The committee working on a definition of coin doctoring to present to the PNG.

[MarkFeld]

The "mission statement" of the committee, which is working on coming up with a definition of coin doctoring/coin alteration, to present to the PNG:

 

"To deliver a comprehensive definition of coin doctoring to the Professional Numismatists Guild (PNG) board of directors. Committee members will have this definition ready for a Board vote, in conjunction with the FUN Show, held in Orlando, Florida, in January 2012. The goal of this committee is to deliver a clear and concise definition of coin doctoring, written for collectors and dealers alike. It is to be easy to understand and enforce. If our definition is approved, we expect that it will cause some controversy within the PNG and greater numismatic community, and that the PNG might lose some members, as a result. The committee hereby pledges to the PNG that we will compensate the PNG for lost revenue, due to the resignation of members who disagree with the adopted definition. In that event, such compensation will cease when replacement members are found. We feel strongly the the PNG will become more highly respected for adopting this definition, and ultimately gain more members than it loses."

 

Members of the committee supposedly include the names listed at the bottom of this post. I added the word "supposedly", because, other than (in alphabetical order) John Albanese, John Feigenbaum, Mark Feld, James Garcia and Andy Lustig and Rick Sear, I am aware of nothing beyond a chirp or a peep, if that, in the way of comments/contributions, thus far, from the other listed members. Perhaps they are contributing in ways I am unaware of. But they haven't participated much, if at all in the discussions some of us have had on a website created for that purpose. I expect to hear from some of them soon, now that I have posted this.

 

(Edited to add: I have been told that a number of the other members have been working behind the scenes).

 

I would like to publicly praise and thank James Garcia for his substantial, extremely conscientious and excellent efforts and contributions. In my opinion, he has gone far above and beyond the call of duty.

 

I encourage readers to post comments and opinions concerning the subject of coin doctoring/coin alteration here. As some of you have already surmised, a recent thread I started, soliciting opinions about dipping, was related to the subject of this thread.

 

John Albanese, CAC (chief moderator)

John Feigenbaum, David Lawrence Rare Coins (moderator/webmaster)

Mark Feld, Mark Feld Rare Coins (moderator)

Gary Adkins, Gary Adkins Associates

James Garcia, Scotsman Auction Company

Frank Greenberg, Delaware Valley Rare Coins

Andy Lustig, Andy Lustig Rare Coins

Warren Mills, Rare Coins of New Hampshire

Paul Montgomery, APMEX

Maurice Rosen, The Rosen Numismatic Advisory

Mark Salzberg, Numismatic Guaranty Corporation (NGC)

Rick Sear, Rick Sear Numismatics

Bill Shamhart, Numismatic Americana

Laura Sperber, Legend Numismatics

Scott Travers, Scott A. Travers Rare Coins

Doug Winter, Douglas Winter Numismatics

 

 

 

[BillJones]

I have respect for many of the people I know on this list, but there is not one private collector among them.

[TonerGuy]

I have respect for many of the people I know on this list, but there is not one private collector among them.

 

+1 .... I know Mark has the ethics and moral fortitude to keep collectors in his thoughts but letting coin dealers create a definition of doctoring for the industry is well, a little fox and hen house...

 

I hope that the mission statement is more than just a statement...

 

Good luck... this one isnt going to be easy.

[physics-fan3.14]

I have respect for many of the people I know on this list, but there is not one private collector among them.

 

I wouldn't expect there to be. This is the Professional Numismatist Guild, an association of dealers for dealers. If the ANA were doing a similar venture, then I would expect private concerns to weigh in.

[x2rider]

I find it just a little interesting that some of the names that have yet to make a " chirp"

 

It just reinforces my belief that James is a straight up guy with a real desire to further numismatics (thumbs u

[truthteller]

I'm surprised Bob Campbell is not on the list. A former ANA President. He has spoken on the topic of coin doctoring many times as well as issued a video on the topic.

 

Coin doctoring in it's basic form is "any intentional alteration to the surfaces of a coin in order to enhance the appearance for financial gain". You can add to this definition for specific alterations, such as dipping, AT, moving metal, etc. The additions is where politics and opinions will collide

 

 

 

TRUTH

[leeg]

Thanks for sharing this with us Mark. (thumbs u

 

An area of interest for all who enjoy this hobby.

 

 

Can you enlighten us on who The Board of Directors for the PNG are that you have to present this to?

 

"If our definition is approved"

 

Who will approve this definition? The Board of Directors?

 

 

I sincerely applaud all the efforts of those who have truly made an effort in defining this tricky topic!!!

 

 

[MJ]

Thanks Mark. That is a great list. I'm also very pleased to see Rick Sear on the dais. That is one amped up cat and cool dude. MJ

[James_OldeTowne]

I have respect for many of the people I know on this list, but there is not one private collector among them.

Thanks a lot, Bill ! (Disclaimer: I do attend three or four shows a year as a part-time "dealer", but 95% of my coin activity is as a private collector . And of course, Scotsman contracts me to catalog for them.)

 

Until the OP by our own esteemed and worthy Mark Feld, my membership on this committee has been an absolute secret on my end, as I have told nobody about being a part of it. (Of course, other members of the committee know my name is on the list.)

 

I have no hope of ever being in the PNG from a "dealers" standpoint, since I don't remotely meet requirements for membership, but was delighted to receive John Albanese's invitation to join the committee nonetheless. He and I have a few very pointed philosophical differences, and he is to be all the more commended for allowing an (often) dissenting opinion to be voiced in the "coin doctor definitions" discussion.

 

Mark and John, thanks very much for allowing me to contribute in some small way to the process.

[MarkFeld]

Thanks for sharing this with us Mark. (thumbs u

 

An area of interest for all who enjoy this hobby.

 

 

Can you enlighten us on who The Board of Directors for the PNG are that you have to present this to?

 

"If our definition is approved"

 

Who will approve this definition? The Board of Directors?

 

 

I sincerely applaud all the efforts of those who have truly made an effort in defining this tricky topic!!!

 

 

 

Thanks Lee. In answer to your questions, below is a link to the list of current PNG board members. It is my understanding that the proposed definition will be offered to the PNG board, which might or might not then present it to the membership. That is all I know at the moment, but if/when I learn more, I will post it here.

 

PNG board

[cpm9ball]

I have respect for many of the people I know on this list, but there is not one private collector among them.

Thanks a lot, Bill ! (Disclaimer: I do attend three or four shows a year as a part-time "dealer", but 95% of my coin activity is as a private collector . And of course, Scotsman contracts me to catalog for them.)

 

Until the OP by our own esteemed and worthy Mark Feld, my membership on this committee has been an absolute secret on my end, as I have told nobody about being a part of it. (Of course, other members of the committee know my name is on the list.)

 

I have no hope of ever being in the PNG from a "dealers" standpoint, since I don't remotely meet requirements for membership, but was delighted to receive John Albanese's invitation to join the committee nonetheless. He and I have a few very pointed philosophical differences, and he is to be all the more commended for allowing an (often) dissenting opinion to be voiced in the "coin doctor definitions" discussion.

 

Mark and John, thanks very much for allowing me to contribute in some small way to the process.

 

I don't personally know many of those on the list, but with people like Mark and James in the group, I think the interests of collectors are in good hands.

 

Chris

[Dcoin]

I'm surprised Laura S. is not listed. She is a strong voice on the matter.

[MarkFeld]

I'm surprised Laura S. is not listed. She is a strong voice on the matter.

 

I am surprised that we have heard so little from her, as well. In her defense, however, she has been speaking out publicly and forcefully on this issue for a long time. And has heightened awareness of it, considerably.

[kryptonitecomics]

Certainly a solid step in the right direction and long over due....everyone should support this effort as it directly affect all in the hobby when doctoring is allowed to go on unchecked or unpunished

[Dcoin]

I'm curious as to the steps after this definition is drafted and accepted?

 

Will the TPG adopt it in their grading guidelines or is it for reference only?

 

[lehigh96]

I'm surprised Laura S. is not listed. She is a strong voice on the matter.

 

Okay, I am confused. I see Laura's name on the list!

[Dcoin]

I meant on the 'active' list.

[leeg]

Thanks Lee. In answer to your questions, below is a link to the list of current PNG board members. It is my understanding that the proposed definition will be offered to the PNG board, which might or might not then present it to the membership. That is all I know at the moment, but if/when I learn more, I will post it here.

 

Thank You.

[PerryHall]

Sounds like a worthwhile project that's way over due but I'll reserve judgement until I see the final product.

[MarkFeld]

Sounds like a worthwhile project that's way over due but I'll reserve judgement until I see the final product.

 

Your comments should be deleted for being far too sensible and reasonable

[RGT]

Mark, this is the first that I have heard of this committee. Is this something the PNG asked for or did someone take it upon themselves to form the committe and submit the definition to the PNG. I just wonder how seriously the PNG will respond if they didn't ask for help. Do you plan to just show up at their door like the Fuller brush man?

[MarkFeld]

Mark, this is the first that I have heard of this committee. Is this something the PNG asked for or did someone take it upon themselves to form the committe and submit the definition to the PNG. I just wonder how seriously the PNG will respond if they didn't ask for help. Do you plan to just show up at their door like the Fuller brush man?

 

I'm not sure whose idea it was, but below is text from a September press release. I have no idea how seriously the PNG will take it, whether they will accept it and if they do, how/if they they will enforce it.

 

 

"PNG forms panel to define 'coin doctoring'

 

John Albanese leads committee studying matter

 

By Coin World Staff | Sept. 06, 2011 10:00 a.m.

Article first published in 2011-09-19, U.S. Collectibles section of Coin World

 

The Professional Numismatists Guild has formed a committee composed of PNG members and nonmembers to research and draft an acceptable definition of “coin doctoring.”

 

“They will draft an exhaustive, but concise definition,” PNG President Jeffrey Bernberg said. “Coin doctoring is a crucial, perplexing issue that needs to be addressed for the benefit of collectors and dealers. We’re determined to get this done.”

 

The PNG committee is headed by John Albanese, president both of Certified Acceptance Corp. (www.caccoin.com) and of the National Consumer Alliance (www.StopCoinFraud.com), a nonprofit numismatic organization involved in consumer education and protection.

 

Albanese was also a co-founder of Professional Coin Grading Service in 1986 and the founder of Numismatic Guaranty Corp. in 1987, the two largest, independent third-party rare coin authentication and grading companies.

 

Also serving on the committee are former PNG Vice President John Feigenbaum from David Lawrence Rare Coins; Frank Greenberg from Delaware Valley Rare Coins; Paul Montgomery, PNG immediate past president, from American Precious Metals Exchange; Laura Sperber from Legend Numismatics; and Scott Travers, author of The Coin Collector’s Survival Manual.

 

Any other numismatic professionals interested in participating are invited to contact Albanese by email at shield30@aol.com.

 

“The committee consists of a varied group of respected numismatists who have a wide range of expertise,” Albanese said. “Our job is to specifically define coin doctoring so we can better protect consumers from buying coins that have been tampered with in a manner meant to deceptively alter a coin, and thus, affect the long-term value of their investment.

 

“The doctoring problem plagues the industry as a whole and has the potential to affect the credibility of all rare coins, certified or otherwise. The PNG is the ideal organization to lead an unbiased charge against the unsavory tactics of coin doctors because the PNG stands at the forefront of numismatic integrity and leadership in the professional coin community.”

 

In July 2010, the PNG Board of Directors, in partnership with NGC and PCGS, adopted a definition of coin doctoring “to help combat the deliberative and unacceptable alteration of coins in an effort to deceive.” However, that definition subsequently was rejected by PNG (www.pngdealers.com) members in January of this year.

 

“The PNG By-Laws provide the general membership with the opportunity to override decisions made by the board,” said PNG Executive Director Robert Brueggeman. “In this case, the membership voted overwhelmingly to keep the previous PNG Code of Ethics definition in place and not adopt a more-substantive new wording specifically about coin doctoring until the issue could be more clearly defined.

 

“We’re now working to get that clear definition and the consensus of the membership,” Brueggeman said.

[RGT]

Thanks. Now that I read the press release it does sound familiar. Maybe I read that and forgot about it. At least I see that the PNG started the process and not just an outside group that wants to push it on the PNG. Hopefully this will work out better than the last time they defined coin doctoring.

[e1cnr]

this is interesting

 

besides 'coin doctoring' are you going to define 'coin conservation'?

 

and what chemicals or substances can be used without belonging to the doctoring group

 

and g\ve examples like soaking a PVC coated coin in acetone to remove green sludge and how it would fit

 

 

[MarkFeld]

this is interesting

 

besides 'coin doctoring' are you going to define 'coin conservation'?

 

and what chemicals or substances can be used without belonging to the doctoring group

 

and g\ve examples like soaking a PVC coated coin in acetone to remove green sludge and how it would fit

 

 

I don't know. Additionally, I have no idea how general or specific/detailed the proposed definition will end up being. Sorry.

[Dcoin]

I'm curious as to the steps after this definition is drafted and accepted?

 

Will the TPG adopt it in their grading guidelines or is it for reference only?

 

Mark was just curious if you had any thoughts on the questions above.

[MarkFeld]

I'm curious as to the steps after this definition is drafted and accepted?

 

Will the TPG adopt it in their grading guidelines or is it for reference only?

 

Mark was just curious if you had any thoughts on the questions above.

 

My apologies for having missed your questions previously.

 

I'm by no means, certain, that the PNG will accept whatever definition ends up being presented. And even if they do, I don't know how or if they will enforce it.

 

I'd be very surprised if the TPG's would adopt it. And if the definition ends up including dipping as a form of doctoring, I'd be stunned if the TPG's adopted it.

[Dcoin]

Thanks for the response Mark.

 

I wish/hope that this does not end up as an academic exercise.

 

[BillJones]

If this panel decides that “All dipping is doctoring” and follows through with an edict that any coin that has been dipped is therefore “damaged” and the same category as whizzed and polished coins, they will destroy the value of a great many pieces that have heretofore been numismaticly acceptable. The net result could be another round of doctoring to tone pieces that have been dipped, which will result in damage to even more coins.

 

It really angers me that a few extreme purists feel that they have the right to change the rules in ways that lower the market value of other people’s holdings for no good reason. If you don’t like dipped silver coins, don’t buy them. What right do you have reduce the value of other people’s holdings because of your opinions?

 

[BillJones]

Thanks a lot, Bill ! (Disclaimer: I do attend three or four shows a year as a part-time "dealer", but 95% of my coin activity is as a private collector . And of course, Scotsman contracts me to catalog for them.)

 

 

I don't know why you are so angry with me James, but the second part of your disclaimer contradicted the point you were trying to make. Anyone who does the catalog work for a reasonably large auction house is not “a numismatic civilian.” You are just as much of a numismatic professional as anyone else on that list. You can’t label the Scotsman auction house as “a small time operation” when they handle coins like this.

 

 

When I was a dealer, I was also collector. As such I could not have passed myself off as non-commercial private collector who was not concerned about the mercantile aspect of the coin business.