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

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

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.

 

I am certain that you and most others are more knowledgeable than me in numismatics.

 

So, a question, if I may.

 

I was under the impression that artificial toning was a rather recent, numismatic years wise, practice.

 

I would have thought dipping/cleaning, etc. were the more common doctoring practices.

 

Is the statement that artificial toning is the most common form of doctoring based on a personal opinion that dipping/cleaning, etc. is not doctoring? The statement would make more sense to me if that is the case.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

[lehigh96]

 

I am certain that you and most others are more knowledgeable than me in numismatics.

 

So, a question, if I may.

 

I was under the impression that artificial toning was a rather recent, numismatic years wise, practice.

 

I would have thought dipping/cleaning, etc. were the more common doctoring practices.

 

Is the statement that artificial toning is the most common form of doctoring based on a personal opinion that dipping/cleaning, etc. is not doctoring? The statement would make more sense to me if that is the case.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

Artificial toning is nothing new. What is rather new (10 years) is the reason for AT'ing a coin. In the old days, a coin doctor would AT a coin in order to hide other flaws. And while that still occurs to a certain extent, the most common reason to AT a coin today is that attractive toning will usually drive a premium price. As a result, the practice of AT'ing coins in order to impart lucrative rainbow toning has become one of the most common methods of coin doctoring.

 

And while I agree with you that cleaning and dipping coins are more common than AT, they are different for one very important reason. If done correctly, neither cleaning or dipping are considered doctoring. Rather, they are considered acceptable methods of coin conservation, and will not impede the certification of a coin by the TPG's. It is important that you understand that it is not my opinion, rather that it is an accepted practice in the numismatic community.

 

Paul

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

 

I am certain that you and most others are more knowledgeable than me in numismatics.

 

So, a question, if I may.

 

I was under the impression that artificial toning was a rather recent, numismatic years wise, practice.

 

I would have thought dipping/cleaning, etc. were the more common doctoring practices.

 

Is the statement that artificial toning is the most common form of doctoring based on a personal opinion that dipping/cleaning, etc. is not doctoring? The statement would make more sense to me if that is the case.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

Artificial toning is nothing new. What is rather new (10 years) is the reason for AT'ing a coin. In the old days, a coin doctor would AT a coin in order to hide other flaws. And while that still occurs to a certain extent, the most common reason to AT a coin today is that attractive toning will usually drive a premium price. As a result, the practice of AT'ing coins in order to impart lucrative rainbow toning has become one of the most common methods of coin doctoring.

 

And while I agree with you that cleaning and dipping coins are more common than AT, they are different for one very important reason. If done correctly, neither cleaning or dipping are considered doctoring. Rather, they are considered acceptable methods of coin conservation, and will not impede the certification of a coin by the TPG's. It is important that you understand that it is not my opinion, rather that it is an accepted practice in the numismatic community.

 

Paul

 

 

Thank You for your comments.

 

It seems we agree that ATing is not the most common practice of "enhancing" appearance.

 

I do understand that you are not stating your opinion, but the opinion of the numismatic community, concerning acceptability of doctoring via dipping/cleaning,etc.

 

The problem is, it seems the overwhelming opinion in the numismatic community is that a non-dipped/cleaned, etc. coin is preferred, and non-dipped/cleaned coins are a significant minority.

 

This does not = a conclusion that if done correctly then it is not doctoring and is a form of conservation.

 

I am not defining the practice as good or bad. I am proffering that it is indeed doctoring, and that it is not conservation, but alteration of a previous appearance, for better or worse.

 

This is not semantics. It is acceptability of a fait accompli, I think.

 

To be blunt, the numismatic community has arrived at the point of conclusion that an alternative appearance altering method is the norm, and therefore the standards of acceptability of a coin must change in the community.

 

But (you know the rest), this by no means is numismatically driven, of late. It is market driven, and although there is certainly nothing wrong with wanting an economic return on our collection, or a Dealer/Collector seeking a higher price thru "acceptable" enhancement, a wall must be built by the community that prevents the practice from being christened "conservation/preservation", etc., which imparts a greater level of acceptability to the practice.

 

Why? Because we are lowering the status of the coins that are not enhanced, and because there is the danger of acceptability of other alteration/enhancement methods in the future, that are market driven practices.

 

Respectfully, of course

John Curlis

[MarkFeld]

 

I am certain that you and most others are more knowledgeable than me in numismatics.

 

So, a question, if I may.

 

I was under the impression that artificial toning was a rather recent, numismatic years wise, practice.

 

I would have thought dipping/cleaning, etc. were the more common doctoring practices.

 

Is the statement that artificial toning is the most common form of doctoring based on a personal opinion that dipping/cleaning, etc. is not doctoring? The statement would make more sense to me if that is the case.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

Artificial toning is nothing new. What is rather new (10 years) is the reason for AT'ing a coin. In the old days, a coin doctor would AT a coin in order to hide other flaws. And while that still occurs to a certain extent, the most common reason to AT a coin today is that attractive toning will usually drive a premium price. As a result, the practice of AT'ing coins in order to impart lucrative rainbow toning has become one of the most common methods of coin doctoring.

 

And while I agree with you that cleaning and dipping coins are more common than AT, they are different for one very important reason. If done correctly, neither cleaning or dipping are considered doctoring. Rather, they are considered acceptable methods of coin conservation, and will not impede the certification of a coin by the TPG's. It is important that you understand that it is not my opinion, rather that it is an accepted practice in the numismatic community.

 

Paul

 

 

Thank You for your comments.

 

It seems we agree that ATing is not the most common practice of "enhancing" appearance.

 

I do understand that you are not stating your opinion, but the opinion of the numismatic community, concerning acceptability of doctoring via dipping/cleaning,etc.

 

The problem is, it seems the overwhelming opinion in the numismatic community is that a non-dipped/cleaned, etc. coin is preferred, and non-dipped/cleaned coins are a significant minority.

 

This does not = a conclusion that if done correctly then it is not doctoring and is a form of conservation.

 

I am not defining the practice as good or bad. I am proffering that it is indeed doctoring, and that it is not conservation, but alteration of a previous appearance, for better or worse.

 

This is not semantics. It is acceptability of a fait accompli, I think.

 

To be blunt, the numismatic community has arrived at the point of conclusion that an alternative appearance altering method is the norm, and therefore the standards of acceptability of a coin must change in the community.

 

But (you know the rest), this by no means is numismatically driven, of late. It is market driven, and although there is certainly nothing wrong with wanting an economic return on our collection, or a Dealer/Collector seeking a higher price thru "acceptable" enhancement, a wall must be built by the community that prevents the practice from being christened "conservation/preservation", etc., which imparts a greater level of acceptability to the practice.

 

Why? Because we are lowering the status of the coins that are not enhanced, and because there is the danger of acceptability of other alteration/enhancement methods in the future, that are market driven practices.

 

Respectfully, of course

John Curlis

 

John, I think that was a wonderful post and applaud your summary of and opinion regarding this issue.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

 

I am certain that you and most others are more knowledgeable than me in numismatics.

 

So, a question, if I may.

 

I was under the impression that artificial toning was a rather recent, numismatic years wise, practice.

 

I would have thought dipping/cleaning, etc. were the more common doctoring practices.

 

Is the statement that artificial toning is the most common form of doctoring based on a personal opinion that dipping/cleaning, etc. is not doctoring? The statement would make more sense to me if that is the case.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

Artificial toning is nothing new. What is rather new (10 years) is the reason for AT'ing a coin. In the old days, a coin doctor would AT a coin in order to hide other flaws. And while that still occurs to a certain extent, the most common reason to AT a coin today is that attractive toning will usually drive a premium price. As a result, the practice of AT'ing coins in order to impart lucrative rainbow toning has become one of the most common methods of coin doctoring.

 

And while I agree with you that cleaning and dipping coins are more common than AT, they are different for one very important reason. If done correctly, neither cleaning or dipping are considered doctoring. Rather, they are considered acceptable methods of coin conservation, and will not impede the certification of a coin by the TPG's. It is important that you understand that it is not my opinion, rather that it is an accepted practice in the numismatic community.

 

Paul

 

 

Thank You for your comments.

 

It seems we agree that ATing is not the most common practice of "enhancing" appearance.

 

I do understand that you are not stating your opinion, but the opinion of the numismatic community, concerning acceptability of doctoring via dipping/cleaning,etc.

 

The problem is, it seems the overwhelming opinion in the numismatic community is that a non-dipped/cleaned, etc. coin is preferred, and non-dipped/cleaned coins are a significant minority.

 

This does not = a conclusion that if done correctly then it is not doctoring and is a form of conservation.

 

I am not defining the practice as good or bad. I am proffering that it is indeed doctoring, and that it is not conservation, but alteration of a previous appearance, for better or worse.

 

This is not semantics. It is acceptability of a fait accompli, I think.

 

To be blunt, the numismatic community has arrived at the point of conclusion that an alternative appearance altering method is the norm, and therefore the standards of acceptability of a coin must change in the community.

 

But (you know the rest), this by no means is numismatically driven, of late. It is market driven, and although there is certainly nothing wrong with wanting an economic return on our collection, or a Dealer/Collector seeking a higher price thru "acceptable" enhancement, a wall must be built by the community that prevents the practice from being christened "conservation/preservation", etc., which imparts a greater level of acceptability to the practice.

 

Why? Because we are lowering the status of the coins that are not enhanced, and because there is the danger of acceptability of other alteration/enhancement methods in the future, that are market driven practices.

 

Respectfully, of course

John Curlis

 

John, I think that was a wonderful post and applaud your summary of and opinion regarding this issue.

 

Thank You for your very kind words, as usual.

 

But (blah, blah), I realize I appear in written form as rather haughty, and your kindness is a reminder that I should retreat at this time from the Field.

 

Respectfully and Appreciatively,

John

[lehigh96]

 

John, I think that was a wonderful post and applaud your summary of and opinion regarding this issue.

 

Thank You for your very kind words, as usual.

 

But (blah, blah), I realize I appear in written form as rather haughty, and your kindness is a reminder that I should retreat at this time from the Field.

 

Respectfully and Appreciatively,

John

 

You certainly do have a unique writing style. Having said that, I agree with Mark's comment.

[James_OldeTowne]

Having said that, I agree with Mark's comment.

As do I.

 

I am extremely tired of the statement that "dipping is accepted, so it's not doctoring". That's absurd.

 

To dip a coin is unquestionably a form of doctoring. It's just that some doctoring is acceptable to many in the numismatic community.

 

Some just try to "excuse" dipping by claiming it isn't doctoring. That's just a lame avoidance of reality. The harsh truth is simply that some people want dipping to be acceptable, without having to label it for what it truly is: doctoring.

 

No matter how you slice it, no matter how you dice it, to dip a coin is to doctor it.