. >>
Also, I do not agree with your claim of McCarthyism. I realize this is an issue that may worry you, but do not let it cloud your judgment and resort to using the term incorrectly for sensationalism. I do not think there's anything wrong for recommending collectors to "find trusted dealers that they know are looking out for collector interests." Note, I specifically did not write ones that are openly and vocally campaigning against doctoring. There are many factors to establishing trust. Each collector can and should choose for themselves which factors to use in determining a trusted dealer. If you don't agree, do you think it would be better for collectors to find dealers (or any advisor) that did not have their best interests at heart? I am also not the person that wrote the following, but it bears some thought:
<< <i>You have a lot of certified coins that have questionable tonning and no way to remove them from the market. When you have a doctored 20k coin it is not going to be tossed in the trash can, who is suppose to eat the 20k to get rid of the coin? The dealer, the collector or the company that graded it? >>
Please do not sensationalize and create fear about a serious subject. It is an important topic that deserves objective attention.
<< Some coin doctors are worse than others, and I don't believe that they all deserve the boot. And I'm not sure where the line should be drawn between those that should be asked to leave and those that would be welcome to remain. >>
What are some characteristics or activities of the doctors that are worse and those that are not as bad in your opinion?
There is a huge variety in doctoring techniques, ranging from a nearly harmless dip to a thorough re-engraving of design details.
There are those that remove spots with chemicals, those that remove them manually, and those that remove them with lasers. Are any of those techniques unethical? Are they all unethical?
Is it more ethical to do a job that can be detected by any competent numismatist, or to do a job that cannot be detected by anyone? And if it cannot be detected by anyone, how could it be a bad thing?
What if a coin has been dipped? Is it more ethical to leave the coin dipped or to let it retone in a paper envelope? What if the envelope is left on a windowsill? What if it is left in the oven? What if chemicals are used to speed to toning? Are the use of some chemicals worse than others? Is it always unethical to tone a coin?
Is doctoring acceptable if the coins are sold with full disclosure? If so, what if they are knowingly sold to someone that might one day resell them without the same degree of disclosure?
I could go on for hours, but hopefully you get the point.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I don't want to rehash here the arguments on what is or what is not coin doctoring. PNG had a definition that was workable and that covered most of it. Andy offered the following definition that was an improvement but perhaps still needs work --
From a Mr. Eureka post--
That said, there's plenty wrong with the definition. Here's my revision, which I provided to PNG at their request. If you take the time to carefully compare it to the original PNG text, you'll see the problems.
"coin doctoring is the action of a person to deceptively alter a coin's surface or appearance, usually to diminish or conceal defects, for the purpose of increasing the price at which it can be sold. Among the practices defined as doctoring are effacing hairlines by polishing or otherwise manipulating the surfaces of a coin, applying substances or artificially accelerated toning to the surface of a coin to hide marks and defects, adding chemicals or otherwise manipulating the surfaces to create cameo frost on the devices of a proof coin, altering a business strike coin to make it resemble a proof coin, and re-engraving a coin to make it appear to be either a higher grade and/or more fully struck. This definition is not intended to be all-inclusive but only illustrative of forms of coin doctoring."
I'm not sure it matters that the "perfect" description of coin doctoring is difficult to define. IN other words, the fact that it is difficult to define is not a reason to avoid it. Surely, PNG and other learned organizations can come up with a definition that captures the most egregious cases and then they can use their considerable good judgment to determine how to handle other cases.
2. Require members to affirm that they will not knowingly deal with doctored coins without fully disclosing the nature of the doctoring to any prospective buyer.
3. Provide enforcement mechanisms, including expulsion, for those that don't comply with the rules. Frankly, these mechanisms already exist; however, additional thought should be given to them.
4. Start enforcing violations.
The ANA should do the same thing. Other organizations also should act similarly.
This would be a good start at "self policing," it would add a level of integrity to the organizations that participated, and it would begin to restore some needed trust in the numismatic marketplace. On the other hand, it would place substantial burdens on dealers (and presumably collectors) who were members of such organization and who were subject to such rules. It would also present an interesting dilemma for those coins that have been doctored and meet the definition, but that are already in the marketplace and perhaps are currently considered market acceptable. I have heard it said that much of the high-end proof gold in slabs has been messed with and that there are many "doctored" coins in slabs. What happens when one of those pieces comes to market? I don't know, but the alternatives are clear, IMO. We either face the problem, or we avoid it. Currently the industry either is avoiding it or indicating that it is not that big a problem.
<< <i>The open defense of doctoring and doctors in this thread is disturbing and worrisome.
I didn't see any one defending coin doctoring or coin doctors in this thread.
I believe you just proved that my McCarthyism analogy is right on target. By going after a nebulous group whom anyone can point a finger at anyone at anytime and scream, like Donald Sutherland in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", you create an atmosphere of fear and distrust. McCarthy used the red scare to boost his career. Of course no one wanted to condone Communism, lest they be accused as being one themselves, he was able to continue attacking people at will. You were labeled un-American if you didn't assist in targeting commies.
No one condones coin doctoring, but equating a rejection of the tactics used to some kind of acceptance of the act is way off base. That, my friend, is disturbing and worrisome.
The best way to combat coin doctoring is to label the undoctored coins, give a guarantee on those coins, and let the rest drift like sediment to the bottom feeders. >>
Eagle Eye--I stand corrected. You are correct and I am wrong when I say that the industry is doing nothing. Portions of the industry are doing a good job at just what you are describing....labeling the undoctored coins and providing a guarantee..Eagle Eye...CAC...Secure Plus. And that is one good way to address the problem.
Of your suggestions, this was the only suggested rule to be imposed on PNG members:
Require members to affirm that they will not knowingly deal with doctored coins without fully disclosing the nature of the doctoring to any prospective buyer.
A few thoughts on that.
First, there are many PNG members that lack the skills required to consistently judge whether or not a coin has been doctored. And given that fact, I would be reluctant to tell the public that they can count on PNG dealers to protect them from doctored coins.
Second, if the rule were to be imposed, I would only require the disclosure on transactions where the buyer is relying on the dealer's guidance.
Third, if the rule were imposed on PNG-member auction firms, all hell would break loose.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>Some coin doctors are worse than others, and I don't believe that they all deserve the boot. And I'm not sure where the line should be drawn between those that should be asked to leave and those that would be welcome to remain. >>
What are some characteristics or activities of the doctors that are worse and those that are not as bad in your opinion? >>
There is a huge variety in doctoring techniques, ranging from a nearly harmless dip to a thorough re-engraving of design details.
There are those that remove spots with chemicals, those that remove them manually, and those that remove them with lasers. Are any of those techniques unethical? Are they all unethical?
Is it more ethical to do a job that can be detected by any competent numismatist, or to do a job that cannot be detected by anyone? And if it cannot be detected by anyone, how could it be a bad thing?
What if a coin has been dipped? Is it more ethical to leave the coin dipped or to let it retone in a paper envelope? What if the envelope is left on a windowsill? What if it is left in the oven? What if chemicals are used to speed to toning? Are the use of some chemicals worse than others? Is it always unethical to tone a coin?
Is doctoring acceptable if the coins are sold with full disclosure? If so, what if they are knowingly sold to someone that might one day resell them without the same degree of disclosure?
I could go on for hours, but hopefully you get the point. >>
Thanks for your thoughts Andy. I'm thinking of compiling these into a list that people can reference, if only to educate themselves. With such a list, collectors can learn more what to look for and be able to hold more detailed discussions on their hobby.
Of your suggestions, this was the only suggested rule to be imposed on PNG members:
<< <i>Require members to affirm that they will not knowingly deal with doctored coins without fully disclosing the nature of the doctoring to any prospective buyer. >>
A few thoughts on that.
First, there are many PNG members that lack the skills required to consistently judge whether or not a coin has been doctored. And given that fact, I would be reluctant to tell the public that they can count on PNG dealers to protect them from doctored coins. >>
Since we are talking about professional coin dealers and numismatists, do you think dealers, as professionals, should be able to or should learn how to identify doctored coins? Is there a knowledge requirement to be a professional numismatist associated with the PNG?
<< <i>Second, if the rule were to be imposed, I would only require the disclosure on transactions where the buyer is relying on the dealer's guidance. >>
How would you determine if a customer is relying on the dealer's guidance? Would you include any time a prospective customer asks the dealer if a coin has been doctored and the dealer has some affirmative knowledge. Regardless of who the customer is, if he or she asks, do you think PNG guidelines should require answering the customer's question to the best of his or her ability, responding with a no comment, or would it be okay to say s/he has no knowledge of any doctoring, even though this may not be entirely correct?
<< <i>Third, if the rule were imposed on PNG-member auction firms, all hell would break loose. >>
Of your suggestions, this was the only suggested rule to be imposed on PNG members:
Require members to affirm that they will not knowingly deal with doctored coins without fully disclosing the nature of the doctoring to any prospective buyer.
A few thoughts on that.
First, there are many PNG members that lack the skills required to consistently judge whether or not a coin has been doctored. And given that fact, I would be reluctant to tell the public that they can count on PNG dealers to protect them from doctored coins.
Second, if the rule were to be imposed, I would only require the disclosure on transactions where the buyer is relying on the dealer's guidance.
Third, if the rule were imposed on PNG-member auction firms, all hell would break loose. >>
Andy--Zcoins asks some good questions and makes some good comments. I'll give it a shot also.
First, there is an intent component to the proposed rule, "i.e., knowingly," so ignorance or lack of skill means you are off the hook. However, I would add a requirement that would require a dealer who dealt with a doctored coin to offer a buy-back if a coin he sold was found to be doctored. Member-dealers would then have a choice...don't be a member, or get competent. That is why I suggested that the enforcement mechanisms should be reviewed. In that way, there is less focus on intent and more on protecting the consumer.
Second, I see no need for such a narrow definition. If you are a professional member-dealer and you are selling a coin, why not require disclosure? When is a non-dealer buyer or a consumer not relying upon a dealer? Even in a dealer to dealer situation, the rule should exist. Otherwise, it would water down the rule so much that it would be worthless. I guess I would need to understand a scenario where the rule I proposed would create a hardship or an inequity upon the seller in order to fully evaluate your comment. And even if a hardship did exist, the real question is who is in the best situation, as between two disappointed parties, to bear that hardship.
Third, I agree that all hell might break loose as auction firms would then be compelled to explain and identify accurately the "junk" that they are now selling. I don't have a good answer to that one. I would, however, like to see an auction firm step up to the task. I would give them my business. But I admit that I may be showing my own naivete here since I really don't know how many doctored coins are out there. If it is a big number and if it is some big coins in TPG holders, well then, that presents a problem and that may be the reason nothing is being done.
However, I would add a requirement that would require a dealer who dealt with a doctored coin to offer a buy-back if a coin he sold was found to be doctored.
If the coin is doctored to the extent that it does not belong in the slab, the TPG is going to take responsibility. The only time that a dealer might have a problem is with more subtle or trivial cases of doctoring, where the TPG may think the coin was properly graded. And if the TPG thinks the coin is OK in the holder, who at PNG will be making the judgment that it is not?
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>However, I would add a requirement that would require a dealer who dealt with a doctored coin to offer a buy-back if a coin he sold was found to be doctored. >>
If the coin is doctored to the extent that it does not belong in the slab, the TPG is going to take responsibility. The only time that a dealer might have a problem is with more subtle or trivial cases of doctoring, where the TPG may think the coin was properly graded. And if the TPG thinks the coin is OK in the holder, who at PNG will be making the judgment that it is not? >>
While the TPG will take responsibility for some coins, it would still be ideal for the PNG dealer to take responsibility if the TPG chose not to or the customer simply would prefer to deal with the party they purchased the coin from. After all, the customer is buying from the dealer and dealer's only responsibility here is to take the coin back if the doctoring was undisclosed. As for who at the PNG can make a determination, doesn't the PNG consist of "professional numismatists?"
<< <i>However, I would add a requirement that would require a dealer who dealt with a doctored coin to offer a buy-back if a coin he sold was found to be doctored. >>
If the coin is doctored to the extent that it does not belong in the slab, the TPG is going to take responsibility. The only time that a dealer might have a problem is with more subtle or trivial cases of doctoring, where the TPG may think the coin was properly graded. And if the TPG thinks the coin is OK in the holder, who at PNG will be making the judgment that it is not? >>
While the TPG will take responsibility for some coins, it would still be ideal for the PNG dealer to take responsibility if the TPG chose not to or the customer simply would prefer to deal with the party they purchased the coin from. After all, the customer is buying from the dealer and dealer's only responsibility here is to take the coin back if the doctoring was undisclosed. As for who at the PNG can make a determination, doesn't the PNG consist of "professional numismatists?" >>
If someone buys a slabbed coin that is later deemed [by someone] to have been "doctored", and the dealer won't take it back, the TPG will protect the buyer (or not, depending on their judgment of the situation). If the buyer is unhappy with the dealer in this situation, then said buyer is free to not shop there anymore. To suggest that the dealer is unethical, should be barred from a professional organization, or should be thrown in jail is just stupid, IMO. Who is going to prove that the dealer was even aware of the "problem"? Who is even the final arbiter that the coin has a "problem"?
<< <i>There are some dealers that stand behind their coins. Perhaps those are the ones that have collector interests as a priority? >>
No one is arguing that some dealers don't deliver better customer service than others. The argument centers on whether there should be a smear campaign on excellent and reputable dealers simply because they belong to an organization whose policies you (or anyone else) does not agree with (rightly or wrongly).
For those suggesting there are no ethical issues, perhaps the issue could be amicably resolved if the PNG removed items #1 and #7 from the PNG Code of Ethics:
<< 1. To furnish sound advice to my non-professional customers on numismatic matters to the best of my ability.
7. To refrain from knowingly dealing in counterfeit, altered or repaired numismatic items without fully disclosing their status to my customer. >>
While the TPG will take responsibility for some coins, it would still be ideal for the PNG dealer to take responsibility if the TPG chose not to or the customer simply would prefer to deal with the party they purchased the coin from. After all, the customer is buying from the dealer and dealer's only responsibility here is to take the coin back if the doctoring was undisclosed. As for who at the PNG can make a determination, doesn't the PNG consist of "professional numismatists?"
I believe that the first appeal needs to be made to the TPG.
That said, yes, there are some members of the PNG that could be relied upon to judge the TPGs. (If asked, I would be glad to serve on such a panel.) Which leads me to the following thought.
In the past, this forum has discussed the situation regarding what it takes to be named an "Official Grading Service" of the PNG. What if those deals required that if anyone is dissatisfied with a TPG's "Guarantee Resubmission" decision, he would have the right to appeal to the PNG? And, again according to the terms of the deal, the TPG would be obligated to "buy back" the coin if it is determined that the coin doesn't belong in the holder.
Naturally, the TPG could withdraw from the program if it ever felt that the PNG was not doing a good job for all concerned. This, I expect, would force the PNG to favor the TPG in any close cases.
If such a deal could be struck, the next step would be to address the liability of the PNG member in cases where there is a problem with the coin after the TPG has gone out of business. (Currently, there is not even a consensus on if a dealer would be liable for a counterfeit coin in such a situation, and the PNG has yet to state an opinion on this matter.)
Edited to add one more thought:
It might make sense for this sort of relationship between the PNG and a TPG to include a bit more reciprocity. Towards that end, I'd offer the following to the TPG. If the TPG revokes a dealer's Authorized Dealer status on the grounds that that dealer has been submitting doctored coins, the PNG will automatically suspend that dealer pending further investigation. And if it is determined that the dealer has misbehaved, he would then be expelled from the PNG.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
Discussing the relationship between the TPGs and the PNG may be premature if the PNG is not yet living up to its own standards.
One difference between the top TPGs and the PNG is that the top TPGs have stated, written policies for net grading certain problem coins. So while they seek to keep many doctored coins out of their holders, they do not claim to keep all of them out. Additionally, they act responsibility and do take coins back when it is shown they made a mistake.
I have not seen similar exceptions for the PNG Code of Ethics regarding disclosure of coins of this nature. It appears the PNG Code of Ethics requires member dealers to disclose alterations in all cases. From a dealer perspective, the dealer has agreed to the PNG Code of Ethics when they joined and should behave as committed. If there are exceptions, perhaps these should be officially stated somewhere.
<< <i>I hope these threads continue to get posted! Its a real riot to watch TDN squirm A real riot!
PS I am suppose to believe Laura is the reason we have Secure Plus at our disposal >>
Newbies without a clue really shouldn't throw the first stone. >>
Newbie? You obviously have no clue!
PS Am I not allowed to laugh at something I think is funny? I mean c'mon man.......You think PCGS spent Millions of dollars on the sniffer because Laura told them to?
<< <i>I hope these threads continue to get posted! Its a real riot to watch TDN squirm A real riot!
PS I am suppose to believe Laura is the reason we have Secure Plus at our disposal >>
Newbies without a clue really shouldn't throw the first stone. >>
Newbie? You obviously have no clue!
PS Am I not allowed to laugh at something I think is funny? I mean c'mon man.......You think PCGS spent Millions of dollars on the sniffer because Laura told them to? >>
I think that PCGS spent millions of dollars on the sniffer because David Hall wanted to do so ... and Laura was there urging him to do something about the doctoring. Do I think that JA started CAC because Laura wanted him to do so? Same thing - he wanted to, but Laura was there urging him to do so. Just because someone has free will, doesn't mean their advisor didn't have any responsibility towards the creation of something.
If all dealers spoke like Andy - where apparently it's easier to say what can't be done just like in a big corporation - then might nothing ever get done?
<< <i>I hope these threads continue to get posted! Its a real riot to watch TDN squirm A real riot!
PS I am suppose to believe Laura is the reason we have Secure Plus at our disposal >>
Newbies without a clue really shouldn't throw the first stone. >>
Newbie? You obviously have no clue!
PS Am I not allowed to laugh at something I think is funny? I mean c'mon man.......You think PCGS spent Millions of dollars on the sniffer because Laura told them to? >>
I think that PCGS spent millions of dollars on the sniffer because David Hall wanted to do so ... and Laura was there urging him to do something about the doctoring. Do I think that JA started CAC because Laura wanted him to do so? Same thing - he wanted to, but Laura was there urging him to do so. Just because someone has free will, doesn't mean their advisor didn't have any responsibility towards the creation of something.
If all dealers spoke like Andy - where apparently it's easier to say what can't be done just like in a big corporation - then might nothing ever get done? >>
So her urging wasn't the result of secure plus than was it? Thats like me finding out McDonalds is going to add bacon on the Big Mac and than writing them a letter urging them to do it. All I know is if I was JA and somebody was trying to steal my thunder I would be so angry!
If all dealers spoke like Andy - where apparently it's easier to say what can't be done just like in a big corporation - then might nothing ever get done?
TDN - You didn't read my last post, did you?
Anyway, I'll continue to consider what can be done and what can't be done, and I'll call it like I see it.
Andy Lustig
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
You seem to think that decisions are made in a vacuum and there is no shared responsibility in formulating those decisions. I suppose that's your right, but it's rather shortsighted in my opinion.
I view it this way - Laura had their ear and repeatedly pressed them to do something along the lines of what they actually did. If she had been urging them to blow up a Federal Building and then they actually did just that, don't you think a court would consider her urging as part of their decision? I think we all know the answer....
<< <i>If all dealers spoke like Andy - where apparently it's easier to say what can't be done just like in a big corporation - then might nothing ever get done?
TDN - You didn't read my last post, did you?
Anyway, I'll continue to consider what can be done and what can't be done, and I'll call it like I see it. >>
I did! I think the shock hasn't worn off yet enough so that I can register it.
Coin grading is comparative and subjective and not everyone will agree on what grade a coin should receive. On a level farther removed from this subjective nature on coin collecting is coin doctoring. "Fixing" coins has been around since coin collecting began. It varies from cleaning some dirt off a coin to expertly toning million dollar coins. Detection of doctoring is even more subjective than grading a coin. I believe this is where the problem comes in...who is to say a coin has been doctored? It's TOO subjective to point blame sucessfully, except for perhaps the repeat offenders that build a track record. The only way I can see to combat this problem is by using methods similar to what PCGS has implemented. Sniffer and photographs. Eveything other than hard evidence (like laser mapping and photographs for comparison) is just opinion. The only way to come close to PROVING coin doctoring is to compare a coin to itself...before and after. The problem with this approach is that EVERY coin is not likely to pass through a sniffer process before it's doctored...but it sure helps with the high value ones.
Comments
I'd be glad to do that if I could figure out exactly what I'd like them to do. (Squealing "Make them stop! Make them stop!" is not my style.)
I suggest that you pledge not to do business with known coin docs.
On the buy side, I already avoid doctored coins. On the sell side, I see no purpose in refusing to sell coins to the doctors, because anything that I sell to a non-doctor can be re-sold to a doctor.
I suggest that you run for the Board of PNG on an anti doctoring platform. I suggest that you request those you do biz with do the same.
If I thought I had a good plan for battling the doctors, I'd do it. Unfortunately, I have no such plan. (Again, I welcome your suggestions!)
I suggest that the PNG adopt a suspension policy for those implicated with submitting doctored material.
Who will decide if the coins are doctored? What would be the process by which the coins would be presented to "the decider(s)" for evaluation? Do you expect "the decider(s)" to do a better job than the TPGs?
I suggest they adopt a very strong anti doctoring platform.
Again, I'd like to hear your suggestions for the details of such a platform.
I suggest that they request known coin docs to leave the group.
Some coin doctors are worse than others, and I don't believe that they all deserve the boot. And I'm not sure where the line should be drawn between those that should be asked to leave and those that would be welcome to remain.
I suggest that neither of you continue as is.
Once again, I'd welcome specific suggestions.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I don't have a problem supporting this statement with actions, but for those of us that are not "in the know", please enlighten us. How are we supposed to know who to avoid?
If they know if a doctor, why don't they post the name of their company and their name on the Legend website. What are they scared of? Getting sued? They can word their claim carefully. Plus they got the funds and the truth to defend themselves, in addition to popular support.
If every dealer had your attitude, there would not be one single coin left unmolested.
You are certainly appearing to be part of the problem.
ecichlid-and what have you done about coin docs other then bust Legends chops? Legend has done as much about the fight against coin docs as David Hall, John Albanese and Mark Salzberg. Laura went in front of the PNG, she reported on their lame postion. Do you see any other dealers talking about it? Other then sitting behind a keyboard, what have you done?
Andy, you have to be kidding.
If every dealer had your attitude, there would not be one single coin left unmolested.
You are certainly appearing to be part of the problem.
Dave - I'm not kidding at all. Read it again. You might learn something.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>ecichlid-and what have you done about coin docs other then bust Legends chops? Legend has done as much about the fight against coin docs as David Hall, John Albanese and Mark Salzberg. Laura went in front of the PNG, she reported on their lame postion. Do you see any other dealers talking about it? Other then sitting behind a keyboard, what have you done? >>
I'm just a collector. I'm not a large and prestigious dealer that posts these hot topics periodically. I have done nothing and I think I have accomplished about the same as Legend has.
<< <i> I suggest that the PNG adopt a suspension policy for those implicated with submitting doctored material.
Who will decide if the coins are doctored? What would be the process by which the coins would be presented to "the decider(s)" for evaluation? Do you expect "the decider(s)" to do a better job than the TPGs? >>
I like this last point. AFAIK, the PCGS sniffer is currently the most advanced technology available to detect "doctoring"
as it relates to applied substances. Does anyone here dispute this?
<< <i>
<< <i>ecichlid-and what have you done about coin docs other then bust Legends chops? Legend has done as much about the fight against coin docs as David Hall, John Albanese and Mark Salzberg. Laura went in front of the PNG, she reported on their lame postion. Do you see any other dealers talking about it? Other then sitting behind a keyboard, what have you done? >>
I'm just a collector. I'm not a large and prestigious dealer that posts these hot topics periodically. I have done nothing and I think I have accomplished about the same as Legend has. >>
This is just silly
<< <i>Some coin doctors are worse than others, and I don't believe that they all deserve the boot. And I'm not sure where the line should be drawn between those that should be asked to leave and those that would be welcome to remain. >>
What are some characteristics or activities of the doctors that are worse and those that are not as bad in your opinion?
Out 'em!
<< <i>It's insulting to the other dealers who hate the doctors just as much. >>
Which dealers might those be?
<< <i>Which dealers might those be?
Why don't you read Rick's reply a couple hundred of times? It may sink in.
Wait, no it won't.
Laura is doing far more than her fair share in this matter.
Zoins, Rick stated: "Why the silence? Who is silent? Does every dealer need to rant like Laura? She's doing enough for everyone. We all do our part, but in a positive way. The use of fear-mongering to stop coin doctoring will back-fire and destroy collector confidence instead. Promote CAC, since that is a positive way to combat doctoring and overgrading abuses. Playing a MaCarthyist game of outing those who are silent as secretly condoning coin doctoring is misguided and wrong. "
See, you need to read repetitively. It's a comprehension issue for you.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>short of having everyone buy all of their coins from Legend, what can we do to make things better? >>
We can have more dealers take a stand and speak up against doctoring like Legend
The silence is deafening.... >>
And her complaining is boring me. I remember a famous movie quote that goes something like this..
"Are you going to bark all day, little doggy, or are you going to bite?"
Out a dealer, what is he afraid of. She has the truth. lots of money and popular support on her side. >>
Actually, I believe she has outed a dealer, two even
I'm assuming she stopped only after receiving some legal guidance. So I'd say she walked the talk on that one. >>
Ok, who did she out? >>
I don't remember the names. It was on these forums several years ago when she still posted here. Threads have a way of disappearing here. >>
I have been here a while and i think i would remember if she outed 2 dealers for doctoring, that would not be hard to recall. I could have missed a thread or 2 but the only one to my knowlege that has been cought doctoring coins was a member here and he is still a member here, and post regularly. While he is not a big time dealer he did not suffer for his actions.
Pcgs sniffed coins with a bean is about the best you can do. You have a lot of certified coins that have questionable tonning and no way to remove them from the market. When you have a doctored 20k coin it is not going to be tossed in the trash can, who is suppose to eat the 20k to get rid of the coin? The dealer, the collector or the company that graded it?
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
<< <i>Brice, businesses take action for profit, plain and simple. You are asking for an organization to do something whose intentions have no profit. Apples and oranges comparison.
Zoins, Rick stated: "Why the silence? Who is silent? Does every dealer need to rant like Laura? She's doing enough for everyone. We all do our part, but in a positive way. The use of fear-mongering to stop coin doctoring will back-fire and destroy collector confidence instead. Promote CAC, since that is a positive way to combat doctoring and overgrading abuses. Playing a MaCarthyist game of outing those who are silent as secretly condoning coin doctoring is misguided and wrong. "
See, you need to read repetitively. It's a comprehension issue for you. >>
Sorry that you aren't impressed. Next to others' justifications for doing NOTHING, her track record is impressive. And there's no need to be rude here.
<< <i>I have been here a while and i think i would remember if she outed 2 dealers for doctoring, that would not be hard to recall. >>
That's why it stuck in my mind. Dave mentioned the following which may be the same event I was thinking of:
<< <i>Laura outted at last two real coin docs over a year ago. I heard one of them (not because of her) but because of all the other pressure actually retired. >>
Ecichlid- makes some valid points IMO. Everything done so far was done for profit ( sniffer & CAC) to which Legend is able to increase the profits.
I can tell what is wrong with a lot of stuff but can not do more than just preach the word.
NGC registry V-Nickel proof #6!!!!
working on proof shield nickels # 8 with a bullet!!!!
RIP "BEAR"
The open defense of doctoring and doctors in this thread is disturbing and worrisome.
Known doctored coins becoming market acceptable is also worrisome.
Collectors would be well-advised to find trusted dealers that they know are looking out for collector interests.
I didn't see any one defending coin doctoring or coin doctors in this thread.
I believe you just proved that my McCarthyism analogy is right on target. By going after a nebulous group whom anyone can point a finger at anyone at anytime and scream, like Donald Sutherland in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", you create an atmosphere of fear and distrust. McCarthy used the red scare to boost his career. Of course no one wanted to condone Communism, lest they be accused as being one themselves, he was able to continue attacking people at will. You were labeled un-American if you didn't assist in targeting commies.
No one condones coin doctoring, but equating a rejection of the tactics used to some kind of acceptance of the act is way off base. That, my friend, is disturbing and worrisome.
The best way to combat coin doctoring is to label the undoctored coins, give a guarantee on those coins, and let the rest drift like sediment to the bottom feeders.
<< <i>
<< <i>The open defense of doctoring and doctors in this thread is disturbing and worrisome. >>
I didn't see any one defending coin doctoring or coin doctors in this thread. >>
<< No one condones coin doctoring >>
For clarification, I was referring to the following statements which, to me, appear to condone doctoring to some degree. I've asked Andy if he could provide some examples of doctoring that he feels are more, and less, acceptable to him, but he hasn't replied as of yet. I think a more in-depth discussion on what people feel is acceptable can move this issue forward.
<< I do not think that every case of "submitting doctored coins to the TPG's" is "unethical and fraudulent >>
<< Some coin doctors are worse than others, and I don't believe that they all deserve the boot. And I'm not sure where the line should be drawn between those that should be asked to leave and those that would be welcome to remain. >>
Also, I do not agree with your claim of McCarthyism. I realize this is an issue that may worry you, but do not let it cloud your judgment and resort to using the term incorrectly for sensationalism. I do not think there's anything wrong for recommending collectors to "find trusted dealers that they know are looking out for collector interests." Note, I specifically did not write ones that are openly and vocally campaigning against doctoring. There are many factors to establishing trust. Each collector can and should choose for themselves which factors to use in determining a trusted dealer. If you don't agree, do you think it would be better for collectors to find dealers (or any advisor) that did not have their best interests at heart? I am also not the person that wrote the following, but it bears some thought:
<< <i>You have a lot of certified coins that have questionable tonning and no way to remove them from the market. When you have a doctored 20k coin it is not going to be tossed in the trash can, who is suppose to eat the 20k to get rid of the coin? The dealer, the collector or the company that graded it? >>
Please do not sensationalize and create fear about a serious subject. It is an important topic that deserves objective attention.
What are some characteristics or activities of the doctors that are worse and those that are not as bad in your opinion?
There is a huge variety in doctoring techniques, ranging from a nearly harmless dip to a thorough re-engraving of design details.
There are those that remove spots with chemicals, those that remove them manually, and those that remove them with lasers. Are any of those techniques unethical? Are they all unethical?
Is it more ethical to do a job that can be detected by any competent numismatist, or to do a job that cannot be detected by anyone? And if it cannot be detected by anyone, how could it be a bad thing?
What if a coin has been dipped? Is it more ethical to leave the coin dipped or to let it retone in a paper envelope? What if the envelope is left on a windowsill? What if it is left in the oven? What if chemicals are used to speed to toning? Are the use of some chemicals worse than others? Is it always unethical to tone a coin?
Is doctoring acceptable if the coins are sold with full disclosure? If so, what if they are knowingly sold to someone that might one day resell them without the same degree of disclosure?
I could go on for hours, but hopefully you get the point.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
1. Define coin doctoring.
I don't want to rehash here the arguments on what is or what is not coin doctoring. PNG had a definition that was workable and that covered most of it. Andy offered the following definition that was an improvement but perhaps still needs work --
From a Mr. Eureka post--
That said, there's plenty wrong with the definition. Here's my revision, which I provided to PNG at their request. If you take the time to carefully compare it to the original PNG text, you'll see the problems.
"coin doctoring is the action of a person to deceptively alter a coin's surface or appearance, usually to diminish or conceal defects, for the purpose of increasing the price at which it can be sold. Among the practices defined as doctoring are effacing hairlines by polishing or otherwise manipulating the surfaces of a coin, applying substances or artificially accelerated toning to the surface of a coin to hide marks and defects, adding chemicals or otherwise manipulating the surfaces to create cameo frost on the devices of a proof coin, altering a business strike coin to make it resemble a proof coin, and re-engraving a coin to make it appear to be either a higher grade and/or more fully struck. This definition is not intended to be all-inclusive but only illustrative of forms of coin doctoring."
I'm not sure it matters that the "perfect" description of coin doctoring is difficult to define. IN other words, the fact that it is difficult to define is not a reason to avoid it. Surely, PNG and other learned organizations can come up with a definition that captures the most egregious cases and then they can use their considerable good judgment to determine how to handle other cases.
2. Require members to affirm that they will not knowingly deal with doctored coins without fully disclosing the nature of the doctoring to any prospective buyer.
3. Provide enforcement mechanisms, including expulsion, for those that don't comply with the rules. Frankly, these mechanisms already exist; however, additional thought should be given to them.
4. Start enforcing violations.
The ANA should do the same thing. Other organizations also should act similarly.
This would be a good start at "self policing," it would add a level of integrity to the organizations that participated, and it would begin to restore some needed trust in the numismatic marketplace. On the other hand, it would place substantial burdens on dealers (and presumably collectors) who were members of such organization and who were subject to such rules. It would also present an interesting dilemma for those coins that have been doctored and meet the definition, but that are already in the marketplace and perhaps are currently considered market acceptable. I have heard it said that much of the high-end proof gold in slabs has been messed with and that there are many "doctored" coins in slabs. What happens when one of those pieces comes to market? I don't know, but the alternatives are clear, IMO. We either face the problem, or we avoid it. Currently the industry either is avoiding it or indicating that it is not that big a problem.
Tom
<< <i>The open defense of doctoring and doctors in this thread is disturbing and worrisome.
I didn't see any one defending coin doctoring or coin doctors in this thread.
I believe you just proved that my McCarthyism analogy is right on target. By going after a nebulous group whom anyone can point a finger at anyone at anytime and scream, like Donald Sutherland in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers", you create an atmosphere of fear and distrust. McCarthy used the red scare to boost his career. Of course no one wanted to condone Communism, lest they be accused as being one themselves, he was able to continue attacking people at will. You were labeled un-American if you didn't assist in targeting commies.
No one condones coin doctoring, but equating a rejection of the tactics used to some kind of acceptance of the act is way off base. That, my friend, is disturbing and worrisome.
The best way to combat coin doctoring is to label the undoctored coins, give a guarantee on those coins, and let the rest drift like sediment to the bottom feeders. >>
Eagle Eye--I stand corrected. You are correct and I am wrong when I say that the industry is doing nothing. Portions of the industry are doing a good job at just what you are describing....labeling the undoctored coins and providing a guarantee..Eagle Eye...CAC...Secure Plus. And that is one good way to address the problem.
Tom
Of your suggestions, this was the only suggested rule to be imposed on PNG members:
Require members to affirm that they will not knowingly deal with doctored coins without fully disclosing the nature of the doctoring to any prospective buyer.
A few thoughts on that.
First, there are many PNG members that lack the skills required to consistently judge whether or not a coin has been doctored. And given that fact, I would be reluctant to tell the public that they can count on PNG dealers to protect them from doctored coins.
Second, if the rule were to be imposed, I would only require the disclosure on transactions where the buyer is relying on the dealer's guidance.
Third, if the rule were imposed on PNG-member auction firms, all hell would break loose.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Some coin doctors are worse than others, and I don't believe that they all deserve the boot. And I'm not sure where the line should be drawn between those that should be asked to leave and those that would be welcome to remain. >>
What are some characteristics or activities of the doctors that are worse and those that are not as bad in your opinion? >>
There is a huge variety in doctoring techniques, ranging from a nearly harmless dip to a thorough re-engraving of design details.
There are those that remove spots with chemicals, those that remove them manually, and those that remove them with lasers. Are any of those techniques unethical? Are they all unethical?
Is it more ethical to do a job that can be detected by any competent numismatist, or to do a job that cannot be detected by anyone? And if it cannot be detected by anyone, how could it be a bad thing?
What if a coin has been dipped? Is it more ethical to leave the coin dipped or to let it retone in a paper envelope? What if the envelope is left on a windowsill? What if it is left in the oven? What if chemicals are used to speed to toning? Are the use of some chemicals worse than others? Is it always unethical to tone a coin?
Is doctoring acceptable if the coins are sold with full disclosure? If so, what if they are knowingly sold to someone that might one day resell them without the same degree of disclosure?
I could go on for hours, but hopefully you get the point. >>
Thanks for your thoughts Andy. I'm thinking of compiling these into a list that people can reference, if only to educate themselves. With such a list, collectors can learn more what to look for and be able to hold more detailed discussions on their hobby.
<< <i>TPRC -
Of your suggestions, this was the only suggested rule to be imposed on PNG members:
<< <i>Require members to affirm that they will not knowingly deal with doctored coins without fully disclosing the nature of the doctoring to any prospective buyer. >>
A few thoughts on that.
First, there are many PNG members that lack the skills required to consistently judge whether or not a coin has been doctored. And given that fact, I would be reluctant to tell the public that they can count on PNG dealers to protect them from doctored coins. >>
Since we are talking about professional coin dealers and numismatists, do you think dealers, as professionals, should be able to or should learn how to identify doctored coins? Is there a knowledge requirement to be a professional numismatist associated with the PNG?
<< <i>Second, if the rule were to be imposed, I would only require the disclosure on transactions where the buyer is relying on the dealer's guidance. >>
How would you determine if a customer is relying on the dealer's guidance? Would you include any time a prospective customer asks the dealer if a coin has been doctored and the dealer has some affirmative knowledge. Regardless of who the customer is, if he or she asks, do you think PNG guidelines should require answering the customer's question to the best of his or her ability, responding with a no comment, or would it be okay to say s/he has no knowledge of any doctoring, even though this may not be entirely correct?
<< <i>Third, if the rule were imposed on PNG-member auction firms, all hell would break loose. >>
Why do you think this would be the result?
<< <i>TPRC -
Of your suggestions, this was the only suggested rule to be imposed on PNG members:
Require members to affirm that they will not knowingly deal with doctored coins without fully disclosing the nature of the doctoring to any prospective buyer.
A few thoughts on that.
First, there are many PNG members that lack the skills required to consistently judge whether or not a coin has been doctored. And given that fact, I would be reluctant to tell the public that they can count on PNG dealers to protect them from doctored coins.
Second, if the rule were to be imposed, I would only require the disclosure on transactions where the buyer is relying on the dealer's guidance.
Third, if the rule were imposed on PNG-member auction firms, all hell would break loose. >>
Andy--Zcoins asks some good questions and makes some good comments. I'll give it a shot also.
First, there is an intent component to the proposed rule, "i.e., knowingly," so ignorance or lack of skill means you are off the hook. However, I would add a requirement that would require a dealer who dealt with a doctored coin to offer a buy-back if a coin he sold was found to be doctored. Member-dealers would then have a choice...don't be a member, or get competent. That is why I suggested that the enforcement mechanisms should be reviewed. In that way, there is less focus on intent and more on protecting the consumer.
Second, I see no need for such a narrow definition. If you are a professional member-dealer and you are selling a coin, why not require disclosure? When is a non-dealer buyer or a consumer not relying upon a dealer? Even in a dealer to dealer situation, the rule should exist. Otherwise, it would water down the rule so much that it would be worthless. I guess I would need to understand a scenario where the rule I proposed would create a hardship or an inequity upon the seller in order to fully evaluate your comment. And even if a hardship did exist, the real question is who is in the best situation, as between two disappointed parties, to bear that hardship.
Third, I agree that all hell might break loose as auction firms would then be compelled to explain and identify accurately the "junk" that they are now selling. I don't have a good answer to that one. I would, however, like to see an auction firm step up to the task. I would give them my business. But I admit that I may be showing my own naivete here since I really don't know how many doctored coins are out there. If it is a big number and if it is some big coins in TPG holders, well then, that presents a problem and that may be the reason nothing is being done.
Tom
If the coin is doctored to the extent that it does not belong in the slab, the TPG is going to take responsibility. The only time that a dealer might have a problem is with more subtle or trivial cases of doctoring, where the TPG may think the coin was properly graded. And if the TPG thinks the coin is OK in the holder, who at PNG will be making the judgment that it is not?
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
<< <i>
<< <i>However, I would add a requirement that would require a dealer who dealt with a doctored coin to offer a buy-back if a coin he sold was found to be doctored. >>
If the coin is doctored to the extent that it does not belong in the slab, the TPG is going to take responsibility. The only time that a dealer might have a problem is with more subtle or trivial cases of doctoring, where the TPG may think the coin was properly graded. And if the TPG thinks the coin is OK in the holder, who at PNG will be making the judgment that it is not? >>
While the TPG will take responsibility for some coins, it would still be ideal for the PNG dealer to take responsibility if the TPG chose not to or the customer simply would prefer to deal with the party they purchased the coin from. After all, the customer is buying from the dealer and dealer's only responsibility here is to take the coin back if the doctoring was undisclosed. As for who at the PNG can make a determination, doesn't the PNG consist of "professional numismatists?"
PS I am suppose to believe Laura is the reason we have Secure Plus at our disposal
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>However, I would add a requirement that would require a dealer who dealt with a doctored coin to offer a buy-back if a coin he sold was found to be doctored. >>
If the coin is doctored to the extent that it does not belong in the slab, the TPG is going to take responsibility. The only time that a dealer might have a problem is with more subtle or trivial cases of doctoring, where the TPG may think the coin was properly graded. And if the TPG thinks the coin is OK in the holder, who at PNG will be making the judgment that it is not? >>
While the TPG will take responsibility for some coins, it would still be ideal for the PNG dealer to take responsibility if the TPG chose not to or the customer simply would prefer to deal with the party they purchased the coin from. After all, the customer is buying from the dealer and dealer's only responsibility here is to take the coin back if the doctoring was undisclosed. As for who at the PNG can make a determination, doesn't the PNG consist of "professional numismatists?" >>
If someone buys a slabbed coin that is later deemed [by someone] to have been "doctored", and
the dealer won't take it back, the TPG will protect the buyer (or not, depending on their judgment
of the situation). If the buyer is unhappy with the dealer in this situation, then said buyer is free
to not shop there anymore. To suggest that the dealer is unethical, should be barred from a
professional organization, or should be thrown in jail is just stupid, IMO. Who is going to
prove that the dealer was even aware of the "problem"? Who is even the final arbiter that the
coin has a "problem"?
<< <i>I hope these threads continue to get posted! Its a real riot to watch TDN squirm
PS I am suppose to believe Laura is the reason we have Secure Plus at our disposal
Maybe HRH can weigh in on this... ?
On a related note, I presume that Legend sends all of their coins in to PCGS to be sniffed before offering
them for sale, right?
<< <i>There are some dealers that stand behind their coins. Perhaps those are the ones that have collector interests as a priority? >>
No one is arguing that some dealers don't deliver better customer service than others. The argument
centers on whether there should be a smear campaign on excellent and reputable dealers simply
because they belong to an organization whose policies you (or anyone else) does not agree with (rightly
or wrongly).
<<
1. To furnish sound advice to my non-professional customers on numismatic matters to the best of my ability.
7. To refrain from knowingly dealing in counterfeit, altered or repaired numismatic items without fully disclosing their status to my customer.
>>
I believe that the first appeal needs to be made to the TPG.
That said, yes, there are some members of the PNG that could be relied upon to judge the TPGs. (If asked, I would be glad to serve on such a panel.) Which leads me to the following thought.
In the past, this forum has discussed the situation regarding what it takes to be named an "Official Grading Service" of the PNG. What if those deals required that if anyone is dissatisfied with a TPG's "Guarantee Resubmission" decision, he would have the right to appeal to the PNG? And, again according to the terms of the deal, the TPG would be obligated to "buy back" the coin if it is determined that the coin doesn't belong in the holder.
Naturally, the TPG could withdraw from the program if it ever felt that the PNG was not doing a good job for all concerned. This, I expect, would force the PNG to favor the TPG in any close cases.
If such a deal could be struck, the next step would be to address the liability of the PNG member in cases where there is a problem with the coin after the TPG has gone out of business. (Currently, there is not even a consensus on if a dealer would be liable for a counterfeit coin in such a situation, and the PNG has yet to state an opinion on this matter.)
Edited to add one more thought:
It might make sense for this sort of relationship between the PNG and a TPG to include a bit more reciprocity. Towards that end, I'd offer the following to the TPG. If the TPG revokes a dealer's Authorized Dealer status on the grounds that that dealer has been submitting doctored coins, the PNG will automatically suspend that dealer pending further investigation. And if it is determined that the dealer has misbehaved, he would then be expelled from the PNG.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
One difference between the top TPGs and the PNG is that the top TPGs have stated, written policies for net grading certain problem coins. So while they seek to keep many doctored coins out of their holders, they do not claim to keep all of them out. Additionally, they act responsibility and do take coins back when it is shown they made a mistake.
I have not seen similar exceptions for the PNG Code of Ethics regarding disclosure of coins of this nature. It appears the PNG Code of Ethics requires member dealers to disclose alterations in all cases. From a dealer perspective, the dealer has agreed to the PNG Code of Ethics when they joined and should behave as committed. If there are exceptions, perhaps these should be officially stated somewhere.
<< <i>I hope these threads continue to get posted! Its a real riot to watch TDN squirm
PS I am suppose to believe Laura is the reason we have Secure Plus at our disposal
Newbies without a clue really shouldn't throw the first stone.
<< <i>
<< <i>I hope these threads continue to get posted! Its a real riot to watch TDN squirm
PS I am suppose to believe Laura is the reason we have Secure Plus at our disposal
Newbies without a clue really shouldn't throw the first stone. >>
Newbie? You obviously have no clue!
PS Am I not allowed to laugh at something I think is funny? I mean c'mon man.......You think PCGS spent Millions of dollars on the sniffer because Laura told them to?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I hope these threads continue to get posted! Its a real riot to watch TDN squirm
PS I am suppose to believe Laura is the reason we have Secure Plus at our disposal
Newbies without a clue really shouldn't throw the first stone. >>
Newbie? You obviously have no clue!
PS Am I not allowed to laugh at something I think is funny? I mean c'mon man.......You think PCGS spent Millions of dollars on the sniffer because Laura told them to? >>
I think that PCGS spent millions of dollars on the sniffer because David Hall wanted to do so ... and Laura was there urging him to do something about the doctoring. Do I think that JA started CAC because Laura wanted him to do so? Same thing - he wanted to, but Laura was there urging him to do so. Just because someone has free will, doesn't mean their advisor didn't have any responsibility towards the creation of something.
If all dealers spoke like Andy - where apparently it's easier to say what can't be done just like in a big corporation - then might nothing ever get done?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I hope these threads continue to get posted! Its a real riot to watch TDN squirm
PS I am suppose to believe Laura is the reason we have Secure Plus at our disposal
Newbies without a clue really shouldn't throw the first stone. >>
Newbie? You obviously have no clue!
PS Am I not allowed to laugh at something I think is funny? I mean c'mon man.......You think PCGS spent Millions of dollars on the sniffer because Laura told them to? >>
I think that PCGS spent millions of dollars on the sniffer because David Hall wanted to do so ... and Laura was there urging him to do something about the doctoring. Do I think that JA started CAC because Laura wanted him to do so? Same thing - he wanted to, but Laura was there urging him to do so. Just because someone has free will, doesn't mean their advisor didn't have any responsibility towards the creation of something.
If all dealers spoke like Andy - where apparently it's easier to say what can't be done just like in a big corporation - then might nothing ever get done? >>
So her urging wasn't the result of secure plus than was it? Thats like me finding out McDonalds is going to add bacon on the Big Mac and than writing them a letter urging them to do it. All I know is if I was JA and somebody was trying to steal my thunder I would be so angry!
TDN - You didn't read my last post, did you?
Anyway, I'll continue to consider what can be done and what can't be done, and I'll call it like I see it.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I view it this way - Laura had their ear and repeatedly pressed them to do something along the lines of what they actually did. If she had been urging them to blow up a Federal Building and then they actually did just that, don't you think a court would consider her urging as part of their decision? I think we all know the answer....
<< <i>If all dealers spoke like Andy - where apparently it's easier to say what can't be done just like in a big corporation - then might nothing ever get done?
TDN - You didn't read my last post, did you?
Anyway, I'll continue to consider what can be done and what can't be done, and I'll call it like I see it. >>
I did! I think the shock hasn't worn off yet enough so that I can register it.