Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by Kasia, Mar 25, 2012.
It would be interesting to see the technician who did this.
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.
I am sure also that it is the same coin. The only possible way I can see the result happening is if there was a "treatment" on the coin hiding the underlying problem when you purchased/found it. Colored wax and other substances have been used in the past, and solvents usually remove them. I don't know if this is what happened or not, but most "cleaning/conservation methods tend to remove such toning/spot marks rather than intensify/enlarge them.
I was thinking that too. Ignoring the NCS part, having this coin in an NGC slab has to be a black eye to that service. Is sure doesn't make their slabs look very good to have an obviously scratched and scrubbed coin in a non-details holder.
Well, I certainly understand that they cannot guarantee that all results will be favorable. However, and this is my opinion, they never guaranteed that they would conserve the coin in the first place.
In fact, they said that if NCS felt that it was best left unconserved (as in not cleaned/conserved), then they would leave it that way. The only difference is that I would have paid less to them to evaluate it and not conserve it that I did by having them "professionally conserve it" like they did. They tout that "The expertise of NCS technicians has long been needed in numismatics. Not to be confused with undesirable cleaning, proper numismatic conservation involves examination, scientific analysis and a reliance upon an extensive base of numismatic knowledge to determine the nature of a coin’s state of preservation and the extent of any damage. NCS is uniquely qualified to meet the conservation needs of the hobby." I would say that in this case, they did an undesirable cleaning.
Yes, I had the option of not having it at NCS, and yes, I understood there could be a risk. I, however, was unprepared for the extent of the risk that NCS did, considering that the company stresses how their conservation is based on how initially "The conservation process begins with an evaluation. This is just as important as the actual conservation treatment, since choosing the appropriate treatment requires knowledge of the materials used to create coins and the contaminants that may affect them. Evaluators examine each coin in detail to determine what, if any, conservation should be undertaken.Using state of the art techniques, along with decades of knowledge and experience, NCS experts can conserve your coins professionally and responsibly."
They also state "Evaluation is the first step in the conservation process. During the evaluation process, a determination is made as to what, if any, conservation will be undertaken. "
And "Appropriate conservation work is performed. "
I'd say that inappropriate conservation work was performed in this case. Which is why I am disappointed.
But I appreciate your comments, BooksB4Coins
Pretty everyone here on this forum knows I can be harsh with others, so if someone is harsh with me, I can take it. But I will fight on this one, because it seems to me that this was an unnecessary result, and one that perhaps could be viewed as simply an example that maybe they don't evaluate as to whether a coin should be conserved, but rather that they will "conserve" any coin they get and live with the fact that some will be damaged, and the heck with the owners of those coins. You have to remember that they charge for the examination (1% of the coins declared value), so they are putting their reputation up anytime they do decide to conserve.
But, hopefully, I will be able to talk to them tomorrow and resolve it satisfactorily.
I thought that too Jim, and that would be a likely answer for an older coin. Why would a circulation find be doctored like that though? That part doesn't make any sense.
Thanks, that is indeed a strange thing. I just can't imagine that if the coin had been sent in by me doing that cleaning that NGC would have graded the coin with no issues rather than putting it in a details - improper cleaning slab. In fact, that coin would never have been sent in for grading if it had been like that in the first place. It was only the realization that it was a MS coin that had overall good looks that I made the decision to send it in, based on what the value should be for a MS62 or 63 coin.
I hope it's not an everyday issue that when coins go through NCS first and have the conservation, that NGC then excuses an improper cleaning and grades it as if it was conserved properly.
I have a bit of info. here that may help some of you with these copper plated cent coins. If you find a coin that is dirty looking and a few thin looking spots you can make it look brand new again without hurting the coin by using a chemical called Tarn-X . if the coin still has all of the original mint luster you can take a q-tip and soak it really good with this and dab it on the coin without rubbing it or simply just dip your coin in it and then rinse it off with water, then find a dry soft cloth and dry the coin off by just pressing the cloth to the coin. first find some coins to experiment with until you can get it right.
I have did this to coins that looked absolutely horrible and they have come out looking mint condition and they still look good after a few years. don't do this on coins that have the mint luster wore off because it will make them look cleaned and horrible looking.
this method is also perfect for our clad coins to remove tarnish and ugly toned spots.
that coin that Kasia had I could have had it looking perfect in just a few seconds and it would have not looked to have been cleaned. please if you try this do some experiments first and see if you like it and learn from practice.
Dang Kasia, I'm sorry this is happening to you. What were they thinking when they were evaluating this coin for conservation? They should have advised you to just leave it be. The coin in it's original state looks better than, for lack of a better word, the aftermath. I agree with Mikem2000. That coin has been improperly cleaned.
Thanks, rascal, and green18, mike, and all the others. I appreciate your kindnesses in conveying your sympathy.
It didn't take too long for this thread to hit two pages. Before I read all the posts, I tried to match the unique marks on the original with the "conserved" coin and found, as the others did, that it is the same coin. What a shame that they'd leave it such a mess. Their work surely did more harm than good; and certainly makes me shy away from their services in the future.
As far as NGC slabbing as MS61, it's my understanding that the graders aren't even notified that the coin came over from NCS to try to remove any perceived bias.
Boy that coin is the pitts :|
I guess one will never know what was done to the coin to produce the end effect, but I still am not sure NCS is at any fault. I still think it is likely the defects were there but hidden, and when the conservation occurred, they were revealed. I would be extremely disappointed like Kasia at this result, but somewhat pleased that I wouldn't be seeing even more deterrioration over the future years. A MS-61 is better than a detailed coin any day.
Heck...if that were my piece...let's simply say that they'll receive one of their scratches back, and you would be able to acknowledge my confrontation on national television. They will have to remove me dead.
I don't know what is there to resolve. Their concrete job is over, and you've acquired the final results. You would have to initiate something different, if going for a "victory". In posteriority to presenting something distinct to the inconvenience by their part, an NCS pronouncement on your favor would seem like something controversial. These individuals will probably not break their consistency in a tranquil, willing manner--you should attempt to force the break. Personally, I would near a second intermediate onto this matter. (My anterior sentence principally reflects that I don't, and will not, directly "negotiate" with the culpable creature.)
I don't know what type of evidence you could have had, or currently have, but you should get accustomed to accommodating a defense around practically anything that might be delicately exposed from your part. Tactic and thirst for unperturbed furor are crucial things upon which one should incline oneself, in this case. In another plane, recognize the occurrence: there has been a disrespectful act that proceeds beyond something "unacceptable". Kasia, send them to go sell kites in Brooklyn. Consider concentrating yourself on drowning grand part of their possible defense.
After your probable victory, where they could have been abandoned in a "moribund" state, enjoy your renewed tranquility by buying yourself some whiskey and selling your cent on eBay as "RARE--the coin of discordance!".
I dont know how none of you are not noticing, but that is 100% NOT THE SAME COIN.
Compare the dings on the coin before it was sent in to the coin in the slab. NONE ARE THERE.
Heres a few obvious examples
1. horizontal deep scratch just above the bow tie. Magically this scratch no longer exists on the coin received.
2. three very distinct marks at 7 oclock right at the base of Lincolns body. Again are is unmarked at all in coin received
3. small mark near the back of his collar. Area is PERFECT on coin received
4 tiny nick on the rim slightly higher then the L in liberty. Area is PERFECT on coin received
5. there are three small marks below and 2 slightly bigger marks to the right of the horizontal indent which is just below and to the right of the sideways V along the collar of Lincolns jacket. Both areas on the coin received are PERFECT
Theres many other other ways to prove they are not the same coins, but the five I already gave are irrefutable given that all areas are now perfect and full of luster with the previous marks now nonexistent.
This here is why I have always been weary about sending coins in to be graded. What stops them from doing a bait n switch?
I only saw one person even suggest in the thread that they "might" not be the same coin.
Too much trust and faith are put in to these grading companies. Here is the proof.
See post 16 - the same dings are in both coins, although not as evident in the picture before it was submitted. Even Kasia agrees it's the same coin.
That is true, but i strongly disagree that is a MS61 coin. While NCS's policy may not cover him (it states they are not at fault for any damages or loss of value incurred onto the coin), that coin still resides in an NGC holder. If kasia can some how prove that the coin is infact not a MS61, NGC should be liable to compensate with their grade guaranty policy. I'm not sure if it would apply in a situation like this, but NGC slabbed the coin, so you now have the NGC guaranty.
You are correct. The pictures first posted have some tricky lighting not showing certain things. the pic in post 16 was much more prevalent.
Well they did not bait n switch, but they sure did beat the **** out of that poor coin lol.
Sad to see what they did to that coin.
Not buying that for 1 second. First off, this was a circulation pull so it is highly unliley the coin was doctored to hide defects. Second, even if that were true, they are supposed to be professionals and should be aware of any condition that exists that would not make the coin a candidate for conservation. Can they always be perfect, no, but when a mistake is made they need to take responsibility. Third, do you really think the scratches were always there and they were just hidden? NCS/NGC should bear 100% of the responsibility here, end of story.
And finally, that may be an MS 61 piece of plastic, but that is no MS 61 coin. If it were my coin I would never sell it in that holder, I'd rather take the hit then contribute to this travesty.
This is one reason when a coin gets into my possession (to keep), it stays in my possession.
Separate names with a comma.