Doctoring?

[Hard Times]

From time to time, folks here note that they have put coins in albums to intentionally tone them, and some even use elevated temperatures such as the hottest place in their homes, to enhance the project. I have thought about this some, and depending on how stringent the definition is, this could be considered doctoring. It is an intentional effort to improve the coins. While it might be natural, it is done so knowingly, even if it takes years to get the tone to come out. Further, once the process has begun it is possible the tone will come out ugly and not improve the eye appeal. This goes against the philosophy to leave them alone and even protect them with products such as Intercept Shield that will help them stay in the same condition.

 

So what do you folks think? Is this doctoring? Surely if it works the TPG's will likely grade them.....

[jayman1970]

This would be the reason I would not pay a large premium for toned coins. To some it could be considered doctoring,but I would not consider it to be the same as doctoring a coin to hide problems.

 

 

Jason

[James_OldeTowne]

I have thought about this some, and depending on how stringent the definition is, this could be considered doctoring. It is an intentional effort to improve the coins.

Really, virtually anything done to coins, other than spending them, is doctoring. If you put them in slabs, that is not "natural" either, and prevents them from participating in whatever is deemed a "natural process".

 

 

While it might be natural, it is done so knowingly, even if it takes years to get the tone to come out.

Of course, as I've pointed out many times, the term "natural" is quite silly as applied to coins. Coins are entirely an artificial contrivance, so it makes no sense to suggest that anything "natural" happens to them once they are manufactured.

 

Is a nuclear bomb "natural"? No, but the radiation dissipates "naturally". Are coins "natural"? No, but they should tone and oxidize "naturally" -- unless they are artificially stored in slabs, 2x2s, albums... whatever.

[physics-fan3.14]

Hmmm... what's this on the shelf? A can? It says "worms." Let's open it. Ah... now you've done it.

[Coindude]

HT, I've brought this up in a couple of threads, but no one ever seems to want to comment. I personally consider it tampering or doctoring, but it seems that the more popular term, probably made up by those who do this sort of thing and don't want to be considered doctors, use the term of Market Acceptable.

 

I mean, who in their right mind would tone a modern coin, say a 2010 silver eagle, then get it slabbed, and then sell it for $300? No one would ever do something as unethical as that!!

[James_OldeTowne]

I really am pretty fed up with years and years and years of debates on "natural vs unnatural", and "artificial vs natural" when they are silly, worthless debates that aren't sustainable on ANY sensible level, because they compare senseless terms. As I stated above, what, exactly, is "natural" about any coin?? Did Mother Nature at some point begin making coins herself? No!

 

I've mentioned before that I've really come to like a term that NGC uses on occasionally, but should use much more often: "improper". Then, debates make more sense in comparing "proper" to "improper". I can understand what "proper storage" of coins is, since that includes albums, slabs, 2x2s, mint sets, and paper rolls. "Improper storage" refers to baked potatoes, sulfur pots, chemistry labs and bunsen burners.

 

So why shouldn't we put our focus on what's "proper" and eliminate all the improper stuff accordingly?

 

The same can be said of toning. I have no problem at all with some of what people call "artificial toning", but there is plenty of "natural toning" that is NOT market acceptable. Wouldn't it make so much more sense to call them "proper toning" vs. "improper toning"? I know what proper toning looks like, regardless of how it got there. It looks like bull's-eye toning, album colors, GSA rainbows or common silver-grey on circulated coins. Improper toning looks like cartoon nonsense.

[jom]

The "can of worms" analogy brought up applies here. The AT vs. NT debate is the most overblown overstated non-sense in numismatics.

 

The bottom line is that if a coin has toned, regardless of the method, and it STAYS that way for a long period of time who cares how it got that way? If you don't like it don't buy it.

 

Have I put coins in holders to purposely tone them?...damn right I have. I had several Kennedy halves I put in a Dansco album from 1993 until mid-last decade. They toned...and guess what? They look like Dansco toned half dollars. What a shock, huh? Since they toned so fast I took them out...they are in snap holders now.

 

At the same time, I also have had Ike dollars in Danscos for nearly twenty years and they haven't done a damn thing. Such is the "nature" of things.

 

jom

[newprepper]

If you put a coin in a slab, or protect it with intercept, how natural is that? If you hold off the natural toning by doing anthing tha retards the toning, wouldn't that be artificial also? JW

[Hard Times]

If you put a coin in a slab, or protect it with intercept, how natural is that? If you hold off the natural toning by doing anthing tha retards the toning, wouldn't that be artificial also? JW

 

Good question, I guess the terms 'natural' vs. 'unnatural' as James suggest, might be better replaced with proper vs. improper. Personally, I would think putting a coin in a container to keep it from reacting with the environment would be proper stewardship of historical items.

 

On the other hand, is intentionally accelerating the aging of a coins surface by inducing toning knowingly in an album or by any other means proper or is that doctoring? That is what I am asking about here. This is an interesting question from many perspectives.

 

Best, HT

[MJ]

I tend to agree with jom a lot. This would be one of these times. Does this make me a bad person?

 

MJ

[jom]

I tend to agree with jom a lot. This would be one of these times. Does this make me a bad person?

 

MJ

 

Of course it does. Evil in fact. Also, many would question your sanity.

 

and

 

jom

[$ilverHawk]

Hmmm... what's this on the shelf? A can? It says "worms." Let's open it. Ah... now you've done it.

 

Now that's a funny post. Excuse me for being didactic

 

I am totally amazed by our collecting community being conned by the vagaries of the TPG s. Admit it, we as collectors have allowed TPG s to dictate marketability as defined by TPG s. Whether it be toning, cleaning, or any other "alteration" we as collectors have allowed the major TPG s to be the last word in confirmation in the market place. The pendulum swings, I hope it swings back towards collectors as being arbiters of what is collectable and what is not.

 

TPG grading is far too often based on market parameters rather than the reality of the coin being evaluated. Ergo, exactly what is the quality of this coin versus what is the marketability of this coin.

 

Carl

[MJ]

I'm always thankful when I hear collectors say they won't pay a premium for toned coins. Lord knows that we don't need more competition. MJ

[delta]

Kindly describe for us the baked potato technique in careful detail with precise instructions, so we will know what not to do, thanks.

 

I've mentioned before that I've really come to like a term that NGC uses on occasionally, but should use much more often: "improper". Then, debates make more sense in comparing "proper" to "improper". I can understand what "proper storage" of coins is, since that includes albums, slabs, 2x2s, mint sets, and paper rolls. "Improper storage" refers to baked potatoes, sulfur pots, chemistry labs and bunsen burners.

[$ilverHawk]

I'm always thankful when I hear collectors say they won't pay a premium for toned coins. Lord knows that we don't need more competition. MJ

 

Did you completely read my comment? I said absolutely nothing about paying a premium for a toned coin. What I clearly stated was that collectors should not be conned by the grading vagaries of the TPG s.

 

Explain to me how you twisted that assertion.

 

Carl

[MJ]

I'm always thankful when I hear collectors say they won't pay a premium for toned coins. Lord knows that we don't need more competition. MJ

 

Did you completely read my comment? I said absolutely nothing about paying a premium for a toned coin. What I clearly stated was that collectors should not be conned by the grading vagaries of the TPG s.

 

Explain to me how you twisted that assertion.

 

Carl

 

Easy, notice I didn't quote you. My post had nothing to do with your comment. It just happened to follow in chronological order. It was just an on the topic off the cuff comment.

 

MJ

[$ilverHawk]

I'm always thankful when I hear collectors say they won't pay a premium for toned coins. Lord knows that we don't need more competition. MJ

 

Did you completely read my comment? I said absolutely nothing about paying a premium for a toned coin. What I clearly stated was that collectors should not be conned by the grading vagaries of the TPG s.

 

Explain to me how you twisted that assertion.

 

Carl

 

You're online, I'm online, I'm waiting.

 

Carl

[$ilverHawk]

I'm always thankful when I hear collectors say they won't pay a premium for toned coins. Lord knows that we don't need more competition. MJ

 

Did you completely read my comment? I said absolutely nothing about paying a premium for a toned coin. What I clearly stated was that collectors should not be conned by the grading vagaries of the TPG s.

 

Explain to me how you twisted that assertion.

 

Carl

 

You're online, I'm online, I'm waiting.

 

Carl

 

OK, understood.

 

Carl

[AnkurJ]

I tend to agree with jom a lot. This would be one of these times. Does this make me a bad person?

 

MJ

 

Of course it does. Evil in fact. Also, many would question your sanity.

 

and

 

jom

 

Forget the can, thats a BUCKET of worms!

[MJ]

I tend to agree with jom a lot. This would be one of these times. Does this make me a bad person?

 

MJ

 

Of course it does. Evil in fact. Also, many would question your sanity.

 

and

 

jom

 

Forget the can, thats a BUCKET of worms!

 

Glow worms. MJ

[TonerGuy]

Dipping = Doctoring

 

 

[BillJones]

Dipping = Doctoring

 

 

I totally disagree.

 

Most coins that have been dipped probably should not have been dipped, but I've seen instances where the toning on the piece was doing harm and dipping offered the only way to preserve the piece. There are also some Mint State coins that are so darn ugly that dipping is the only way to make them marketable.

 

If you don't like dipped coins, don't buy them. But don't try to create a market situation where you destroy the value of other collectors' holdings by pushing for a standard like "dipping = doctoring." That's as bad as the series of "Coin World" articles many years ago in which a self described "expert" proclaimed that all toned coins were "damaged" and destined to turn as black as tar no matter what. "Doctoring" is a charged up word in numismatics, and I would careful in its usage.

 

[MarkFeld]

Dipping = Doctoring

 

 

I totally disagree.

 

Most coins that have been dipped probably should not have been dipped, but I've seen instances where the toning on the piece was doing harm and dipping offered the only way to preserve the piece. There are also some Mint State coins that are so darn ugly that dipping is the only way to make them marketable.

 

If you don't like dipped coins, don't buy them. But don't try to create a market situation where you destroy the value of other collectors' holdings by pushing for a standard like "dipping = doctoring." That's as bad as the series of "Coin World" articles many years ago in which a self described "expert" proclaimed that all toned coins were "damaged" and destined to turn as black as tar no matter what. "Doctoring" is a charged up word in numismatics, and I would careful in its usage.

 

And I disagree with much of the above. Preservation is one thing, but dipping a coin to make it "marketable" seems like doctoring to me.

 

And if you don't like undipped coins, don't buy them, but don't dip them.

 

That said, while I believe that dipping is a form of doctoring, it is obviously widely accepted. And I wouldn't put it in the same category as other forms of doctoring, many of which are used to hide flaws.

[James_OldeTowne]

Dipping = Doctoring

I totally disagree.

 

Most coins that have been dipped probably should not have been dipped, but I've seen instances where the toning on the piece was doing harm and dipping offered the only way to preserve the piece. There are also some Mint State coins that are so darn ugly that dipping is the only way to make them marketable.

 

If you don't like dipped coins, don't buy them. But don't try to create a market situation where you destroy the value of other collectors' holdings by pushing for a standard like "dipping = doctoring." That's as bad as the series of "Coin World" articles many years ago in which a self described "expert" proclaimed that all toned coins were "damaged" and destined to turn as black as tar no matter what. "Doctoring" is a charged up word in numismatics, and I would careful in its usage.

 

And I disagree with much of the above. Preservation is one thing, but dipping a coin to make it "marketable" seems like doctoring to me.

 

And if you don't like undipped coins, don't buy them, but don't dip them.

 

That said, while I believe that dipping is a form of doctoring, it is obviously widely accepted. And I wouldn't put it in the same category as other forms of doctoring, many of which are used to hide flaws.

Wow, it's funny how the same arguments reappear in the same cycles from time to time! I am seriously laughing out loud as I type this!

 

Dipping most definitely is doctoring, but it is often an acceptable form of doctoring. Being "acceptable" doesn't change the facts, though. Capital punishment is murder, but it's an acceptable form of murder.

 

If you put a coin in a slab, or protect it with intercept, how natural is that? If you hold off the natural toning by doing anthing tha retards the toning, wouldn't that be artificial also? JW

 

Good question, I guess the terms 'natural' vs. 'unnatural' as James suggest, might be better replaced with proper vs. improper. Personally, I would think putting a coin in a container to keep it from reacting with the environment would be proper stewardship of historical items.

 

On the other hand, is intentionally accelerating the aging of a coins surface by inducing toning knowingly in an album or by any other means proper or is that doctoring? That is what I am asking about here. This is an interesting question from many perspectives.

That would come back to my previous argument, that anything which interrupts the natural progression for coins really should be deemed artificial/unnatural -- but not necessarily unacceptable.

 

It isn't remotely "natural" to pull coins out of bank rolls for placement into slabs, yet we find the practice acceptable. It's unnaturally altering a coin's "natural" environment.

 

(Again, all the above assumes that we actually accept "natural" as a meaningful term with regard to artificial objects -- coins.)

[TonerGuy]

I totally disagree.

 

Most coins that have been dipped probably should not have been dipped, but I've seen instances where the toning on the piece was doing harm and dipping offered the only way to preserve the piece. There are also some Mint State coins that are so darn ugly that dipping is the only way to make them marketable.=doctoring

If you don't like dipped coins, don't buy them. But don't try to create a market situation where you destroy the value of other collectors' holdings by pushing for a standard like "dipping = doctoring." That's as bad as the series of "Coin World" articles many years ago in which a self described "expert" proclaimed that all toned coins were "damaged" and destined to turn as black as tar no matter what. "Doctoring" is a charged up word in numismatics, and I would careful in its usage.

 

If your goal of dipping is to improve to eye appeal or "marketability" then thats doctoring and no different then adding color to a white coin to improve marketability - otherwise known as "price of sale."

 

If your goal is to remove harmful contaminants to conserve the coin and preserve it for future generations then its not doctoring - assuming of course the coin is rare and needs to be preserved. Then I say let NCS do it and let the slab indicate the coin has been conserved.

 

And who said anything about destroying a market for blast white dipped coins ? If thats what you prefer you should be able to enjoy your hobby as you see fit and dip coins to your hearts content.

 

However, I would like to see NGC and PCGS start to reject dipped coins just as they reject questionable toning... perhaps a new standard should be adopted where "questionable surfaces" should be used whether its an artificially toned coin or a dipped blast white coin.

[BillJones]

However, I would like to see NGC and PCGS start to reject dipped coins just as they reject questionable toning... perhaps a new standard should be adopted where "questionable surfaces" should be used whether its an artificially toned coin or a dipped blast white coin.

 

Since a great many coins have been dipped at one time or another what you advocate would seriously impair the value of a great many coins for no good reason. Do we really need another black eye for numismatics by saying that some coins that have been acceptable collectors' items for years are now "damaged" and must go into "genuine" holders?

 

What about the pieces that have been dipped but have since re-toned? Are we going to get into the business of speculating as to whether or not the toning is "original?" Experts can differ over that issue. If a coin is stable has a acceptable appearance, I don't know what the problem is.

 

As for marketability, here is an example of where dipping is necessary to get a decent price for coin. Many silver Proof coins from the 1936 to 1942 era acquire a dull haze that significantly impairs their eye appeal one's ability to sell them at the current market prices. This type of unattractive toning is easily removed, and coin pretty much looks like it did when it was struck. When I was dealer I bought some slabbed Proof coins that had the haze because they had never been dipped. I soon discovered that there was no way to get a fair price for them. I took my lumps and blew them off to dealer who probably cracked them out and dipped them.

 

[MJ]

Dipping is widely accepted and that train left the station years ago. FYI- CAC will sticker dipped coins within reason. Dipping is MA.............It's just the way it is. If someone doesn't like it...............well, it really doesn't matter. Not changing. Accept or just stick to what moves you.

 

MJ

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

The only part of your Post I wonder about is "...It is an intentional effort to improve the coins...".

 

I know what you mean, however there are a lot of collectors that would not see this as an improvement or eye appeal.

 

Maybe it is an intentional effort to alter the color of the coins.

[mtnstyne]

Train may have left the station but in my humble opinion dipping is more doctoring than an album toned coin if it happens in a normal living environment. Just because the TPGs have conditioned everyone to adapt to their standards doesn't mean they are right, that is just where the money is.

[Kurtdog]

Just because the TPGs have conditioned everyone to adapt to their standards doesn't mean they are right, that is just where the money is.

Persuade you through their experts to swallow their bull then just keep feeding you a steady diet of it. That's how it's done. I think if I hear one more expert opine on how you tell the difference between "natural" and "artificial" toning I'm going to croak.