PNG says "NO" to coin doctoring!!

There it is there!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

As a side comment on tracking the PCGS slabs. I have read that the new Chinese counterfeits are replacing the earlier ones that did not stack well with real slabs sith a product that is going to be virtually undetectable. Evidently they are learning from their mistakes ? It's too bad this business attracts so much dishonesty.

 

True, but I keep remembering my Grandpa telling me when I started filling some coin books for Scouts. "Most people are pretty honest, but then there's the guy that wants to sell you a coin". That was 50+ years ago, it hasn't improved I guess.

 

I am assuming that you mean physically altered, similar to the type of doctoring involved in PCGS's suit.

Since AT was not part of the suit, and there have been several comments on it previously in the thread, I would like to mention that there are ways to AT coins in slabs by (AT) gas ( as they are not air tight) and then removing any remnants of such gas and flushing with air and no evidence of the activity.

 

Sorry for the lack of clarity in the post.

I "handled" meaning I bought the coins--two $20 libs. in one of the "other" tpgs holders without closely examining them. The third tpgs coin upon closer examination had "doctored" fields, upon closer examination you could see scratches covered over by a silver like compound like the gold coins had had their scatches covered over. I have never added substances to the surface of a coin, I have dipped a few; I imagine there are not many here who have never dipped a coin.

 

I have never dipped a coin.

 

Congratulations! You should change your mood from "devilish" to "saintly"!

 

Never dipped a coin here either. Should I change my mood too or should you edit your post because I'm sure there is far less people who have dipped than those who do :goof:

 

Why would someone dip a coin?

 

I have never dipped a coin either but I would like to see how common the practice is. Would someone like to post a poll, in this regard, and see what happens?

 

Because not all corrosion/toning is attractive or adds to the coins "character." Here's one shot of a coin I sent to NCS:

 

Not likely because their guarantee does not cover the original submitter. (Per Ron Guth when he was President of PCGS.)

 

Yes, yes, yes.

Talk is cheap. The statement is worded forcefully, but comes off as a bit hollow.

I prefer the CoinTalk approach - "Knowledge - share it.". That's what I take away from this website. You guys have changed my thinking quite a bit, and I hope I keep my ears open.

Here's what the PNG should do : have training sessions and exhibits at coin shows, large and small. Many shows have one-hour talks given by knowledgeable folks; the PNG should give educational talks at shows , accompanied by specimens of doctored coins.

 

In my experience there are very few toned coins that have toning so unappealing that they can't be appreciated by someone. You may not like the look of that Lafayette Dollar but I promise you there are collectors who covet that exact look. One only needs to look at the CBH guys who love their crusty busties.

I want to get to the heart of the dipping issue. A collector never has an excuse for dipping a coin IMO. Everytime I ask why people dip coins, they tell me "to improve the eye appeal of the coin and remove harmful toning." My question is why is that collector buying an unappealing coin to begin with?

Dealers are only bound by the constraint that they must make a profit. They have no incentive to buy unattractive toned coins because they are difficult to sell. However, since they are allowed to simply dip these coins and instantly improve the eye appeal of the coin for the most part, they now have have all the incentive they need to dip coins and make a profit.

The problem is that the next owner of the coin has no idea that the coin he is buying does not have original surfaces. Everytime a coin is dipped, someone uses a chemical to enhance the appearance of the coin and this treatment is not disclosed to the buyer. If that is not coin doctoring, then neither is artificial toning.

The only difference is that the numismatic community accepts the practice of dipping coins. The motive behind dipping is profit by deception and preservation is nothing more than a cover story. And for all of those collectors who support dipping but oppose coin doctors, consider this. Impoper dipping is responsible for more ruined coins than all of the other doctoring methods combined.

 

As a collector, I don't see where I have to worry about having an "excuse" to deal with my coins as I please.

It's a truism that there's always a market for anything, so yes, there are probably collectors who covet that exact look even in the Classic Commemorative Series. At least for that series, I've never met one, but can be attributed to limited sample size.

But the corallary is that more collectors prefer brighter commemoratives. Supply and demand determines profit, and if there wasn't profit to be had dealers wouldn't bother to dip anything. The number of improperly cleaned Lafayettes out there speaks to that far more eloquently than I ever could.

As for "Crustie Busties," I own one or two of those, plus other dark 19th and even 18th century coins. Since the toning is appropriate for the age and wear of the coins, they're safe, even though a trip to NCS would probably increase the value of the 1861-O half by 30-40%.

Why did I buy the Lafayette in the first place? The short answer is "Photoshop." Coin photographs get doctored far more often than the coins themselves, and I've gotten caught more than once. Once I had the coin in hand, I faced a choice. I could return the coin and eat shipping both ways. Or I could keep a coin with a technical grade of MS-64 in an MS-63 holder and decide what to do later.

I hope you never face the same choice.

 

The term excuse was not meant to imply that you can't do what you want with your coins, you absolutely can. However, in my eyes, dipping a coin is doctoring a coin and is the same as artificial toning. My opinion on the subject deviates from what is generally accepted by the numismatic community but that in itself does not make me wrong. There are many collectors who agree with me that the dipping of coins should be discarded as an accepted numismatic practice.

While supply and demand affects every market, I certainly do not agree that more collectors prefer bright white commemoratives. The majority of commemorative collectors I know prefer attractively toned pieces. However, given the choice between unattractive toning and blast white surfaces, most would prefer the blast white coins because they have better eye appeal. So it is not that they prefer blast white commemoratives. They prefer the coins with the best eye appeal. Generally speaking, the eye appeal rank for classic commemoratives would be attractively toned pieces, dipped white coins, and lastly unattractively toned coins.

Furthermore, the number of improperly toned Lafayette Dollars has very little to do with this issue at all and is related to the history of the coin itself and how they were distributed. Please refer to the following thread for more informaton.

Lafayette Dollar-A Numismatic Treasure/

I will do everything in my power to avoid the situation that you described but I know one thing. If I an unhappy with any $1,000+ coin purchase for any reason, I would certainly eat the shipping costs and return the coin. I searched for almost two years before finding my Lafayette Dollar and even then I almost returned it.

 

What I wrote was "brighter," not "bright white." I'll stand by that statement, since attractively toned coins certainly show brighter colors than my example. While I've known some collectors who wanted white coins so their set would match, I couldn't guess at percentages.

I think we're almost in agreement here. A large majority collectors would prefer my coin after dipping. I'm one of them. You're not. That's cool with me. But you've answered your own question on why dipping happens, whether it's done by collectors or dealers.

The link is broken, but I do know the history of the coin. So I'll make a couple of points. First, I used the word improper with regard to cleaned coins. The only toning I consider "improper" is artificial toning. Second, with classic commemoratives, I consider the distribution history to be a key part of the story of each issue.

Even if you knew that there was very little if any financial downside to keeping it and selling it locally?