• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

NCS Conservation of the Month

Started by DJCoinz,

16 posts in this topic

gmarguli

gmarguli

Posted
Posted

A pretty amazing job!

 

1) How did the coin get white stuff in the denticles (reverse above United) after conservation?

 

2) Obligatory: Another original coin turned into a widget. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dcoin

Dcoin

Posted
Posted

I think the nature of gold makes it a perfect candidate for conservation. In this coin, the dark areas look to be some sort of acid? Gold's non-reactive nature did not let the reaction affect the surface.

 

Obligatory: Pretty widget!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
physics-fan3.14

physics-fan3.14

Posted
Posted

 

2) Obligatory: Another original coin turned into a widget. :(

 

If you read the article, you find that it wasn't so original. They took a damaged coin and made it look nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DJCoinz

DJCoinz

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

2) Obligatory: Another original coin turned into a widget. :(

 

If you read the article, you find that it wasn't so original. They took a damaged coin and made it look nice.

Yep. It was fire damaged.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bsshog40

bsshog40

Posted
Posted

That is quite the difference and NCS did a great job on such a damaged coin. I would have thought, even tho' conserved nicely, that the hairlines would still have kept it from a slab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gmarguli

gmarguli

Posted
Posted

 

2) Obligatory: Another original coin turned into a widget. :(

 

If you read the article, you find that it wasn't so original. They took a damaged coin and made it look nice.

 

That's like saying it is OK to AT a coin since it had been cleaned in the past. I've read it a thousand times on these forums and the forums ATS, if the contaminants aren't active, then the coin should be left as is. :sumo:

 

The owner should have bought a widget if he wanted one and allowed this ex-beauty to be given a loving home by someone who truly appreciates coins with skin. Based on so many posts I've read, I'm sure there are many people here that would have appreciated the prior state of this coin and given it a loving home. :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
physics-fan3.14

physics-fan3.14

Posted
Posted

 

2) Obligatory: Another original coin turned into a widget. :(

 

If you read the article, you find that it wasn't so original. They took a damaged coin and made it look nice.

 

That's like saying it is OK to AT a coin since it had been cleaned in the past. I've read it a thousand times on these forums and the forums ATS, if the contaminants aren't active, then the coin should be left as is. :sumo:

 

The owner should have bought a widget if he wanted one and allowed this ex-beauty to be given a loving home by someone who truly appreciates coins with skin. Based on so many posts I've read, I'm sure there are many people here that would have appreciated the prior state of this coin and given it a loving home. :/

 

Well, we'll just have to disagree on this one. I would not call a damaged coin like that one an original coin with skin. If you read the article, you find that the gunk was actually a holder that had melted onto it and combined with soot from a house fire. Not too many people are going to call that original skin, and not too many people are going to find that attractive. I understand the appeal of original crusty coins (although I think some people carry that too far), but this coin was not. Its just like saying, "Oh, that PVC is inactive, we'll just leave it there," or "Oh, that verdigris isn't hurting anything." What about sunken treasure coins? Alot of those gold coins, after conservation, look just like the day they were made. But before conservation they are encrusted with a hundred years of muck from the bottom of the sea floor. Are you telling me that serious numismatists are going to spend thousands of dollars for an encrusted gold coin that they can hardly appreciate? Yeah, sooty plastic gunk on the surface might not be hurting anything now, but that doesn't mean much. In my opinion, they took a damaged coin and conserved it, with great improvement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dleonard-3

dleonard-3

Posted
Posted

I like the idea of "RESTORING" a coin to its original state without causing damage or altering the original surfaces. NCS did a great job on this coin.

 

I still don't like the scratches though. It looks like it's been rubbed by someone with gritty fingers. If this was my coin, it would have been body bagged as "scratched".

 

The reverse photos don't even look like the same coin. The scratches are different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
realone

realone

Posted
Posted

I am not one for conserving coins per say but in special circumstances I feel it is appropriate, at first glance I thought that this was a coin from a sunken ship and although gunk from a wreck I can live with because of the cool historical aspect, gunk from being in plastic from a hose fire isn't very historical although it happened in the past. So I say under these circumstances it is approrpriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WoodenJefferson

WoodenJefferson

Posted
Posted

It is also very possible that the "Home Owners" insurance policy or even a rider of that policy, especially ones for coins, paid to have this and other items restored (in this case conserved) to at or near originality as possible. So if this were the case, it would behoove the owner to send in the damaged items as a no-out-of-pocket expense. Even yet, another scenerio could very well be that the insurance company sent the coin in or instructed the owner to do so, for conservation rather than pay out full value?

 

just thoughts...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dooly

dooly

Posted
Posted

What we are not taking in to consideration is this coin could have had a sentimental connection IE Given by a loved one or left by a relative and the owner could care less about the monetary / numismatic value of the coin and just wanted the coin "SAVED" after the loss of so much of there other treasured possessions in the fire.. or maybe the firefighter picked it up after the fire !!!!

 

i think some times "WE" forget why some people have coins !!

 

just my 2c

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DJCoinz

DJCoinz

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

2) Obligatory: Another original coin turned into a widget. :(

 

If you read the article, you find that it wasn't so original. They took a damaged coin and made it look nice.

 

That's like saying it is OK to AT a coin since it had been cleaned in the past. I've read it a thousand times on these forums and the forums ATS, if the contaminants aren't active, then the coin should be left as is. :sumo:

 

The owner should have bought a widget if he wanted one and allowed this ex-beauty to be given a loving home by someone who truly appreciates coins with skin. Based on so many posts I've read, I'm sure there are many people here that would have appreciated the prior state of this coin and given it a loving home. :/

 

Well, we'll just have to disagree on this one. I would not call a damaged coin like that one an original coin with skin. If you read the article, you find that the gunk was actually a holder that had melted onto it and combined with soot from a house fire. Not too many people are going to call that original skin, and not too many people are going to find that attractive. I understand the appeal of original crusty coins (although I think some people carry that too far), but this coin was not. Its just like saying, "Oh, that PVC is inactive, we'll just leave it there," or "Oh, that verdigris isn't hurting anything." What about sunken treasure coins? Alot of those gold coins, after conservation, look just like the day they were made. But before conservation they are encrusted with a hundred years of muck from the bottom of the sea floor. Are you telling me that serious numismatists are going to spend thousands of dollars for an encrusted gold coin that they can hardly appreciate? Yeah, sooty plastic gunk on the surface might not be hurting anything now, but that doesn't mean much. In my opinion, they took a damaged coin and conserved it, with great improvement.

I'm with physics-fan. This coin did not have an original skin prior to conservation, it was fire damaged, lol.

 

I like the idea of "RESTORING" a coin to its original state without causing damage or altering the original surfaces. NCS did a great job on this coin.

 

I still don't like the scratches though. It looks like it's been rubbed by someone with gritty fingers. If this was my coin, it would have been body bagged as "scratched".

 

The reverse photos don't even look like the same coin. The scratches are different.

Different lighting may hide or reveal hairlines. I'm quite certain it's the same coin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Conder101

Conder101

Posted
Posted
Even yet, another scenerio could very well be that the insurance company sent the coin in or instructed the owner to do so, for conservation rather than pay out full value?

Of they did pay full value and took possesion of the coins, and are now taking steps to restore as much of their value as possible to recover as much of the settlement and possible when they resell them.

 

The reverse photos don't even look like the same coin. The scratches are different.

They changed the lighting to hide a lot of the hairlines. Makes it look like they did an even better job because the after coin looks so much better.

 

And I think gmarguli is correct, there seems to some gunk in the denticals now that wasn't there before the conservation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing