Do you consider "dipping" to be a form of "coin doctoring" ?

[MarkFeld]

And regardless of your answer, why or why not?

 

Thanks.

[michael]

yes!!

 

any fixing of any coin no matter how slight is still doctoring ie. trying to improve a coin with various procedures

 

but ironically enough some doctoring is a good thing like removing PVC from the surfaces of a silver coin by soaking overnight in acetone

 

for some common date morgan dollars that are and/or have ugly, splotchy, mottled bag toning that has not eaten into the surfaces of the coin as of yet and where the dip doesn't hurt the lustre and adds no hairlines and is only a light mild dip with proper rinsing and baking soda where the morgan comes out blast white and lusterous again with no hairlines this is acceptable to the market and yes there are degrees of this that might be acceptable to the market and especially so the slab companies BUT NOT TO ME

 

of course i would rather have a really attractive above average eye appealling original undipped white roll fresh coin with a nice skin to it

 

but well i have racked my brain for years and still cant define out a simple statement/answer for coin doctoring

 

but importantly it is the intent of the doctoring that is most important

and also

 

on a case by case basis depending on how and what was done to the coin

 

of course for me an example of bad coin doctoring would be trying to hide problems, physically altering a coin and/or improving a coin to sell it for more money as a better example/grade and/or get it into a graded/higher graded slab holder to increase the value

 

so i guess there are degrees of coin doctoring with some maybe too harsh to call doctoring

 

so there is a fine line between coin conservation and doctoring

 

with the line being drawn

 

coin doctoring--- taking a $ coin and doing something to the coin to make it into a more saleable $$$$ coin and not revealing to the slab company and/or buyer of this important material facts of metal movement/hiding faults of a coin/recoloring as in the case of copper

 

i THINK WITH COIN DOCTORING THERE ARE MANY unfortunately many glaring examples costing collectors and slab companies huge amounts of money that are unacceptable to everyone where others are not so bad and acceptable to the marketplace but still unacceptable to me and others that are acceptable

 

so on a coin by coin case by case basis coin doctoring/fixing/conservation acceptability is a tough nut to define

[Hard Times]

This question comes up every few months in some form or another. Each time, I mention that according to Q.D. Bowers in many of his books, the majority of 19th century silver coins in AU and uncirculated grades have been dipped, some many times. So if dipping is doctoring, then one would have to say that most of of these are doctored despite being in graded TPG slabs. I am thinking that this is why in the last few years it appears that silver and gold that have not had what appears to have had a recent (broadly defined) dipping to remove tone/patina are now in favor to many.

 

So by strict definition, dipped coins are doctored, but like michael notes, there is a fine line between doctoring and conservation, and one needs to look at this on a coin by coin basis.......... Certainly the graders at top TPG's are doing just that IMHO.

[MarkFeld]

This question comes up every few months in some form or another. Each time, I mention that according to Q.D. Bowers in many of his books, the majority of 19th century silver coins in AU and uncirculated grades have been dipped, some many times. So if dipping is doctoring, then one would have to say that most of of these are doctored despite being in graded TPG slabs. I am thinking that this is why in the last few years it appears that silver and gold that have not had what appears to have had a recent (broadly defined) dipping to remove tone/patina are now in favor to many.

 

So by strict definition, dipped coins are doctored, but like michael notes, there is a fine line between doctoring and conservation, and one needs to look at this on a coin by coin basis.......... Certainly the graders at top TPG's are doing just that IMHO.

 

I believe that the vast majority of dipped coins in top TPG holders were not dipped for purposes of "conservation".

[ldhair]

I feel anything done to a coin is doctoring. If you change the looks of the coin you doctored it. To me you have to break down the term "coin doctoring" a bit more. A dip or a bath in acetone, on the right coin, can be a good type of doctoring. Most anything past that is a bad form of doctoring. Just the way I see it.

[Walkerfan]

I consider it to be doctoring but it also depends on how well it was done.

 

For example:

 

Has luster been impeded?

 

Is there residue left on the coin?

 

Some of these dips may be more 'acceptable' or 'beneficial' to the coin and it's owner than others.

[coinman_23885]

Yes, I do consider it coin doctoring given that I would define coin doctoring as any intentional action to enhance a coin's appearance. For this reason I consider dipping (and even an acetone bath) as coin doctoring. With that said, I would distinguish between market acceptable doctoring (those methods that do not harm the coin, e.g., an acetone bath) and those that are market unacceptable (those that do harm the coin, e.g., recoloring, artificial toning, putty jobs, etc.). I think dipping could be classified as either depending on the result (i.e. whether luster is diminished, etc.).

[physics-fan3.14]

Yes, I do consider it coin doctoring given that I would define coin doctoring as any intentional action to enhance a coin's appearance. For this reason I consider dipping (and even an acetone bath) as coin doctoring. With that said, I would distinguish between market acceptable doctoring (those methods that do not harm the coin, e.g., an acetone bath) and those that are market unacceptable (those that do harm the coin, e.g., recoloring, artificial toning, putty jobs, etc.). I think dipping could be classified as either depending on the result (i.e. whether luster is diminished, etc.).

 

I can't stand it when people lump acetone baths in with doctoring! This is absolutely false! Acetone is a common and accepted form of conservation - taking care of the coin to stabilize it, remove harmful substances, and preserve it for future generations. Conservation is widely accepted, and helpful, whereas doctoring is purely for profit. In this case, yes, dipping can also sometimes be considered conservation. If the coin has harmful substances, or thick toning that is potentially damaging the coin, and it is dipped - you are improving the health of the coin. The knowledgeable collector must distinguish between conservation and doctoring.

 

Think of it this way - conservation is taking that Renoir and cleaning the dirt off it so the colors shine more brilliantly. Doctoring is taking that Renoir and adding a few colors and brushstrokes to try and make it more beautiful, or scraping off that bit there because its considered ugly.

[TonerGuy]

yes, it removes a layer of metal from the coin in an effort to improve its appearance and marketability....and hence value...

 

AT and dipping are all the same in my book. Natural skin is the best !

[coinman_23885]

Yes, I do consider it coin doctoring given that I would define coin doctoring as any intentional action to enhance a coin's appearance. For this reason I consider dipping (and even an acetone bath) as coin doctoring. With that said, I would distinguish between market acceptable doctoring (those methods that do not harm the coin, e.g., an acetone bath) and those that are market unacceptable (those that do harm the coin, e.g., recoloring, artificial toning, putty jobs, etc.). I think dipping could be classified as either depending on the result (i.e. whether luster is diminished, etc.).

 

I can't stand it when people lump acetone baths in with doctoring! This is absolutely false! Acetone is a common and accepted form of conservation - taking care of the coin to stabilize it, remove harmful substances, and preserve it for future generations. Conservation is widely accepted, and helpful, whereas doctoring is purely for profit. In this case, yes, dipping can also sometimes be considered conservation. If the coin has harmful substances, or thick toning that is potentially damaging the coin, and it is dipped - you are improving the health of the coin. The knowledgeable collector must distinguish between conservation and doctoring.

 

Think of it this way - conservation is taking that Renoir and cleaning the dirt off it so the colors shine more brilliantly. Doctoring is taking that Renoir and adding a few colors and brushstrokes to try and make it more beautiful, or scraping off that bit there because its considered ugly.

 

I think you are attaching value judgments to the term "doctoring" which don't necessarily coincide with the literal meaning. To say that something has been doctored is to imply that something has been done to manipulate it (or presumably enhance it in the instant scenario). Just because it can conserve or improve a coin's appearance or "health" (or even that it is an "accepted" practice) doesn't render it doctoring any less. You are drawing a distinction which I too think is important, and which I address (i.e. what is market acceptable and helpful versus what is market unacceptable and harmful). Regardless of whether the result is viewed as positive and market acceptable or the terminology used, it is doctoring per se. I think you are conflating the term doctoring with negative consequences or evil motive.

 

 

EDITED TO ADD (and I am only using this to explain my logic; please don't misread my intent here):

 

From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary

 

Definition of DOCTOR

transitive verb

1a : to give medical treatment to b : to restore to good condition : repair

2a : to adapt or modify for a desired end by alteration or special treatment b : to alter deceptively

 

[leeg]

A "hazy" proof in need of a dip is not doctoring. "Natural", as we now know it, (Smog, Acid Rain, etc.,) earth elements have changed the coins appearance since minting and it's an effort to restore the coin to a close to "as minted" condition.

 

To me "Coin Doctoring" is puttying, artificial toning, laser enhancement, etching, etc., to try and make a coin "Market Acceptable" that normally wouldn't be considered so.

[x2rider]

MMM

What say NCS . ? They are the ones doing the conservation. Anything that for them is not covered, is doctoring . Is that to simplistic ?

[MJ]

I try not to buy dipped coins. I don't like white coins. i probably own some circulated dipped and retoned coins from the 19th century. I would never knowningly buy a MS or gem proof coin that was dipped.

 

I also do not concider dipping doctoring. MJ

[coinman_23885]

yes, it removes a layer of metal from the coin in an effort to improve its appearance and marketability....and hence value...

 

AT and dipping are all the same in my book.

 

+1

 

 

Natural skin is the best !

 

 

I would agree with this is MOST circumstances; however, I have seen a few coins that could benefit from a good dip.

[Frank Provasek]

yes, it removes a layer of metal from the coin in an effort to improve its appearance and marketability....and hence value...

 

 

Dips like EZ-Est do NOT work by removing a layer of metal from the coin.

 

The thiourea used in E-z-est and similar products

works by grabbing the sulfur in silver sulfide (tarnish) and releasing it as hydrogen sulfide gas (the rotten egg smell.) The silver stays on the coin! But eventually, cycles of bond/release/bond/release will change the ARRANGEMENT of the silver microstructure, thus affecting the LUSTER.

 

 

[Kurtdog]

And regardless of your answer, why or why not?

 

Thanks.

I can see you're not afraid to tackle the controversial questions. Here's my answer. If dipping a white coin to achieve tarnish is "doctoring," dipping a tarnished coin to achieve white is the same, exact thing. I'll add, dealers did the latter when we had only technical grading, as white enhanced the technical grade. Now that we have market grading, they're doing the opposite, as eye-appealing tarnish enhances the market grade.

[MarkFeld]

A "hazy" proof in need of a dip is not doctoring. "Natural", as we now know it, (Smog, Acid Rain, etc.,) earth elements have changed the coins appearance since minting and it's an effort to restore the coin to a close to "as minted" condition.

 

To me "Coin Doctoring" is puttying, artificial toning, laser enhancement, etching, etc., to try and make a coin "Market Acceptable" that normally wouldn't be considered so.

 

Why does a hazy proof "need" a dip? To make it look better and/or make it easier to sell, perhaps? I don't necessarily see that example as conservation.

[Kurtdog]

A "hazy" proof in need of a dip is not doctoring. "Natural", as we now know it, (Smog, Acid Rain, etc.,) earth elements have changed the coins appearance since minting and it's an effort to restore the coin to a close to "as minted" condition.

 

To me "Coin Doctoring" is puttying, artificial toning, laser enhancement, etching, etc., to try and make a coin "Market Acceptable" that normally wouldn't be considered so.

 

Why does a hazy proof "need" a dip? To make it look better and/or make it easier to sell, perhaps? I don't necessarily see that example as conservation.

FWIW, neither do I. (thumbs u

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

And regardless of your answer, why or why not?

 

Thanks.

 

I suspect the Form of the question is purposely broad.

 

By the words "...to be a form of coin doctoring....", and following the strict Rules of Hypotheticals established long ago by the OP, then the answer must be that any action or treatment of a coin, that is done post-mint, must logically be doctoring.

 

The question does not ask whether it is a good or bad practice.

 

While I certainly understand that the conclusion of the majority is that dipping is enhancing a coin for the end purpose of monetary reward, this does not mean automatic condemnation of the coin.

 

I would proffer that there are a minority of coins pre- 1930ish that are not dipped/enhaced/cleaned, wiped, etc., either by a Dealer, or by a Collector, and the majority of the coins treated were by Collectors, and not done at the time to necessarily gain monetary reward, but done for personal pleasure.

 

The coins that were "doctored", some done poorly, some done with satisfying results, eventually have their fate decided by the Market.

 

An extension of the original question, if the discussion is, in part, Market enhancement, would be:

 

Should Dealers/Collectors buy/sell "Doctored" Coins, and why or why not?

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

A "hazy" proof in need of a dip is not doctoring. "Natural", as we now know it, (Smog, Acid Rain, etc.,) earth elements have changed the coins appearance since minting and it's an effort to restore the coin to a close to "as minted" condition.

 

To me "Coin Doctoring" is puttying, artificial toning, laser enhancement, etching, etc., to try and make a coin "Market Acceptable" that normally wouldn't be considered so.

 

Why does a hazy proof "need" a dip? To make it look better and/or make it easier to sell, perhaps? I don't necessarily see that example as conservation.

 

I do not read where the statement is made that it is conservation.

 

Restoring is not conserving, although I certainly understand the inference.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

[MarkFeld]

A "hazy" proof in need of a dip is not doctoring. "Natural", as we now know it, (Smog, Acid Rain, etc.,) earth elements have changed the coins appearance since minting and it's an effort to restore the coin to a close to "as minted" condition.

 

To me "Coin Doctoring" is puttying, artificial toning, laser enhancement, etching, etc., to try and make a coin "Market Acceptable" that normally wouldn't be considered so.

 

Why does a hazy proof "need" a dip? To make it look better and/or make it easier to sell, perhaps? I don't necessarily see that example as conservation.

 

I do not read where the statement is made that it is conservation.

 

Restoring is not conserving, although I certainly understand the inference.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

John, you are of course, correct. Lee did not state that dipping amounted to conservation.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

yes, it removes a layer of metal from the coin in an effort to improve its appearance and marketability....and hence value...

 

 

Dips like EZ-Est do NOT work by removing a layer of metal from the coin.

 

The thiourea used in E-z-est and similar products

works by grabbing the sulfur in silver sulfide (tarnish) and releasing it as hydrogen sulfide gas (the rotten egg smell.) The silver stays on the coin! But eventually, cycles of bond/release/bond/release will change the ARRANGEMENT of the silver microstructure, thus affecting the LUSTER.

 

 

Admittedly, (and Thanks to my Higher Power), I am not a Chemist/Metallurgist, etc.

 

But, (there is always a "but"), might the observation/lesson be slightly enhanced?

 

It would seem to me that if a Product turns sulfur- a non-metallic chemical element (I remember that much), into hydrogen sulfide- a gaseous, light weight element that is a compound of sulfer with another element or radical, then, while the element being removed is not metallic, it certainly is a compund element that is being removed to enhance visual acceptability.

 

 

I know- a baby/bathwater thing... however, the effect is still the same- the coin was treated post-mint.

 

Respectfully, (of course)

John Curlis

[physics-fan3.14]

I think you are attaching value judgments to the term "doctoring" which don't necessarily coincide with the literal meaning. To say that something has been doctored is to imply that something has been done to manipulate it (or presumably enhance it in the instant scenario). Just because it can conserve or improve a coin's appearance or "health" (or even that it is an "accepted" practice) doesn't render it doctoring any less. You are drawing a distinction which I too think is important, and which I address (i.e. what is market acceptable and helpful versus what is market unacceptable and harmful). Regardless of whether the result is viewed as positive and market acceptable or the terminology used, it is doctoring per se. I think you are conflating the term doctoring with negative consequences or evil motive.

 

 

EDITED TO ADD (and I am only using this to explain my logic; please don't misread my intent here):

 

From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary

 

Definition of DOCTOR

transitive verb

1a : to give medical treatment to b : to restore to good condition : repair

2a : to adapt or modify for a desired end by alteration or special treatment b : to alter deceptively

 

There is a distinct line between doctoring and conserving. Conservation is not "manipulation, with an intent to enhance it" as you say.

 

While the dictionary definition of the word is all fine and good, sometimes in hobbies words are used differently. They take on a specific meaning different from the general meaning. Thus, Mirriam Webster's cannot be used to define "doctoring" in a numismatic sense. In coin collecting, doctoring has a universally negative implication, whereas conservation is the positive aspect. Your explanation seems to call everything doctoring, whether good or bad, but that is not how the term is generally used in this hobby.

 

Let me give you some examples:

 

PVC is eating away at the surface of the coin so you wash it with acetone.

Verdigris is eating away at a copper cent, so you remove it.

Thick smoke damage has occured to a coin, so you remove it.

 

These are all conservation.

 

Now, think about these:

A coin has an ugly scratch on it, so you buff it down and remove the scratch.

A coin has a hole in it, so you plug it and make it look better.

A coin has unattractive toning, so you dip it.

 

These are all doctoring. You are taking a coin and changing it to "improve" it, to make it more attractive or saleable.

 

[BillJones]

As I have stated many times before, I don't see the harm in dipping a Choice AU or Mint State silver coin for the purpose of improving its eye appeal. No coin below AU-55 should ever be dipped IMO. I am also opposed to dipping copper, and it sould be avoided for most gold pieces. Yes, a tiny amount of metal is lost, but when it is done judiciously by someone who has an eye or a sense of when to dip and when not to dip, it can improve the beauty, marketability and yes, even increase the value of a coin.

 

One great myth that is passed around by the “never dip” purists is that natural, original toning is always attractive. Frequently it is not. There are also some forms of toning that are aggressive that can be harmful to the piece. Removing it can be a form of conservation.

 

One area where dipping is almost mandatory if you are going to get the full value from your coins is with Proof dimes, quarters and half dollars from the 1936 to 1942 era. Many of these pieces acquired a haze from the cellophane and tissue paper shipping devices that were used with these pieces. I can tell you from personal experience that slabbed coins that have this haze are very hard to sell, even at the Gray Sheet bid prices. Dipping in this case does restore value to the coin. To those who doubt me, buy one of these coins that has the haze and see for yourself how hard it is to sell these coins at a fair price.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I think you are attaching value judgments to the term "doctoring" which don't necessarily coincide with the literal meaning. To say that something has been doctored is to imply that something has been done to manipulate it (or presumably enhance it in the instant scenario). Just because it can conserve or improve a coin's appearance or "health" (or even that it is an "accepted" practice) doesn't render it doctoring any less. You are drawing a distinction which I too think is important, and which I address (i.e. what is market acceptable and helpful versus what is market unacceptable and harmful). Regardless of whether the result is viewed as positive and market acceptable or the terminology used, it is doctoring per se. I think you are conflating the term doctoring with negative consequences or evil motive.

 

 

EDITED TO ADD (and I am only using this to explain my logic; please don't misread my intent here):

 

From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary

 

Definition of DOCTOR

transitive verb

1a : to give medical treatment to b : to restore to good condition : repair

2a : to adapt or modify for a desired end by alteration or special treatment b : to alter deceptively

 

There is a distinct line between doctoring and conserving. Conservation is not "manipulation, with an intent to enhance it" as you say.

 

While the dictionary definition of the word is all fine and good, sometimes in hobbies words are used differently. They take on a specific meaning different from the general meaning. Thus, Mirriam Webster's cannot be used to define "doctoring" in a numismatic sense. In coin collecting, doctoring has a universally negative implication, whereas conservation is the positive aspect. Your explanation seems to call everything doctoring, whether good or bad, but that is not how the term is generally used in this hobby.

 

Let me give you some examples:

 

PVC is eating away at the surface of the coin so you wash it with acetone.

Verdigris is eating away at a copper cent, so you remove it.

Thick smoke damage has occured to a coin, so you remove it.

 

These are all conservation.

 

Now, think about these:

A coin has an ugly scratch on it, so you buff it down and remove the scratch.

A coin has a hole in it, so you plug it and make it look better.

A coin has unattractive toning, so you dip it.

 

These are all doctoring. You are taking a coin and changing it to "improve" it, to make it more attractive or saleable.

 

Wow...

 

I am very fortunate you were not my English Teacher. You are tough, even when the student is contrite and apologetic and explanatory.

 

But (there is always a "but"), the statement was made by the Forum Member:

 

"...and I am only using this to explain my logic; please don't misread my intent here....".

 

Respectfully, (and I opt out of your future classes),

 

John Curlis

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

As I have stated many times before, I don't see the harm in dipping a Choice AU or Mint State silver coin for the purpose of improving its eye appeal. No coin below AU-55 should ever be dipped IMO. I am also opposed to dipping copper, and it sould be avoided for most gold pieces. Yes, a tiny amount of metal is lost, but when it is done judiciously by someone who has an eye or a sense of when to dip and when not to dip, it can improve the beauty, marketability and yes, even increase the value of a coin.

 

One great myth that is passed around by the never dip purists is that natural, original toning is always attractive. Frequently it is not. There are also some forms of toning that are aggressive that can be harmful to the piece. Removing it can be a form of conservation.

 

One area where dipping is almost mandatory if you are going to get the full value from your coins is with Proof dimes, quarters and half dollars from the 1936 to 1942 era. Many of these pieces acquired a haze from the cellophane and tissue paper shipping devices that were used with these pieces. I can tell you from personal experience that slabbed coins that have this haze are very hard to sell, even at the Gray Sheet bid prices. Dipping in this case does restore value to the coin. To those who doubt me, buy one of these coins that has the haze and see for yourself how hard it is to sell these coins at a fair price.

 

The question was and is: Do you consider "dipping" to be a form of "coin doctoring", and why or why not?

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

[MarkFeld]

I think you are attaching value judgments to the term "doctoring" which don't necessarily coincide with the literal meaning. To say that something has been doctored is to imply that something has been done to manipulate it (or presumably enhance it in the instant scenario). Just because it can conserve or improve a coin's appearance or "health" (or even that it is an "accepted" practice) doesn't render it doctoring any less. You are drawing a distinction which I too think is important, and which I address (i.e. what is market acceptable and helpful versus what is market unacceptable and harmful). Regardless of whether the result is viewed as positive and market acceptable or the terminology used, it is doctoring per se. I think you are conflating the term doctoring with negative consequences or evil motive.

 

 

EDITED TO ADD (and I am only using this to explain my logic; please don't misread my intent here):

 

From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary

 

Definition of DOCTOR

transitive verb

1a : to give medical treatment to b : to restore to good condition : repair

2a : to adapt or modify for a desired end by alteration or special treatment b : to alter deceptively

 

There is a distinct line between doctoring and conserving.......

 

In some cases, yes. In others no.

[physics-fan3.14]

 

Wow...

 

I am very fortunate you were not my English Teacher. You are tough, even when the student is contrite and apologetic and explanatory.

 

But (there is always a "but"), the statement was made by the Forum Member:

 

"...and I am only using this to explain my logic; please don't misread my intent here....".

 

Respectfully, (and I opt out of your future classes),

 

John Curlis

 

My intention was not to be tough or overbearing, sorry if I came off that way. And I don't think his intention was to be contrite or apologetic - he was trying to explain his point, and I was trying to explain why I (strongly) disagree with his point.

 

John, you as a master of logic should appreciate where our discussion went. If you disagree over the meaning of a word, you can never agree on the implications of that. This is why I am glad he gave me his definition of the word "doctoring" - so that I could point out how and why I disagree with him. He gave the definition of the word as an explanation for his point (to explain his logic), and I merely pointed out that in our hobby, the word means something different. Our disagreement is a fundamental one.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

 

Wow...

 

I am very fortunate you were not my English Teacher. You are tough, even when the student is contrite and apologetic and explanatory.

 

But (there is always a "but"), the statement was made by the Forum Member:

 

"...and I am only using this to explain my logic; please don't misread my intent here....".

 

Respectfully, (and I opt out of your future classes),

 

John Curlis

 

My intention was not to be tough or overbearing, sorry if I came off that way. And I don't think his intention was to be contrite or apologetic - he was trying to explain his point, and I was trying to explain why I (strongly) disagree with his point.

 

John, you as a master of logic should appreciate where our discussion went. If you disagree over the meaning of a word, you can never agree on the implications of that. This is why I am glad he gave me his definition of the word "doctoring" - so that I could point out how and why I disagree with him. He gave the definition of the word as an explanation for his point (to explain his logic), and I merely pointed out that in our hobby, the word means something different. Our disagreement is a fundamental one.

 

 

Intent of comical quality has a way of being misplaced when sent thru cyberspace, and I am no good at those smiley face thingys.

 

Not that I was ever a capable comedian, except in my own mind.

 

I accept his, as well as your, statements. Neither need the support of Logic; the statements are equally valuable personal opinions.

 

Lastly, while I am humbled that you would define my opinions as a master of logic,

(I make the mental illogical leap that this statement was not intended to be satirical) I assure you I am not. I am closer to my wifes' definition: A PITA, that can't keep his mouth shut.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I think you are attaching value judgments to the term "doctoring" which don't necessarily coincide with the literal meaning. To say that something has been doctored is to imply that something has been done to manipulate it (or presumably enhance it in the instant scenario). Just because it can conserve or improve a coin's appearance or "health" (or even that it is an "accepted" practice) doesn't render it doctoring any less. You are drawing a distinction which I too think is important, and which I address (i.e. what is market acceptable and helpful versus what is market unacceptable and harmful). Regardless of whether the result is viewed as positive and market acceptable or the terminology used, it is doctoring per se. I think you are conflating the term doctoring with negative consequences or evil motive.

 

 

EDITED TO ADD (and I am only using this to explain my logic; please don't misread my intent here):

 

From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary

 

Definition of DOCTOR

transitive verb

1a : to give medical treatment to b : to restore to good condition : repair

2a : to adapt or modify for a desired end by alteration or special treatment b : to alter deceptively

 

There is a distinct line between doctoring and conserving.......

 

In some cases, yes. In others no.

 

 

And things were going so well.....

 

I must disagree.

 

Conserving is to keep from being lost, damaged or wasted.

 

Nothing is kept from being lost/damaged/wasted by "doctoring", as used in the original question.

 

While I understand that a certain Market Enterprise uses the "C" in its initials to impart Conservation, it is not. It is simply pacticing the Art of Restoration.

 

We, as Numismatists, should not blur the line- fine or not.

 

Doctoring is post-mint enhancing, closer to restoring- to return to a former or normal state (or attempting to do so).

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis