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

[MarkFeld]

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."

I'll tell you what's wrong with that, Mark. A blind man can see it in a minute. You're assuming that any PNG members who may quit for your definition of "coin doctoring" are "coin doctors," themselves, or, otherwise, support the activity of "coin doctoring." You're acting, in other words, just as the forum members ATS had reacted when that broken-down complaint vs. the "coin doctors" hit the fan. Anybody there who had even so much as remotely dared to question the propriety of that complaint, if you'll recall, was shouted-down and framed as being in support of "coin doctoring," or, even worse, accused of being "coin doctors," themselves. Even the PNG, itself, as well as the ANA, for that matter, were bullied by those forum members, as such, when they didn't officially come down on the side of supporting the complaint. Your challenge, ergo, simply put, is to be rational. To the degree that your definitions are unintelligible, expect that you're going to alienate every rational collector and dealer, on the theory that, it's better to have no standards at all, than it is to have irrational and arbitrary standards. Then, do you know the type of collectors and dealers you're left with? Just some advice, you want to think about that.

 

Sorry, but you're badly mistaken.

 

I assume no such thing with respect to anyone who exits PNG (and I doubt that other committee members do, either). That language was included because apparently, the PNG itself, raised the issue of members leaving. So John Albanese, in essence, agreed to reimburse them in the even that that occurred. That's all there is to it.

Respectfully, Mark, that's not "all there is to it." Getting this back on track, the question you're hiding from is, "Why would those members leave?" That's important because it relates, directly, to the type of members the PNG is going be left with. That's why it's utterly naive to think the PNG can be bought off to ignore a question like that. IMHO, they can't. Not if they have any brains, they can't. And, if you seriously think they can, I'm going to say, I think you're going to be in for a big surprise.

 

Just to set the record straight, here, I'm all for high aspirational standards (at any rate, I don't see how those could hurt). When it comes to enforcement, however, those standards had better not be arbitrary. I'll say it, again. To the degree that they are, to the same degree are they going to alienate every rational collector and dealer.

 

I'm not hiding any question. And I can only guess as to why some members, if any, might leave. My guess is that few, if any will leave.

 

And, as I have commented previously, in the event that the PNG adopts a definition/standard, I have no idea if or how they might enforce it.

 

Finally, if/when it comes to "enforcement", I don't see how, what the PNG does, will "alienate" many people, beyond perhaps some of its relatively small group of members. And certainly not "every rational collector and dealer" - I don't understand how you came up with that.

[Kurtdog]

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."

I'll tell you what's wrong with that, Mark. A blind man can see it in a minute. You're assuming that any PNG members who may quit for your definition of "coin doctoring" are "coin doctors," themselves, or, otherwise, support the activity of "coin doctoring." You're acting, in other words, just as the forum members ATS had reacted when that broken-down complaint vs. the "coin doctors" hit the fan. Anybody there who had even so much as remotely dared to question the propriety of that complaint, if you'll recall, was shouted-down and framed as being in support of "coin doctoring," or, even worse, accused of being "coin doctors," themselves. Even the PNG, itself, as well as the ANA, for that matter, were bullied by those forum members, as such, when they didn't officially come down on the side of supporting the complaint. Your challenge, ergo, simply put, is to be rational. To the degree that your definitions are unintelligible, expect that you're going to alienate every rational collector and dealer, on the theory that, it's better to have no standards at all, than it is to have irrational and arbitrary standards. Then, do you know the type of collectors and dealers you're left with? Just some advice, you want to think about that.

 

Sorry, but you're badly mistaken.

 

I assume no such thing with respect to anyone who exits PNG (and I doubt that other committee members do, either). That language was included because apparently, the PNG itself, raised the issue of members leaving. So John Albanese, in essence, agreed to reimburse them in the even that that occurred. That's all there is to it.

Respectfully, Mark, that's not "all there is to it." Getting this back on track, the question you're hiding from is, "Why would those members leave?" That's important because it relates, directly, to the type of members the PNG is going be left with. That's why it's utterly naive to think the PNG can be bought off to ignore a question like that. IMHO, they can't. Not if they have any brains, they can't. And, if you seriously think they can, I'm going to say, I think you're going to be in for a big surprise.

 

Just to set the record straight, here, I'm all for high aspirational standards (at any rate, I don't see how those could hurt). When it comes to enforcement, however, those standards had better not be arbitrary. I'll say it, again. To the degree that they are, to the same degree are they going to alienate every rational collector and dealer.

 

I'm not hiding any question. And I can only guess as to why some members, if any, might leave. My guess is that few, if any will leave.

 

And, as I have commented previously, in the event that the PNG adopts a definition/standard, I have no idea if or how they might enforce it.

 

Finally, if/when it comes to "enforcement", I don't see how, what the PNG does, will "alienate" many people, beyond perhaps some of its relatively small group of members. And certainly not "every rational collector and dealer" - I don't understand how you came up with that.

Mark, are you telling me you're not versed enough in diction to understand what the term "arbitrary" means? That's all I'm saying. I assumed you understood that term and the proper use of it. If not, I'm sorry if I confused you, as that was hardly my intention.

 

Look, I have to shove off. Why don't you look it up in Webster's, try to get the hang of it, then read my comments, again. Perhaps, then, they'll make some sense to you. Short of that, I don't know what else I can tell you, but to wish you luck. You requested our opinions, here, and I told you mine, and, of course, I stand behind them.

[BillJones]

I don't think that "enforcement" is really the issue. The threat comes from applying, loaded, highly negative language like “doctored” to properly executed dipping. Language like that can effect the value and salability of coins that are given such a label.

 

I don’t care for committees and other panels of experts who impose their will on others for no good reason. Are attractive original coins more desirable the dipped coins? For most, but not all collectors, they are. Are all dipped coins doctored or “ruined?” In the opinion of many collectors and dealers the answer is no.

 

What right does a noisy minority have to lower the value of other people’s holdings because they have an opinion about coins which have had tarnish removed from them? If they don’t want to buy dipped coins, then don’t buy them. But what right to they have to impose their opinions on other people? The trouble is these people don’t want to stop at a neutral description like, “This coin has been dipped.” They have to go further and say, “This coin as been “doctored.”

 

That kind of terminology is just not right or fair to other people.

 

[MarkFeld]

I don't think that "enforcement" is really the issue. The threat comes from applying, loaded, highly negative language like “doctored” to properly executed dipping. Language like that can effect the value and salability of coins that are given such a label.

 

I don’t care for committees and other panels of experts who impose their will on others for no good reason. Are attractive original coins more desirable the dipped coins? For most, but not all collectors, they are. Are all dipped coins doctored or “ruined?” In the opinion of many collectors and dealers the answer is no.

 

What right does a noisy minority have to lower the value of other people’s holdings because they have an opinion about coins which have had tarnish removed from them? If they don’t want to buy dipped coins, then don’t buy them. But what right to they have to impose their opinions on other people? The trouble is these people don’t want to stop at a neutral description like, “This coin has been dipped.” They have to go further and say, “This coin as been “doctored.”

 

That kind of terminology is just not right or fair to other people.

 

Bill, for the record, James and I have both proposed using language other than "doctored".

 

And the "noisy group" to which you refer, has been asked to propose a definition to the PNG. As I have said more than once, I don't expect dipping to be included in the definition.

 

We are proposing a definition, which might or might not be accepted. And as I have also stated previously, even if it is accepted, I have no idea if or how it will be enforced.

 

It is the PNG, not us, who has the ability to try to impose or influence behavior of its members.

 

You should probably relax.

[leeg]

Mark, are you telling me you're not versed enough in diction to understand what the term "arbitrary" means? That's all I'm saying. I assumed you understood that term and the proper use of it. If not, I'm sorry if I confused you, as that was hardly my intention.

 

Look, I have to shove off. Why don't you look it up in Webster's, try to get the hang of it, then read my comments, again. Perhaps, then, they'll make some sense to you. Short of that, I don't know what else I can tell you, but to wish you luck. You requested our opinions, here, and I told you mine, and, of course, I stand behind them.

Kurtdog,

This reply by you seems very condescending to me.

 

Your reply looks like a vendetta of sorts?

 

I hope I'm wrong but your written words are hard for me to to see differently.

 

At least Mark is trying to make a positive difference in this hobby of ours.

 

What positive difference have you attempted or made for the hobby?

[TonerGuy]

 

I don’t care for committees and other panels of experts who impose their will on others for no good reason....What right does a noisy minority have to lower the value of other people’s holdings.... But what right to they have to impose their opinions on other people?

 

That kind of terminology is just not right or fair to other people.

 

Sorta how David Hall put out an edict that all toned Peace $ were AT a couple of years ago ?

[MarkFeld]

 

I don’t care for committees and other panels of experts who impose their will on others for no good reason....What right does a noisy minority have to lower the value of other people’s holdings.... But what right to they have to impose their opinions on other people?

 

That kind of terminology is just not right or fair to other people.

 

Sorta how David Hall put out an edict that all toned Peace $ were AT a couple of years ago ?

 

To be fair, I don't think he said all toned Peace Dollars were AT. I can't locate his post, but believe he said something to the effect that he thought all Peace Dollars exhibiting rainbow colors were AT. However, I thought that, too was way overboard.

[James_OldeTowne]

I don't think that "enforcement" is really the issue. The threat comes from applying, loaded, highly negative language like “doctored” to properly executed dipping. Language like that can effect the value and salability of coins that are given such a label.

Bill, just as Mark mentioned, I HATE the phrase "coin doctor" for exactly the reason mention. Thus, it should be eradicated from proper usage. Instead, we should discuss "cosmetic alteration". That would allow SOME cases of dipping (and other processes) to be acceptable without negative connotation.

 

The trouble is these people don’t want to stop at a neutral description like, “This coin has been dipped.” They have to go further and say, “This coin as been “doctored.”

I simply do not understand how you are drawing this conclusion, Bill. It's the OPPOSITE of my stance. The whole point of my argument is to remove most of the silly negative connotation and loaded phrases like "coin doctor", and replace them with sensible, truthful disclosure, such as "cosmetic alteration", or "reconditioned", or whatever phrase is eventually settled upon.

 

I really think you are arguing from the same standpoint that I am. What am I totally missing??

 

Basically, the guidance I am arguing for is: if someone (PNG member) alters a coin, or has first-hand knowledge of such, it should be disclosed as an alteration.

[TonerGuy]

 

To be fair, I don't think he said all toned Peace Dollars were AT. I can't locate his post, but believe he said something to the effect that he thought all Peace Dollars exhibiting rainbow colors were AT. However, I thought that, too was way overboard.

 

Well either way, I dont think the industry really cared what Hall had to say since it doesnt appear that the market reacted to his statement. People are still selling and buying rainbow toned Peace $ for huge markups...

 

In this instance, I dont agree with Bill Jones that the PNG creating awareness of the harm that dipping causes will send people's collection values into a tail spin. Economics and the market will decide the value. A simple edict will not cause a great loss in value. I wonder how many PCGS graded toned Peace $ were sent back to PCGS under their guaranty buy-back program after Hall made his statement ? I would venture to guess, not many.

[Kurtdog]

Mark, are you telling me you're not versed enough in diction to understand what the term "arbitrary" means? That's all I'm saying. I assumed you understood that term and the proper use of it. If not, I'm sorry if I confused you, as that was hardly my intention.

 

Look, I have to shove off. Why don't you look it up in Webster's, try to get the hang of it, then read my comments, again. Perhaps, then, they'll make some sense to you. Short of that, I don't know what else I can tell you, but to wish you luck. You requested our opinions, here, and I told you mine, and, of course, I stand behind them.

Kurtdog,

This reply by you seems very condescending to me.

 

Your reply looks like a vendetta of sorts?

 

I hope I'm wrong but your written words are hard for me to to see differently.

 

At least Mark is trying to make a positive difference in this hobby of ours.

 

What positive difference have you attempted or made for the hobby?

Leeg, I'll give you that. That was somewhat condescending. And, to that degree, I sincerely apologize to Mark, to you, and to the group for it. At the time I said it, however, it didn't seem that way, to me. I'm not trying to make excuses. But, FWIW, you might consider that, too.

 

At any rate, I'll say my point, again, and, hopefully, for the last time, here. It's better to have no standards at all, than it is to have arbitrary standards. To the degree that we accept arbitrary standards, to the same degree do we alienate every rational collector and dealer. A wise man once said, "The most destructive imperialisms of the world have been those of men who have elevated their preferences to the pinnacle of moral imperatives and who have then confidently proceeded to impose those imperatives on others." I'm with BillJones, I don't want that for this beloved hobby. If the standards are rational, and based on rational definitions, again, that's one thing. If they're arbitrary, and just shoved down our throats, notwithstanding any "good intentions," that's quite another thing. And, that's it.

 

How's that for a position?

[coinman_23885]

Mark, are you telling me you're not versed enough in diction to understand what the term "arbitrary" means? That's all I'm saying. I assumed you understood that term and the proper use of it. If not, I'm sorry if I confused you, as that was hardly my intention.

 

Look, I have to shove off. Why don't you look it up in Webster's, try to get the hang of it, then read my comments, again. Perhaps, then, they'll make some sense to you. Short of that, I don't know what else I can tell you, but to wish you luck. You requested our opinions, here, and I told you mine, and, of course, I stand behind them.

Kurtdog,

This reply by you seems very condescending to me.

 

Your reply looks like a vendetta of sorts?

 

I hope I'm wrong but your written words are hard for me to to see differently.

 

At least Mark is trying to make a positive difference in this hobby of ours.

 

What positive difference have you attempted or made for the hobby?

Leeg, I'll give you that. That was somewhat condescending. And, to that degree, I sincerely apologize to Mark, to you, and to the group for it. At the time I said it, however, it didn't seem that way, to me. I'm not trying to make excuses. But, FWIW, you might consider that, too.

 

At any rate, I'll say my point, again, and, hopefully, for the last time, here. It's better to have no standards at all, than it is to have arbitrary standards. To the degree that we accept arbitrary standards, to the same degree do we alienate every rational collector and dealer. A wise man once said, "The most destructive imperialisms of the world have been those of men who have elevated their preferences to the pinnacle of moral imperatives and who have then confidently proceeded to impose those imperatives on others." I'm with BillJones, I don't want that for this beloved hobby. If the standards are rational, and based on rational definitions, again, that's one thing. If they're arbitrary, and just shoved down our throats, notwithstanding any "good intentions," that's quite another thing. And, that's it.

 

How's that for a position?

 

I don't think there is anything arbitrary about their proposed definition at all and it is the most logical. Moreover, I think it is possible to distinguish between market acceptable and non-market acceptable doctoring in terms of whether adverse effects (one the coin) are present. Most importantly, as I indicated previously, I think James_Early_US is on to something: simply change the terminology to remove any connotations that may have been added by buyers, etc. If there is truth to your claim of "destructive imperialisms" and "moral imperatives," then why have the PNG at all? If they're not going to set forth standards for coin doctoring and ethical codes, etc., then what is the purpose of the PNG? Unless I am mistaken, my understanding was that it was meant as an organization to regulate the behavior of members and to foster ethics in numismatics.

[Kurtdog]

I don't think there is anything arbitrary about their proposed definition at all and it is the most logical.

Then you'll forgive me if I missed anything but if this is what you're referencing it's hardly what one would refer to as a proposed definition:

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 you're rather referencing an actual proposed definition, then let's see it, what the heck?

[leeg]

Thanks Kurtdog!

 

 

Nothing wrong with sharing an opinion on an issue it's all about the presentation.

 

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion. (thumbs u

[Jim Beam]

"At any rate, I'll say my point, again, and, hopefully, for the last time, here. It's better to have no standards at all, than it is to have arbitrary standards. To the degree that we accept arbitrary standards, to the same degree do we alienate every rational collector and dealer. A wise man once said, "The most destructive imperialisms of the world have been those of men who have elevated their preferences to the pinnacle of moral imperatives and who have then confidently proceeded to impose those imperatives on others." I'm with BillJones, I don't want that for this beloved hobby. If the standards are rational, and based on rational definitions, again, that's one thing. If they're arbitrary, and just shoved down our throats, notwithstanding any "good intentions," that's quite another thing. And, that's it.

 

How's that for a position?"

 

I agree with Kurtdog - 100%. Do read the various definitions of "arbitrary" and you will see how important this point is.

 

"Most importantly, as I indicated previously, I think James_Early_US is on to something: simply change the terminology to remove any connotations that may have been added by buyers, etc"

 

I am not sure how changing the name from doctoring will make any real difference here. I have seen lots of Companys who had various projects or corporate issues "fail". How many of these initiatives were successful after a simple name change with no real effort to fix the problems? Very few if any unless the real issue was satisfactorily addressed.

 

Sorry I don't know how to get partial bits and pieces (quotes) in a box without showing all of what has been stated.

[coinman_23885]

Mark, are you telling me you're not versed enough in diction to understand what the term "arbitrary" means? That's all I'm saying. I assumed you understood that term and the proper use of it. If not, I'm sorry if I confused you, as that was hardly my intention.

 

Look, I have to shove off. Why don't you look it up in Webster's, try to get the hang of it, then read my comments, again. Perhaps, then, they'll make some sense to you. Short of that, I don't know what else I can tell you, but to wish you luck. You requested our opinions, here, and I told you mine, and, of course, I stand behind them.

 

I don't think there is anything arbitrary about their proposed definition at all and it is the most logical.

Then you'll forgive me if I missed anything but if this is what you're referencing it's hardly what one would refer to as a proposed definition:

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 you're rather referencing an actual proposed definition, then let's see it, what the heck?

 

My comments were made in reference to adopting a broader definition of coin doctoring that would include any activity meant to artificially/intentionally enhance or otherwise alter the appearance of a coin (as many posts, including several of mine, have discussed). In fact, this is the de facto meaning of “doctoring” and the verb “to doctor”. To quote Webster’s Dictionary, which you seem quite fond of given your condescending response to Mr. Feld previously, doctoring is:

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doctoring

2doctor

verb

doc·tored | doc·tor·ing

 

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

 

A straightforward and logical application is clear: any intentional modification for a desired end alteration of a coin is coin doctoring per se. There is nothing inherently arbitrary about this. Perhaps you should look up the definition of arbitrary as you do not appear to understand its meaning. I went ahead and saved you the time:

 

ar·bi·trary

adj

1: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law

2a : not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority b : marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power

3a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something b : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will

 

Adopting this definition leaves no discretion and it would be clearly fixed by principle (i.e. any intentional alteration is doctoring per se]), and this definition is based on the intrinsic nature of what it means to “doctor” something. There is nothing inherently arbitrary or capricious about this at all. And while it may not be convenient to some, including perhaps yourself, this doesn’t make any alteration, regardless of the so-called acceptability of it, doctoring any less. Enough with the semantic games. You can roll vomit in powdered sugar, and it still isn’t a jelly doughnut.

 

Finally, as many have suggested here, many of the connotations attached to “coin doctoring” could be eliminated by adopting an alternative term such as coin “cosmetic enhancement,” obviating many of the concerns expressed here. Perhaps this course of action should be taken. Others, including myself, have proposed distinguishing between market acceptable cosmetic enhancement and market unacceptable cosmetic enhancement. I think this distinction is important; however, there is nothing inherently arbitrary about this distinction. Market acceptable enhancement is any process, which does not adversely affect a coin’s attributes (such as luster, surfaces, etc.). Market unacceptable enhancement is any process, which does adversely affect a coin’s attributes. The distinction is made by the intrinsic enhancement process and is distinguishable using objective criteria/factors readily available from an in hand inspection of the coin; ergo, there is nothing arbitrary about it.

 

With regards to enforcement, I do not think that anyone has proposed a mechanism for enforcing the new definition/protocol; however, if members of the PNG wish to leave the organization because a broader (and more realistic definition) is adopted than that is their prerogative. I don't think that an organization that touts itself as a professional organization concerned with objectivity/benefit of the hobby should give into members that are bothered for having their behaviors labeled for what they are. With regards to enforcement, the PNG may make adherence to a non-coin doctoring protocol optional. Perhaps, it could find a way to distinguish between dealers that do adhere to the stricter definition and those that do not, rewarding those that do. Another possibility is to adopt a definition (again consistent with Webster's Dictionary) that requires deception to render a violation of PNG protocol (i.e. dipping and other doctoring is acceptable if disclosed to the buyer). Regardless of the enforcement mechanism, the definition is not arbitrary in and of itself and that is the purpose of this forum, to discuss a proposed definition.

 

 

 

 

[James_OldeTowne]

I don't think there is anything arbitrary about their proposed definition at all and it is the most logical.

Then you'll forgive me if I missed anything but if this is what you're referencing it's hardly what one would refer to as a proposed definition:

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 you're rather referencing an actual proposed definition, then let's see it, what the heck?

For the record, in my (wordy) proposals to the committee, I have suggested that the definition should NOT be concise (in other words, "short"), because that trivializes an obviously contentious issue. On the contrary, for the very reason of the back-and-forth illustrated in this very thread, I have proposed that the definition should be methodical, educational and use as much space as required to keep it consistent and applicable.

[MarkFeld]

Mark, are you telling me you're not versed enough in diction to understand what the term "arbitrary" means? That's all I'm saying. I assumed you understood that term and the proper use of it. If not, I'm sorry if I confused you, as that was hardly my intention.

 

Look, I have to shove off. Why don't you look it up in Webster's, try to get the hang of it, then read my comments, again. Perhaps, then, they'll make some sense to you. Short of that, I don't know what else I can tell you, but to wish you luck. You requested our opinions, here, and I told you mine, and, of course, I stand behind them.

 

I don't think there is anything arbitrary about their proposed definition at all and it is the most logical.

Then you'll forgive me if I missed anything but if this is what you're referencing it's hardly what one would refer to as a proposed definition:

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 you're rather referencing an actual proposed definition, then let's see it, what the heck?

 

My comments were made in reference to adopting a broader definition of coin doctoring that would include any activity meant to artificially/intentionally enhance or otherwise alter the appearance of a coin (as many posts, including several of mine, have discussed). In fact, this is the de facto meaning of “doctoring” and the verb “to doctor”. To quote Webster’s Dictionary, which you seem quite fond of given your condescending response to Mr. Feld previously, doctoring is:

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doctoring

2doctor

verb

doc·tored | doc·tor·ing

 

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

 

A straightforward and logical application is clear: any intentional modification for a desired end alteration of a coin is coin doctoring per se. There is nothing inherently arbitrary about this. Perhaps you should look up the definition of arbitrary as you do not appear to understand its meaning. I went ahead and saved you the time:

 

ar·bi·trary

adj

1: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law

2a : not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority b : marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power

3a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something b : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will

 

Adopting this definition leaves no discretion and it would be clearly fixed by principle (i.e. any intentional alteration is doctoring per se]), and this definition is based on the intrinsic nature of what it means to “doctor” something. There is nothing inherently arbitrary or capricious about this at all. And while it may not be convenient to some, including perhaps yourself, this doesn’t make any alteration, regardless of the so-called acceptability of it, doctoring any less. Enough with the semantic games. You can roll vomit in powdered sugar, and it still isn’t a jelly doughnut.

 

Finally, as many have suggested here, many of the connotations attached to “coin doctoring” could be eliminated by adopting an alternative term such as coin “cosmetic enhancement,” obviating many of the concerns expressed here. Perhaps this course of action should be taken. Others, including myself, have proposed distinguishing between market acceptable cosmetic enhancement and market unacceptable cosmetic enhancement. I think this distinction is important; however, there is nothing inherently arbitrary about this distinction. Market acceptable enhancement is any process, which does not adversely affect a coin’s attributes (such as luster, surfaces, etc.). Market unacceptable enhancement is any process, which does adversely affect a coin’s attributes. The distinction is made by the intrinsic enhancement process and is distinguishable using objective criteria/factors readily available from an in hand inspection of the coin; ergo, there is nothing arbitrary about it.

 

With regards to enforcement, I do not think that anyone has proposed a mechanism for enforcing the new definition/protocol; however, if members of the PNG wish to leave the organization because a broader (and more realistic definition) is adopted than that is their prerogative. I don't think that an organization that touts itself as a professional organization concerned with objectivity/benefit of the hobby should give into members that are bothered for having their behaviors labeled for what they are. With regards to enforcement, the PNG may make adherence to a non-coin doctoring protocol optional. Perhaps, it could find a way to distinguish between dealers that do adhere to the stricter definition and those that do not, rewarding those that do. Another possibility is to adopt a definition (again consistent with Webster's Dictionary) that requires deception to render a violation of PNG protocol (i.e. dipping and other doctoring is acceptable if disclosed to the buyer). Regardless of the enforcement mechanism, the definition is not arbitrary in and of itself and that is the purpose of this forum, to discuss a proposed definition.

 

 

 

 

Excluding any references to Kurtdog, as I don't want to participate in a squabble, I think your above post was most excellent. Thanks.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

The most dangerous and most often misunderstood weapon known to man is Words.

 

No,not something a wise man once said; just a personal observation, however useless.

 

But (blah-blah), it does seem to have a possible application to this Thread.

 

Respectfully,

John Curlis

 

[relicsncoins]

My personal deffinition is:

 

Altering a coin with the intent of decieving the buyer.

 

 

[James_OldeTowne]

The most dangerous and most often misunderstood weapon known to man is Words.

Words .... within a specific context.

 

[Kurtdog]

To quote Webster’s Dictionary, which you seem quite fond of given your condescending response to Mr. Feld previously, doctoring is: [...]

When it had been pointed out to me that I may have been condescending, I acknowledged that, like an adult, made my apologies for it, and took my licks for it. Good luck to you.

 

Excluding any references to Kurtdog, as I don't want to participate in a squabble [...]

Neither am I accommodating him, there. Good luck to you, too, Mark.

[TonerGuy]

Seriously ? Lets call "dipping" a coin "market acceptable cosmetic alteration" because it might sit better with some of the dealers that do it regularly is the best we can come up with ?

 

And the whole notion of "market acceptable" should be done away with...thats just a waste bucket diagnosis as they say in medicine...

 

PNG should lobby their TPG dujour and have them put "dipped" on the slab like they would with AT and watch to see how quickly the practice tails off...

 

 

 

[coinman_23885]

Seriously ? Lets call "dipping" a coin "market acceptable cosmetic alteration" because it might sit better with some of the dealers that do it regularly is the best we can come up with ?

 

And the whole notion of "market acceptable" should be done away with...thats just a waste bucket diagnosis as they say in medicine...

 

PNG should lobby their TPG dujour and have them put "dipped" on the slab like they would with AT and watch to see how quickly the practice tails off...

 

 

 

I'm not disagreeing with you per se, but if a dipping notation were placed on slabbed coins, it would be interesting to see how many AU or uncirculated coins would exist without the designation. I think that your proposal would, consistent with some of the concerns expressed here, result in a huge financial hit for most numismatic holdings. It would be interesting, however, if there was a notation for coins that had been overly dipped (while omitting it for others), but then there would be concerns about the applying this uniformly (and contrary to the definitions above, I do think this application could produce arbitrary results in this limited context).

[coinman_23885]

In addition to a definition of coin doctoring, is the committee going to make any recommendations regarding an enforcement mechanism?

[TonerGuy]

I think that your proposal would, consistent with some of the concerns expressed here, result in a huge financial hit for most numismatic holdings.

 

Only if someone cracked out the coin and dipped it in the hope of an upgrade...

 

If left in the original holder without the "dipped" designation then the buyer is left to wonder ... was it dipped or au natural ? And he/she would have to decide for themselves.

 

Not really that different than buying/selling toned coins... is it AT, NT or the dreaded MA... as a toned coin lover you have to come to terms with that.

 

So therefore why wouldnt the "blast white" crowd have the same issues and be able to deal with it in the same way...

 

The possibility of AT hasnt killed the toned coin market nor has the designation on the slab... why then would a dipping designation result in a huge financial hit for some ?

 

Let the market decide...You assume that people wont buy dipped coins... I say they will. But I think the TPGs have a financial/fiduciary responsibility to note such on the slab.

 

 

[MarkFeld]

In addition to a definition of coin doctoring, is the committee going to make any recommendations regarding an enforcement mechanism?

 

Not to my knowledge - I don't think we have any say or even input in that, whatsoever.