Conservation and coins.

[SkyMan]

I just came back from 2 weeks in Europe (surprisingly enough with a rather tighter belt). One thing that I found quite interesting was that in many places, but particularly in Florence Italy, was that the Title Card, or Legend or whatever you wish to call it, that was beside each painting not only mentioned the name of the artist and the name of the painting, but also the time of the last restoration.

 

Given that I think we can all agree that some of the greatest art of all time occured in Renaissance Florence, why is it considered OK by many people to, if you will, dip and strip a painting, and yet coin collectors will scream if the same thing occurs to a coin?

[Arizonadesertrat]

Because many of the paintings had varnish applied in earlier centuries (and now it's dark yellow/brown), others were covered with soot from candles, some were damaged by water during floods (frescoes lift off of walls, canvases rot, etc.), and because the underlying canvases tend to decompose with time.

 

The comparison between coin dipping and conservation of paintings isn't a good one.

[MarkFeld]

I think many coin collectors have little or no problem with certain types of "conservation". However, much of the "screaming" that is done is due to the fact that the "conservation" usually isn't disclosed. And, it's often done for reasons other than to restore or protect the coins. So, i don't think your comparison is an "apples to apples" one.

[physics-fan3.14]

The effects of conservation on paintings is almost universally positive - enhanced eye appeal, enhanced lifetime of the piece, etc. Many of the pieces that are conserved are permanent fixtures in museums, so it is hard to argue that money is a primary goal. Coins, however, are a bit sketchier - many of the coins "conserved" are directly for the purpose of getting more money. Yes, its hard to prove a motive in cases like this, but I'm making generalities for argument's sake.

[gmarguli]

The effects of conservation on paintings is almost universally positive - enhanced eye appeal, enhanced lifetime of the piece, etc. Many of the pieces that are conserved are permanent fixtures in museums, so it is hard to argue that money is a primary goal. Coins, however, are a bit sketchier - many of the coins "conserved" are directly for the purpose of getting more money. Yes, its hard to prove a motive in cases like this, but I'm making generalities for argument's sake.

 

How exactly do people get more money for the coins? Is it perhaps thru enhanced eye appeal, enhanced lifetime of the piece, etc?