Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;raider34, post: 1331981, member: 16402&quot;]Thanks for posting the prelim draft, Mark. I&#039;m sure it was no easy task trying to define acceptable/unacceptable practices. Overall, I think the draft is clear and precise, but there was just one point that I found a little too vague. (The section in bold).</p><p><br /></p><p>From the draft, I&#039;m unclear of what cases constitutes &quot;conservation&quot; (in reference to dipping). If the sentence that immediately follows the first bold sentence addresses those acceptable cases, I&#039;d take it to mean that; dipping a coin is only considered conservation if it is done to &quot;stabilize the surface ..., as well as to bring the coin within current market standards of acceptability&quot;. -If that&#039;s the case it sounds like dipping a coin merely because one disliked the natural toning wouldn&#039;t be considered conservation (even if that dipping was done properly).</p><p><br /></p><p>Basically what I&#039;m asking is; is the sole purpose of stating dipping &quot;may in some cases be considered conservation&quot; to address the fact that the dipping must be done correctly for it to be considered conservation. Or are there further requirements for a dip to be considered conservation?[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in