Do you consider MS-70 blue toned copper acceptable?

[James_OldeTowne]

Truth, the major grading companies appear to have condoned/ deemed blue/MS70'd copper "market acceptable" by holdering it, both before AND after these public discussions surfaced. Consequently, if you, like I, believe that using MS70 to change the color of copper coins amounts to coin doctoring, then they are largely at fault, as well. And, I don't see how they can now turn around and punish those whose actions they have at least tacitly approved of for so long.

Mark, I do, and this pertains to the Blue Ribbon thread I've posted elsewhere. I think MS70 is considered a legitimate conservation process, albeit one which may incidentally change a coin's color.

 

I liken this to dipping an infected silver coin. While the intent may be merely to remove contamination, the silver coin may nonetheless turn very bright (ie. change color) as an unintended consequence of the dip.

 

While intent can always be argued, it can never be proven. I truly believe some copper coins (many, actually) have been conserved with MS70 purely for conservation purposes, and the subsequent blue color was an unintended (and perhaps unfortunate) incidental effect.

 

Given this possibility, I could easily understand why TPGs would have to make allowances for such coins.

[MarkFeld]

Truth, the major grading companies appear to have condoned/ deemed blue/MS70'd copper "market acceptable" by holdering it, both before AND after these public discussions surfaced. Consequently, if you, like I, believe that using MS70 to change the color of copper coins amounts to coin doctoring, then they are largely at fault, as well. And, I don't see how they can now turn around and punish those whose actions they have at least tacitly approved of for so long.

Mark, I do, and this pertains to the Blue Ribbon thread I've posted elsewhere. I think MS70 is considered a legitimate conservation process, albeit one which may incidentally change a coin's color.

 

I liken this to dipping an infected silver coin. While the intent may be merely to remove contamination, the silver coin may nonetheless turn very bright (ie. change color) as an unintended consequence of the dip.

 

While intent can always be argued, it can never be proven. I truly believe some copper coins (many, actually) have been conserved with MS70 purely for conservation purposes, and the subsequent blue color was an unintended (and perhaps unfortunate) incidental effect.

 

Given this possibility, I could easily understand why TPGs would have to make allowances for such coins.

James, you started your post by saying "I do". You "do" what? If I had read only part of your your post I would have thought you meant either you do consider the use of MS70 to change the color of a coin to be coin doctoring or that you do think the grading companies can now turn around and punish those whose actions they have at least tacitly approved of for so long. But the latter part of your post seems to indicate otherwise.

 

Personally, I don't buy the argument that changing the color of a coin or adding color to it is no more doctoring a coin than dipping one is.

[Zoins]

Is MS-70 blue toning unstable?

 

It seems that MS-70 was commonly (and in general acceptably) used on many coins and the first few that turned blue may have been unintentional (making them NT using one definition). Then if people started purposely turning using it to turn colors, it became intentional. Would this be kind of toning be similar to unintentional and intentional surface alteration through album toning? If not, why not?

[James_OldeTowne]

James, you started your post by saying "I do". You "do" what? If I had read only part of your your post I would have thought you meant either you do consider the use of MS70 to change the color of a coin to be coin doctoring or that you do think the grading companies can now turn around and punish those whose actions they have at least tacitly approved of for so long. But the latter part of your post seems to indicate otherwise.

Hmmm, I guess my brain got ahead of my fingers . I meant to basically say that I do see how TPGs can accept that some blue coins warrant certification.

 

Personally, I don't buy the argument that changing the color of a coin or adding color to it is no more doctoring a coin than dipping one is.

My argument is that if you attempt to conserve a coin, and it incidentally changes colors (completely not your intent), then I would not consider that coin doctoring. Hence, my dipping analogy.

 

A coin may change colors unexpectedly because it has an unknown residue, or unseen contaminant that happens to react with the conservation agent. I believe Ron Guth has a story about this regarding a particularly high-grade bust dollar which was conserved with the intent to remove contamination, but unexpectedly changed color due to the nature of residue on the coin (my apology to Ron if I'm mistaken).

[truthteller]

Mike,

 

Indeed Title 18 will be invoked when the TPGs go after the blue copper scheisters. Rumor has it a couple of folks on this forum have targets on their backs. This is going to get really interesting.

 

Watch for more lashing out as the ship starts to sink.

 

 

 

TRUTH

Truth, the major grading companies appear to have condoned/ deemed blue/MS70'd copper "market acceptable" by holdering it, both before AND after these public discussions surfaced. Consequently, if you, like I, believe that using MS70 to change the color of copper coins amounts to coin doctoring, then they are largely at fault, as well. And, I don't see how they can now turn around and punish those whose actions they have at least tacitly approved of for so long.

 

If this is the accepted criteria, then the argument can be made that since the TPGs have graded and encapsulated lazered coins for several years, then they are approving/condoning this procedure. I firmly believe that the TPGs can deem any kind of coloring/doctoring as unacceptable, at any time, retroactively. It's up to the powers that be at the TPGs to determine this, usually at a point where the liablility becomes so great that repercussions become detrimental to the survival of the TPG. One would have to prove that the TPG knowingly accepted altered coins and knowingly allowed them into their holders, which would fundamentally be in conflict with the purpose of authentification/grading. More likely, the TPGs turn to their Terms and Conditions of submission and lay liability on the submitters.

 

 

TRUTH

[ant]

GOOD CONVERSATION!

 

ok i get what some are saying, but once it was found to change colors and it was still used wouldnt that then be "purposely" doctoring. the first time might be a mistake or accident. but after finding out, hey this is"ms70" or"e-z-est" causeing this. then continueing to use the said "dip"would then make it "doctoring color". would it not?

[truthteller]

GOOD CONVERSATION!

 

ok i get what some are saying, but once it was found to change colors and it was still used wouldnt that then be "purposely" doctoring. the first time might be a mistake or accident. but after finding out, hey this is"ms70" or"e-z-est" causeing this. then continueing to use the said "dip"would then make it "doctoring color". would it not?

 

 

If it can be proved that there is a consistent pattern to a submitters behavior, then you are correct. If it can be proved that there is a pattern of submitting these coins through others to deceive the TPG, then the practice/behavior now has witnesses who become party to the pattern of abuse. Frankly, the weak link in the chain of duplicity are the dealers who submit these doctored coins on behalf of others for no monetary gain. Those folks will most likely turn on the coin doctors when confronted.

 

 

 

TRUTH

[MarkFeld]

Mike,

 

Indeed Title 18 will be invoked when the TPGs go after the blue copper scheisters. Rumor has it a couple of folks on this forum have targets on their backs. This is going to get really interesting.

 

Watch for more lashing out as the ship starts to sink.

 

 

 

TRUTH

Truth, the major grading companies appear to have condoned/ deemed blue/MS70'd copper "market acceptable" by holdering it, both before AND after these public discussions surfaced. Consequently, if you, like I, believe that using MS70 to change the color of copper coins amounts to coin doctoring, then they are largely at fault, as well. And, I don't see how they can now turn around and punish those whose actions they have at least tacitly approved of for so long.

 

If this is this criteria is accepted, then the argument can be made that since the TPGs have graded and encapsulated lazered coins for several years, then they are approving/condoning this procedure. I firmly believe that the TPGs can deem any kind of coloring/doctoring as unacceptable, at any time, retroactively. It's up to the powers that be at the TPGs to determine this, usually at a point where the liablility becomes so great that repercussions become detrimental to the survival of the TPG. One would have to prove that the TPG knowingly accepted altered coins and knowingly allowed them into their holders, which would fundamentally be in conflict with the purpose of authentification/grading. More likely, the TPGs turn to their Terms and Conditions of submission and lay liability on the submitters.

 

 

TRUTH

Unknowingly certifying lazered coins and the subsequent identification of and refusal to certify others is not the same as continuing to certify coins that have the distinct look of having been treated with MS70.

[James_OldeTowne]

GOOD CONVERSATION!

 

ok i get what some are saying, but once it was found to change colors and it was still used wouldnt that then be "purposely" doctoring. the first time might be a mistake or accident. but after finding out, hey this is"ms70" or"e-z-est" causeing this. then continueing to use the said "dip"would then make it "doctoring color". would it not?

 

If it can be proved that there is a consistent pattern to a submitters behavior, then you are correct. If it can be proved that there is a pattern of submitting these coins through others to deceive the TPG, then the practice/behavior now has witnesses who become party to the pattern of abuse. Frankly, the weak link in the chain of duplicity are the dealers who submit these doctored coins for no monetary gain. Those folks will most likely turn on the coin doctors when confronted.

 

I am not a professional conservator, and don't know if this is true. But it is likely that there are scenarios where MS70 is the only, or at least the best way to conserve a coin, regardless of toning consequences. Therefore, assuming the safety of a coin trumps everything else, it would have to be legitimate to allow for the ongoing use of MS70 when appropriate. In other words, there's no subjective choice involved if we agree a coin's survival settles the final decision.

 

But a decision on the use of MS70 for the intent of changing a coin's color is a subjective matter. Basically, some people like blue copper, some don't. I personally do not feel empowered to enfocement this type of value judgement on anyone. But I am empowered in whether I choose to purchase such coins or not.

[Zoins]

Does NCS use MS-70, or have they in the past?

[ant]

i know this might not be the spot to mention this, there are many books and posts on "the right and wrong way " to conserve/dip. what would the best "dip" be? is there a "less chemical" way to concerve or beautify and coin?

 

also storage of coins after cleaning. what is the best way to store so we dont end up with "doctored" LOOKING coins. i feel the best way to stay away from a problem is to stay away from what is causeing it.

 

now dont get me wrong"im not saying that dipping is a problem"! it is not knowing how to do it corectly,which leads to colors and other issues.and in some few cases those who do know what they are doing and do it anyway.

 

and a good point was braught up to me i dont remember where but they said "toning is just the begining of carossion". so wouldnt i want a natural ugly coin rather than speed up the process by getting it to start toning?

[ant]

wow 3 post while i typed

 

[gmarguli]

Does NCS use MS-70, or have they in the past?

 

NCS curated copper coins have been known to turn blue on occasion. In fact, one of the collectors of some blue Indians actually commented on this ATS when he submitted a coin to them.

[truthteller]

Mike,

 

Indeed Title 18 will be invoked when the TPGs go after the blue copper scheisters. Rumor has it a couple of folks on this forum have targets on their backs. This is going to get really interesting.

 

Watch for more lashing out as the ship starts to sink.

 

 

 

TRUTH

Truth, the major grading companies appear to have condoned/ deemed blue/MS70'd copper "market acceptable" by holdering it, both before AND after these public discussions surfaced. Consequently, if you, like I, believe that using MS70 to change the color of copper coins amounts to coin doctoring, then they are largely at fault, as well. And, I don't see how they can now turn around and punish those whose actions they have at least tacitly approved of for so long.

 

If this is this criteria is accepted, then the argument can be made that since the TPGs have graded and encapsulated lazered coins for several years, then they are approving/condoning this procedure. I firmly believe that the TPGs can deem any kind of coloring/doctoring as unacceptable, at any time, retroactively. It's up to the powers that be at the TPGs to determine this, usually at a point where the liablility becomes so great that repercussions become detrimental to the survival of the TPG. One would have to prove that the TPG knowingly accepted altered coins and knowingly allowed them into their holders, which would fundamentally be in conflict with the purpose of authentification/grading. More likely, the TPGs turn to their Terms and Conditions of submission and lay liability on the submitters.

 

 

TRUTH

Unknowingly certifying lazered coins and the subsequent identification of and refusal to certify others is not the same as continuing to certify coins that have the distinct look of having been treated with MS70.

 

Yes, of course, but you have to be able to prove this. Taking your position, the argument can be made that if a doctored coin is in a holder, any kind of doctoring, then the TPGs have given tacit approval to the procedure by letting the coins slip by time after time. Taking my position, the TPGs can say that the grading experts were duped by other experts and have now come to the consensus that a certain kind of doctoring is now deemed unacceptable. Frankly, the TPGs can do this whenever they want by issuing statements to that effect, as we see now.

 

 

TRUTH

[Zoins]

wouldnt i want a natural ugly coin rather than speed up the process by getting it to start toning?

Collectors generally want many things, not all of them overlapping. Out of your choices, many collectors would choose neither

[ant]

i hear you zoins thanks

[James_OldeTowne]

i know this might not be the spot to mention this, there are many books and posts on "the right and wrong way " to conserve/dip. what would the best "dip" be? is there a "less chemical" way to concerve or beautify and coin?

Honestly? The best and safest coin dip is: plain distilled water. Now, it won't do much, other than rinse off light dirt and perhaps wash away soluble residue, but it also won't damage the coin itself.

 

Once you get to something more potent than that, you begin to take on risk. But the potential reward is greater (by "reward", I mean the ability to conserve a coin, not to profit from it).

 

also storage of coins after cleaning. what is the best way to store so we dont end up with "doctored" LOOKING coins. i feel the best way to stay away from a problem is to stay away from what is causeing it.

I agree. And personally, I strongly believe that the best, most inert and safest practical storage system is mylar, either in flips or Eagle holders. I trust this material more than any other, including slabs.

 

and a good point was braught up to me i dont remember where but they said "toning is just the begining of carossion". so wouldnt i want a natural ugly coin rather than speed up the process by getting it to start toning?

The process that causes toning is the same one that causes corrosion, but it makes no sense to worry about it in that regard. Actually, the metal used to strike coins begins to "corrode" or tone prior even to being struck! So, being borderline paranoid to the point of hating the slightest hint of toning because it somehow equates to "corrosion" is not sensible, to me.

 

The goal is to prohibit ongoing changes in the metal surface of your coins. This is why I recommend inert mylar holders.

[ant]

thanks james

 

and while im asking and this is good info to have...

 

what about the slabs(pcgs & ngc) is there a time period that a coin (in collection) needs a break from its home? i have notice some coins start looking bad in slabs after a longer period. will the metal "continue carroding" even in slab? lets say this coin has never been dipped.

[James_OldeTowne]

thanks james

 

and while im asking and this is good info to have...

 

what about the slabs(pcgs & ngc) is there a time period that a coin (in collection) needs a break from its home? i have notice some coins start looking bad in slabs after a longer period. will the metal "continue carroding" even in slab? lets say this coin has never been dipped.

This is a subject for debate, but in my opinion, Yes, the plastic material and chemicals used in the manufacture of slabs can amplify a toning process, and possibly corrosion. This, of course, is why NGC and PCGS attempt to ensure a coin is free of contamination (PVC, etc), prior to encapsulation.

[braddick]

"If this is the accepted criteria, then the argument can be made that since the TPGs have graded and encapsulated lazered coins for several years, then they are approving/condoning this procedure"

_____________________________

 

The Services didn't grade lazered coins knowingly and on purpose. The Services did grade MS70'ed coins knowingly and on purpose.

[MarkFeld]

"If this is the accepted criteria, then the argument can be made that since the TPGs have graded and encapsulated lazered coins for several years, then they are approving/condoning this procedure"

_____________________________

 

The Services didn't grade lazered coins knowingly and on purpose. The Services did grade MS70'ed coins knowingly and on purpose.

That was my point Pat - you just phrased it a lot better than I did - thanks.

[relicsncoins]

Consider us educated........................Move on already.

[truthteller]

 

The Services didn't grade lazered coins knowingly and on purpose. The Services did grade MS70'ed coins knowingly and on purpose.

 

 

Are you sure? Easy to say, impossible to prove. I can say just the opposite and have just as much veracity. The TPGs are in control and they make the final determination of what doctored coins are in their holder. Hasn't PCGS disavowed coins in the past?

 

 

TRUTH

[MarkFeld]

 

The Services didn't grade lazered coins knowingly and on purpose. The Services did grade MS70'ed coins knowingly and on purpose.

 

 

Are you sure? Easy to say, impossible to prove. I can say just the opposite and have just as much veracity. The TPGs are in control and they make the final determination of what doctored coins are in their holder. Hasn't PCGS disavowed coins in the past?

 

 

TRUTH

Sure PCGS has disavowed coins, just as NGC has. But hasn't that been in cases where they were unaware of the problem/doctoring at the time they graded the coins, but later became aware of it?

 

In the case of lazered coins, (while I can't prove it) I am under the impression that some such coins were graded, that the grading companies later learned about it and how to spot it and have since tried to avoid (or successfully avoided) grading them. On the other hand, in the case of at least some MS70'd copper, it's hard to imagine that the grading companies are unaware, as they continue to grade such coins. That seems like a big difference to me.

[truthteller]

Sure PCGS has disavowed coins, just as NGC has. But hasn't that been in cases where they were unaware of the problem/doctoring at the time they graded the coins, but later became aware of it?

 

In the case of lazered coins, (while I can't prove it) I am under the impression that some such coins were graded, that the grading companies later learned about it and how to spot it and have since tried to avoid (or successfully avoided) grading them. On the other hand, in the case of at least some MS70'd copper, it's hard to imagine that the grading companies are unaware, as they continue to grade such coins. That seems like a big difference to me.

 

While I don't disagree with you on principle, I cannot agree with you in practicality. How do you know a grading service is "unaware" of anything it grades? How do you know that a TPG is aware it is grading MS70'd coins, lazered coins, or puttied coins? You can't and must accept that a holdered coin has not been altered UNLESS the grading services agree that this is so, practically speaking. If we are at a show, I might give you an opinion on a graded coin that may have been altered, but, I am not being paid to do so, nor do I accept the liability for that opinion. You, as the buyer, can accept the TPG opinion and dismiss my opinion, then proceed to buy the coin, or you can dismiss the TPG opinion and accept my opinion and pass on the coin. The difference is, you have recourse with a graded coin ONLY if the TPG agrees with you to compensate you if the coin is altered in some way.

 

 

TRUTH

[MarkFeld]

Sure PCGS has disavowed coins, just as NGC has. But hasn't that been in cases where they were unaware of the problem/doctoring at the time they graded the coins, but later became aware of it?

 

In the case of lazered coins, (while I can't prove it) I am under the impression that some such coins were graded, that the grading companies later learned about it and how to spot it and have since tried to avoid (or successfully avoided) grading them. On the other hand, in the case of at least some MS70'd copper, it's hard to imagine that the grading companies are unaware, as they continue to grade such coins. That seems like a big difference to me.

 

While I don't disagree with you on principle, I cannot agree with you in practicality. How do you know a grading service is "unaware" of anything it grades? How do you know that a TPG is aware it is grading MS70'd coins, lazered coins, or puttied coins? You can't and must accept that a holdered coin has not been altered UNLESS the grading services agree that this is so, practically speaking. If we are at a show, I might give you an opinion on a graded coin that may have been altered, but, I am not being paid to do so, nor do I accept the liability for that opinion. You, as the buyer, can accept the TPG opinion and dismiss my opinion, then proceed to buy the coin, or you can dismiss the TPG opinion and accept my opinion and pass on the coin. The difference is, you have recourse with a graded coin ONLY if the TPG agrees with you to compensate you if the coin is altered in some way.

 

 

TRUTH

I don't KNOW those things. I can only make what I consider to be educated guesses, based on the information that is available to me, as well as that which I believe is available to them.

 

I agree with you on the recourse issue.

 

Don't get me wrong - if I had my way, the grading companies would stop grading copper coins that appear to have been treated with MS70, as well as remove from the marketplace those which they previously graded. I don't think that will happen, though, for as Greg noted (and this is not a quote) there are a lot of those coins out there and a lot of money is involved. It's a catch 22 at this point - do the grading companies stop grading those coins altogether, or continue to grade them and further compound the problem? If they stop grading them, can they do so without simultaneously making a real effort to remove the ones in holders from the marketplace? It's a very difficult situation and I don't envy them for a minute.

[truthteller]

 

Don't get me wrong - if I had my way, the grading companies would stop grading copper coins that appear to have been treated with MS70, as well as remove from the marketplace those which they previously graded. I don't think that will happen, though, for as Greg noted (and this is not a quote) there are a lot of those coins out there and a lot of money is involved. It's a catch 22 at this point - do the grading companies stop grading those coins altogether, or continue to grade them and further compound the problem? If they stop grading them, can they do so without simultaneously making a real effort to remove the ones in holders from the marketplace? It's a very difficult situation and I don't envy them for a minute.

 

 

When I was speaking to a source, the idea of "test case" came up. It was an interesting conversation.

 

 

TRUTH