Spot conservation or coin doctoring?

Perhaps if you had used the word "is" instead of "or" (as in "is spot conservation coin doctoring"), the obvious would be, well, even more obvious?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Imo that's conservation. And unless the coin was damaged by the process or the corrosion caused damage to the coin itself which was visible once removed and then covered up. I don't see why it would be suddenly be doctoring unless explicitly mentioned if selling the coin.

If that is the case though how many dealers out there are 'evil coin doctors' selling coins they've dipped or properly cleaned without disclosure of every little thing.

 

Regardless what it is, you can bet that if you bought such a coin and paid huge money for it finding out later that this had taken place without disclosure, well you might just get unhappy about it.

If you were a coin grading company, possibly even unhappy enough to bring 1961 claims, upon a pattern and organization being able to be established, among other claims.

Would you have a right to know prior to purchasing if this were a 300 buck coin? 300,000 buck coin? 3,000,000?

I can promise you some don't think anyone has such a right no matter if the before and after values are quite significant.

 

If a coin is raw, disclosure is perfectly reasonable and something that should be done. However, if it has since been slabbed and straight graded, meaning it's been deemed "market acceptable", doing so isn't necessary even if I personally feel it's still warranted.

Coins change hands all the time, and if we lived in an ideal world where everyone had high moral standards, full disclosure would be the norm, but this isn't reality. Guy A could sell this coin, disclosing the conservation, to guy B who turns around and sells to guy C who doesn't say a word. Coins have been screwed with for generations, and there's simply no way of always knowing a coin's history. All that matters is what is it shows today; relying on such disclosures is a fool's errand, and is another example of how and why knowledge really is key.

 

I agree! Relying on such disclosures is a fool's errand.

This is what I think a typical dealer response might be.

 

Thanks for correcting/answering this discussion. Case closed!?

 

No I wouldn't, if the coin passed my personal inspection and then I found out later it was conserved I wouldn't care. If the coin passed my personal inspection before hand and I didn't notice anything then I wouldn't magically care after learning a spot was removed through conservation.

How many coins in collections and slabs do you think have been properly cleaned, conserved or otherwise that trade hands everyday with out a disclosure? A disclosure of what really as a properly cleaned/conserved coin isn't detectable? Should PCGS and NGC put a special stamp on every coin that goes through their conservation services as well so that no one buys a coin without disclosure?

 

AMEN! I agree. Quite a sensible reply to a ...very informed legal opinion.

 

Maybe, not providing such disclosures has already been proven to be fools' errands.

http://www.coinlink.com/News/pdf/CU_vs_Coin_doctors.pdf

You really should study this one, it doesn't have too many big words. USC is hosted in many places and although some of its language might be considered artful, it is much clearer than acts of sophistry and intentional deception you seem to advocate repetitively and consistently.

By the way, no such business entity as "Dipper's are US" appears to exist. Did you by chance actually intend to specify "Doctor Am I"?

Just curious.

 

What if it came back and you found out such disclosure had been withheld?
Let's talk about big numbers, the kind that have people slinging papers in District.

 

Dispatch EMT's and Rescue Team, seizure victim has fallen out of wheelchair.

Nah, never mind. It'll either get better or worse.

 

A case where CU sued coin doctors over legit coin doctoring which is not the same as proper conservation. Proper conservation that CU through PCGS restoration offers themselves as a service and then slabs the coins if they meet PCGS standards. I have no idea why you're telling someone to read U.S.C as it doesn't really involve the U.S. government at all despite CU's lawyers citing U.S.C code to enhance the strength of their legal argument. Did you also miss the key word in that U.S.C code CU mentions which is 'fraudulenty'? But please do provide a case where the U.S. government has sued a coin doctor over 'doctoring' if you'd like?

 

Blissskr, posted: "I have no idea why you're telling someone to read U.S.C as it doesn't really involve the U.S. government at all despite CU's lawyers citing U.S.C code to enhance the strength of their legal argument. Did you also miss the key word in that U.S.C code CU mentions which is 'fraudulently'?"

That post went over my head. Fooled me too. At first I was quite impressed and actually thought it might be something of use to this discussion.

 

CU's attorneys cited USC because that is how legal claims are perfected in District Court. Those are the codes that make federal courts move. ;-) They also cited Common Law.

The United States government does not do business with coin doctors and both citizens and Citizens of the United States have standing to bring Chapter 96 civil claims.

Now, if you bought a slabbed coin that had no such green spot, and relied on a guarantee, then later, the spot came back with you then learning disclosure of it existing prior to removal had been withheld, you wouldn't be upset because you don't see that this exact issue was clearly and directly addressed in the 1961 claim linked?

I just don't believe that you'd be happy if that guarantee was suddenly null and void.

What if it meant you lost 250,000 bucks with no remedy or relief available to you other than to put on your smashing tantrum outfit and put on a grand mal display?

 

I mean what the U.S. government considers fraud concerning coins is quite different than what PCGS does. If you try altering a silver dollar into four quarters and pocketing the extra silver the gov would likely be concerned and take action. But if you stamp cents into souvenirs the gov doesn't care as there is no fraudulent intent.

The people in that court case were involved in some serious and high tech deception and doctoring beyond regular conservation. See below

 

#1 It is usually good to quote by name the person you are responding to or to attach the post. #2 I don't think anyone said that.

 

If a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound? If you can't tell it has been done, it hasn't been done. Call me a "Coin Doctor" if you wish.