Cleaning Coins

The way I read it on their website, filling holes and reengraving are practices not considered conservation and not something that they do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

No it is not.

Cleaning produces a market unacceptable coin whereas conservation produces a market acceptable coin. Take note that NCS stands for Numistmatic Conservation Services.

 

Cleaning is a broader term that can be used to describe market unacceptable methods along with the methods that are accaptable such as what NCS does.. The reason NCS Used the word "Conservation" is becouse the word cleaning is politically incorrect.

 

I am extremely confident that NCS does not do that. You must have misunderstood whatever it was that you read.

 

I would also like to know.

 

As part of their "conservation" work, NCS uses various substances/chemicals to lighten or remove toning, spots, stains, etc. from coins. And, whether you wish to label it acceptable or unacceptable, it is still cleaning.

 

And you'll never convince me otherwise Doug. Conservation is just that, otherwise the term would not exist. Cleaning produces a market unacceptable coin.

 

I love how when this topic comes up it always turns into 1. something close to a fight, 2. the same people saying the same things.

My thoughts-
They are your coins, do whatever you want to with them.
If you want to sell them some day, don't do anything that will make the coins look worse.
There is a market for cleaned coins and there is a market for "natural" coins. Pick which direction you want to go and stick with it until someone changes your mind.

 

So, please address this for us...

A collector dips a coin in order to remove the ugly toning and make it more salable. He submits it to a major grading company and they award it a grade (meaning that it was market acceptable). Does that mean the coin was conserved and not cleaned?

The same collector feels that the same coin was under-graded, so he cracks it out and resubmits it to the same grading company. But, as grading companies are known to do, they have a different opinion this time, and no-grade it due to cleaning. Which means it was not market acceptable.

So, was the coin conserved or cleaned? Whatever your answer is, it should be based on what was done to the coin and why, not merely the subjective and inconsistent opinion of a grading company.

Cleaning is cleaning, whether you label it that or conservation, and whether you call it market acceptable or market unacceptable. And what is market acceptable at one point in time, might not be the next. I speak as a dealer of 30 years and a former grader at NGC for 7 of those years.

 

An Honest Objective Response Concerning Coin Cleaning

Thank you for the candid clarification on the subject of "coin cleaning". I believe your thoughts coincide with those of the majority knowledgeable objective Numismatists.

The following is an excerpt from a COINLINK article written by Greg Reynolds on September 8, 2010, "Defining Coin Doctoring and Dipping, Additions to the PCGS Lawsuit Against Alleged Coin Doctors": “The majority of the numismatic community thinks [that] dipping can be OK,” David Hall relates, “though of course overdipping is a negative.” Note the words “can be” rather than “is”!"
Mr. Reynolds also states and expands on the controversial subject of "dipping", Quote:
IV. Dipping is Not Coin Doctoring

Mr. Reynolds describes some additions to the aforementioned PCGS Lawsuit: "One of the coins in the package is in a PCGS holder. It is an 1851 one dollar gold piece that has been assigned a grade of MS-63 by the PCGS. It also has a sticker of approval from the CAC. Though I cannot really draw a conclusion from an image, it appears that it might be a very desirable coin. The handwritten instruction specifies a “light clean-up”!"

I find it difficult to accept that knowledgeable coin collectors apparently don't realize the extent of "cleaning" that is prevalent in the Numismatic industry, and they can condone a business that cleans coins while seemingly ridiculing an individual who asks about the practices of that business.

During my many years of coin collecting, I've sold numerous century+ old highly graded (i.e. MS63>) PCGS Gold coins that were in Au Naturel state, which were returned because of "bag rub", not having a uniform cleaned appearance. I've submitted these same coins to auctions on many occasions, often offered without reserve, and an appreciably discounted initial bid, with close-up images. The coins generally are unbid, still in my possession, several having an appearance that many would expect on a less than AU state coin. These are coins that were delivered/handled uncirculated from the mint in bags, more than 100 years past. What does a knowledgeable collector expect? Informed objective "dealers" know, and often provide. It is difficult to prove, but " More than two thirds of all uncirculated 19th century silver coins have been dipped at one time or another" (quote from aforementioned article).

 

Actually, dipping IS a form of coin doctoring. It's just that it is looked upon very differently than other types of doctoring, and is acceptable to many (though, by no means, all) in the industry.

Here is one definition of coin doctoring": doctored: a coin that has been cleaned, altered, repaired, or otherwise "improved" to make it more valuable.

 

Another "Opinion"

Thank you for your allowed, valued opinion. However, like an anus, virtually everyone possesses same. The total worth is generally established by the viewer, and various extenuating factors.

Bear with me, as I review extenuating factors, and your previously stated understandings/credentials, as follows: "Cleaning is cleaning, whether you label it that or conservation, and whether you call it market acceptable or market unacceptable. And what is market acceptable at one point in time, might not be the next. I speak as a dealer of 30 years and a former grader at NGC for 7 of those years."

I respect your right to opinionate, but would prefer continuity. I believe you now state definitively that "dipping" (cleaning) IS "doctoring", providing a definition that appears to validate your stated opinion. Your previous statement of understanding/credentials states that this action may or may not determine whether it makes a coin "market acceptable or market unacceptable". If this action makes the coin "market unacceptable", and reduces coin "value", the practice doesn't meet your definition of "doctoring" as defined " "improved" to make it more valuable". Adjudication would need to define intent (e.g. wiping debris from a date with your thumb to view date), and thus determine possible validity of your "opinion".

I believe that the current litigious process argues that "dipping" isn't "doctoring", so I'd rather defer to judicial rulings/acceptance to establish the validity of opinions.

This post isn't intended as criticism, but merely a presentation of an old "Devils' Advocate".

 

What judicial rulings are you referring to? I know of none on the subject of dipping, as it relates to coin doctoring.

Sure, not every coin which is dipped is for the purpose of increasing its value, but many are.

And whether the value of the dipped coin is increased or not, the coin has been altered. Here is another definition (of a "doctored coin") I ran across: "A coin which has been altered through noticeable, unnatural means".

Under most definitions of coin doctoring which I have seen, dipping would constitute doctoring in many, if not most cases.

 

Doug, I guess it's just a matter of semantics. But I look at it as dipping being an acceptable form of coin doctoring, as opposed to the other types of coin doctoring, which are unacceptable.

That said, even in the latter category, there are a number of disagreements. For example, I firmly believe that using MS70 on copper coins (which can impart blue/purple color in some instances), is doctoring. Many agree with me, but not everyone does. And the major grading companies usually grade such coins.

 

You make sound points, and I certainly don't want other forms of doctoring to be looked upon as acceptable. But I don't want to give a free pass to dipping, either, even though many others choose do.

 

I came across a few old blue Whitman albums that I picked up, figuring to sell any decent duplicates on eBay. Well, the 1909 vdb had been cleaned with an eraser so that it was ruined as well as a couple of other collectible cents. So, yes, erasers damage the coin enough to render it only suitable for the junk box.

gary