• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Just in case you hadn't heard (posted without comment)...

26 posts in this topic

PNG Adopts Coin Doctoring Definition

http://www.pngdealers.com/item.php?item_id=164&category_id=2

 

Coin doctoring refers to the alteration of any portion of a coin, when that process includes any of the following:

 

1) Movement, addition to, or otherwise altering of metal, so that a coin appears to be in a better state of preservation, or more valuable than it otherwise would be. A few examples are plugging, whizzing, polishing, engraving, “lasering” and adding or removing mint marks.

 

2) Addition of any substance to a coin so that it appears to be in a better state of preservation or more valuable than it otherwise would be. The use of solvents and/or commercially available dilute acids, such as Jeweluster, by qualified professionals is not considered coin doctoring.

 

3) Intentional exposure of a coin to any chemicals, substances, or processes which impart toning, such that the coin appears to be in a better state of preservation or more valuable than it otherwise would be. Naturally occurring toning imparted during long-term storage using established/traditional methods, such as coin albums, rolls, flips, or envelopes, does not constitute coin doctoring.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#2 So if a collector dips his coin in jewelluster, even if he does it properly, is coin doctoring because he isn't a "qualified professional".

 

So you are looking at a white coin with apparent full luster, how do you know if it is original (good), dipped by a "qualified professional (acceptable), or dipped by a collector (doctored)?

 

 

#3, we are still having to look at the coin and divine the "intent" of the person who put it in the situation that cause it to tone. I finish my collection that I store in an album and I put it away for a few years. When I decide to sell it some of the coins have toned, wonderful bonus, I have some other coins that I but into some albums because I know they have a tendency to tone coins and I put them away for a few years. When I pull them out some of them have toned as well. These coins are considered doctored because I put them away "with intent".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like a reasonable definition although there will be exceptions such as coins from famous ship wrecks. It essentially codifies the criteria they've been using since they started slabbing coins in 1986.

I don't recall the PNG slabbing coins since 1986. You mean PCGS, don't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#2 So if a collector dips his coin in jewelluster, even if he does it properly, is coin doctoring because he isn't a "qualified professional".

 

So you are looking at a white coin with apparent full luster, how do you know if it is original (good), dipped by a "qualified professional (acceptable), or dipped by a collector (doctored)?

 

#3, we are still having to look at the coin and divine the "intent" of the person who put it in the situation that cause it to tone. I finish my collection that I store in an album and I put it away for a few years. When I decide to sell it some of the coins have toned, wonderful bonus, I have some other coins that I but into some albums because I know they have a tendency to tone coins and I put them away for a few years. When I pull them out some of them have toned as well. These coins are considered doctored because I put them away "with intent".

I can see your trouble, right now. You think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#2 So if a collector dips his coin in jewelluster, even if he does it properly, is coin doctoring because he isn't a "qualified professional".

 

So you are looking at a white coin with apparent full luster, how do you know if it is original (good), dipped by a "qualified professional (acceptable), or dipped by a collector (doctored)?

 

#3, we are still having to look at the coin and divine the "intent" of the person who put it in the situation that cause it to tone. I finish my collection that I store in an album and I put it away for a few years. When I decide to sell it some of the coins have toned, wonderful bonus, I have some other coins that I but into some albums because I know they have a tendency to tone coins and I put them away for a few years. When I pull them out some of them have toned as well. These coins are considered doctored because I put them away "with intent".

I can see your trouble, right now. You think.

 

The definition (to which I contributed) is far from perfect. As would be any other, I suspect. But, I think it's far better than nothing. And if other people can come up with better working definitions which deal with these issues, please post them here.

 

I believe that the term "qualified professional" was used in order to discourage novices from dipping coins.

 

And I think that intent was included, so as to try to avoid punishing people who do not intentionally tone coins. And to try to discourage people from intentionally toning them, as per the language of the definition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#3, we are still having to look at the coin and divine the "intent" of the person who put it in the situation that cause it to tone. I finish my collection that I store in an album and I put it away for a few years. When I decide to sell it some of the coins have toned, wonderful bonus, I have some other coins that I but into some albums because I know they have a tendency to tone coins and I put them away for a few years. When I pull them out some of them have toned as well. These coins are considered doctored because I put them away "with intent".

 

Great observation, how can we divine anyone else's intent without entering into their mind? And aren't the resultant intentionally toned coins completely indistinguishable from those that toned innocently, even if the intent were confessed? Furthermore, after an individual coin or album-full of coins has changed hands, an alleged deliberate toner can no longer be cross-examined, or her facial expressions scrutinized for tell-tale signs of nefarious intent.

 

Rather than just contrasting AT with NT, it might be more helpful if instead the probable cause of toning is described. In a recent thread about a beautifully toned 1942 walker, insufficiently appreciated by those who had to rely on photos rather than personal examination, and purchased by Mark Feld for an amount way above book value, but still possibly a considerable bargain because of its uniqueness, I'd have liked to see a few words about the presumed cause of the toning. Is it album toning, and if so, how many decades of storage in an album might have been required to impart that kind of toning, exactly what kinds of albums tend to do that the most, and would atmospheric conditions around the album have played a substantial role?

 

For example, I'd have appreciated the posted pictures of that coin even more had Mark noted something like: "It appears to me this coin was probably stored inside a Whitman folder for 69 years in an unfinished attic with daytime summer temperatures around 130 degrees F, and the surrounding air permeated with effluvia from bat guano."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like a reasonable definition although there will be exceptions such as coins from famous ship wrecks. It essentially codifies the criteria they've been using since they started slabbing coins in 1986.

I don't recall the PNG slabbing coins since 1986. You mean PCGS, don't you?

 

You're quite correct---I got the two organiztions mixed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The definition (to which I contributed) is far from perfect. As would be any other, I suspect. But, I think it's far better than nothing.

I couldn't disagree with you more. While it's indeed better than nothing for the business of the TPGs and CAC who are going to be looked to as the final arbiters on these arbitrary standards it's not better than nothing for collectors. To the degree collectors can be persuaded to embrace said standards to the same degree is every coin going to be suspect until it's in a slab. Funny how that works out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#2 So if a collector dips his coin in jewelluster, even if he does it properly, is coin doctoring because he isn't a "qualified professional".

 

So you are looking at a white coin with apparent full luster, how do you know if it is original (good), dipped by a "qualified professional (acceptable), or dipped by a collector (doctored)?

 

#3, we are still having to look at the coin and divine the "intent" of the person who put it in the situation that cause it to tone. I finish my collection that I store in an album and I put it away for a few years. When I decide to sell it some of the coins have toned, wonderful bonus, I have some other coins that I but into some albums because I know they have a tendency to tone coins and I put them away for a few years. When I pull them out some of them have toned as well. These coins are considered doctored because I put them away "with intent".

I can see your trouble, right now. You think.

 

The definition (to which I contributed) is far from perfect. As would be any other, I suspect. But, I think it's far better than nothing. And if other people can come up with better working definitions which deal with these issues, please post them here.

 

I believe that the term "qualified professional" was used in order to discourage novices from dipping coins.

 

And I think that intent was included, so as to try to avoid punishing people who do not intentionally tone coins. And to try to discourage people from intentionally toning them, as per the language of the definition.

 

 

So if a qualified professional does it its ok, but if a collector does it even if done properly its not ok??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The definition (to which I contributed) is far from perfect. As would be any other, I suspect. But, I think it's far better than nothing.

I couldn't disagree with you more. While it's indeed better than nothing for the business of the TPGs and CAC who are going to be looked to as the final arbiters on these arbitrary standards it's not better than nothing for collectors. To the degree collectors can be persuaded to embrace said standards to the same degree is every coin going to be suspect until it's in a slab. Funny how that works out.

 

I don't follow your line of thinking in the above. However, I also must admit that I was a member of the committee with Mark and that we were two of the more active members in terms of writing the definition, debating finer points and bouncing ideas off one another over the course of several months via email, at shows, on the phone and on our common blog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

#2 So if a collector dips his coin in jewelluster, even if he does it properly, is coin doctoring because he isn't a "qualified professional".

 

So you are looking at a white coin with apparent full luster, how do you know if it is original (good), dipped by a "qualified professional (acceptable), or dipped by a collector (doctored)?

 

#3, we are still having to look at the coin and divine the "intent" of the person who put it in the situation that cause it to tone. I finish my collection that I store in an album and I put it away for a few years. When I decide to sell it some of the coins have toned, wonderful bonus, I have some other coins that I but into some albums because I know they have a tendency to tone coins and I put them away for a few years. When I pull them out some of them have toned as well. These coins are considered doctored because I put them away "with intent".

I can see your trouble, right now. You think.

 

The definition (to which I contributed) is far from perfect. As would be any other, I suspect. But, I think it's far better than nothing. And if other people can come up with better working definitions which deal with these issues, please post them here.

 

I believe that the term "qualified professional" was used in order to discourage novices from dipping coins.

 

And I think that intent was included, so as to try to avoid punishing people who do not intentionally tone coins. And to try to discourage people from intentionally toning them, as per the language of the definition.

 

 

So if a qualified professional does it its ok, but if a collector does it even if done properly its not ok??

 

It's OK in so far as not to be considered doctoring. And since the PNG consists of dealers, non-dealers who are not qualified as experts, don't fall under the adopted definition. So they have nothing to fear, other than perhaps, harming their coins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The definition (to which I contributed) is far from perfect. As would be any other, I suspect. But, I think it's far better than nothing.

I couldn't disagree with you more. While it's indeed better than nothing for the business of the TPGs and CAC who are going to be looked to as the final arbiters on these arbitrary standards it's not better than nothing for collectors. To the degree collectors can be persuaded to embrace said standards to the same degree is every coin going to be suspect until it's in a slab. Funny how that works out.

 

Despite the "(posted without comment)" in your thread title, I would have been shocked had you not commented in this thread.

 

There happen to be quite a few uncertified coins which are bought and sold, so your remark about TPG's and CAC doesn't really make sense to me.

 

Additionally, collectors can benefit if coin doctors are under increased scrutiny. Ditto for it/when disclosures are made by sellers of doctored coins. Obviously, it remains to be seen, where this leads and what the benefits will be.

 

I do know of one coin doctor who is supposedly going to stop doctoring coins, now that there is a definition in place. And I doubt that he will be the only one. Before, it was too easy for him to think and act as if there were no standards and he had the "anything goes" mentality. Now, there is a definition which is clear enough (and apparently not too arbitrary) for him to make use of.

 

We will have to agree to disagree about whether this is better than nothing.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If people knew I was doctoring coins Id tell everyone im going to stop doctoring coins too.

 

The person in question had years to tell people he had stopped, but did not do so until the definition was adopted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if this doc is truly going to stop, then why don't you give us his name? Shouldn't known coin damagers be on a list somewhere so we know to not buy from them?

 

Best, HT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, in that case than I am sure that he/she is sincere about stopping.

 

Maybe, maybe not. Either way, he is feeling more heat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, in that case than I am sure that he/she is sincere about stopping.

 

I would normally accept this statement in the sprit intended, under normal circumstances.

 

But (blah, blah), the circumstancs have changed.

 

The individual is identified by his PROFESSIONAL peers.

 

A PROFESSIONAL definition has been voted on, passed, and entered into the Book.

 

Should the individual(s) continue, the individual(s) now risk their PROFESSIONAL peers applying all the penalties associated with the now unacceptable practice.

 

The methods he/she used (uses) are well known by his/her PROFESSIONAL peers. Hiding is not possible, should he/she continue. The economic consequences of continuing the now shunned and outlawed practices would have an effect equal to selling coins in Siberia.

 

A more interesting question to collectors would be:

 

Is there a plan/idea/discussion about the coins that are on the Market and known by the Professional peers to have been the work of various PROFESSIONAL numismatic artists? Will these pieces be removed/identified/bought back/unholdered(is that a word?)/acceptably re-doctored by a PROFESSIONAL?

 

Concerning embracing the new Standard- this is a PNG Standard. Whether or not collectors embrace it effects the position of TPGs. What would be the collectors' position if the TPGs, embrace this new Rule publicly, which they are doing in a convoluted but direct association method, via involvement corporately and/or individually.

 

Like or not like, the economic cost of correction is not easy to accept.

 

Concerning the definition now in place:

 

I distinctly recall Mr. Feld's call to arms for suggestions from any and all, to assist him and his PROFESSIONAL peers in arriving at a workable solution that would be a step forward for the Hobby as a whole. Many suggestions were presented.

I recognize the present language as evolving to include many of those suggestions.

 

The next step is the 2nd call to arms- an amendment. Seems to me that method has worked quite well with another document that had to be drafted to get the ball started down the hill, and perfected later.

 

But (blah, blah) what do I know?

 

Just some evening rain thoughts....

 

Respectfully, to all.

John Curlis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont really care. I dont understand why people put so much time into stopping these "doctors".

 

Please accept my observation as a friendly gesture:

 

If you as a collector don't care, then why present a witty/sarcastic comment about the Subject being discussed?

 

We will all be effected by the PNG Edict, and we will all benefit as collectors.

If one doesn't care, that is their choice.

 

But (blah,blah), if that is the choice made, then one concedes the Right to question why those that do care are enthusiastic in their pursuit of correcting a wrong.

 

Respectfully, Always,

 

John Curlis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel making a big deal about nothing does more harm than good. There is nothing anybody can do to stop "it". Can you stop Timmy from cooking Buffalo nickels in pine needles and selling them through his friend Ralph? I commend those trying to stop "it". I really do. But its my opinion that "it" cant be stopped. So in the mean time we can talk about how detrimental it is to the hobby and scare some of the big players away. Thats all I have seen happend. Once again I commend those that put the time into making the definition. You have done more than I have or more than I want to. In the end it just seems to me its best to leave it alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite the "(posted without comment)" in your thread title, I would have been shocked had you not commented in this thread.

It was posted without comment. Did you see a comment in the post? There you go...

 

As regards these standards, while I'm sure there was a lot of thought that went into them, they simply don't hold up to critical thought. Why? There's no mystery to it. Like I said, they're arbitrary.

 

From an aspirational standpoint, I suppose, they're OK. They're no standards upon which the TPGs or CAC or anybody for that matter should be determining the grade-worthiness of coins by, though. That, IMHO, is just plum nutty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites