Would "conservation" survive a "test?"

[Count_Erfit]

Forgive my beating this pore ole horse, but this matter has me very concerned for my NGC coins. Maybe unduly so as they do have the grade "guarantee" but still not satisfied if things should go "not as expected."

 

Has anyone, or has anyone considered, having 10 coins conserved and "submitted for grading" and then cracking them out and just sending in under a different name? Maybe a different time. And certainly submitting yet AGAIN to another TPG. But leave them IN the slab for that time so the atmosphere would not be a factor.

 

How close to the original "submitted for grade" number do you think the result would be?

 

Not trying to be a PITA, but just wishing to cover this issue and get some reassurance.

 

I fear the stability and long term credibility of conserved coins in NGC slabs.

 

[supertooth]

Well old buddy----I can relate to you. If anyone was more disillusioned than I was to find out that NGC was slabbing conserved coins, I do not know who that might be. Unlike PCGS holders---which I knew contained "conserved" coins on occasion[as well as other things like hairlines]----I recently just found out that NCS sends them right down the hall to be put into NGC holders. Since I had never "conserved" a coin, I had no reason to ever read the NCS submission form. So, when I found out, I sent for some forms. And, right there in black and white, there it was. So, having one AU 1923S Walker that really did need conserving----it had dip residue, I thought I would send it along to NCS and see what would happen. I am actually pleased to say that NCS did conserve the coin---which it did absolutely need----did send it down the hall to NGC. But here is the kicker. NGC "did not" slab it. Now, whether that was because I am just a one person situation [rather than the dealer type], I cannot say. The coin was given AU details and slabbed by NCS. It looks no different than dozens of other early Walkers that I have seen in PCGS holders that have been conserved. It is now an attractive coin. How long it stays that way?? I have no idea. But my point is that "NGC DID NOT SLAB IT". They had no idea that I was doing my own sort of test. My feeling is that----because they knew it was dip residue---they thought that I had messed with the coin [which I had not]-----and that was the reason it might not have been slabbed by NGC? Another thought that I had was that maybe NCS was actually "TELLING" the guys at NGC whether they thought the coin was worth slabbing or not? Mine would have failed because someone else [but them] had "conserved" the coin beforehand? Again, this is speculation on my part. Others with more knowledge can maybe say more. But my experience is worth noting. I have a friend in Calif.---who submits to PCGS. I have thought of sending it to him to crack out and submit to PCGS----just to see what would happen. Would it not tell a tale if PCGS did slab it?? Bob [supertooth]

[gmarguli]

This is all an effort in futility.

 

Facts:

 

NGC/PCGS/ANACS/every other grading service and numismatist on the face of the earth can NOT tell if a coin has been conserved if the conservation has been done properly. They can guess with a high probability for some coins - i.e. a blast white 200 year old silver coin, but they cannot tell for sure.

 

NCS is not doing anything new. What they are doing has been done since the day coins were first collected. BTW, do you think that PCGS doesn't conserve coins? Of course they do, it's just not a service available to the general public.

 

I've had coins conserved by NCS and had them both returned raw and graded by NGC (then cracked out and submitted to other services) and they all slabbed. There was never any doubt.

 

Are you sure the coin went to NGC and they didn't slab? Or perhaps it never went to NGC since the people at NCS knew it wouldn't slab? The graders are......similar.

 

BTW, I personally conserve a vast majority of the coins I submit. The services can't tell nor would they care.

[midwest]

Didn't the ANA operate a conservation type service before NCS?Also I think they may have hired the same people. anyway if so the methods are probably the same and if coins aren't going south not a problem.

[factgiver-migration]

Facts:

 

NGC/PCGS/ANACS/every other grading service and numismatist on the face of the earth can NOT tell if a coin has been conserved if the conservation has been done properly. They can guess with a high probability for some coins - i.e. a blast white 200 year old silver coin, but they cannot tell for sure.

I agree.

 

 

FACT

[Tradedollarnut]

I disagree. I believe that the conserved look is readily identifiable.

[Count_Erfit]

And I agree with TDN. I wish I wanted to spend the 3 grand for the seated dollar I got on approval. In fact I wish I had the TWO NGC seated dollars I have received on approval in the past 6 months in which case, one was reverting and the other was so skinned as to be obvious....(to me)

 

Am I the final arbiter of all things? No. Could I be wrong? Yes.

 

I however DID send in that 1919s nickel that came back with what was called usual 'greasy' appearance at the time by a couple posters here and within 4 months it had (while simply stored in bank) ...reverted... to the spot returning.

 

I have nothing against NCS and would like to see them actually do grading. Or, even walk it down the hall for grading and then be placed in NCS plastic (with grade guarantee if desired or available) and then be placed into the marketplace for knowledgeable numismatists to evaluate on their merits.

 

What I am .....chicken...buk-buk-buk....lily-livered.... sissy.... girly man.. SCARED of is seeing NGC's image "tarnished" by suspicion and distrust.

 

It could be very costly to me and many others.

 

Sure, "conservation" has been done for ages. And done right. Witness the coins that are in ALL slabs that are different from how the submitter acquired them. But apples is apples.

 

When the financial advantage is to err on the liberal side due to similar interests, the apples can turn to oranges.

 

I'd like to see an independent test. The grade "guarantee" is nice, but United Airlines pensions were also "guaranteed." However, UA did not knowingly invite bombs in "carry on" luggage.

 

Believe it or not, my desire is to see both NCS ....AND..... NGC keep their respective GREAT images in the marketplace.

 

[supertooth]

Greg-----As I am late to these boards, I have read them with much interest over the last few months. Your name is one I respect because of what you have said. I do most always agree with you. As for my 23S, I am reasonably sure it did go to NGC as, when I had my wife call about it, they told her it had already been conserved and was currently at NGC. The lady had told my wife that it was coming back to them and would be slabbed by NCS and not NGC. So, unless the story was fabricated, it did get to someone at NGC. Nowhere that I have ever read has PCGS or NGC ever admitted---in print---that I know of---that they slab "curated" or "conserved" [not counting NCS coins] or "dipped" coins. It is not even on the seawater damaged treasure finds. The average collector out there still believes that only "original" coins are placed into PCGS or NGC holders. Cleaned coins go into ANACS holders and are downgraded. About PCGS---I knew this was not true about 3 years ago. That is why I use NGC. I have never sent a coin to PCGS. But not until about 3 months ago did I learn it about NGC. I would not have known then except for these boards. Call me late to this game---we all have things that turn out to be disappointing to us. But I tend to side on being able to guess that the coin has been conserved. It is why I do not buy normally any PCGS coins or any totally "white" coins. My reason for stating this is pretty simple. I know what my 23S looked like when I bought it and thought that it was original. I also know what it looked like 2 and1/2 years later after it had turned and had dip residue all over it and getting worse all the time. Naturally the dealer that sold me the coin told me it was original. And now I know what that conserved coin looks like now. And, by gosh, I got an AU58 in a PCGS holder that looks just like it [i got this coin so cheap that I had to buy it]---other than my recently conserved coin would grade only a 53--55. So I guess that I just will never trust an "all white" coin----never did anyway. Look at my Registry Set under Doc"s Walkers and that will verify that. But both coins now have what I would call that "shiny dipped" look. That slipery glazed look but yet such a beautiful come out and grab you "NEW" look. The fields are definitely not original. In those 2+ years I have learned a lot. Sure, I still got a lot to learn but I have learned to buy NT coins [mostly raw] and then let NGC slab them. If I hadn"t, I would have owned a lot of hairlined and net graded ANACS coins---just like a lot of other poor souls that I have felt so sorry for in the last few years. And, why I believe toned coins are better is also simple. I have never believed that a 90% silver coin could be preserved for lets say 50+ years without some indication that oxidation of some sort has taken place. A little "color" somewhere. Chemistry being what it is---you can take the color away and make it white. But then, in my mind, it is no longer original. So where am I on the educational scale? I really do not know myself. But I do know that I have learned not to "trust" hardly anyone. I definitely do not trust slabs---especially PCGS slabs. I have also learned that mostly you will be self taught. These great boards have taught me a lot. Greg---you and a lot of others have thrown tidbits to me that 50 years of collecting never gave to me. Wasn"t it you who said original coins many times had a little white haze on them? That is why I try to help the ones that I know need more than I do. I hope they learn quicker than quick----for their own sakes. None of this is meant to be argumentative---it is only how one guy feels. A guy who has found out more than he ever figured that he needed to know to be a "safe" coin collector. Bob [supertooth]

[cpm9ball]

I will be making the trip to Sarasota very soon to pick up 31 coins that I submitted to NCS. I requested that they be conserved and, if possible, submitted to NGC for grading. It turned out that 21 were gradable and 10 were returned to NCS for encapsulation. It will be interesting to view the results.

 

Chris

[James_OldeTowne]

I agree completely with Greg's facts. A properly conserved coin is a coin that has not really been "changed"; it's had contaminants or environmental problems removed. There seems to be some confusion that NCS "cleans" coins though, which is completely different from conservation. Cleaning a coin alters the surface quality, and is generally readily identifiable.

 

I consider "conservation" to be such things as an acetone rinse, or a quick dip of a coin, not to remove or alter toning, but rather to remove contaminants that might damage the coin.

 

James

[supertooth]

I agree completely with Greg's facts. A properly conserved coin is a coin that has not really been "changed"; it's had contaminants or environmental problems removed. There seems to be some confusion that NCS "cleans" coins though, which is completely different from conservation. Cleaning a coin alters the surface quality, and is generally readily identifiable.

 

I consider "conservation" to be such things as an acetone rinse, or a quick dip of a coin, not to remove or alter toning, but rather to remove contaminants that might damage the coin.

 

James

 

Well, I guess that my beliefs and what my eyes have seen just differ from others. On my 23S Walker---when I bought it---was an area of colorful toning between the T and Y of Liberty. It was the prime reason that I believed that the coin was original. After the coin started to get dip residue all over it, that toning never changed. It was the same nice color that it had always been. But the rest of the surface was indeed changing into a nasty looking coin. After it came back from being conserved, that toning area is virtually gone. Now, while I agree that the contaminants have been removed, my original toning is gone as well. Now I know that some will say that the toning was also a contaminant. That NCS only removed the microns of oxidation that was the "toning". And I imagine that James, who has my utmost respect, would say that the coins original surfaces have now been conserved because the contaminants as well as the toning have been removed. And I guess that technically---depending on how many micron layers were actually removed----they would be correct. But NCS has removed the Natural Toning that the coin had acquired over the decades. If the dealer who sold me that coin had not "fooled" with it in the first place, it would not have been ever necessary to conserve the coin and thereby remove the NT. So, to me at least, the NCS conservation was a "cleaning" because it did alter my original Natural Toning. Maybe not their fault. But still a consequence of the conservation process.

Now, as a result of this "conservation", the surfaces of the coin have been radically changed to my eyes. Not only were the contaminants removed but also the very reason that I bought the coin in the first place---the Natural Toning as well is gone. So, to me personally, the coin has been cleaned. And that white coin that I now own bears no resemblance whatsoever to the surface color that the 23S posessed when I originally purchased it. So, although conservation or dipping placed no hairlines onto the coins surfaces, it did alter the original toning. It did make the coin totally white----which it was not when I purchased it. So, to me at least, the conservation did "change" and did "alter" the coin"s surfaces which to me is what I consider a "cleaning". Whether or not the remaining surfaces have actually been changed by this conservation process could probably only be determined by chemical analysis---maybe. For maybe noone could ever tell at this point what those surfaces actually looked like at the actual time of the coin"s minting. My point in these statements is not to get anyone angry but to voice an opinion. Not to put blame on NCS or NGC but to hope that others would learn from my mistake. For this NCS process and these NGC boards have surely helped to fill in the gaps of my education. And I do agree with TDN on this one. Bob [supertooth]

[cpm9ball]

I agree completely with Greg's facts. A properly conserved coin is a coin that has not really been "changed"; it's had contaminants or environmental problems removed. There seems to be some confusion that NCS "cleans" coins though, which is completely different from conservation. Cleaning a coin alters the surface quality, and is generally readily identifiable.

 

I consider "conservation" to be such things as an acetone rinse, or a quick dip of a coin, not to remove or alter toning, but rather to remove contaminants that might damage the coin.

 

James

 

Well, I guess that my beliefs and what my eyes have seen just differ from others. On my 23S Walker---when I bought it---was an area of colorful toning between the T and Y of Liberty. It was the prime reason that I believed that the coin was original. After the coin started to get dip residue all over it, that toning never changed. It was the same nice color that it had always been. But the rest of the surface was indeed changing into a nasty looking coin. After it came back from being conserved, that toning area is virtually gone. Now, while I agree that the contaminants have been removed, my original toning is gone as well. Now I know that some will say that the toning was also a contaminant. That NCS only removed the microns of oxidation that was the "toning". And I imagine that James, who has my utmost respect, would say that the coins original surfaces have now been conserved because the contaminants as well as the toning have been removed. And I guess that technically---depending on how many micron layers were actually removed----they would be correct. But NCS has removed the Natural Toning that the coin had acquired over the decades. If the dealer who sold me that coin had not "fooled" with it in the first place, it would not have been ever necessary to conserve the coin and thereby remove the NT. So, to me at least, the NCS conservation was a "cleaning" because it did alter my original Natural Toning. Maybe not their fault. But still a consequence of the conservation process.

Now, as a result of this "conservation", the surfaces of the coin have been radically changed to my eyes. Not only were the contaminants removed but also the very reason that I bought the coin in the first place---the Natural Toning as well is gone. So, to me personally, the coin has been cleaned. And that white coin that I now own bears no resemblance whatsoever to the surface color that the 23S posessed when I originally purchased it. So, although conservation or dipping placed no hairlines onto the coins surfaces, it did alter the original toning. It did make the coin totally white----which it was not when I purchased it. So, to me at least, the conservation did "change" and did "alter" the coin"s surfaces which to me is what I consider a "cleaning". Whether or not the remaining surfaces have actually been changed by this conservation process could probably only be determined by chemical analysis---maybe. For maybe noone could ever tell at this point what those surfaces actually looked like at the actual time of the coin"s minting. My point in these statements is not to get anyone angry but to voice an opinion. Not to put blame on NCS or NGC but to hope that others would learn from my mistake. For this NCS process and these NGC boards have surely helped to fill in the gaps of my education. And I do agree with TDN on this one. Bob [supertooth]

 

Doc, I realize that I will have to lose the tooth because the abcess is about to explode. It's just going to take me some time to get used to chewing on the other side.

 

Chris