My proposal to the PNG
Greeniejr
Posts: 1,321 ✭✭✭
I was at the PNG meeting at FUN and the level of frustration in the room was palpable. I talked to several other PNG members and we all want to come up with a solution to the problem but don't want to harm the industry by taking things too far. This is what has come from my discussions. I have made these recommendations to the board and they have forwarded them to the committee.
The following is far from perfect BUT I contend it is likely the best that can get approved. I challenge anyone to say that this would not be a significant improvement if passed from what we have now. I am also fairly confident this could pass. If something similar is not proposed at the meeting, I will put the motion forth myself and I already have backing.
"It is unacceptable and in violation of the PNG code of ethics to perform the following actions
1. Knowingly and deceptively adding, moving or melting metal on the surface of a coin in order to increase it's value.
2. Knowingly and deceptively adhering any foreign substance to the surface of a coin to alter its appearance and increase it's value."
The following is far from perfect BUT I contend it is likely the best that can get approved. I challenge anyone to say that this would not be a significant improvement if passed from what we have now. I am also fairly confident this could pass. If something similar is not proposed at the meeting, I will put the motion forth myself and I already have backing.
"It is unacceptable and in violation of the PNG code of ethics to perform the following actions
1. Knowingly and deceptively adding, moving or melting metal on the surface of a coin in order to increase it's value.
2. Knowingly and deceptively adhering any foreign substance to the surface of a coin to alter its appearance and increase it's value."
0
Comments
Does "moving" metal also include "removing" metal (i.e. "moving" the metal off the coin)?
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
TD
If I do it with the motive of reselling without disclosing my actions, I am acting unethically. I believe the motive is very important to keep in this.
Good proposal I think.
<< <i>In #1, perhaps add "or any foreign substance" after "metal"?
TD >>
So, removing a foreign substance such as PVC would then be considered coin doctoring?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>I was at the PNG meeting at FUN and the level of frustration in the room was palpable. I talked to several other PNG members and we all want to come up with a solution to the problem but don't want to harm the industry by taking things too far. This is what has come from my discussions. I have made these recommendations to the board and they have forwarded them to the committee.
The following is far from perfect BUT I contend it is likely the best that can get approved. I challenge anyone to say that this would not be a significant improvement if passed from what we have now. I am also fairly confident this could pass. If something similar is not proposed at the meeting, I will put the motion forth myself and I already have backing.
"It is unacceptable and in violation of the PNG code of ethics to perform the following actions
1. Knowingly and deceptively adding, moving or melting metal on the surface of a coin in order to increase it's value.
2. Knowingly and deceptively adhering any foreign substance to the surface of a coin to alter its appearance and increase it's value." >>
I would add "removing" after "moving" as in removing the S mintmark from an 1928-S Peace dollar for example.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Ricko- I feel that requiring intent and deception takes care of that. You are not deceiving someone if you disclose.
<< <i>
<< <i>In #1, perhaps add "or any foreign substance" after "metal"?
TD >>
So, removing a foreign substance such as PVC would then be considered coin doctoring? >>
Please note that #1 referenced "adding" not "removing".
<< <i>I would add "removing" after "moving" as in removing the S mintmark from an 1928-S Peace dollar for example. >>
Careful, you're dangerously close to talking about the elephant in the room. After all, if you add "removing", you're making coin dipping an act of doctoring. They don't have the guts to make a statement like that about dipping, even though it is doctoring (intentionally changing appearance in order to increase value).
8 Reales Madness Collection
<< <i>
<< <i>I would add "removing" after "moving" as in removing the S mintmark from an 1928-S Peace dollar for example. >>
Careful, you're dangerously close to talking about the elephant in the room. After all, if you add "removing", you're making coin dipping an act of doctoring. They don't have the guts to make a statement like that about dipping, even though it is doctoring (intentionally changing appearance in order to increase value). >>
Whether you like dipping or not, it is here to stay. Unless we can go back 25 years when PCGS's and NGC's founders were determining what would be market acceptable and retroactively make dipping unacceptable, there is nothing that can be done. There are far to many millions (billions?) of dollars of liability that PCGS and NGC would be forced to face would be catastrophic to the industry. If you want to only buy coins that are completely original that is your perogative, there is a whole, much larger segment of the market that wants blast white. It's like selling tobacco products, there are people who think it is gross, there are those who tolerate but there are people who demand the product.
<< <i>First off I want the TPG's to be around for a long time, infact forever woul dbe best. I also don't want their liability to be increased so as to hurt them.
I would love for the tpg's to regrade every coin out there and put original surfaces on the label or not original surfaces on the label and then all would be good in our hobby.
Now getting back to the definition, I don't want worked on or messed with coins being sold out in the market place, I don't care about the motives of those individuals working/messing with these coins because it is flippin commonsense why they heck they are doing it. I just want a piece of self regulating laws to outline what is messed with and what isn't so when we go after these coin doctors we win and they lose. This definition isn't a physics thesis of interpolarity differential equations written by 10 top notch scientists, it should be short, concise, and covering what everything we have enountered over the past 200 years of messing with coins.....the list should be short and cover all forms of doctoring and not include anything that could bring the tpg's down. But it wouldn't hurt if the tpg's stop this market acceptable crap and put on the label if they believe the coin is original or not since it is an opinion we all make every day when inspecting coins, now just put it on paper for all to see. >>
I know you would love to have them regrade everything but lets be realistic. That would destroy the grading services straight away. They would have to compensate every person whose coin is not original and therefore undesirable and therefore worthless. Its not going to happen. Also, original is a matter of opinion. We have a coin that was sold a few years back by a trusted dealer and he sold the coin as original. We bought the coin after it passed through several hands in the same holder we bought it. We feel the coin has a natural second toning. Who is right? Also who is to say what original is. When a coin is struck it is bright white and lustrous. Who is to say that returning a coin to this ORIGINAL look, defining the term as what the coin originally was. It is a matter of personal preference. Just like many things in society today, it is not MY preference but I am in no position to judge someone else for theirs.
Original surfaces? Who can determine that? There is no science to detecting original coins, it is only opinion backed by years of experience, and possibly the aid of old catalogs and provenance. Line up 100 experts, and most older coins are going to be questioned by some of those experts. The obviously messed with coins might get 100% thumbs down, many more may get 80% nay votes, or 50% or 20% or 10% nay. If a person wants all 100 experts to agree, that a coin is totally original, no questions asked, that might mean maybe 3% of older coins in a series such as Bust dollars. Many of those examples would be due to provenance of knowing that a certain person owned a coin and did not mess with it, not looking at the coin. What kind of market is that? Does a person really want to hold out for the last 10% of hardliners to say a coin is original before putting it in a holder?
Dipping? Again, in some series eliminate all the dipped coins, including old time 30 and 40 year old dips, and that likely eliminates half or more of the coins in no problem holders. Eliminate all those that some expert says might have been dipped at some time during the past 100 years, and that might be 95% of Bust dollars in no problem holders, to take an example. Are there those that want to take those extreme measures? I guess so, but don't expect a dealer organization to do anything that would be so bad for business. Do folks even think before proposing what I see as foolish and unrealistic ideas? Market acceptable is a difficult road to navigate, but it was and still is the only realistic way to go for older coins.
The hardliners and what I see as unicorn believers are as much of a problem as the problem itself. They don't think about what their proposals might translate to if implemented as written, for the market, the dealers, the TPGs, before they write. Some foolishly believe there is a science to determine if a coin is totally original. There isn't, that's why the docs make big money with their "faux original" looking coins.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson