The PNG, acceptable and unacceptable practices, coin doctoring, etc.

Dear fellow numismatists,

Below, with the permission of John Albanese, please find a preliminary draft (subject to further editing) of the "definition" to be presented to the PNG, by those of us on the "Coin Doctoring Definition Committee" .

I wish to give special thanks to John Albanese (who headed the committee),Tom Bush, James Garcia and Rick Sear for their above-and-beyond conscientiousness, efforts and contributions.

What we have prepared, is far from perfect, as would be anything pertaining to these topics. But I can honestly say that I am proud of our work.

We welcome your comments and suggestions.



PNG Definition

The coin collecting hobby and the industry that supports it have found it necessary to review and revise their standards many times. Throughout each era, price increases and/or price spreads have created a demand for more rigorous definitions as to what the market finds acceptable, and what it does not. In recent years, the PNG has worked in concert with NGC, PCGS, CAC and other industry leaders, to identify and define both acceptable and unacceptable practices for coin preservation and conservation. Acceptable practices aim at preservation and the conservation of previously damaged or manipulated coin surfaces. The most recent steps in the evolutionary process of coin evaluation have resulted in a more rigorous codification and enforcement of standards.

Additionally, there is a need to address practices and behaviors that are viewed as unacceptable, which affect the surfaces of coins in any way that deceptively alters the perception of the coin, in order to gain grade, designation or value enhancement. It is unethical and possibly illegal to use techniques and/or treatments to deceptively simulate or artificially enhance the qualities of coins so that they might appear to have higher technical grades and or more market-acceptable qualities than are naturally and/or otherwise present.

PNG also recognizes that there is confusion regarding what preservation and conservation techniques are considered acceptable. We will attempt to identify, define and/or describe what is clearly classifiable as intended to deceive.

1. Deceptive Surface Manipulation
Deceptive surface manipulations are carried out with the intention of altering the appearance of the subject coin, such that it may look to be of a higher grade than it truly is; may garner a higher grade after certification; may gain the attributes of a grade designation that it would not otherwise deserve; or may appear subjectively more attractive. These surface manipulations may irreversibly change the surface of the subject coin and/or may harm the surfaces of the subject coin over time. Methods of deceptive surface manipulation that are not considered acceptable by the PNG-
1) Mechanical disruption of surface metal (including, but not limited to, puncture or cut surfaces; plug or otherwise repair surface marks or damage; polish, whizzing or laser of surfaces).
2) Physical alteration of design details (including, but not limited to, modification of date or mintmark; engraving of missing or weak details to earn a grade designation; engraving of design details to simulate less wear; other methods to gain grade designation).
3) Application of exogenous materials to increase apparent mint luster, infer less wear, reduce evidence of prior manipulations or cleanings, replace missing details or earn a grade designation (including, but not limited to, application of solder; introduction of glue, plastic or other bonding agents; application of waxes, putties, powders or assorted grease or gels; exposure to dulling agents; addition of PVC; exposure to smoke or other gases).
4) Abrasive cleaning such as, but not limited to, the use of erasers or cleaning pads.
5) Copper/bronze coins are made from the most reactive of coinage metals. They are far more vulnerable to the production of artificial color, typically resulting in, but not limited to, various hues of red, blue and purple. Some conservation techniques safe for coinage produced in nickel, silver and gold consistently produce unacceptable results on copper/bronze. Artificial color may be achieved by exposure to agents that may or may not be acceptable for use on other coinage metals (including, but not limited to, arsenic; thiourea-based compounds; dilute acids; ammonia; chlorine and caustic solutions).

6) Artificial toning is the intentional, and/or inappropriate, accelerated acquisition of surface patina, primarily used to mask impairments on surfaces and/or to increase subjective eye appeal and/or grade. Artificial toning is always prohibited, and may result from intentional or inappropriate exposure to various substances or effects (including, but not limited to, direct heat; electrical current; immersion in certain liquids including bleach and/or others; exposure to gases; intentional or inappropriate storage conditions). It may be facilitated through the introduction of various compounds or catalysts including, but not limited to, sulfur, antimony, phosphorous, iodine, various alkanes, caustic compounds and acids.

2. Conservation
Conservation of coinage may include, but is not limited to, the removal of loosely adhered surface contaminants or incidental oils or grease; removal of prior, intentionally applied coatings; and the removal of harmful surface contaminants, with subsequent stabilization of the underlying metal. The goals of such conservation steps are to stabilize the surface of any treated coin, as well as to bring the coin within current market standards of acceptability. Methods of conservation that are considered acceptable by the PNG-
1) Low intensity, short term ultrasonic bath.
2) Use of rose thorn or similar device to remove carbon or particles without exposure of underlying raw metal.
3) Immersion in non-reactive solvent (water; acetone; alcohol; surfactants and other non-reactive organic compounds).

2a. Conservation (with historical exemption)
Conservation of coinage may include, but is not limited to, the removal of loosely adhered surface contaminants or incidental oils or grease; removal of prior, intentionally applied coatings; and the removal of harmful surface contaminants, with subsequent stabilization of the underlying metal. Additionally, the historically accepted procedure of dipping coins in dilute acids to remove unattractive toning may in some cases be considered conservation. The goals of such conservation steps are to stabilize the surface of any treated coin, as well as to bring the coin within current market standards of acceptability. Methods of conservation that are considered acceptable by the PNG-
1) Low intensity, short term ultrasonic bath.
2) Use of rose thorn or similar device to remove carbon or particles without exposure of underlying raw metal.
3) Immersion in non-reactive solvent (water; acetone; alcohol; surfactants and other non-reactive organic compounds).

3. Historical Exemption
Additionally, the historically accepted procedure of dipping coins in dilute acids to remove unattractive toning may in some cases be considered conservation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

What's the point of the PNG adopting this if they refuse to publicly denounce those members who violate their ethical standards?

 

I think it's a good policy, Mark. It's too bad you can't just say "any manipulation in any form to a coin's surface will be considered doctoring". I know thats broad, but it covers it all. Can't wait to hear all the doctors start whining this time like they did the last time.
Guy

 

So if I as a coin collector store my coins in an area of humidity and there is some sort of sulfur around (paper or whatever, even one of the coin book holders) and the coin tones because of it, am I guilty of being a coin doctor because I "inappropriate"(ly)", accelerated acquisition of surface patina" in "inappropriate storage conditions"? Because then just about every coin collector could be consided a coin doctor since it is known that those conditions can cause coins to tone?

As I read it, the wording doesn't allow PNG to differentiate from anyone who has inappropriately stored their coins, regardless of whether it was their intention to tone a coin, and as a result, that person can be (IMO inappropriately) labled a "coin doctor". Not right.

 

Thank you for your feedback.

How would you change and improve what has been written, in a manner that addresses your concerns?

By the way, I don't recall the term "coin doctor" being part of the current language.

 

Thanks for sharing this with us Mark. Tis a hard position to be in, and I'm sure a lot of dealers will complain and feel as if you and the committee are stepping on toes. That being said, a line has to be drawn somewhere.

 

I don't mean to speak for Mark, but I don't think that many, if any collectors will have to worry about the PNG going after them for storing coins in poor conditions. But, I have been to many a coin store with silver coins sitting right smack dab up front in the window, in the sun, maybe with a napkin or other paper envelope just conveniently leaning up against them, so I can't say that that wording is out of line. JMO

 

Thank you all for your good work.

 

To my understanding, even if it adopts (whatever ends up being) our proposal, the PNG has no say regarding what non-members do.

Still, I have passed along to the other committee members, the feedback/criticism pertaining to the language of "intentional" and "inappropriate" and how they relate to "AT". I think it was a good point.

 

I don't think coin doctor is part of the current language, but it has such a bad connotation, and you introduced this as a result of the "Coin Doctoring Definition Committee"; I hate to see overly broad statements that put or can put good honest people in a bad situation in their chosen hobby based on one or a few instances where coins in their care have been stored in a manner that resulted in toning, even if those people never thought that that would definitely happen. This, of course, does leave the fact that some people either do or will find a way to modify some coins in this manner or other manners you are not yet describing.


Why put in language stating that this is what is considered a part of coin doctoring if you can't, for an individual coin or coins, substantiate whether the it was done by someone who knew that would happen, or someone who simply lived in an area and nature happened, or someone put coins somewhere and forgot about them?

I think that rather than writing a broad, over-reaching definition of this, that covers every possibility that some person can conceivably use to change a coin, the language should be more in tune with the things that are recognised as being true doctoring, like whizzing, altering mint marks, absolutely "fake" toning, as opposed to colors that appear naturally, etc, and that the person doing so has to be shown to do it for a profit or to do it to enough coins to show that they had some intention of profiting or hurting the hobby. Also I think that for this to go through, the major TPG's have to get some definite words in on what exactly constitutes natural vs artificial toning, other than the method used to get that toning. In other words, if the TPG's are grading toned coins based on their "market" value, then the TPG's are profiting and proliferating the practice. I am not totally knowledgeable about the tonings, but I have a limited ability to tell AT from NT in many instances, but see many coins being shown as graded NT that to me look totally AT due to colors, layering, etc. And people in the coin hobby seem to really appreciates some of these, even the "monsters".

 

An honorable effort

MARK, I believe to speak for the majority in this community who appreciate the attempt to define acceptable limits for processes which reasoned individuals recognize to occur. I recognize the "standard" to be of value in explaining acceptable conditions which may be found in numismatic material. I, and others, accept it to be an accountable/measurable standard, as those of reason recognize numismatic "alteration" is a process which may may occur or need to occur on some products.

Regardless, we recognize that subjective naysayers will present arguments to the verbiage without constructive corrective solutions.

I applaud the joint efforts to attempt a constructive meaningful definition for acceptable conservation efforts, and recognize the extensive efforts to properly address a difficult subject.

Thanks for the efforts, for which all who contributed should be proud. RICH :thumb:

 

I sincerely appreciate the time and care you took in replying. But are you saying you feel that, because of the difficulty in agreeing on what constitutes "AT", the subject shouldn't even be addressed (and in fact, even intentionally toning a coin should be permitted), under the definition we submit to the PNG?

Either way, we feel a need to do the best we can to address the issue, even though we understand, very well, that there is no perfect language or solution.

 

I agree, that a coin store owner should be held responsible for contributing to this, but how to draw the line between those that know and are in the business, as opposed to those just being hobbiests? And if this same store owner decides to do his/her manipulations in private how are people to know.

I just think that on the toning issue, there needs to be more work done in specifically describing the offense, and not to be over-broad in it, so that it could get a large percentage of hobbiests or occasional collectors and their coins put down. Other points in the written description I don't have too much problem with, as it's mostly issues that can't be inadvertently crossed into by the general populace.

 

I don't think that it shouldn't be addressed or that intentionally toning coins should be permitted. I just think that the language as written is too all-encompassing, and can inadvertently hurt some people in the hobby. I don't at this time have an alternate way of putting this, but think of this: perhaps someone inherits a collection, where some coins are toned and tries to sell them. Perhaps this person is then, for whatever reason, said to have done that himself/herself, where it was not proven, and as a result, others in the hobby or industry then think badly of the person. I don't like that happening. It's also possible (even if not "likely") that those coins could be prevented from being sold as they are. Who knows? Will this also then say that any coin being sold that has this and the provenance is not clear that it happened before a certain date, then be downgraded?

 

The general populace won't have to worry about being caught up in it, Kasia, as it only applies to PNG members. If a dealer knowingly stores coins in environments attributed to toning coins, then he's in essence willfully altering the coin's surfaces. All coins will tone, no matter the strorage methods, over time. But, to blatantly accelerate that process to hopefully reap more profit, I think we'll all agree, whether it's a PNG dealer, or an average collector, is immoral and wrong.
Guy

 

Definitely explained it better than I did.
Kasia, I think the key here is this is for PNG dealers to be held to. Unfortunately the rest of us are still going to have to determine if coins we have are NT or made by the guys with the home chemistry set.

 

Thanks for posting the prelim draft, Mark. I'm sure it was no easy task trying to define acceptable/unacceptable practices. Overall, I think the draft is clear and precise, but there was just one point that I found a little too vague. (The section in bold).

From the draft, I'm unclear of what cases constitutes "conservation" (in reference to dipping). If the sentence that immediately follows the first bold sentence addresses those acceptable cases, I'd take it to mean that; dipping a coin is only considered conservation if it is done to "stabilize the surface ..., as well as to bring the coin within current market standards of acceptability". -If that's the case it sounds like dipping a coin merely because one disliked the natural toning wouldn't be considered conservation (even if that dipping was done properly).

Basically what I'm asking is; is the sole purpose of stating dipping "may in some cases be considered conservation" to address the fact that the dipping must be done correctly for it to be considered conservation. Or are there further requirements for a dip to be considered conservation?

 

Because i own my coins i dont let this apply to me.When PGS has them they can do as he she wishes.

 

Dipping is a very tough issue. On one hand, we understand that it is accepted by a large portion of the hobby/industry, and sometimes has conservation as it's goal. On the other hand, a number of us believe that it is a form of surface manipulation (or, to some "coin doctoring"). And we would rather discourage, rather than encourage it.

 

I would think that it would have to be an intentional act, as opposed to an inadvertent one.

What you are describing would be an inadvertent act, and not willful or intentional.