CoinWorld apparently won't publish my letter-to-the-editor so here it is instead

[James_OldeTowne]

First, here's a transcript of my eMail exchange with the CoinWorld editor. Please note that I've removed private information. Also, notice that I initiated the conversation in September! I'll copy the actual letter in my next post.

 

--- On Thu, 10/21/10, Bill wrote:

 

From: Bill

Subject: RE: letter to the editor, in response to "lack of response to lawsuit dumbfounding"

To: James@EarlyUS.com

Date: Thursday, October 21, 2010, 9:08 AM

 

James,

 

I will have to check once we get off deadline with the current issue. I forwarded your submission to Beth for consideration as a Guest Commentary.

 

Bill

 

-----Original Message-----

 

From: EarlyUS

Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 2:21 PM

To: Bill

Subject: RE: letter to the editor, in response to "lack of response to lawsuit dumbfounding"

 

Hi Bill. Is my LTTE still being considered for inclusion in CoinWorld?

 

James Garcia

3l4-574-l785

 

--- On Tue, 9/21/10, Bill wrote:

 

From: Bill

Subject: RE: letter to the editor, in response to "lack of response to lawsuit dumbfounding"

To: James@EarlyUS.com

Date: Tuesday, September 21, 2010, 10:57 AM James,

 

I found the submission today in my Junk E-mail folder when I checked that folder for the occasional misdirected message like your piece. It is under consideration for publication.

 

Sincerely,

William

_________________________________________

 

COIN WORLD contains news coverage on U.S. and world coins, tokens, medals, paper money and more! We offer something for the beginner, intermediate, and advanced collector, along with accurate and up-to-date prices of more than 50,000 U.S. coin values.

 

-----Original Message-----

 

From: EarlyUS

Sent: Tuesday, September 21, 2010 11:41 AM

To: cweditor

Subject: Re: letter to the editor, in response to "lack of response to lawsuit dumbfounding"

 

Hello! I was just wondering if my letter-to-the-editor had been successfully received, and whether it has any chance of being published. Thank you!

 

James Garcia

 

--- On Thu, 9/16/10, EarlyUS wrote:

 

From: EarlyUS

Subject: letter to the editor, in response to "lack of response to lawsuit dumbfounding"

To: cweditor

Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010, 11:52 AM

 

Dear Editor,

 

I respectfully submit the attached "letter to the editor" for your consideration. If required, I can provide supporting documentation of the assertions made in the letter.

 

Thank you in advance.

 

James Garcia

PO Box 7l4

Fenton, MO 63O26

3l4-574-l785

[James_OldeTowne]

Here's an exact copy of the letter I sent to CoinWorld in September 2010. I'm afraid my position will prove unpopular with some members of our esteemed NGC boards, though. That being said, I believe it's a topic worthy of discussion. The only change I've made to the letter is to highlight something in color, as it was indented in the original version.

After reading so many opinions here in CoinWorld and elsewhere regarding the PCGS lawsuit against coin doctors, I feel compelled to point out what seems to be an ironic aspect of the situation.

 

According to the definition just adopted by the PNG, coin doctoring is "...to alter a coin’s surface or appearance, usually to diminish or conceal defects, and thereby represent the condition or value of a coin as being superior to its actual condition or value." PCGS has a similar definition, stating that coin doctoring "involves the alteration of the appearance of a coin to attempt to increase its value, and may involved... treating coins with chemicals". Such definitions merely confirm what most of us as collectors have always recognized as "coin doctoring" - basically an effort to make a coin "look better" than it used to, and to give it "more value", that being the key phrase in all this discussion.

 

In recent years, it has become apparent to myself and to many fellow collectors and coin dealers that I communicate with, that the process of dipping coins unquestionably falls under the category of coin doctoring. By "dipping", I refer to the immersion of a coin into acidic liquid with intent to remove tone. This alters a coin's appearance through diminishment of a perceived surface "defect" - undesired tarnish. "Dipping" alters the metal at the surface of a coin, and should not be confused with proper and safe conservation, which does not alter a coin's inherent surface character. Alteration of the surface with intent to "add value" simply cannot be deemed as anything other than "doctoring" by the definitions given.

 

Now, we all know that in years past, dipping coins was (sadly, in my opinion) considered acceptable, since it is difficult to detect, and the plain fact is that many collectors long believed "brighter is better". But whether one agrees with the practice or not, the procedure clearly falls under the definition of "coin doctoring". Personally, I prefer coins that have original surfaces and are not so bright, but I do own quite a few older silver coins that are as bright as the day they were struck, and am sure they have all been dipped. I still like them, though.

 

That said, I am merely a collector, and am not prepared or qualified to condemn folks for collecting what they enjoy, even if that happens to be bright, freshly-dipped white coins. And since I am willing to accept the practice of "dipping", then I willingly accept at least one practice of coin doctors, and am guilty as charged by John D. Wilson in CoinWorld's August 23, 2010 issue ("lack of response to lawsuit dumbfounding").

 

What puzzles me, however, is that the very company which has initiated the lawsuit against "coin doctors" has itself been involved with exactly this same process of dipping, and therefore doctoring, coins. How dare I make such a bold statement? Because last October, I acquired a printout of an on-line advertisement that stated the following:

 

"No charge for Dipping your Dollars in Bulk Volumes...And also Modern Coins."

 

What is astonishing is that this advertisement was placed by none other than... PCGS!! Does anyone doubt that the advertiser knew very well that if dull, tarnished silver dollars are made bright again, then their market appeal would be enhanced by "increased value"? Isn't dipping coins "in bulk volumes" coin doctoring on a grand scale? And isn't the "no charge" offer really intended to increase grading submissions?

 

I realize that re-etching details, lasering scratches, puttying gold, and artificially toning coins are all practices perceived as being more damaging to coins than "merely" dipping them. But I would contend that the number of severely doctored coins is relatively very small (laser equipment is expensive), while the number of coins that have been dipped must be extraordinarily huge - especially if they are treated "in bulk volumes"! Coin dip is cheap, after all.

 

The most ironic aspect of the lawsuit is that the root cause behind the desire to dip or doctor a coin is to boost its grade by at least a point at a grading service, since a one point "bump" may be what brings a coin into a much more expensive grade level. In other words, the very valuable service that third-party graders provide in grading coins seems to be exactly what has motivated coin doctors to perform their dirty deeds.

 

Sadly, third-party grading to standards of impossible precision is what has created incentive to "upgrade", and all too often, an upgrade is derived from making a coin "look better". Coin doctors simply satisfy the prevailing greed for better and better coins, and I fear there is nothing a collector of average means can do to combat this. The " lack of response" to the lawsuit doesn't surprise me at all.

[James_OldeTowne]

My final point for now: PCGS is a huge advertiser in CoinWorld. It is possible that CW elected not to publish it for this reason. It's also possible they didn't want to publish something like this with an active court case going on. Either way, I haven't pushed the issue with them, and trust that NGC is OK with me posting it here. If not, please delete, and I apologize in advance.

[Frank Provasek]

"No charge for Dipping your Dollars in Bulk Volumes...And also Modern Coins"

 

That's not even a properly structured sentence or headline. Few things show zero hits on Google...but this does. Who supplied this printout to you? Anyone can make a fake website or banner ad.

 

I have been an authorized PCGS dealer for 20 years...I get monthly mailings of all PCGS's new services, binders of rules and submission guidelines, PCGS coin number books, population guides, absolutely NOTHING in 20 years stating that they will dip coins with the exception of offering to fix coins that may have turned coffee-stain-colored in the slab due to improper rinsing after a previous dip.

 

So if Coin World was as unable as I am to come up with any verification that PCGS has a "No charge for Dipping your Dollars" policy, they obviously are not going to risk being sued for printing an accusation that can't be backed up.

 

The view of most coin collectors, the grading compamies, the ANA, the PNG, and major dealers is that PROPER dipping of a silver or gold coin is NOT considered "doctoring." That you or a minority of collectors might consider it "doctoring" doesn't mean you can accuse PCGS of "doctoring" when the word is GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD to NOT include doctoring.

[James_OldeTowne]

"No charge for Dipping your Dollars in Bulk Volumes...And also Modern Coins"

 

That's not even a properly structured sentence or headline. Few things show zero hits on Google...but this does. Who supplied this printout to you? Anyone can make a fake website or banner ad.

 

I have been an authorized PCGS dealer for 20 years...I get monthly mailings of all PCGS's new services, binders of rules and submission guidelines, PCGS coin number books, population guides, absolutely NOTHING in 20 years stating that they will dip coins with the exception of offering to fix coins that may have turned coffee-stain-colored in the slab due to improper rinsing after a previous dip.

 

So if Coin World was as unable as I am to come up with any verification that PCGS has a "No charge for Dipping your Dollars" policy, they obviously are not going to risk being sued for printing an accusation that can't be backed up.

 

The view of most coin collectors, the grading compamies, the ANA, the PNG, and major dealers is that PROPER dipping of a silver or gold coin is NOT considered "doctoring." That you or a minority of collectors might consider it "doctoring" doesn't mean you can accuse PCGS of "doctoring" when the word is GENERALLY UNDERSTOOD to NOT include doctoring.

Sorry Frank, but that is not correct - many things are not searchable and will not google simply because they are on proprietary websites. Google cannot find text that requires credentials for viewing.

 

In this case, the PCGS ad was run on CCE multiple times. Here is a screenshot of just one of the mutliple ads:

 

 

The problem is that everyone is up in arms just because they've decided to associate an unwavering negative connotation with "coin doctor". Not all coin doctoring is bad. "Dipping" is one coin doctoring process that many collectors readily accept. But it is a form of doctoring, no matter how you slice it.... at least that was my argument in the letter.

[gmarguli]

My final point for now: PCGS is a huge advertiser in CoinWorld. It is possible that CW elected not to publish it for this reason. It's also possible they didn't want to publish something like this with an active court case going on. Either way, I haven't pushed the issue with them, and trust that NGC is OK with me posting it here. If not, please delete, and I apologize in advance.

 

Looks better now.

[x2rider]

Nice, Greg

[WoodenJefferson]

[font:Impact] I found the submission today in my Junk E-mail folder [/font]

 

This statement alone speaks volumes!

[jtryka]

Well, I have no qualms with your letter to the editor, I think it brings up a lot of issues that should be discussed among the coin collecting community. Also, I am one of the (apparent) small minority that agree with your premise, that dipping is no different than other doctoring. Perhaps it's just a matter of time and perspective, but it wasn't that long ago, perhaps 10 or 15 years that dipping was very much frowned upon. In fact, if you go back to the 1970s and 1980s, when toned coins, even beautiful rainbow toned silver dollars were all out of favor. Then, the coin doctors dipped everything to kingdom come, since no one wanted toned coins, but would pay a premium for white coins (I think Q. David Bowers just had a few columns on this in Coin World in recent weeks). Today, the tables are turned, no one really cares abough white coins, but everyone loves the rainbow toned coins! So instead of dipping coins, the "doctors" have to come up with more creative ways to come up with the pretty rainbow hues, they use ovens and torches and sulphur and other chemicals to recreate decades of oxydation in a matter of hours.

 

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

[cpm9ball]

Whether dipping should be considered doctoring is not the issue. The fact that Coin World apparently sees fit to refuse to publish the letter is the real issue. I'm sure that CW has the standard disclaimer........."The opinions expressed herein........blah, blah, blah........so the fact that a reader chooses to take issue with one of CW's advertisers should not be considered. I guess freedom of speech only exists for those who have deep pockets.

 

Chris

[FishyOne]

While it's bad policy for any TPG to dip coins for submitters, I disagree that it's doctoring as defined by most. Dipped coins are routinely holdered by all TPG. Doctored coins, again as defined by most, are not holdered unless the "doctoring" is missed in the grading room.

[James_OldeTowne]

Dipped coins are routinely holdered by all TPG. Doctored coins, again as defined by most, are not holdered unless the "doctoring" is missed in the grading room.

I think your statement is important in a subtle way. Let's keep in mind that prior to about two years ago, AT coins were also routinely holdered by all TPGs. And for that matter, a great many dipped coins were rejected due to being "overdipped". In other words, the TPGs take it upon themselves to judge the degree to which a coin was either overdipped, or over-ATed, and that leads to the decision as whether or not it got into a holder. Truth be told, dipped coins get certified only if the dipping is light enough to let the coin pass. Ditto a coin that's doctored (ATed, burnished, recolored, whatever).

 

It is, and long has been, a basis of my argument that the perception of whether or not a coin is "doctored" is absolutely not a binary decision. There are degrees to which a coin can be dipped, or ATed, and still permit certification. We know this to be a fact because of all the coins that were rejected on some occasion, only to be holdered later with the exact same problem still in place.

 

Please do not take this as a personal jab at you, but I believe it is nearly always folks with an agenda who take the binary stance, as if they are the arbiters of right and wrong in the numismatic community. Basically, PCGS has lost money to making right on coins they should have caught as having been doctored, and they are certainly entitled to their day in court. But to pretend that one act to alter the surface of a coin is bad, while another act is not is purely arbitrary.

 

Incidentally, the PCGS ads that offered to "dip coins in bulk quantity" were entirely removed from CCE a little while prior to filing of the lawsuit, and have not reappeared since. Is this merely a coincidence?

[jtryka]

James you raise a good point, and it brings to mind a phrase that the TPGs have used, "market acceptable" so that coins whether cleaned, AT or whatever would be slabbed if the treatment was deemed "market acceptable." Of course no one ever defined that term, as it remained a judgment subject to the whims of the graders and company involved. That's where I think we really run into trouble.

[michael]

james you raise an important, salient point

 

100% correct

 

 

these words will come back to bite them in the

[coinman_23885]

Here's an exact copy of the letter I sent to CoinWorld in September 2010. I'm afraid my position will prove unpopular with some members of our esteemed NGC boards, though. That being said, I believe it's a topic worthy of discussion. The only change I've made to the letter is to highlight something in color, as it was indented in the original version.

After reading so many opinions here in CoinWorld and elsewhere regarding the PCGS lawsuit against coin doctors, I feel compelled to point out what seems to be an ironic aspect of the situation....

 

While I think that dipping is market acceptable in many circumstances, and distinguishable from "traditional" coin doctoring, I agree with your underlying premise. It's outlandish for a company to criticize and sue someone else for something that they themselves have offered to do. I see nothing wrong with your letter, and upon submission of the proof proffered on the boards, I would probably publish it. Of course, there is the backlash that Coin World would receive from PCGS, but they should toughen up.

 

Irrespective of the hypocrisy, the submitters did supposedly have agreements with PCGS that they would not submit doctored coins; thus, I do think that PCGS is legally justified in their decision to sue.

[TonerGuy]

I guess freedom of speech only exists for those who have deep pockets.

 

Chris

 

Quoted for truth....

[FishyOne]

Dipped coins are routinely holdered by all TPG. Doctored coins, again as defined by most, are not holdered unless the "doctoring" is missed in the grading room.

I think your statement is important in a subtle way. Let's keep in mind that prior to about two years ago, AT coins were also routinely holdered by all TPGs. And for that matter, a great many dipped coins were rejected due to being "overdipped". In other words, the TPGs take it upon themselves to judge the degree to which a coin was either overdipped, or over-ATed, and that leads to the decision as whether or not it got into a holder. Truth be told, dipped coins get certified only if the dipping is light enough to let the coin pass. Ditto a coin that's doctored (ATed, burnished, recolored, whatever).

 

It is, and long has been, a basis of my argument that the perception of whether or not a coin is "doctored" is absolutely not a binary decision. There are degrees to which a coin can be dipped, or ATed, and still permit certification. We know this to be a fact because of all the coins that were rejected on some occasion, only to be holdered later with the exact same problem still in place.

 

Please do not take this as a personal jab at you, but I believe it is nearly always folks with an agenda who take the binary stance, as if they are the arbiters of right and wrong in the numismatic community. Basically, PCGS has lost money to making right on coins they should have caught as having been doctored, and they are certainly entitled to their day in court. But to pretend that one act to alter the surface of a coin is bad, while another act is not is purely arbitrary.

 

Incidentally, the PCGS ads that offered to "dip coins in bulk quantity" were entirely removed from CCE a little while prior to filing of the lawsuit, and have not reappeared since. Is this merely a coincidence?

 

I see your point and agree that advocating dipping, or actually performing it, is contrary to the substance of the lawsuit. Proper dipping is not doctoring in my book, but I can only speak for myself.

 

PCGS certainly should not offer to dip coins. I'm shocked that they did. Hopefully we won't see that ad again. On a side note, I'm interested in what you think of "grade it"'s coins. I was not privy to viewing any of his hairlined pieces but did review 2 boxes for him before backing out of this saga. There's a lot more to it than meets the eye.

[ant]

when we get into the term "proper cleaning or dipping" it can be very very open ended. i am GIA gemologist (soon), but there are many others EGL,IGL,.....just like in grading of coins...pcgs,ngc,anacs........who is to say who is better at dipping and which one is doing it "correctly".

 

a dip is a dip even if the united states prez were the one dipping.

 

some have taken little courses that within 4 weeks they go through alot, or they can go to school for years learning chemistry. which one is the proper one? do we know?

 

in the art of tattooing there are many styles,forms,tools.....which one is actually "proper"?

[Frank Provasek]

We were a pretty heavy PCGS submitter for years at my B&M shop, and some coin owners would always ask if PCGS would dip their coins for them...they were always told that you had to do that yourself, they could not risk the liability of a bad outcome, we are a grading service, not a dipping service, etc.

 

If this is a real CCE message, and not a forgery, that really would put PCGS in a bad light.

[James_OldeTowne]

We were a pretty heavy PCGS submitter for years at my B&M shop, and some coin owners would always ask if PCGS would dip their coins for them...they were always told that you had to do that yourself, they could not risk the liability of a bad outcome, we are a grading service, not a dipping service, etc.

 

If this is a real CCE message, and not a forgery, that really would put PCGS in a bad light.

I should clarify something that readers may not be aware of. As I understand it, CCE (Certified Coin Exchange, linked here) is intended for use only by dealers (except for one small portion of the website called "collectors corner"). Therefore, I suppose it could be assumed that the PCGS ad was directed toward dealers, and not collectors.

[PerryHall]

Has anyone here who is an official PCGS submission center bothered to contact PCGS and ask them about this CCE message?

[$ilverHawk]

You could simply go to CCE and check out whether or not PCGS ran those advertisements. Instead of implying that the information James has supplied is false. I'm sure James can supply you with the publication dates. Then you would know the truth for yourself.

 

 

$ilverHawk

[jesbroken]

James,

I do not disagree with your post in its entirety, but I do offer a supposition that I feel affects the general market for both dipped and at'd coins. I am speaking of the majority of collectors here: If a collector loves the look of white tonefree coins then they might overlook dipping as being a nonissue as long as lustre is still present(they may even say it shows the surface abnormalities that toning covers). If a collector loves the toned look then they would most likely overlook the at'ing process as a nonissue as long as it is done in moderation that does not make the coin look ridiculous to them. I feel that the term Market Acceptablility has overcome most of the smaller issues, such as these with the average collector. I realize their will always be collectors who feel perfectly original coins as the only collectible numismatic items, but I doubt that this will ever be a majority. I personally fall into this latter position, but find that I actually cannot tell the majority of dipped nor at'd coins. So, therefore, I must defer this task to dealers I trust or TPG's.

The point I am trying to make, is that I feel coin doctor terminology for most collectors will be the puttied gold, the mint mark removal/addition, counterfeit or

other wise radically enhanced coins and not the lightly dipped or the lightly at'd coins.

On a technical level, your post and letter is right on, just not what I feel the majority of collectors would feel important.

Thanks for listening to my opinion, which is all this is.

Jim

[James_OldeTowne]

The point I am trying to make, is that I feel coin doctor terminology for most collectors will be the puttied gold, the mint mark removal/addition, counterfeit or

other wise radically enhanced coins and not the lightly dipped or the lightly at'd coins.

Jim, great post.

 

Unfortunately, a word of positive connotation, like "doctor", is an exceptionally poor choice to denote activity which is supposed to be negative. It seems to me we should settle on a new term, such as "defacer", or some similar synonym to describe an activity we really dislike.

 

When I "doctor" my frozen pizza (add mushrooms, onions, extra spices, whatever), it ends up being a better pizza (to me anyhow ), and when I go to the eye doctor, I expect to get better, not worse. And having a doctorate in physics is a lot better than no degree at all!

 

Personally, I think it is actually devious for certain parties to use the term "coin doctor", since in reality, it allows them to arbitrarily apply the term to ANY activity they do not like, whether it is truly problematic activity or not.

 

Thanks for your great thought, Jim!

[jesbroken]

Maybe, rather than changing the terminology, we just add another and separate the grouping. Remove the counterfeiting, puttying process and removal or addition of key components or other devious forms of changing or hiding aspects of the coin by individuals/companies in order to deceive and for profit to a new category called "Coin Manipulators". As two of the definitions by Webster for manipulate seem to fit this action or actions, as follows:

 

2. to negotiate, control, or influence (something or someone) cleverly, skilfully, or deviously

3. to falsify (a bill, accounts, etc) for one's own advantage

 

This would leave "Coin Doctoring" to a lesser evil, such as dipping and minor at'ing that may be accepted by far more people(while obviously not all) and that would be ok as we are all allowed our opinions. What do you think?

Again, just a viewpoint.

Jim

[James_OldeTowne]

Maybe, rather than changing the terminology, we just add another and separate the grouping. Remove the counterfeiting, puttying process and removal or addition of key components or other devious forms of changing or hiding aspects of the coin by individuals/companies in order to deceive and for profit to a new category called "Coin Manipulators". As two of the definitions by Webster for manipulate seem to fit this action or actions, as follows:

 

2. to negotiate, control, or influence (something or someone) cleverly, skilfully, or deviously

3. to falsify (a bill, accounts, etc) for one's own advantage

 

This would leave "Coin Doctoring" to a lesser evil, such as dipping and minor at'ing that may be accepted by far more people(while obviously not all) and that would be ok as we are all allowed our opinions. What do you think?

Again, just a viewpoint.

Jim

"Manipulator" - I love it! Much better terminology!

 

One word I've thought of was "coin surgeon". Now, a surgeon is in some ways a positive connotation, but I don't know of a single person who looks forward to the process of surgery (just the hopefully positive outcome). And "surgeon" implies someone who makes pretty substantial changes to a person... or a coin. AND it has distinct echoes of the phrase "plastic surgery", which is, after all, what we truly don't like about coin doctors.

 

Coin surgeon - what does anyone else think? or coin manipulator??

[PerryHall]

Maybe, rather than changing the terminology, we just add another and separate the grouping. Remove the counterfeiting, puttying process and removal or addition of key components or other devious forms of changing or hiding aspects of the coin by individuals/companies in order to deceive and for profit to a new category called "Coin Manipulators". As two of the definitions by Webster for manipulate seem to fit this action or actions, as follows:

 

2. to negotiate, control, or influence (something or someone) cleverly, skilfully, or deviously

3. to falsify (a bill, accounts, etc) for one's own advantage

 

This would leave "Coin Doctoring" to a lesser evil, such as dipping and minor at'ing that may be accepted by far more people(while obviously not all) and that would be ok as we are all allowed our opinions. What do you think?

Again, just a viewpoint.

Jim

"Manipulator" - I love it! Much better terminology!

 

One word I've thought of was "coin surgeon". Now, a surgeon is in some ways a positive connotation, but I don't know of a single person who looks forward to the process of surgery (just the hopefully positive outcome). And "surgeon" implies someone who makes pretty substantial changes to a person... or a coin. AND it has distinct echoes of the phrase "plastic surgery", which is, after all, what we truly don't like about coin doctors.

 

Coin surgeon - what does anyone else think? or coin manipulator??

 

Coin Plastic Surgeon?

[jesbroken]

On a lighter note, what of Evil CoinEvel Surgeon! There is song out called Evil Surgeon that would provide background music anytime it was mentioned.

Jim

[okbustchaser]

The point I am trying to make, is that I feel coin doctor terminology for most collectors will be the puttied gold, the mint mark removal/addition, counterfeit or

other wise radically enhanced coins and not the lightly dipped or the lightly at'd coins.

Jim, great post.

 

Unfortunately, a word of positive connotation, like "doctor", is an exceptionally poor choice to denote activity which is supposed to be negative. It seems to me we should settle on a new term, such as "defacer", or some similar synonym to describe an activity we really dislike.

 

When I "doctor" my frozen pizza (add mushrooms, onions, extra spices, whatever), it ends up being a better pizza (to me anyhow ), and when I go to the eye doctor, I expect to get better, not worse. And having a doctorate in physics is a lot better than no degree at all!

 

Personally, I think it is actually devious for certain parties to use the term "coin doctor", since in reality, it allows them to arbitrarily apply the term to ANY activity they do not like, whether it is truly problematic activity or not.

 

Thanks for your great thought, Jim!

 

So now you are going to tick off the chiropractors.

[Jim Beam]

Coin surgeon - what does anyone else think? or coin manipulator??

 

I would prefer the "Coin Surgeon" over "Coin Manipulator" (which is also a good)simply because I think it would be easy to expand the concept of "manipulation" way beyond coin surgery - it could relate to how coins are marketed, how they are used in an auction, etc.

 

Probably my overall choice would be to label the new faction as "Coin Quacks". This to me would show something that is just simply wrong and a "con" artist is at work.