The PNG has Published an Initial Definition of "Coin Doctoring"

If any of you have followed the news of the lawsuit filed by PCGS against several coin dealers for "doctoring" coins, you probably also read all the commentary on what that phrase really means. I've read opinions ranging from simply removing dirt or grime from a coin with oil or acetone, to etching a coin so it showed more detail, to using a type of putty to fill nicks and gauges on a coin. In any event, the PNG Board of Directors at least has taken a thoughtful stab at coming up with an initial definition of this very controversial phrase:

The PNG Board of Directors has adopted this initial definition:

"Coin doctoring is the action of a person or the enabling of another to alter a coin’s surface or appearance, usually to diminish or conceal defects, and thereby represent the condition or value of a coin as being superior to its actual condition or value.

Among the practices defined as doctoring are effacing hairlines by polishing or manipulating the surfaces of proof coins, applying substances to the surface of coins to hide marks and defects, hiding marks or otherwise changing the appearance of a coin by adding toning, adding chemicals or otherwise manipulating the surfaces to create “cameo” frost on the devices of proof coins, and making a coin appear more fully struck by re-engraving portions of the devices, such as re-engraving bands on the reverse of a Mercury Dime or adding head detail to a Standing Liberty Quarter.

Altering dates or mintmarks or other struck portions of a coin to make it appear to be from a mint date or type other than that of origin, and altering business strike coins to make them resemble proof issues are also examples of coin doctoring. This definition is not intended to be all-inclusive, but only illustrative of forms of coin doctoring."

What are you thoughts on this?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'd like to see better definition on adding toning. Is it leaving the coin in a folder so that it tones or is it something more aggressive?

 

I like the phrase "adding toning" in the definition. To me, this implies something above and beyond 'natural toning', like adding chemicals A then B to accentuate, speed up, or otherwise readily create toning on the coin in a fast way (i.e. not natural toning).

 

If these are to possibly be used in legal cases, the phrase

will be interesting as it would eliminate "dipping" ( adding chemicals) which is probably done 1,000X more than adding chemicals for AT. Also there is no known objective test to distinguish the resulting chemicals from natural toning and well done artificial toning, and to add the philosophical difference between such things as "accidentally" putting the coin in a sulfur containing envelope and "intentionally " putting it into the envelope.

"speed up", "accelerate", have little relationship to AT/NT, as someone in the deserts of the west may have minimum sulfur in the air and take 20 years to tone, whereas some one living in an area where high sulfur coal or oil is used for heating or manufacturing , may see it in less than 2 years.

I think PCGS was correct to go after the physical alterations as that can be tested and validated by comparison of their coin laser ID process. If they had tried to use toned coins as a case, I would bet against them. IMO.

​

 

My point was that if such definitions trying to cover things that are undiscoverable is to be used to enforce action of PNG members, it would be impossible to prove. Especially in a court of law.

Sure I agree dipping is part of coin history, but I think their use of "adding chemcals" in the definition (separate from the phrase), "adding toning", would cover dipping. It is like a toning chemical, you add it, it reacts, you remove it. No real difference besides past practices.

I think their definition should be specific , not open ended, IMO.

 

I'd say PNG will eventually have to be more specific about phrases like, "Adding toning". Yet they were smart to conclude with, "This definition is not intended to be all-inclusive, but only illustrative of forms of coin doctoring," as it would be impossible to list all forms of doctoring present and future.


Read more: http://www.cointalk.com/t121701/#ixzz0vBVRsEmg

 

I think it is just a bunch of fluff. PNG dealers already know what doctoring is. They are doing this for PR reasons or possibly to lend support to PCGS's case. The only Serpico's that will emerge from that organization will be the ones that lost a bunch of money.

 

I agree that the definition needs to remain somewhat vague, at least for now. But as the PCGS lawsuit progresses, the lawyers will have to come up with a specific definition for coin doctoring so that everyone gets on the same page when it comes time for discovery - depositions, interrogatories (formal written questions), requests for documents, etc. Also, I wouldn't be surprised at all if PNG had consulted with PCGS and/or its attorneys before they published this "definition."

 

you hit the nail on the head. i dont see the lawsuit going anywhere concrete. you cant legislate away crimes in a third country without jurisdiction especially when you have skeletons to hide yourself.

 

I think, however, whatever formal definition comes out of the PCGS lawsuit will be used in the coin community in general, as that definition will set a precedent.

 

My point is that the definition of the coin doctoring that will come out of the PCGS lawsuit will be the most important, as it will cover the most egregious types of coin doctoring. And IMO the lawsuit and whatever definition they come up with is a very helpful beginning in assisting the coin community in dealing with this issue.

 

I can understand that the decision may be specific to the doctoring mentioned in the complaint, unless the decision goes further and includes the opened ended PNG statement. But why wouldn't the precedent set apply those doctoring techniques to other coins not mentioned, if the doctoring is generic to other coins? After all, precedent is used in all areas of the law to give guidance to the court when deciding cases with similar facts, not necessarily the exact same facts.

 

It would appear that the PNG has defined the topic to meet or exceed the legal points in the PCGS lawsuit. Bend the willow branch until the ends meet.

 

This definition is likely the result of pressure because other organizations and persons are doing a lot more to try to punish coin doctoring than the guild whose purported mission is to make the hobby safe for collectors.

I don't think the definition will have much to do the PCGS lawsuit which is a breach of contract suit against dealers and individuals who allegedly violated their agreement with PCGS. In other words, PCGS will not have to prove that the defendants "doctored" coins, only that they violated their dealer agreements by engaging in activity they promised not to engage in.

 

However, as I mentioned, during the litigation process, a judge will require that terms be defined in order for everyone to proceed with the same understanding when referring to those terms, and usually both parties end up contributing to the definitions - and if they can't agree, the judge will decide the interpretation. So as the lawsuit progresses (unless it is settled sooner than later), you can be sure "coin doctoring" will have a definition applied to it at some point. And as I also mentioned, I am willing to bet that PNG consulted with PCGS and/or its lawyers before they published their definition so as not to harm or weaken PCGS's position in the lawsuit.

 

Please correct me if I have misunderstood the PCGS case. I am under the impression that the "doctoring" that is the case point was all were physical alterations and was significant because PCGS had evidence ( photos,or laser "fingerprint", etc.) that showed that each coin was different from a "preceding" slabbing condition of said coin, thus indicating that a fraudulent change had occurred, and the submitters of this last time submission violated the "contract" not to submit altered coins?

If this is close, this physical alteration could not occur from environmental factors and would have to directly performed by a person or person operating a machine/device. It is pretty cut and dried. To try and do the same with toning which can occur from environmental factors or the same factors applied by a human, it is far from such. IMO.

jim