Does NCS EVER refuse to "conserve" a nice, original coin -- my guess would be NO

[Connecticoin]

Case in point -- not only was this coin ruined, a pedigreed coin was destroyed. At least it was not rewarded with an upgrade -- which is commonplace for other NCS "dip and strips".

 

Before:

 

After:

[MikeInFL]

This thread makes Mike cry.

[coinman1794]

Not having examined the coin before it was conserved, it's hard to say how "original" it really was. It does seem to have been a bit splotchy, and it could have had problems forming. Also, the light color in other areas is suggestive of a possible dip that was performed many years ago, possibly even in the 19th century, and the splotchyness could be from in improper rinse.

 

On the same not, we don't know exactly what NCS did to the coin to remove the toning. The coin may not have been dipped at all.

 

 

[James_OldeTowne]

A lot of people forget just how many Eliasberg coins were just plain ugly. A couple of months ago, I spoke with a dealer who did a lot of legwork for Eliasberg, and his insights into Louis' philosophy was fascinating. (I wanted his help in cataloging a few of the gold coins from the last sale I worked on.)

 

In most cases, he was not all that concerned with having the finest possible quality. In fact, many of his common coins were very mundane. In addition, his coins were not always properly stored, and many had (and still have) evidence of contamination. It is also known that many "turned in the slab", and the subject coin could be one of those.

 

I know for a fact that numerous Eliasberg coins have been subject to NCS work, and while I don't particularly endorse this, there is no denying that at least some of those coins have been helped by having contamination removed.

 

The only thing is that I wish NGC would indicate on the slab that NCS conservation was performed prior to encapsulation.

 

Edited to add: Absolutely, NCS will refuse to "conserve" some coins.

[MAULEMALL]

 

Edited to add: Absolutely, NCS will refuse to "conserve" some coins.

I have had NCS refuse to work on about 5 coins in the past... They said that they didn't feel that they could do anything to help and advised that I leave them alone...

4 were in old rattlers and the other was in the anacs with the PNG type Holo.

[Schatzy]

I like the coin better now!!

 

[TomB]

Another board member once had me send some Morgan dollars to NCS for possible work and NCS refused to do any work on the coins with the stated reason being that the coins would not have benefited from any work.

[dean1345]

I've used NCS several times and very pleased with results.

[realone]

A lot of people forget just how many Eliasberg coins were just plain ugly. A couple of months ago, I spoke with a dealer who did a lot of legwork for Eliasberg, and his insights into Louis' philosophy was fascinating. (I wanted his help in cataloging a few of the gold coins from the last sale I worked on.)

 

In most cases, he was not all that concerned with having the finest possible quality. In fact, many of his common coins were very mundane. In addition, his coins were not always properly stored, and many had (and still have) evidence of contamination. It is also known that many "turned in the slab", and the subject coin could be one of those.

 

I know for a fact that numerous Eliasberg coins have been subject to NCS work, and while I don't particularly endorse this, there is no denying that at least some of those coins have been helped by having contamination removed.

 

The only thing is that I wish NGC would indicate on the slab that NCS conservation was performed prior to encapsulation.

 

Edited to add: Absolutely, NCS will refuse to "conserve" some coins.

 

I just want to make sure to tell the otherside of the story here. Eliasberg had a great many coins which is true and some were quite ugly and if you say contaminated i will go with that since I don't know. But when most knowledgeable collectors/dealers think of Eliasberg pedigree, they are thinking of his great stuff which there were many and those typically were pedigreed to Clapp and before that to Chapman. Therefore the correct and best coins were the following pedigree ex: Eliasberg/Clapp/Chapman, and if you ever see one of these coins then you are seeing one of the finest, most original, wonderfully and naturally toned well preserved coin out there in the entire numismatic community and are definitely prized amongst collectors in the know. It is just not many collectors/dealers realize that it isn't just the Eliasberg pedigree that is the significant pedigree alone, it is the combination, who he purchased it from that counts n the end.

[MikeInFL]

"Therefore the correct and best coins were the following pedigree ex: Eliasberg/Clapp/Chapman, and if you ever see one of these coins then you are seeing one of the finest, most original, wonderfully and naturally toned well preserved coin out there in the entire numismatic community and are definitely prized amongst collectors in the know."

 

Alan,

 

IMO it is a great leap of faith in assuming any such thing. As we have just seen with the example in this thread, the coin may have been conserved, and who's to say if the coin wasn't cleaned before any of them owned it. In addition, just because a coin was in the Eliasberg/Clapp/Chapman collections doesn't ensure they are the "best coins". In short, all the pedigree tells you -- in and of itself -- is who used to own the coin and nothing more. Remember, even the best collectors owned some crappy coins -- and from what I've seen of those collections over the years it holds true for even these three heavyweights (athough, IMO, you are right to point out that the best coins in the Eliasberg collection are generally those with the double or triple pedigree).

 

Listen, I know you love pedigreed coins, and more power to you, but please be careful not to fall into the trap of hasty generalizations based on faulty logic.

 

Respectfully...Mike

[RI AL]

Personally, I like the original coin far better than the conserved one. I don't know what the crud was on the original, and maybe it was really offensive or even damaging over time, but the second photo is really unattractive. I'll take the crud anytime.

 

By the way, this is an excellent example of a cleaned coin that made it into a slab. I wonder why they didn't slab it in a NCS holder instead? If I were ever in the market for a coin like this, I would avoid this one like the plague. I just don't like the "look" of the shiny, new and improved, done to perfection surfaces.

[dean1345]

NCS has conserved several half cents for me and the toning was not effected. The collector in this case might have requested the toning to be removed? I prefer toned coins but there are many that love the blast white look. I would venture to guess that most coins have not been wiped or cleaned. Modern issue would be excluded.

[James_OldeTowne]

Unfortunately, as I have alluded to previously, from what I understand from a very reliable first-hand source, Eliasberg did not always store all his coins properly, and this includes coins he purchased from those great collections. While I agree completely in the awesome greatness of those pedigrees, I agree with the previous poster who cautioned that you cannot assume that a Clapp coin looks today the same as it did when Clapp owned it.

 

I believe the safest pedigree in this regard is Garrett. For example, some of his coins literally came right off the mint presses and into his possession, and never changed hands again until the auction. Read Bowers' book and some of the firsthand accounts of his acquisitions. They are fascinating!

[realone]

James,

where do you get your info that Louis Eliasberg did not store his coins properly?

Respectively,

Alan

[realone]

"Therefore the correct and best coins were the following pedigree ex: Eliasberg/Clapp/Chapman, and if you ever see one of these coins then you are seeing one of the finest, most original, wonderfully and naturally toned well preserved coin out there in the entire numismatic community and are definitely prized amongst collectors in the know."

 

Alan,

 

IMO it is a great leap of faith in assuming any such thing. As we have just seen with the example in this thread, the coin may have been conserved, and who's to say if the coin wasn't cleaned before any of them owned it. In addition, just because a coin was in the Eliasberg/Clapp/Chapman collections doesn't ensure they are the "best coins". In short, all the pedigree tells you -- in and of itself -- is who used to own the coin and nothing more. Remember, even the best collectors owned some crappy coins -- and from what I've seen of those collections over the years it holds true for even these three heavyweights (athough, IMO, you are right to point out that the best coins in the Eliasberg collection are generally those with the double or triple pedigree).

 

Listen, I know you love pedigreed coins, and more power to you, but please be careful not to fall into the trap of hasty generalizations based on faulty logic.

 

Respectfully...Mike

 

 

Mike,

no disagreement on your statement, one should never blindly make sweeping generalizations and then follow them. if you go through Eliasberg's dimes, the ones that are from Clapp are the best of the bunch, then those that are from Chapman are even better. Also the with the long pedigree once again you can trace these coins back 100 years to 3 owner and get descriptions that match what the coin looked like 100 years ago, assuming you can view the Chapman plates. However it is this knowledge and reduced number of owners that help to make the coin less likely to be messed with and/or damaged too. However it troubles me when I hear that Eliasberg mistreated his coins, I need to find out more about this and see who the source is for this info.

[James_OldeTowne]

PM sent.

[Connecticoin]

Interesting replies. The perspective on "bad" Eliasburg coins was interesting -- tagging his name to numerous mundane coins has certainly been a marketing coup for the various sellers of such coins.

 

I DO think there is a difference between NCS refusing to conserve a coin because they "cannot help it" compared with refusing to conserve a coin becuase it would be inappropriate to destory an attractive coin with original surfaces in pursuit of an upgrade. I have seen numerous examples of the latter discussed on the coin message boards.

 

That being said, I do agree that NCS does a great job on coins that REALLY need conservation -- i.e. PVC damaged, fire damage, removing AT, etc. My sense is that the market will eventually move them in the direction of less "dipping and stripping" attractive original coins as the demand for "dipped and stripped" coins cointinues to wane compared with more original coins in comparable grades.