Options
Q. David Bowers giving a 'thumbs up' to 'coin doctoring' so long as it is expertly done?
greghansen
Posts: 4,301 ✭✭✭
Reading this article I get the impression that the author was not universally opposed to coin fixing. Seems to suggest that so long as it is done by experts it may benefit coins in the long run. Interesting position to say the least.
Coin World article by Q. David Bowers
Coin World article by Q. David Bowers
Greg Hansen, Melbourne, FL Click here for any current EBAY auctions Multiple "Circle of Trust" transactions over 14 years on forum
0
Comments
my early American coins & currency: -- http://yankeedoodlecoins.com/
The overwhelming majority of these coins you see in TPGs have been altered. Ie., the toning isn't quite right and the coin is net graded (I've seen a number of coins which would grade MS-58 net graded to MS 50 or 53 because of this). The coin has been bleached. The coin was cleaned, but it doesn't look hideous. Then you get into the nether region, ie., I've seen quite a few of these coins which have been dipped so many times that they are more dead than General Franco. Revier, in his book about Bust $s, says as much, though not as graphically as I have above.
Now you go to later coinage, and what Bowers says is true. You won't find many Seated $ which have the above problems in a first world slab.
My main beef with coin doctoring is that it should be disclosed. The TPGs will do this with plugged coins. I'm fine with a details grade with a brief description of that was done to a particular coin. Ie., the PC or NGC slab that says 'cleaned' MS 60 details. To allow coin doctoring to be ignored and the coin at issue to be slabbed imo cheapens the hobby.
Let's take a worse case scenario. Someone buys a slabbed coin which has been expertly artificially toned (some of these guys do good work) and is put in an MS 65 holder without further comment. He pays $30,000 for the coin for his registry set. When you put chemicals on a coin, rarely does the process remain static, and ten years later, the coin develops spots, and would no longer qualify for the MS 65 designation. Technically, the TPG would have to buy the coin back and eat it.
Why would a TPG knowingly expose itself to this sort of liability? That's why I can't see what Bowers is saying ever being accepted in the industry. If I owned a grading service, I would take pains to disclose what was done to the coin if I was going to slab it at all. Then I'd have a detailed record and photo of every coin I graded so I could identify it in the future to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
<< <i>What is 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' when it comes to coin doctoring is most conspicuous when looking at Draped Bust and earlier coinage. The series with which I am most familiar are Heraldic Eagle Bust $s. I have personally viewed well over 100 of these coins in various grades of AU, and seen images of hundreds more.
The overwhelming majority of these coins you see in TPGs have been altered. Ie., the toning isn't quite right and the coin is net graded (I've seen a number of coins which would grade MS-58 net graded to MS 50 or 53 because of this). The coin has been bleached. The coin was cleaned, but it doesn't look hideous. Then you get into the nether region, ie., I've seen quite a few of these coins which have been dipped so many times that they are more dead than General Franco. Revier, in his book about Bust $s, says as much, though not as graphically as I have above.
Now you go to later coinage, and what Bowers says is true. You won't find many Seated $ which have the above problems in a first world slab.
My main beef with coin doctoring is that it should be disclosed. The TPGs will do this with plugged coins. I'm fine with a details grade with a brief description of that was done to a particular coin. Ie., the PC or NGC slab that says 'cleaned' MS 60 details. To allow coin doctoring to be ignored and the coin at issue to be slabbed imo cheapens the hobby. >>
Well said, sir, and as an avid copper collector, I would suggest early copper is no different from early silver -- and perhaps worse.
You must first define coin doctoring and proceed from there.
Is it dipping once in a hundred years? Five times? Ten times?
The only people who don't agree with this basic concept of coin doctoring are those who don't want to do anything about it.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
<< <i>Well I am fine with a lower grade on a deeply and darkly toned coin with muted luster. I rather have a ms64 or 63 with those qualities than a ms65 that has been messed with and was once looking like I just described. I enjoy the eye appeal of crust and gunk and boogers and tarnish over blast bright shiny dainty pretty white silver....what can I say I am sick. >>
I was with you, up until you got to the part about boogers- i hold the line with boogers on coins!
the intent was made known in the first paragraph when he wrote:
"I am writing this on behalf of the owners of coins that have been cleaned, improperly retoned or are otherwise impaired ..."
I am a coin. I am not an animal!
It reads like he is trying to make them less market abhorrent.
but he writes:
"However, I know that an “improperly cleaned” reject is one that is brilliant but shows many hairlines in the field, from use of an abrasive during the cleaning process."
"Then there is “improper” toning, such as blotchy iridescent hues that might make a neon sign envious."
He clearly knows that "damage" can be done via coin "alteration."
I think he is at a point where the many threads on this forum are:
Nothing is set in stone on AT nor cleaning.
Hey, what's market acceptible but just another grading opinion?
(PS: where have we just gotten? nowhere.)
numismatist Bruce Lorich. My mail bid was approx $1300. Imagine my surprise when the coin only bid to $850 and I figured I'd won it. The coin was delivered to a floor bidder before
I called on it a few days after the sale to check my winning bids. I found out I had no winning bids. Somehow my bids never got entered for that sale. The coin was already sold by that
dealer and long gone. QDB sent me a personal letter which I still have apologizing for this rare oversight. Ok....it was time to move on to the next auction.
A number of barber and seated coins caught my eye in the next sale and based on catalog descriptions I bid on about half a dozen coins. Imagine my elation when I won every one of
them! And imagine my dejection when they arrived in the mail and every one of them was overgraded vs. the flowery descriptions. I wrote Bowers and Ruddy in writing that
I planned to return the entire batch and wanted their approval. How was I to know the grading was going to be this far off? I recall a certain 1908-0 Barber dime that was choice BU
except for a large planchet flaw running down her cheek. The other choice BU coins had obvious problems like scratches, rubbing, etc. B&R decided to accept the coins back based on
their oversight from the prior sale. But in no uncertain terms they "suggested" I not bid in their sales unless myself or an agent viewed the coins first. I couldn't have agreed more.
Lesson learned. I didn't bid in another of their sales until 12 yrs later when I was finally able to view their coins.
roadrunner
The name is LEE!
<< <i>Then there is “artificial toning,” whatever that means. >>
Here's some assistance.
If there's really nothing wrong with doctoring, then why don't coin doctors advertise their services in the open? Many people have been asking for disclosure; however, there seems to be some reluctance from doctors to simply say what they do. To help collectors, there could be a doctor registry with before and after photos that enables people to compare and recognize their work.
Since he's also a dealer though, his opinion the acceptability of coin doctoring would seem, to me at least, biased.
This would be a lot more coins back into a place where there is a level of acceptability. Not everyone can afford a Bust Dollar in Fine, but a net graded coin instead of a Genuine (kind of like the mark of adultery in the 1800s) could both increase market acceptability of coins long ago cleaned and also provide a venue for downgrading the coin doctor specials in the higher end coins. Yes, they will be cracked and resubmitted trying to get away from the coin doctor grade, but is that not in the favor of the TPG as well, yielding more revenue?
I say away with the Genuine grade and PLEASE net grade PCGS and NGC.
I don't see any flagrant bias in QDB's comments.
His conclusion: "Bring to the fore the matter of experts improving the appearance of coins...Perhaps the ANA or PNG should have a forum, with the certification services participating, on how these coins can be expertly reviewed and many of them revitalized using professional conservation methods."
The cause: Some imaginary line being drawn on what an acceptable cleaned or altered coin is, such as many, many examples of hairlined proof coins in TPG holders, questionable disclosure of conserved coins, such as the coins of the Farouk collection, and elusive definitions of artificial toning.
Perhaps all this needs to be discussed in public and consistent definitions agreed to.
This 1799 silver dollar would be a prize and many collections, and I really like this coin. But it is my opinion that it was washed with soap and water at one time. After that was done, I’m not sure how it looked, but it was probably something that most purists would reject. Now it is this color.
This 1874 with arrows half dollar was dipped some time ago. The 1873-4 with arrows coins are not among my favorites. This coin suited me and cost me well under $2.000
Sorry I wanted to go on with this, but Photobucket is giving my trouble
<< <i>I don't see any flagrant bias in QDB's comments.
His conclusion: "Bring to the fore the matter of experts improving the appearance of coins...Perhaps the ANA or PNG should have a forum, with the certification services participating, on how these coins can be expertly reviewed and many of them revitalized using professional conservation methods."
The cause: Some imaginary line being drawn on what an acceptable cleaned or altered coin is, such as many, many examples of hairlined proof coins in TPG holders, questionable disclosure of conserved coins, such as the coins of the Farouk collection, and elusive definitions of artificial toning.
Perhaps all this needs to be discussed in public and consistent definitions agreed to. >>
forgot to comment on the conclusion:
problematic since what is market acceptable is just a grading opinion and is hard to set in stone.
ex: at what point is a coin overdipped? and for rare coins wouldn't market acceptable potentially be different than a more common coin?
again: where have we gotten? nowhere.
An 1874 with arrows half dollar, dipped now retoned. I liked the looks of this piece that PCGS graded MS-63. It covered the type for less than $2,000
And a 1796 dollar, lightly cleaned with a few hairlines but lots of "meat."
We all know that there are collectors out there who will buy nothing but "perfect" original coins. Most of the time that means "attractive" or "beutiful" original coins. But what do you do with ugly original coins? Is dipping them an instant sign that they can't be sold for any sort of decent price? Are they worthless? Come on! Get off the high horse. If you don't like coins that have anything done to them, you don't have to buy them. But for the rest of us who like older and rarer pieces, less than perfect is often the best we can or might want to do.
<< <i>Another chapter in the 'never ending story' that is belabored here on a daily basis. Obviously there will never be agreement on what is or is not 'doctoring' and what is or is not 'acceptable'. Judge the coin yourself, and buy or do not buy based on whether or not you like it. After ten + years of reading this stuff, it is becoming tiresome seeing the same, trite inputs, over and over again. Cheers, RickO >>
A+
Rick...Plese explain how my OP does a disservice to QDB's opinions. I posted a link to the originl article. Other than that, my only prefacatory comments were:
1. The author is not universally opposed to coin fixing...
2. So long so long as the 'fixer' is an expert in what he/she's doing; and
3. The fixing may benefit the coin in the long run.
Which of those observations about the article do you feel does a disservice to what he wrote.
Frankly, I posted it because I found it interesting that an authority as high as QDB was willing to 'step up' and say something about a process many collectors would consider 'doctoring' and that he did not categorically call it a bad thing. Hence, I concluded I found his position interesting.
I am sensitive to being called unfair in my postings so I would sincerely like to know either publicly or via PM what it is about my OP that caused you to feel I did a disservice to QDB's opinions.
Greg Hansen, Melbourne, FL Click here for any current EBAY auctions Multiple "Circle of Trust" transactions over 14 years on forum
<< <i>Bill I am not certain of your point, but I don't believe I am riding high on my horse, I just want the truth to be told about coins. If a coin has been messed with it should be noted on the holder and not ignored, it should be a consistent thing and not a wink for some and a nod for others. If a coin is thought to be original that should be noted ont he holder too. The best coins, ones that are original should be the most valuable and if collectors demand that condition then it will be reflected in its price. But this nonsense about grading where certain series or types get frr rides and others don't is foolish. I personally would like to see coins in a holder that details exactly their REALcondion across the board. Then the cream can rise to the top and all cards are shown. >>
That sentiment is nice for Ivory towers, but if the third party graders marked everything on the holder that they KNEW or THOUGHT they knew had been done to a coin, it would be bear to sell anything. I’ve been on both sides of the table dealer and collector. It is tough enough making a living as a dealer without a lot negatives on the holders about coins that are perfectly acceptable.
One of the things that make some SEGS coins so hard to sell, in addition to some grading issues, is at times they are brutally honest about a coin. When there is a litany of “problems” listed on the holder, you may as well crack the coin out and sell it raw because it wouldn’t sell otherwise.
Many, many coins that from the early 20th century and older have had something done to them at one time or another. With early copper the metal from the pieces are made is so reactive that the vast majority of pieces have had to be “preserved” in one way or another. Knowledgeable collectors know, accept and make compensations for that.
Are there procedures that go too far? Sure. When you polish a coin, strip its surfaces entirely, re-engrave details or create false luster by whizzing a piece, it’s gone too far, and that must be noted. When you dip a coin or create hairlines on a Proof by removing tarnish, that should be reflected in a lower grade. But if you put, “CLEANED” in bold letters across the top of the holder, you make the piece will be almost impossible to sell.
Here is a case in point. This large cent is from the Dan Holms collection. It's tied for 5th finest known for the S-21 variety. The EAC grade is AU-50 net to EF-45 probably for a spot that's been lifted from the reverse. (As noted by a small amount of roughness in the area of “E” in “ONE” and some more below that.) I knew that when I bought it, but I can't afford $100K or more the "perfect" one. Do you think that noting the existence of that spot on the holder would make the coin easier to sell? Not hardly. The coin is very acceptable for a high grade early large cent.
<< <i>I posted a link to the originl article. Other than that, my only prefacatory comments were:
1. The author is not universally opposed to coin fixing...
2. So long so long as the 'fixer' is an expert in what he/she's doing; and
3. The fixing may benefit the coin in the long run. >>
It would be nice to add another item which has been requested often and also seems to fall under the PNG Code of Ethics rules #1 and #7:
4. So long as the fixing is disclosed.
I think #2 is problematic because the fixer is likely to only become an expert after failing a few times.
<< <i>
<< <i>Bill I am not certain of your point, but I don't believe I am riding high on my horse, I just want the truth to be told about coins. If a coin has been messed with it should be noted on the holder and not ignored, it should be a consistent thing and not a wink for some and a nod for others. If a coin is thought to be original that should be noted ont he holder too. The best coins, ones that are original should be the most valuable and if collectors demand that condition then it will be reflected in its price. But this nonsense about grading where certain series or types get frr rides and others don't is foolish. I personally would like to see coins in a holder that details exactly their REALcondion across the board. Then the cream can rise to the top and all cards are shown. >>
That sentiment is nice for Ivory towers, but if the third party graders marked everything on the holder that they KNEW or THOUGHT they knew had been done to a coin, it would be bear to sell anything. I’ve been on both sides of the table dealer and collector. It is tough enough making a living as a dealer without a lot negatives on the holders about coins that are perfectly acceptable.
One of the things that make some SEGS coins so hard to sell, in addition to some grading issues, is at times they are brutally honest about a coin. When there is a litany of “problems” listed on the holder, you may as well crack the coin out and sell it raw because it wouldn’t sell otherwise.
Many, many coins that from the early 20th century and older have had something done to them at one time or another. With early copper the metal from the pieces are made is so reactive that the vast majority of pieces have had to be “preserved” in one way or another. Knowledgeable collectors know, accept and make compensations for that.
Are there procedures that go too far? Sure. When you polish a coin, strip its surfaces entirely, re-engrave details or create false luster by whizzing a piece, it’s gone too far, and that must be noted. When you dip a coin or create hairlines on a Proof by removing tarnish, that should be reflected in a lower grade. But if you put, “CLEANED” in bold letters across the top of the holder, you make the piece will be almost impossible to sell.
Here is a case in point. This large cent is from the Dan Holms collection. It's tied for 5th finest known for the S-21 variety. The EAC grade is AU-50 net to EF-45 probably for a spot that's been lifted from the reverse. (As noted by a small amount of roughness in the area of “E” in “ONE” and some more below that.) I knew that when I bought it, but I can't afford $100K or more the "perfect" one. Do you think that noting the existence of that spot on the holder would make the coin easier to sell? Not hardly. The coin is very acceptable for a high grade early large cent. >>
It seems like the issue may be:
(a) dealers may want to sell more coins with problems
(b) collectors may want to buy fewer coins with problems
- TPG identifying problems would support these collectors
- TPG masking of problems would support these dealers
This is not absolute as there are some dealers that are against undisclosed doctored coins in TPG holders.
If you were a TPG (not dealer or collector), what is better for your business?
Do you think CAC putting stickers ONLY coins that have never been touched in any way? The answer to that is a short one, "no way." There are coins with CAC stickers that have had minor things done to them. This Gobrecht dollar in PR-62 has a CAC green bean. It's also got a dull spot on the right field that MIGHT BE the result of the removal of a spot. The coin is very nice for a PR-62. It just misses being a Choice Proof. Hence the PR-62 grade.
<< <i>It seems like the issue may be:
(a) dealers may want to sell more coins with problems
(b) collectors may want to buy fewer coins with problems
- TPG identifying problems would support these collectors
- TPG masking of problems would support these dealers
This is not absolute as there are some dealers that are against undisclosed doctored coins in TPG holders.
If you were a TPG (not dealer or collector), what is better for your business? >>
Yes, go ahead and start a TPG that lists a litany of every single thing wrong with a coin. Let's see how many submissions you get. Probably a few moderns, and maybe some proof Morgans toned jet-black (but they sure are original!). You'd be out of business before midnight day 1.
Meanwhile, the PNG can require coin doctors to be board certified, since right now they can barely come up with a definition for "coin" right now, let alone doctoring.
<< <i>
<< <i>It seems like the issue may be:
(a) dealers may want to sell more coins with problems
(b) collectors may want to buy fewer coins with problems
- TPG identifying problems would support these collectors
- TPG masking of problems would support these dealers
This is not absolute as there are some dealers that are against undisclosed doctored coins in TPG holders.
If you were a TPG (not dealer or collector), what is better for your business? >>
Yes, go ahead and start a TPG that lists a litany of every single thing wrong with a coin. Let's see how many submissions you get. Probably a few moderns, and maybe some proof Morgans toned jet-black (but they sure are original!). You'd be out of business before midnight day 1. >>
Listing problems to support collectors seems to be keeping the lights on so far.
In the end, dealers still need their slabs to be accepted by collectors.
<< <i>if you put, “CLEANED” in bold letters across the top of the holder, you make the piece will be almost impossible to sell.
Here is a case in point. This large cent is from the Dan Holms collection. It's tied for 5th finest known for the S-21 variety. The EAC grade is AU-50 net to EF-45 probably for a spot that's been lifted from the reverse. (As noted by a small amount of roughness in the area of “E” in “ONE” and some more below that.) I knew that when I bought it, but I can't afford $100K or more the "perfect" one. Do you think that noting the existence of that spot on the holder would make the coin easier to sell? Not hardly. The coin is very acceptable for a high grade early large cent. >>
So are you saying you think it's acceptable to list the spot on the holder but not to say it's cleaned?
<< <i>You all are starting at the wrong point.
You must first define coin doctoring and proceed from there.
Is it dipping once in a hundred years? Five times? Ten times? >>
I pretty much agree with Coinosaurus here, unless we are all talking about the exact same thing then all the discussion is for naught.
We can all have a general understanding of doctoring, but if it means dipping to one person, cleaning (scrubbing) to another and outright adding or removing colour or metal to a third person then the discussion is just a tower of babel!
<< <i>
<< <i>You all are starting at the wrong point.
You must first define coin doctoring and proceed from there.
Is it dipping once in a hundred years? Five times? Ten times? >>
I pretty much agree with Coinosaurus here, unless we are all talking about the exact same thing then all the discussion is for naught.
We can all have a general understanding of doctoring, but if it means dipping to one person, cleaning (scrubbing) to another and outright adding or removing colour or metal to a third person then the discussion is just a tower of babel! >>
This is why people have been asking the PNG to take a leadership position on doctoring for the good of the hobby. I think it's possible to do but you need to want to do it.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>It seems like the issue may be:
(a) dealers may want to sell more coins with problems
(b) collectors may want to buy fewer coins with problems
- TPG identifying problems would support these collectors
- TPG masking of problems would support these dealers
This is not absolute as there are some dealers that are against undisclosed doctored coins in TPG holders.
If you were a TPG (not dealer or collector), what is better for your business? >>
Yes, go ahead and start a TPG that lists a litany of every single thing wrong with a coin. Let's see how many submissions you get. Probably a few moderns, and maybe some proof Morgans toned jet-black (but they sure are original!). You'd be out of business before midnight day 1. >>
Listing problems to support collectors seems to be keeping the lights on so far.
In the end, dealers still need their slabs to be accepted by collectors. >>
What is that chart?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>It seems like the issue may be:
(a) dealers may want to sell more coins with problems
(b) collectors may want to buy fewer coins with problems
- TPG identifying problems would support these collectors
- TPG masking of problems would support these dealers
This is not absolute as there are some dealers that are against undisclosed doctored coins in TPG holders.
If you were a TPG (not dealer or collector), what is better for your business? >>
Yes, go ahead and start a TPG that lists a litany of every single thing wrong with a coin. Let's see how many submissions you get. Probably a few moderns, and maybe some proof Morgans toned jet-black (but they sure are original!). You'd be out of business before midnight day 1. >>
Listing problems to support collectors seems to be keeping the lights on so far.
In the end, dealers still need their slabs to be accepted by collectors. >>
What is that chart? >>
CLCT stock price for the last 2 years.
Very impressive performance.
<< <i>I think the major TPGs need to begin to net grade coins at long last. This is the only solution to the doctoring problem. Put it on the slab and adjust the grade accordingly. Many of these coins are not in terrible shape and they could make a nice addition for someone who cannot afford the pricier coins.
This would be a lot more coins back into a place where there is a level of acceptability. Not everyone can afford a Bust Dollar in Fine, but a net graded coin instead of a Genuine (kind of like the mark of adultery in the 1800s) could both increase market acceptability of coins long ago cleaned and also provide a venue for downgrading the coin doctor specials in the higher end coins. Yes, they will be cracked and resubmitted trying to get away from the coin doctor grade, but is that not in the favor of the TPG as well, yielding more revenue?
I say away with the Genuine grade and PLEASE net grade PCGS and NGC. >>
Why do you need net grades? When I see a Genuine coin I grade it myself and decide what the price should be. What is so hard about that? If the coin is scratched and its really an AU you need PCGS to tell you what there "net" grade is ie EF or VF etc? ? I dont.
<< <i>I think the major TPGs need to begin to net grade coins at long last. This is the only solution to the doctoring problem. Put it on the slab and adjust the grade accordingly. Many of these coins are not in terrible shape and they could make a nice addition for someone who cannot afford the pricier coins.
This would be a lot more coins back into a place where there is a level of acceptability. Not everyone can afford a Bust Dollar in Fine, but a net graded coin instead of a Genuine (kind of like the mark of adultery in the 1800s) could both increase market acceptability of coins long ago cleaned and also provide a venue for downgrading the coin doctor specials in the higher end coins. Yes, they will be cracked and resubmitted trying to get away from the coin doctor grade, but is that not in the favor of the TPG as well, yielding more revenue?
I say away with the Genuine grade and PLEASE net grade PCGS and NGC. >>
Draped Bust material -- especially Bust $s -- have been net graded for at least a generation, possibly more. If you're up to speed on this, you can spot these issues. If not, you'll buy some expensive slabbed coin which imo is a problem coin. We need to keep the genuine grade. Perhaps they could show what the coin in the Genuine slab would grade re its details.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
It is clear that the hobby made the transition down a slippery slope- unfortunately for all the wrong reasons. Any effort to create a sense of the importance of our actions and inactions as caretakers of coins for future generations has been trumped by instant gradification.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
1. The author is not universally opposed to coin fixing...
2. So long so long as the 'fixer' is an expert in what he/she's doing; and
3. The fixing may benefit the coin in the long run.
Which of those observations about the article do you feel does a disservice to what he wrote.
Frankly, I posted it because I found it interesting that an authority as high as QDB was willing to 'step up' and say something about a process many collectors would consider 'doctoring' and that he did not categorically call it a bad thing. Hence, I concluded I found his position interesting.
I am sensitive to being called unfair in my postings so I would sincerely like to know either publicly or via PM what it is about my OP that caused you to feel I did a disservice to QDB's opinions.
The disservice is in the title, which you don't elaborate on: "Q. David Bowers giving a 'thumbs up' to 'coin doctoring' so long as it is expertly done?"
Phrasing a toxic statement as a question is not a very fair thing to do. You don't seem to want to own the accusation.
<< <i>The disservice is in the title, which you don't elaborate on: "Q. David Bowers giving a 'thumbs up' to 'coin doctoring' so long as it is expertly done?"
Phrasing a toxic statement as a question is not a very fair thing to do. You don't seem to want to own the accusation. >>
As they say, if you dish it out; you should be able to take it as well. I think the title of the thread matches the tone of QDB's article which is full of flippant remarks. If the title of this article can be considered "toxic" then the article can be as well.
To support this view:
(1) Paragraph #1: "body bag" is used immediately (for sensationalism) and the top TPGs are called out, incorrectly as genuine holders have been used for years. I'm guessing he knows the statement is incorrect but wants to create a stir.
(2) Paragraph #2: "There is the aspect of logic, and this is often conspicuously absent." Certainly not a neutral way to continue a conversation. While he mentions there is a lack of definitions, he does not call out the PNG.
(3) Paragraph #3: "Then there is “artificial toning,” whatever that means." This is also very inflammatory wording given that this has been proven and has caused significant financial losses.
I'm surprised by the tone of the article as there is clearly a dismissive and possibly "toxic" attitude to it.
However, it is his article and as mentioned above, if he wants to dish it out, he should be able to take it as well.
<< <i>Perhaps the American Numismatic Association or Professional Numismatists Guild should have a forum, with the certification services participating, on how these coins can be expertly reviewed, and many of them revitalized using professional conservation methods. >>
One way to read this is that QDB approves of "professional conservation methods" to the point of recommending the ANA and PNG be involved in the process.
It should be noted that the PNG already approves of professional conservation methods through endorsement of their "Official conservation service" which it would have been nice for him to mention. I wonder why he mentions NGC body bags coins but does not mention slabbing of NCS coins in problem-free holders? Is this an intentional omission?
The article seems to have a lot of sensationalism but could be more correct and complete.
I see your point on improving the desirability of so-called problem coins from a dealer perspective.
My take on it is what is the benefit to the collector? I understand with net grading, there could be higher demand for these coins (until the value of the slab is discounted), but what is the upside from the collector perspective?
Also, as mentioned, some series already have many net graded problem coins that are accepted by collectors. So, in a certain sense if problem coins are acceptable to collectors, they will be slabbed already. It's just a question of where the line is for each series.
<< <i>Bill,
I see your point on improving the desirability of so-called problem coins from a dealer perspective.
My take on it is what is the benefit to the collector? I understand with net grading, there could be higher demand for these coins (until the value of the slab is discounted), but what is the upside from the collector perspective?
Also, as mentioned, some series already have many net graded problem coins that are accepted by collectors. So, in a certain sense if problem coins are acceptable to collectors, they will be slabbed already. It's just a question of where the line is for each series. >>
The upside for the collector here is that the extremists on this issue want to make mountains out of mole holes. Minor efforts to improve the eye appeal of coins that have aged over time have no negative affect upon the collector. Legitimate dealers don’t play games when they buy and sell such coins. In fact the vast majority of 17th (e.g. Pine Tree Shillings), 18th and 19th century coins that are regularly traded have had something done to them over time.
If you mark every piece that has ever any sort of conservation do on it, no matter how small, you will be placing “a mark of Cain” on these pieces that will make them harder to sell. It will also confuse and discourage new collectors who already have enough to deal with when it comes to understanding coin grading. Conversely the price of coins that get no such markings will be driven higher, perhaps much higher. As it has been with assigning grades to coins there will be mistakes. Some pieces that should have been marked with something (dipped, retoned from dipping etc.) will get through, while a few pieces that had nothing wrong with them will get flagged.
Recently I bought a new Cadillac DTS, the last of the Cadillac Deville sedans. In “Consumer Reports” it is praised its acceleration, smooth ride, generous trunk and roomy backseat. Conversely, the magazine said that the “tire grip and braking were unimpressive” and that “the ride is very posh but can become buoyant at speed.” I have noticed none of these problems with the car although I do agree with them that the car is not agile in tight places.
Would you buy this car if the dealer had to put a big sign on it that said, “The brakes are mediocre and the car loses its grip on the road at high speed?” Just think about that before you ask for a bunch of signs on slabs that say “Don’t buy this coin!” even if the issue is minor or virtually nonexistent.