Restoration or More Damage

[mtnstyne]

Holed Coin Article

 

First I understand NGC's position on this coin and it seems as though it was altered in an attempt to decieve; however, I would personnaly prefer to own the altered coin vs the original holed coin. The difference is that I would never try to sell it as problem free.

 

I am wondering what your opinions are on this type of doctoring?

[okbustchaser]

This person, who likely refers to himself as a “coin restorer,” would likely argue that the appearance of the coin has been improved now that the hole is gone. Nonetheless, the originality of the coin has been compromised, and it has the potential to fool a collector into thinking that the coin is better and more valuable.

 

Why shoudn't he argue thusly? The appearance of the coin HAS been improved and the value IS increased...not to the value of an unaltered coin of course, but much more than when holed.

 

I, personally, would not buy the coin because I have absolutely no interest in gold coins, but if it were a bust half dollar die marriage that I needed then I would pay considerably more for the repaired coin than I would have prior to the repair.

[PerryHall]

Who ever repaired that coin did an excellant job and it would fool most collectors.

[physics-fan3.14]

Who ever repaired that coin did an excellant job and it would fool most collectors.

 

And therein lies the problem. I don't really mind that it was restored ( I wouldn't buy it, but the appeal has been increased). However, the fact that it was restored to the point that it would be deceptive to many, including obviously the person who submitted it, is the problem.

[Kurtdog]

NGC was cornered on this one as they have a reputation to uphold. I'd have taken the same position.

[James_OldeTowne]

Before and after pictures show how dramatically this coin was changed. While a few people might argue that restoration enhances the coins appearance, we feel that this is deception and hurts collectors and dealers. A holed coin may not be the most attractive example, but plugging it only does more damage

I understand NGC's position, but I am one of the "few people" that would indeed argue that restoration CAN SOMETIMES enhance a coin's appearance. And in this case, there's no question that it did. 1870-CC is a well known key to the half-eagle series, and it's pretty obvious why someone would want to repair a huge, gaping ugly hole in one like that.

 

If I had to buy a used car, would I want a huge gaping hole in the windshield to be repaired? Of course I would, and I wouldn't care one whit whether I was told about the repair or not. I realize that collectibles are not the same as used cars, but take the car analogy one step further. Do you really care whether that 1955 Thunderbird has had it's holed windshield replaced or not? I don't. All I care about is whether I can drive it, and look good doing so.

[RockMyAmadeus]

As always, the point is disclosure. I wouldn't have been able to tell, nor would most people. Would I be interested in owning a restored coin? Sure, I own restored comics. Would I pay the same price as a completely original coin? Of course not.

 

If people end up paying the same for this restored coin as they pay for a completely original coin, without knowing it's been repaired, they are being stolen from. If the restoration is not obvious, the temptation to "forget to mention it" becomes too great for many, and fraud occurs.

[e1cnr]

they did such a good jub, I am not 100% sure it is the same coin

 

although many marks are similar, some disappeared in finished coin

[comicdonna]

Before and after pictures show how dramatically this coin was changed. While a few people might argue that restoration enhances the coins appearance, we feel that this is deception and hurts collectors and dealers. A holed coin may not be the most attractive example, but plugging it only does more damage

I understand NGC's position, but I am one of the "few people" that would indeed argue that restoration CAN SOMETIMES enhance a coin's appearance. And in this case, there's no question that it did. 1870-CC is a well known key to the half-eagle series, and it's pretty obvious why someone would want to repair a huge, gaping ugly hole in one like that.

 

If I had to buy a used car, would I want a huge gaping hole in the windshield to be repaired? Of course I would, and I wouldn't care one whit whether I was told about the repair or not. I realize that collectibles are not the same as used cars, but take the car analogy one step further. Do you really care whether that 1955 Thunderbird has had it's holed windshield replaced or not? I don't. All I care about is whether I can drive it, and look good doing so.

Some people are fine with restoration on collectibles as long as it presents well. For me, it's about owning something that is old and is in it's original state without any enhancements.

[okbustchaser]

Except that in this case the coin wasn't in its original state prior to being restored. Unless, of course, the coin was holed while at the mint.

[gmarguli]

I think NGC was completely wrong with their statement "A holed coin may not be the most attractive example, but plugging it only does more damage." It just (IMO) doesn't mesh with the outcome. The holed example is awful looking. The plugged example looks significantly nicer.

 

Providing I could only afford a problem example, I'd be willing to put the plugged coin in my collection. I'd never consider the holed coin.

[comicdonna]

Except that in this case the coin wasn't in its original state prior to being restored. Unless, of course, the coin was holed while at the mint.

Yep, and I wouldn't be interested in owning it.

[James_OldeTowne]

Some people are fine with restoration on collectibles as long as it presents well. For me, it's about owning something that is old and is in it's original state without any enhancements.

That's the classic argument, and as has been mentioned, the fundamental problem with that stance is that the coin was NOT in it's "original" state while it was holed. Rather, it was in an altered state.

 

The half-eagle's original state upon removal from circulation was: VF with no hole.

[BillJones]

I think NGC was completely wrong with their statement "A holed coin may not be the most attractive example, but plugging it only does more damage." It just (IMO) doesn't mesh with the outcome. The holed example is awful looking. The plugged example looks significantly nicer.

 

Providing I could only afford a problem example, I'd be willing to put the plugged coin in my collection. I'd never consider the holed coin.

 

Yea, I agree. A well done pug for a hole is perfectly okay with me from an ethical standpoint. I don't buy such coins, but there are arguments for buying them if you can't afford an undamaged specimen.

 

The hang up comes when the hole is filled too well . By that I mean the repair should be detectable with a good glass. In this case, I think that was how the repair was done.

 

Years ago I saw a piece in a local auction that had been repaired “too well.” It was virtually undetectable, but giving the auction firm credit, they pointed it out in the auction description. BUT after that auction I could see that coin getting sold to a collector with no notes about the problem at all.

 

[Kurtdog]

Just to clarify, I like the restored example, too. But, if I were a major TPG, I don't think I'd be too excited at the prospect of putting my good name behind a coin like that, either. I think I'd want my trademark to stand for a little better quality than that.

[PerryHall]

This is a perfect example of the value of a top tier grading service. NGC caught the repair and, by mentioning it on the slab label, the buyer of this coin knows exactly what he is buying.

[jesbroken]

Just like in collecting coins with some damage. We as collectors are more forgiving(as are the TPG's) when the coin is extremely old or valuable. Many 1700's coins are gradeable and acceptable with scratches, nicks, abrasions, and pits that would never be accepted by the collector if a mid 1800 coin. This coin would become instantly acceptable by most were it a 1798 Sm. Eagle $5 Gold piece.in VF or XF condition after the repair. Due to it's availability and expense it becomes more acceptable, which if one is adamant in their collecting position would not be acceptable. So, I say that the situation changes the average collectors attitude toward cleanings, damage, and even repairs. The only true dividing line for most is the fact that it should be made public before being sold. If that info is kept hidden, the real "damage" is done. JMO

Jim

[michael]

i love the plugged and re-engraved coin

 

easy to tell it was done if you had the coin in your hand sight seen

 

 

[physics-fan3.14]

This is a perfect example of the value of a top tier grading service. NGC caught the repair and, by mentioning it on the slab label, the buyer of this coin knows exactly what he is buying.

 

When the coin had a hole, it was graded EF Details by NGC. Obviously, the buyer didn't care, cracked it out, fixed it, and it was eventually resubmitted. Nothing is stopping another buyer from again cracking it out and deceptively selling it again.

[jesbroken]

There is absolutely nothing that can be done to prevent a thief from stealing previous to the act. There will always be crooked people and experience, access to information and education are the best countermeasures to being made a victim, although not foolproof. This forum and others like it are another great tool that adds to all three. But the question remains, would most prefer the coin repaired or with the hole(assuming no one is going to sell it falsely). I personally would prefer the repair. Then, that's me.

Jim

[Kurtdog]

This is a perfect example of the value of a top tier grading service. NGC caught the repair and, by mentioning it on the slab label, the buyer of this coin knows exactly what he is buying.

 

When the coin had a hole, it was graded EF Details by NGC. Obviously, the buyer didn't care, cracked it out, fixed it, and it was eventually resubmitted. Nothing is stopping another buyer from again cracking it out and deceptively selling it again.

Exactly. Imagine a SLQ, "NGC MS64 Rebuilt Head." They really can't afford to go down the road of detail-grading rebuilt coins. It's as simple as that. Then, again, the market can buy those coins as much as it wants, that's not the issue for the TPG.

[James_OldeTowne]

This is a perfect example of the value of a top tier grading service. NGC caught the repair and, by mentioning it on the slab label, the buyer of this coin knows exactly what he is buying.

 

When the coin had a hole, it was graded EF Details by NGC. Obviously, the buyer didn't care, cracked it out, fixed it, and it was eventually resubmitted. Nothing is stopping another buyer from again cracking it out and deceptively selling it again.

Exactly. Imagine a SLQ, "NGC MS64 Rebuilt Head." They really can't afford to go down the road of detail-grading rebuilt coins. It's as simple as that. Then, again, the market can buy those coins as much as it wants, that's not the issue for the TPG.

Adding to a coin details that were never to begin with is different than repairing a hole, in my opinion. A 1918/7-S quarter is virtually never struck with full head details, so in it's "original state", it might have been a scoop head, and putting metal there to be resculpted does not put the coin back to a more original state. It creates a state that never existed to begin with (the coin never had full head details).

 

But if someone drills a hole into a 1918/7-S, then they have taken it out of it's original state and altered it. Plugging that hole and placing the metal back the way it was (as close as can be reasonably assessed) is an attempt to put it back into that original state.

 

Of course, there's a grey area. I recently encountered a Flying Eagle cent in only Fine or so, and it had full breast feathers! How? Someone re-engraved them, of course. Now, it is true that in SOME "original state" at some point, the coin did indeed have breast feathers, but they were subsequently worn away, putting the coin into a new "original state". I suppose that engraving new breast feathers onto a Fine coin is an invalid attempt to put the coin into too early an "original state", but that's still different than plugging a hole.

[Kurtdog]

This is a perfect example of the value of a top tier grading service. NGC caught the repair and, by mentioning it on the slab label, the buyer of this coin knows exactly what he is buying.

 

When the coin had a hole, it was graded EF Details by NGC. Obviously, the buyer didn't care, cracked it out, fixed it, and it was eventually resubmitted. Nothing is stopping another buyer from again cracking it out and deceptively selling it again.

Exactly. Imagine a SLQ, "NGC MS64 Rebuilt Head." They really can't afford to go down the road of detail-grading rebuilt coins. It's as simple as that. Then, again, the market can buy those coins as much as it wants, that's not the issue for the TPG.

Adding to a coin details that were never to begin with is different than repairing a hole, in my opinion. A 1918/7-S quarter is virtually never struck with full head details, so in it's "original state", it might have been a scoop head, and putting metal there to be resculpted does not put the coin back to a more original state. It creates a state that never existed to begin with (the coin never had full head details).

 

But if someone drills a hole into a 1918/7-S, then they have taken it out of it's original state and altered it. Plugging that hole and placing the metal back the way it was (as close as can be reasonably assessed) is an attempt to put it back into that original state.

 

Of course, there's a grey area. I recently encountered a Flying Eagle cent in only Fine or so, and it had full breast feathers! How? Someone re-engraved them, of course. Now, it is true that in SOME "original state" at some point, the coin did indeed have breast feathers, but they were subsequently worn away, putting the coin into a new "original state". I suppose that engraving new breast feathers onto a Fine coin is an invalid attempt to put the coin into too early an "original state", but that's still different than plugging a hole.

But how is plugging a hole different from filling a deep gash? The end of that, I'll call it, "restoration logic," is accepting repairs on even the slightest of physical damage. Think about it...

[Chris1976]

Repairing, restoring, doctoring, its basically all the same in my point of view. And it seems that most would become more likely to accept a coin that has been altered as such based on how old it was. Its just another market of a service that in time may take hold. Not that I personally agree with it, but its sure to happen. After all, restoring a classic car increases its value right? So people are looking at it the same with coins, maybe later those repairs that were made to a coin manged to keep that type of coin alive once the numbers dwindle down to almost extiction levels. For all we know or could guess, maybe an entire seperate price and grading system will come out and people will accept the altered coins.

 

As for my thoughts on the coin that this post was about in the begining, I would have to honestly say I wouldnt want it for myself. To me, even though it looks decent again, I dont feel its what I would be looking for. Eventually with luck that coin will end up with an honest person and it will no longer travel back and forth between owner and graders. It just sucks that the honest owner would end up taking a loss on the coin (based on price value due to being altered), but on a side note it would fill a missing place in someones collection, just it wouldnt be gradeable, instead it would be mearly an artistic piece of metal.

 

Again, these are just my opinions and opinions vary from person to person.

 

-Chris#2

[Kurtdog]

After all, restoring a classic car increases its value right? So people are looking at it the same with coins, maybe later those repairs that were made to a coin manged to keep that type of coin alive once the numbers dwindle down to almost extiction levels. For all we know or could guess, maybe an entire seperate price and grading system will come out and people will accept the altered coins.

I can see it, now, Chris. "NGC MS64 - Body by NCS."

[James_OldeTowne]

But how is plugging a hole different from filling a deep gash?

It's the same. Think about it this way: how did the coin with the gaping gash look in it's "original state" BEFORE it was damaged? Normal, right?

 

So, why is it ethically wrong to make a coin look normal?

 

The end of that, I'll call it, "restoration logic," is accepting repairs on even the slightest of physical damage. Think about it...

Coins in normal circulation do not get holes and deep gashes. They get normal contact marks. And if you buff a coin, or burnish it, to remove normal contact marks, then we ALL agree that you have altered the coin beyond the usual collectable state. A coin ought to be collected in the state that it existed during normal circulation, or normal storage at the mint.

 

But if someone takes a coin out of circulation (in other words, removes it from it's normal environment, and therefore its normal state), and drills a hole or gouges it, then it's already been put beyond its original state, and become altered.

 

So again, I'd like to ask what is wrong with restoring a coin to a normal state of its existence?

 

For me, "physical damage" doesn't equate exactly to "normal wear". While all normal wear is a form of damage, not all damage is a form of normal wear.

[mtnstyne]

NCS will put it on a slab, do they offer a "hole plugging" service?

 

[Kurtdog]

Think about it this way: how did the coin with the gaping gash look in it's "original state" BEFORE it was damaged? Normal, right?

 

So, why is it ethically wrong to make a coin look normal?

Because, James, a coin restored as such is everything but normal. I'll hasten to point out, there's a difference between normal and the mere appearance of same. NGC is making a conscientious effort to respect that difference, seems to me.

 

But if someone takes a coin out of circulation (in other words, removes it from it's normal environment, and therefore its normal state), and drills a hole or gouges it, then it's already been put beyond its original state, and become altered.

 

So again, I'd like to ask what is wrong with restoring a coin to a normal state of its existence?

Nothing at all, under a two-wrongs-make-a-right theory. To wit, since when can an alteration of an alteration ever possibly be construed as anything other than, well, an alteration?

 

Then, again, market grading, eye appeal; maybe that's indeed all this hobby is about, now, affectations...

[Oldtrader3]

The only ethical solution, if slabbed, is a details holder. Also, it is a coin with Jules Riever provenance. I agree that often restoration, in this case plugging the hole, does increase the appearance value of this coin but it must be attributed properly as to what it is.

 

Perry's statement accurately reflects how I feel as well.