"If it can never be proven to be doctored, then it is not doctored"... right?

[James_OldeTowne]

What I mean is, if no test at any time, or over any course of time, can ever prove that a particular coin has been doctored, then in fact, it has NOT been doctored.

 

Agree or disagree?

 

(As an aside, I greatly dislike use of the term "coin doctor", but we all understand what I'm talking about, right ?)

[comicdonna]

Disagree!

[MarkFeld]

I disagree.

 

Countless things are done, but can't necessarily be proved. The lack of proof doesn't negate the fact that they were done.

[bsshog40]

I disagree also. Unless you have the person that admits that person doctored a coin, then it would be very hard to prove anything. Of course we all have our opinions on coins that have been doctored and sometimes that's enough proof to determine a coin was doctored. Right?

[$ilverHawk]

I agree with the OP s statement. It is a straight forward argument that is based on our ability to detect an alteration. The key is the ability to detect an alteration. To remove any numismatic connection, substitute the word "doctored" with the word "changed" in the OP s title statement

 

"If it can never be proven to be changed, then it is not changed." Proof is necessary to support a fact--no proof, no fact. An undetectable alteration is just that, undetectable.

 

Carl

[Walkerfan]

Disagree-most of the time you can tell if something has been fooled with, even if it still looks good.

[physics-fan3.14]

I disagree - proof of something doesn't mean it is or isn't so. The doctoring has been done, and nothing can change that.

 

However, let me rephrase your question to the question I think you meant - "If it can never be proven to be doctored, does it really matter?" And the answer to that is, if you can't prove it then it is perfectly market acceptable.

 

Corollary questions would of course be "If it can never be proven to be artificially toned, then is it artificially toned (or, does it matter)?" (Of course, AT is a form of doctoring, but is a whole other discussion).

 

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it still make a sound?

[RockMyAmadeus]

What I mean is, if no test at any time, or over any course of time, can ever prove that a particular coin has been doctored, then in fact, it has NOT been doctored.

 

In theory, no.

 

In practice, yes.

[jom]

If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it make a sound?

 

jom

[mtnstyne]

"Not guilty" does not equal "innocent"...ask O.J. and that woman in Florida.

 

If you are asking if TPGs should not grade all coins if they can't prove or detect alteration then I would agree with you. But in the end that still does not make the coin unaltered, only the alteration undetectable.

 

mtn

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

What I mean is, if no test at any time, or over any course of time, can ever prove that a particular coin has been doctored, then in fact, it has NOT been doctored.

 

Agree or disagree?

 

(As an aside, I greatly dislike use of the term "coin doctor", but we all understand what I'm talking about, right ?)

 

 

The hypothetical logic posit is, in fact, not a logical conclusion.

 

The words "...if it can never be proven..." confirm lack of conclusion.

 

It is not required, from a logic position, to conclude that the "fact" is that it has NOT been doctored.

 

A secondary logic posit objection to the subject of the "fact" is that a conclusion based on non-testing is an assumption. The lack of testing requires a logical conclusion that the "fact" can not, at this time, defeat an opposite position.

 

Two Numismatists are discussing a coin purchase.:

 

A) This coin has never been doctored.

B) How do you know?

A) Well, I have seen enough of them, and my experience tells me I am right. Besides, it was tested.

B) It was? How?

A) Well, it was sent into a TPG, and it passed and was encapsulated.

B) Oh. Are there any other tests that can be done?

A) No, not now or ever. Its like Faith. You have it or you don't.

B) Then we don't know conclusively whether or not it was ever doctored.

A) Look, I can't make you like the coin. I am just saying it is a good deal. Do you want to buy it or not?

B) You are offering a coin that you state is not doctored, and the selling point is Faith and TPG and the impossibility to test the coin, as proof. That is not very logical.

A) It is not about Logic. It is about experience.

B) Oh. Well, Thank You, but I have to pass on this proven undoctored coin.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

PS: If I may ask, what is the objection to the term "Coin Doctor"?

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I agree with the OP s statement. It is a straight forward argument that is based on our ability to detect an alteration. The key is the ability to detect an alteration. To remove any numismatic connection, substitute the word "doctored" with the word "changed" in the OP s title statement

 

"If it can never be proven to be changed, then it is not changed." Proof is necessary to support a fact--no proof, no fact. An undetectable alteration is just that, undetectable.

 

Carl

 

Unfortunately, I must disagree, from a basis of Logic.

The statement is contradictory. Fact=Proof; lack of Proof =Fact.

 

The logic posit being presented for consideration is:

 

" Change has never been proven. There is no proof. Therefore it is fact that change has not occured. However, it is a fact that proof is required to conclude that change has or has not occured."

The question: Would you by a used car based on this logic posit?

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

[physics-fan3.14]

I agree with the OP s statement. It is a straight forward argument that is based on our ability to detect an alteration. The key is the ability to detect an alteration. To remove any numismatic connection, substitute the word "doctored" with the word "changed" in the OP s title statement

 

"If it can never be proven to be changed, then it is not changed." Proof is necessary to support a fact--no proof, no fact. An undetectable alteration is just that, undetectable.

 

Carl

 

Unfortunately, I must disagree, from a basis of Logic.

The statement is contradictory. Fact=Proof; lack of Proof =Fact.

 

The logic posit being presented for consideration is:

 

" Change has never been proven. There is no proof. Therefore it is fact that change has not occured. However, it is a fact that proof is required to conclude that change has or has not occured."

The question: Would you by a used car based on this logic posit?

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

John, I would change your posit to " Change has never been proven. There is no proof. Therefore it is not fact that change has not occured. However, it is a fact that proof is required to conclude that change has or has not occured."

 

I need no proof that change has not occured, only that it has occured. If I can find no proof of change, I assume it has not.

 

And yes, I would buy a used car under this posit - if the car was in good working order, my mechanic can find no problems with it, and I can see no proof of any tampering or change, I have no reason not to buy the car.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I agree with the OP s statement. It is a straight forward argument that is based on our ability to detect an alteration. The key is the ability to detect an alteration. To remove any numismatic connection, substitute the word "doctored" with the word "changed" in the OP s title statement

 

"If it can never be proven to be changed, then it is not changed." Proof is necessary to support a fact--no proof, no fact. An undetectable alteration is just that, undetectable.

 

Carl

 

Unfortunately, I must disagree, from a basis of Logic.

The statement is contradictory. Fact=Proof; lack of Proof =Fact.

 

The logic posit being presented for consideration is:

 

" Change has never been proven. There is no proof. Therefore it is fact that change has not occured. However, it is a fact that proof is required to conclude that change has or has not occured."

The question: Would you by a used car based on this logic posit?

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

John, I would change your posit to " Change has never been proven. There is no proof. Therefore it is not fact that change has not occured. However, it is a fact that proof is required to conclude that change has or has not occured."

 

I need no proof that change has not occured, only that it has occured. If I can find no proof of change, I assume it has not.

 

And yes, I would buy a used car under this posit - if the car was in good working order, my mechanic can find no problems with it, and I can see no proof of any tampering or change, I have no reason not to buy the car.

 

I appreciate editing, always.

 

But (there is always a "but"), it was not my posit-it was by the forum member.

 

It was and is contracdictory. The same could be applied to the second paragraph of your thoughts. Indeed, it is assumption, not fact.

 

Absent Proof of change, any conclusion is assumption, not fact.

 

As to the used car, well, there are "doctors" of same.....

 

Respectfully, of course.

John Curlis

[RGT]

...

[lehigh96]

You are correct. It can't be considered a doctored coin if you can't prove it. However, that does not make the coin market acceptable!

[MarkFeld]

You are correct. It can't be considered a doctored coin if you can't prove it. However, that does not make the coin market acceptable!

 

Sure it can still be considered a doctored coin, just as it can be considered not market acceptable.

 

The only way to "prove" a coin is doctored is to 1) agree on what constitutes doctoring and 2) witness someone doing something that falls under that definition. The fact that there is no witness/no proof doesn't preclude anyone from considering the coin to be doctored. Nor does it mean the coin hasn't been doctored.

 

On the other hand, if you are talking about "more likely than not" or "a preponderance of the evidence", if you were to show questionable coins to a jury of coin experts, they could determine that the burden of "proof" was indeed met. That verdict could be rendered, based upon their knowledge of coins and coin doctoring, as well as the appearance of the coins in question.

[physics-fan3.14]

Mark, you don't need to witness someone doing it to prove it was done. The evidence is usually left on the coin.

 

I don't need to witness a kid drawing on the wall to prove that the wall was drawn on - the red crayon is left on the wall. On the same hand - if I can't see anything on the wall, then it doesn't really matter if the kid drew on the wall or not.

[MarkFeld]

Mark, you don't need to witness someone doing it to prove it was done. The evidence is usually left on the coin.

 

I don't need to witness a kid drawing on the wall to prove that the wall was drawn on - the red crayon is left on the wall. On the same hand - if I can't see anything on the wall, then it doesn't really matter if the kid drew on the wall or not.

 

While the above is true, the determination as to whether a coin has been doctored is not nearly as clear cut as the example you gave.

[physics-fan3.14]

Mark, you don't need to witness someone doing it to prove it was done. The evidence is usually left on the coin.

 

I don't need to witness a kid drawing on the wall to prove that the wall was drawn on - the red crayon is left on the wall. On the same hand - if I can't see anything on the wall, then it doesn't really matter if the kid drew on the wall or not.

 

While the above is true, the determination as to whether a coin has been doctored is not nearly as clear cut as the example you gave.

 

I agree there is considerably more subtlety, yes, but the principle is the same - if you can't tell its been doctored, does it really matter? That is, if your knowledge, experience, and observation can show no tampering with the coin, who's to say if it has or hasn't? It is thus market acceptable.

[James_OldeTowne]

The only way to "prove" a coin is doctored is to 1) agree on what constitutes doctoring and 2) witness someone doing something that falls under that definition.

We all know that moving metal is a type of doctoring. Granting me a moment of extreme exaggeration, suppose a coin doctor pulls five silver molecules off the obverse of a bust dollar, and moves them to the reverse to hide a tiny hole.

 

From a practical standpoint, nobody can detect it... so is the coin really even doctored?

 

(Of course, the next question would be: Does it matter?)

[MarkFeld]

The only way to "prove" a coin is doctored is to 1) agree on what constitutes doctoring and 2) witness someone doing something that falls under that definition.

We all know that moving metal is a type of doctoring. Granting me a moment of extreme exaggeration, suppose a coin doctor pulls five silver molecules off the obverse of a bust dollar, and moves them to the reverse to hide a tiny hole.

 

From a practical standpoint, nobody can detect it... so is the coin really even doctored?

 

(Of course, the next question would be: Does it matter?)

 

Yes and yes.

 

Edited to add:

 

To some of us, in this hobby and others, it matters a lot. The thought of owning something (exhibiting a certain appearance and/or state of preservation) that was created by chance, nature, time, etc. is far more appealing than owning something purposely manufactured and/or altered in a particular way - perhaps, even in quantity.

 

Two objects might look the same, but for some reason(s), still be very different.

[noow]

Technically it was doctored, but in real life it was not since it can't be proven.

[MarkFeld]

Technically it was doctored, but in real life it was not since it can't be proven.

 

In the example given, the coin was definitely doctored, technically and otherwise. And that's even if it can be proven.

[physics-fan3.14]

Mark, I certainly understand the desire for completely original unmessed with coins. I strive for that in my collection, and I know you strive for that in your inventory. However, if there is absolutely no way to prove or discern that a coin is doctored, but you would still prefer not to buy a doctored coin - how do you buy any coins? Under your scenario, any and every coin could have been doctored at some point, and every coin must be treated as suspect. It sounds like you are essentially approaching the coin as "guilty until proven innocent." There is absolutely no way to prove the coin innocent, and thus you would never buy another coin.

[TonerGuy]

 

Yes and yes.

 

Edited to add:

 

To some of us, in this hobby and others, it matters a lot. The thought of owning something (exhibiting a certain appearance and/or state of preservation) that was created by chance, nature, time, etc. is far more appealing than owning something purposely manufactured and/or altered in a particular way - perhaps, even in quantity.

 

Two objects might look the same, but for some reason(s), still be very different.

 

+1

[lehigh96]

You are correct. It can't be considered a doctored coin if you can't prove it. However, that does not make the coin market acceptable!

 

Sure it can still be considered a doctored coin, just as it can be considered not market acceptable.

 

The only way to "prove" a coin is doctored is to 1) agree on what constitutes doctoring and 2) witness someone doing something that falls under that definition. The fact that there is no witness/no proof doesn't preclude anyone from considering the coin to be doctored. Nor does it mean the coin hasn't been doctored.

 

On the other hand, if you are talking about "more likely than not" or "a preponderance of the evidence", if you were to show questionable coins to a jury of coin experts, they could determine that the burden of "proof" was indeed met. That verdict could be rendered, based upon their knowledge of coins and coin doctoring, as well as the appearance of the coins in question.

 

Mark,

 

I don't know what type of doctoring the OP was referring to, but the type of doctoring that is most common and absolutely impossible to prove is artificial toning. There is no difference in the chemical composition of artificial toning and natural toning, therefore we can't prove that any coin has been artificially toned.

 

I firmly believe that this discussion is simply a matter of semantics. The point of my original post is that it makes no difference if we can conclude that a coin is doctored or not, because the concept of market acceptability allows us to condemn the coin with or without proof.

[MarkFeld]

Mark, I certainly understand the desire for completely original unmessed with coins. I strive for that in my collection, and I know you strive for that in your inventory. However, if there is absolutely no way to prove or discern that a coin is doctored, but you would still prefer not to buy a doctored coin - how do you buy any coins? Under your scenario, any and every coin could have been doctored at some point, and every coin must be treated as suspect. It sounds like you are essentially approaching the coin as "guilty until proven innocent." There is absolutely no way to prove the coin innocent, and thus you would never buy another coin.

 

 

Mark,

 

I don't know what type of doctoring the OP was referring to, but the type of doctoring that is most common and absolutely impossible to prove is artificial toning. There is no difference in the chemical composition of artificial toning and natural toning, therefore we can't prove that any coin has been artificially toned.

 

I firmly believe that this discussion is simply a matter of semantics. The point of my original post is that it makes no difference if we can conclude that a coin is doctored or not, because the concept of market acceptability allows us to condemn the coin with or without proof.

 

Jason and Paul, I understand that it is impossible to avoid buying doctored coins. And, Jason, believe it or not, I don't evaluate coins on a "guilty until proved innocent" basis.

 

Still, to me, in many cases, knowing a coin had been doctored would make a difference. And because of that, I'm not willing to say that just because we don't know, it doesn't matter (or that it didn't happen).

[physics-fan3.14]

Fair enough, Mark.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Technically it was doctored, but in real life it was not since it can't be proven.

 

I would think real life is that it most likely was.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis