When is restoration necessary?

[Hoot]

I'll start by digressing... The pros and cons of conservation typically revolve around the controversial subject of an "original" vs. a "blast" surface. At times, less controversial subjects arise, such as conserving active verdigris or carbon spots. Although proper conservation may not remove such spots, it may neutralize them and improve the longevity of the coin, if followed up with proper storage. Another less controversial subject is ugly toning that may have resulted from a "bad dip," or evidence of dies used to AT coins, or heat, or chemical damage. In nearly every case, proper conservation will improve the longevity of such coins, if not the appearance. Toning may return badly if improper storage conditions follow, but if the right storage conditions - dry and cool - follow conservation, then a coin will naturally tone over time. Metals simply react to constituents in air. No matter how hard you try, you won't prevent the process, although you may substantially slow it down.

 

Now, on to the central subject: conservation via repair. There may come a time when you come across a really special coin in need of some significant restoration. A coin like this may be rare and valuable, or may simply have some sentimental value to you. But somewhere, sometime along the line, the coin was maliciously or neglectfully damaged. What do you do and how far do you go to restore (read "repair") the coin?

 

Last summer at the ANA seminars, I came across just such a coin. A fair rarity, or at least a coin that has such demand, that it drives the coin to mightily high prices. Now, this is a coin that I could not afford in decent grades. But I came across a meaty specimen that had lovely, old, well-toned surfaces that were outrageously damaged. Here's the coin:

 

 

This specimen is a coveted 1804 large cent with roughly F15 (EAC) detail. It's a Sheldon 266c, which is the latest die state of the only variety for the year. As you can see, the piece served as someone's cutting board at a time, and it looks like it was dropped more than once on its rim. The coin was gouged and dinged, and discolored with some form of die. However, much of the surface of the coin was old and naturally toned. And to an EAC collector, it was still a bit of a prize. It was cheap for an 1804, so I snagged it with restoration in mind.

 

I sent it to a person who values coins greatly. He is also an artist and prides himself on coin restoration that returns a coin to as much of a natural form as is possible. Naturally, this is a balancing act. When restoring a coin like this, you have to know in advance that the coin will appear different - altered - when it's all done. You must also decide to take the restoration only so far - you must leave what would naturally appear as circulation damage, and what looks like the commensurate state of wear. Tough to decide. But, between the artist and myself, we decided what to go after and what to leave alone.

 

Now, the following photos are a bit too contrasty, and they show a work in progress. This coin is now back in my hands and will require a great deal of TLC to help the surfaces along toward a more natural appearance. They will never be the mild tan that they were beforehand, and anyone who is familiar with early copper will always be able to spot that the coin had some work done on it. However, I believe that the coin is vastly improved, and that a historical artifact of some significant worth has been partially restored. Time and care will take care of the rest. Here's the coin now:

 

 

Now, as I said, this coin is still a work in progress, and will take some time. The brassy color on the reverse is way exaggerated in the photo. Over time, I hope to provide more updates on this coin and its restoration.

 

Now, is this any different than restoring a valuable painting? After all, the Mona Lisa has been restored, as have other great works of art. I regard this the same way. I'm also not out to deceive anyone. This coin is not destined for deception of an unwary buyer.

 

I'd like to hear your thoughts...

 

Hoot

[skippy]

MHO:

 

It's your coin and you get to decide.

 

I would call the work done on this coin far more than "conservation". It's obvious that significant metal changes have been made. But this coin was so badly damaged that I think you can make a case that it is worth it.

 

The danger in this kind of restoration is that sometime in the future it might get sold without disclosing the restoration. If there were a way to ensure that all subsequent purchasers were well-informed about the status of the coin, then I would be all for this restoration. It's only the potential that someday someone will get taken advantage of as a result that causes me discomfort. While I believe that the current owner does not intend to ever deceive anyone, the coin will presumably survive considerably longer than he will.

 

BTW, that's some amazing restoration work. I know a guy who might be able to fix the color for you.

 

[cpm9ball]

It will always be a difficult decision to make. As Skippy pointed out, you have no control over any future owner who may or may not choose to disclose the previous restoration. That being said, I agree that restoration/conservation for a coin should be regarded in the same way that is routinely applied to other works of art. I guess we will have to live with the fact that there will always be someone around who will try to take unfair advantage of a situation, but I think your decision to go forward with the restoration was proper.

 

Chris

[physics-fan3.14]

I agree that this coin was in need of some help. I think it was vastly improved, and as long as any potential buyers are made aware of the situation, I don't see anything wrong with it. Coins are art, and history. As such, they should be preserve, conserved, and when necessary, restored. Now, the cases in which restorations like this should be performed I think are rare and it should only be done sparingly, but if the coin is an important piece as you say, it is worth taking care of.

[supertooth]

My Fellow Collectors----When I almost missed this post, I decided to open it----because of who had written it. When I read it---and looked at the accompaning pictures, my immediate reaction was "WOW". My second reaction was one that had "fear" in it as well as---yes, I knew they could do this---but, like most of us, I choose to mostly ignore how well they can do these alterations to our coins.

I decided to PM Mark. I found a tremendously deep thinker. What he doesn't yet know----I used to be just as deep many years ago. But, back to the coin. Do all of you really understand what you are looking at?? Do you really recognize that there are folks out there who can do this to coins? Take an apparent almost uncollectable coin and, thru tremendous skill, transform it into an 'art' treasure. One that, if the average collector looked at it----and did not know its history---that collector 'might' buy that coin for the "NORMAL" price for the apparent grade??

What Mark is showing us is something that I had wished would have been saved for our 'What You Need To Know Thread'. For, as I told Mark, it shows what many of us already knew---but chose to hide from ourselves. It brings our own ability to judge into question. Are we good enough to tell that this has been done? Just yesterday on the PCGS chat boards, Carson City Gold started a thread about an 1871 CC Dollar coin. Were the two coins the same? And, indeed they were. But the fear element that it brings is this----PCGS took an ANACS "net" graded coin and allowed it to be placed into their holder---with no mention of the tooling or the cleaning. And, even worse, ANR [ whom I particularily like] has allowed the coin into its current Baltimore auction.

What this all means is that---If You Are To Collect Rare Coinage, You Must Be As Educated As The People Who Both Slabbed The Coin----As Well As The Auction House Who Is Selling It . Plus you must realize that, if you are not---YOU VERY WELL MIGHT BE TAKEN BIG TIME. With not a single person caring that you are not up to speed as it were.

Yet the talent that is apparent in fixing this 1804 cent should be commended. It must have taken considerable time and love to repair this piece. Good hands and good eyes---and probably good tools too. Is this coin better off because of the work? That, I guess can be debated. Certainly Chris and especially Skippy's concerns are most valid. I have those same concerns. But, I also can absolutely appreciate the talent of the coin restorer. A true work of art in its own right.

Read this thread and contemplate its true ramifications to the coin hobby---Hoot has told the truth again. He opened my eyes to what I already knew but chose to ignore. Study my friends---educate yourselves. Would you bid on this 1804 repaired cent from an Ebay picture?? Would you buy it if it was stuck in the middle of a collection that you were buying??

As I get better in the Numismatic field, I find it somewhat amusing that those who truly know the score----They do try to help us along the path of knowledge---But, we who are still learning, must be smart enough to recognize the help that is being offered. Think guys. Think what this thread really means. Bob [supertooth]

[EZ_E]

Hoot, every reply on this post was outstanding and echos my own feelings as well! I commend the work done and it obviously aided the coin's eye-appeal tremendously! However, this coin will eventually come full circle and bite an unsuspecting collector sometime in the future.

 

The work was outstanding! The retoning mediocre. Were the grooves filled with a puddy like substance? Will it eventually fall out?

[TomB]

I agree that this would have made an especially good WYNTK thread. However, I must disagree with the majority here who believe the coin is better off after the treatment. I typically find myself agreeing 100%, more or less, with Hoot so this is difficult for me to think through, but I believe this is a case of the doctor killing the patient in an effort to eradicate the disease.

 

Who knows how the coin acquired its slash marks, but it might have served as a rudimentary cutting board for a tobacco plug or two. Outside of that, and the almost always present verdigris these are found with, the coin appeared particularly choice. In these instances I would choose to pass on buying the coin if I could not leave it alone with its history intact.

 

That's just my opinion, and it seems as though I may be the only one who thinks this way, but I believe this was a mistake.

 

Of course, I also believe that showing these images can help educate people a tremendous amount, and that is a good thing.

[cpm9ball]

Forgive me, Tom, but it is not that I disagree with your opinion. I was left with the impression that Mark badly wanted a specimen of this coin for his collection. However, it was cost that prevented him from acquiring a better one.

 

I think that he has accomplished exactly what he wanted by posting this information......to educate us. Otherwise, he would have kept it all to himself and none of us would have been the wiser. There will always be someone out there who would rather make money the easy way at another person's expense. But, that is an unfortunate fact of life.

 

We need honorable people like Mark, James, Billy, Tooth and you to keep the scales balanced in our favor.

 

Chris

[IGWT]

Wow . . . what a great thread. Tom's not alone in his thinking, and I think that there's a line between restoration and conservation that ought not be crossed. The restoration detracts from the history of the coin and, in effect, denies its truth. Conservation, in comparison, protects against further degradation to keep a coin in its current state of preservation. As important as that concept is to me, I doubt that I would have been able to detect the amount of work on that coin.

 

I worked on a dairy farm one summer while I was in high school. Mr. Fairchild, the owner of the farm, could repair anything and everything. He was proud of his ability and his tools. One day he showed me a hammer that his grandfather had owned. He told me about the amount of work that three generations had done with that tool as he raised it to point toward the family farmhouse.

 

I was really impressed. "There's a lot of history in that hammer," I said.

 

"Yes, Mr. Fairchild responded. "And for that reason I've kept it in good shape over all these years of use. I've replaced the handle two times and the head just once."

[michael]

you would be quite shocked at how many pre 1807 silver and copper coins like this particular large cent

 

have been fixed and are now in ngc and pcgs slabs

[EZ_E]

I worked on a dairy farm one summer while I was in high school. Mr. Fairchild, the owner of the farm, could repair anything and everything. He was proud of his ability and his tools. One day he showed me a hammer that his grandfather had owned. He told me about the amount of work that three generations had done with that tool as he raised it to point toward the family farmhouse.

 

I was really impressed. "There's a lot of history in that hammer," I said.

 

I agree! This is a great thread.

 

re: History

 

True, the story above is historical but it is more significant because of the sentimentality atttached to the individual. The cuts on the 1804 cent may have an outstanding history attached to it. Maybe Thomas Jefferson cut a plug of tobacco on it but its "historicity" has been lost. There is not sentimental significance attached to it any longer since its story has been lost due to the cobwebs of time. Today, one most likely sees the impairments and equates it as flawed vs a magnificent time piece containing a bit of significant history. Point is that with the flaws restored, one can appreciate the history of the actually coin instead of pondering the course of its abuse.

[skippy]

What this all means is that---If You Are To Collect Rare Coinage, You Must Be As Educated As The People Who Both Slabbed The Coin----As Well As The Auction House Who Is Selling It . Plus you must realize that, if you are not---YOU VERY WELL MIGHT BE TAKEN BIG TIME. With not a single person caring that you are not up to speed as it were.

 

I think that is pretty good advice for any serious coin collector. You could get away with not possessing in-depth knowledge if you collect mostly moderns and don't chase super high grades, or if you only collect inexpensive coins.

 

An informed consumer is a good consumer in most any arena. The lack of regulation and oversight in the rare coin business makes the informed consumer even more of an imperative.

 

-----

 

One of the things Hoot asked about originally was how restoring this coin compares to restoring great works of art. With a great work of art, there is only one genuine copy extant. If a Rembrandt has been skillfully restored and you buy it, you are still getting the one and only copy of that Rembrandt.

 

With rare coins, there are usually multiple copies extant. So there will usually be an opportunity to acquire one that has not been restored, which current coin collecting wisdom deems preferable (in the future, perhaps coin restoration will be viewed upon more favorably).

 

The restored Rembrandt is viewed as market acceptable. The restored coin is not. The restored Rembrandt is eagerly sought even if the restoration is disclosed; the restored coin offered for sale without full disclosure is an opportunity for someone to be taken advantage of.

 

Restoration may even increase the value of a Rembrandt, but will never increase the value of a coin. Illogical, but that's the current state of affairs.

 

-----

 

I usually say that the line between market acceptable treatment of a coin that didn't require disclosure and harsher treatment that did require disclosure was whether metal was moved on the coin or not. The coin in question here poses an interesting dilemna:

If no metal was moved but the gouges were filled with putty, has the coin been "unfairly" messed with? After all, putty can be removed and the coin returned to its original state.

 

I sure hope that a putty-filled coin would require disclosure, but it blows my usual definition away.

[skippy]

"Yes, Mr. Fairchild responded. "And for that reason I've kept it in good shape over all these years of use. I've replaced the handle two times and the head just once."

 

Please tell me that Mr. Fairchild doesn't sell coins now. :-)

 

Great story!

[Hoot]

Forgive me of the length of this post:

 

My thanks to all for the excellent replies. Lots of thought provoking ideas have been imparted here. And I have a few replies to each of you...

 

Skippy

 

The danger in this kind of restoration is that sometime in the future it might get sold without disclosing the restoration. If there were a way to ensure that all subsequent purchasers were well-informed about the status of the coin, then I would be all for this restoration. It's only the potential that someday someone will get taken advantage of as a result that causes me discomfort.

 

This is an excellent point, and a question that I answered (open-endedly) to Bob in a PM. Here's what I said:

 

Personally, I'm not so disturbed. Even if the surfaces of the cent are corrected for patina, this coin is obviously repaired to the trained eye. Does that mean that someone who is not trained can afford to buy it? Of course, but it's not my immediate intent to sell it, nor will I ultimately be selling it to an unwary buyer; I plan on being quite intentional about this coin. Will knowledge of its restoration be lost eventually? Yes - heck, we forget about civilizations, let alone objects therein. But ultimately, does that matter? I don't have a good answer for that question.

 

cpm9ball

 

I agree that restoration/conservation for a coin should be regarded in the same way that is routinely applied to other works of art. I guess we will have to live with the fact that there will always be someone around who will try to take unfair advantage of a situation

 

I also had a thought about this:

 

I come back, again and again, to the thought of restoring great works of art. Perhaps it's not identical, as the loss of one coin is not a loss like that of a great work of art. However, the restoration of a fine coin to a state where it is more akin to its original state (before the abuse) is 100% acceptable to me. If that is undetectable, then that's all the better to me. (That'd be darn near impossible, IMO.) I think that restoration that approaches originality is a genuine rare art, in-and-of itself. It's also a valuable art. If done correctly, then the value of an object is restored. Is that deceptive? I suppose that I do not think so, and I disdain deceit.

 

And it seems that Skippy chimed in on succinctly this one too:

 

”The restored Rembrandt is viewed as market acceptable. The restored coin is not. The restored Rembrandt is eagerly sought even if the restoration is disclosed; the restored coin offered for sale without full disclosure is an opportunity for someone to be taken advantage of.

 

Except there’s one item I’d disagree with:

 

Restoration may even increase the value of a Rembrandt, but will never increase the value of a coin.

 

Personally, I’ve seen many restored (holed and beaten) early dollars and half dollars that, when skillfully done, brought nearly as much as the “unmolested” pieces. All-the-while the holed and beaten, yet not restored, pieces bring substantially less. Bear in mind, this is a reflection of the monetary value judgment that the marketplace is bringing to the fore. Eye appeal is king.

 

Which makes me think of what physics-fan3.14 said:

 

”Coins are art, and history. As such, they should be preserve, conserved, and when necessary, restored. Now, the cases in which restorations like this should be performed I think are rare and it should only be done sparingly”

 

This comment gives me great pause. How sparing must we be? The "balancing act" is not only one of how much a coin is restored, but how many we restore, and what we subsequently do with them. We are vassals to ignorance and histories unknown. Our obligation is to fight that and not pass it along.

 

Which made me think of what EZ_E said:

 

”The work was outstanding! The retoning mediocre. Were the grooves filled with a puddy like substance? Will it eventually fall out?”

 

And the answer is… The filling was done with only the metal surrounding the gashes. Bear in mind that the gashes cause metal to mound next to them. Thus, a lot of metal resides at the edges that can be formed back into place. However, not all of the metal is there, so when this is done in this way, there is a concomitant loss of detail, which can be detected upon careful inspection. Burnishing the areas follows, which makes them appear unnaturally smooth compared to the rest of the coin. The art is in blending the repairs with the surrounds – quite difficult.

 

As mentioned, the re-toning is yet to come. There is much yet to be done to restore this piece.

 

Which brings me to Supertooth:

 

This man we all owe a debt of thanks for starting (along with CC) the What You Need to Know threads. A superb idea. I am humbled that he has made the remarks that he did and took the time to PM me.

 

Here are a few of his salient observations and questions:

 

”Take an apparent almost uncollectable coin and, thru tremendous skill, transform it into an 'art' treasure.”

 

With this I cannot agree more. But that’s only my personal point of view – one that, I’m grateful, some disagree with.

 

”Study my friends---educate yourselves. Would you bid on this 1804 repaired cent from an Ebay picture?? Would you buy it if it was stuck in the middle of a collection that you were buying??”

 

This has become so much of a mantra that I believe it is completely mouthed, nothing more than a flash in the mind, then it’s gravity is totally underestimated. I’ve learned an enormous amount about numismatics from fellow forum members (here, CU, and CoinTalk), NGC employees, PCGS, ANACS, ICG, numerous authors of around 50 books in numismatics that I’ve read (Dave Bowers, Don Taxay, Walter Breen, Dave Lange, Bob Julian, and Roger Burdette, to name a few), Beth Deisher, the writers of Coin World and CoinAge, Steve Carr, Doug Bird, and other EAC-ers, Charlie Davis, the ANA Money Museum, all the great collectors, the amazing catalogers at ANR, Heritage, Stack’s, and (the former) Bowers and Merena, and also from tons of first-hand experience. Have I fully “grocked” (to use a word from Stranger in a Strange Land) the mantra? Well, I’m starting to get it.

 

And the disagreement was perfectly stated by TomB:

 

”I must disagree with the majority here who believe the coin is better off after the treatment. …I believe this is a case of the doctor killing the patient in an effort to eradicate the disease.”

 

Belief is a powerful thing, and it requires no other fortification but its intrinsic integrity. And tom is a person of great integrity, as are many people who come here.

 

IGWT is a person who also speaks his mind with integrity in depth. He said:

 

”Tom's not alone in his thinking, and I think that there's a line between restoration and conservation that ought not be crossed. The restoration detracts from the history of the coin and, in effect, denies its truth. Conservation, in comparison, protects against further degradation to keep a coin in its current state of preservation. As important as that concept is to me, I doubt that I would have been able to detect the amount of work on that coin.”

 

And I will offer the following challenges: Neither you nor I know the truth about this coin, except to say that I am the one who owns it now, and the provenance of this coin was lost before it arrived with me. So, my actions with this coin are no more or less truthful than its very existence, which is to say that my having this coin restored is as true to the provenance of the coin as can be exacted. Again, the restoration of the coin is to me a restoration of the artifact that suffered an unreasonable abuse – by the tobacco cutter’s hand, the hand of Thomas Jefferson, or by the kid to took it from a drawer and mashed it about with tools in the shed. We know none of these facts.

 

Victor echoed my thoughts well:

 

”The cuts on the 1804 cent may have an outstanding history attached to it. Maybe Thomas Jefferson cut a plug of tobacco on it but its "historicity" has been lost. There is not sentimental significance attached to it any longer since its story has been lost due to the cobwebs of time. Today, one most likely sees the impairments and equates it as flawed vs a magnificent time piece containing a bit of significant history. Point is that with the flaws restored, one can appreciate the history of the actually coin instead of pondering the course of its abuse.”

 

And, of course, Michael summed up the vagaries of collecting opinions:

 

”you would be quite shocked at how many pre 1807 silver and copper coins like this particular large cent have been fixed and are now in ngc and pcgs slabs”

 

Hoot

[skippy]

Nice summary, Hoot, and some well-thought out responses. I commend you for the open manner in which you conducted a discussion that was likely to generate some fairly opinionated responses.

 

Please keep us informed of the progress of this coin's restoration. It is an excellent learning opportunity for all of us.

[EZ_E]

And I commend you, Skippy, for your excellent comments!

[MikeKing]

What an outstanding piece of work, and what an outstanding post with all these interesting responses. It's that line between art and money money and the significance of altering surfaces. Back in the years when I was more active in Violin, I dabbled in buying and selling Italian violins and French bows...even German bows which could be quite decent, sometimes...I discovered many things. There, forgeries are galore, and originals are oftentimes carefully and artistically modified to the point one can wonder, is this still a Strad? In fact, most of the Strads today have been modified in one way or another, usually to their detriment, in an sad attempt to improve their tone (seems contradictory, doesn't it). Another arena that comes to my mind, since I'm a stamp collector, are the Sperati forgeries of the 1847 10C issue, which has become a collectors item in itself, and still, sometimes, may pass as original to the untrained collector. I know what Hoot is addressing is in many ways different, I think it still touches these arenas.

 

Another thing that came to my mind was certain celebrated coinage, such as the 1811 Mickley restrike, which I owned once. An exciting coin to have, but it's a forgery, it's not real in the sense that an 1811 half cent would be. It's a fake. Face it. I'm glad I don't have it any longer, but that is just my personal opinion. I understand it's value, but for the money, and because of a change in my personal approach to coin collecting, I'd rather have a nice legitimate 1811 half cent...rare enough indeed. But that is personal opinion. Similarly with clocks and pocket watches, my other industry, how authentic is authentic? I had a Jules Jurgensen pocket watch, wholly original, that I bought from a guy in England. It stopped ticking, and it's only hope would have been to replace its hairspring. He begged me to give it back to him rather than have it repaired, because he felt so strongly about maintaining it's originality...even to a point that most collectors would not have cared. (I think he and TomB would get along really well).

 

So what am I getting at? These things, these articles of history, coin, stamp, violin, clock, whatever, these things become objects of commerce. Our lives and our possession of these things is so transient. The things are not. They tend to hang around long long after we're gone. The thoughts and questions raised by your post are quite pervasive, and someday that coin will end up somewhere that nobody knows.

 

You know HOOT, you remind me of Mickley.

 

edited to add:

[TomB]

This has been a brilliant thread from all involved and I must especially give kudos to Hoot for not only starting the thread but then following up so thoroghly on the comments that he knew he would receive.

 

Typically, I do not have any angst when posting comments, opinions or information to a thread, but last night I was mightily torn. This has as much to do with the fact that I know Hoot fairly well as it has to do with the fact that Hoot is one of the most intelligent people that I know and also likely one of the deepest thinkers I have ever met. Therefore, having such a starkly contrasting view of the events made me pause.

 

However, big-headed that I am, I went ahead and posted. What I see here are two different schools of thought regarding such coinage. My thoughts are that I prefer to be a transparent or invisible custodian of the coins such that their passing through my hands leaves no residual evidence of their relationship with me. Alternatively, Hoot has a more proactive stance on coinage that has suffered the abuse of miscare and, while Hoot will obviously remain anonymous in the history of this coin, his sponsored actions will remain.

 

Is one way better than another? In a quantitative sense I do not know, but in a qualitative sense we have each made up our minds.

[EZ_E]

Bottom line, I think, is the care we give any object while it is in our custody. If you are a renter, do you care for the house/apartment like it were your own? How do you treat your car? Your friends, your spouse? This is the basic, down to earth, guts to guts question. What type of person are you?

 

We all know of Hoot's character and integrity. His decision to restore this classic, scarce cent is aligned with his character. He always builds up instead of tearing down. He enriches those lives he touches. Hence, it is no surprise that he will leave this cent restored and improved for future posterity.

[IGWT]

And I will offer the following challenges: Neither you nor I know the truth about this coin, except to say that I am the one who owns it now, and the provenance of this coin was lost before it arrived with me. So, my actions with this coin are no more or less truthful than its very existence, which is to say that my having this coin restored is as true to the provenance of the coin as can be exacted. . . .

 

Hi Mark -- I told the story of Mr. Fairchild and his hammer because it conveys the dangers of restoration. In the end, the hammer was "restored" completely out of existence. Suppose that Mr. Fairchild had not repaired the hammer, so that the tool was just a chipped head and a shattered handle. Wouldn't the hammer in that damaged condition be more valuable as an artifact of history than the "restored" hammer that he showed to me?

 

Restoration can never return an object to its original state. What we have with your 1804 large cent is a coin that appears original when it is not (just as Mr. Fairchild's old hammer appeared original but was not). The problem goes deeper than just the potential confusion of a future purchaser. Restoration -- no matter how well performed -- will always diminish the originality of an object. It's unavoidable; and, in my opinion, we should not forsake originality to make a piece more to our liking.

 

You've made excellent points and stated your position well. We're left with a difference of opinion that makes for interesting conversation among friends. Great thread!

[jtryka]

My first response to all this was, "No sir, I don't like it."

 

There are nice comparisons to art restoration, but I don't buy them. After all, there is only one Mona Lisa, so restoring the only one would by it's very nature be more acceptable. But what about a print from one of those famous artists, where perhaps a hundred were made, would restoring one of those prints be just as acceptable? Would it make it as valuable as one of the unrestored prints? Would there be the opportunity for deception? For singular works, the restoration becomes part of the history and provenance of the piece, whereas work on a piece with multiple copies/issues can be obfuscated. Certainly, I think most would have no objection to restoration of say the 1849 double eagle if someone in the Smithsonian carved their initials in it. Since that is the only 1849 double eagle, such restoration would become part of the history of the coin and everyone would know it. Do the same work for a damaged 1850 double eagle and it quickly sinks into a murky realm.

 

The seond issue I would raise is that coins are not art, even though they share some of art's characteristics (beauty, aesthetics etc.). These works are functional, they served a purpose in commerce. Picasso did not create paintings to be used as dish cloths, but the mint created 1804 cents to be spent and saved and buried and eventually to be melted to create new cents. As a result, coin have history, the fact that they were used at all says something about those coins. Such restoration eliminates that history. I can't help but think of the double eagle found in the civil war ship that was bent out of shape as it stopped a bullet and saved the owners live. Numismatically, that coin is worth about $530, but the history contained in that misshapen disk is priceless! Granted, this is an extreme example, but there are many others. Think of the hoard of early 19th century silver coins discovered last year, all with a similar peculiar mark on them. Was it the owner that marked them to ensure his treasure remained safe or was there some other purpose? All of these pieces of history are lost with this sort of restoration.

 

Finally, it scares me to think of what is possible now and what may be possible in the future in the world of "restoration." Hoot's coin after all the work may have signs of being restored, but if you showed me the before picture and said it was the same coin, I might never believe it. Think of what the future may bring. If this was done with tools, imagine what might be possible with lasers, or mollecular manipulation once all you engineering geeks (I use that term affectionately) develop the technology! If I need a 27-D Saint to complete my set, heck I could just send a common 27-P to China with and for a few thousand bucks viola! I have a new mintmark added! The possibilities are endless, but unfortunately such events should they become possible and widely used would kill the goose that laid the golden egg. Confidence in the genuineness of the coins we collect would collapse, and I fear our great hobby would die a quiet death. At that point we might find ourselves in the bizarro world where the only coins with value are the damaged ones, since no one could ever be sure that the nice BU coin wasn't once a worn piece of metal.

[supertooth]

Yesterday, I saw a dying thread. I knew that I wanted to say my two cents worth. Hoot wanted me to stir the pot as it were----And now we have one of the finest group of comments ever on these boards. All of you should be proud that we have created a truely wonderful bunch of guys----knowledgable folks---respectful of one another. Good going my friends!!

Now I have two additional points to make. How many of you can draw? I personally have trouble drawing a stick man. But I have a friend who can bring a piece of old paper to life with a pencil. Yet I could carve a silver filling with gold knives, shape it, burnish it, rubber wheel it, cuttle--fish bur it----smooth it with a piece of cotton----till it shined in the mouth and thankfully last for 30 years or more. So, when I looked at the restorer's work on Hoot's coin, I thought about the tremendous ability that he had. Personally, I would have probably not have had it done. But, being that it was done, my thoughts drifted to the skill of the artisan. Unless I miss my guess, it required considerable knowledge---great eyes---steady hands----a knowledge of coins. And a desire to make a terrible looking coin somewhat near what it used to look like before the damage was done. Not too bad a motive?

My second point is a continuation on jtryka's last words. I do not fool much with coins that have tremendous value. I am scared of them. I believe that, as michael says, you would be surprised at how many altered pieces are in NGC and PCGS holders. Personally, I believe that he is right. And, following on Jeff's thoughts----I think that a lot of these altered coins are indeed fooling collectors---every day of the week. They "are" already out there. And supertooth says----brother, if they can fool many of the best collectors----what chance do I have in knowing that they might be fooling me?? Answer---Bob will stay with his Walkers and other similar coinage. Others can play with the 10,000 dollar coins. I'll stay where I am safe. Where I have a better than even chance that they will not fool me. Call me a coward if you will. But I have enough trouble with what I really know about. Will I study to get even better? You bet---very slowly and very cautiously. A GREAT THREAD GUYS. Bob [supertooth]

[zrlevin]

Do the same work for a damaged 1950 double eagle and it quickly sinks into a murky realm.

 

Where'd ya get one of those?!? I'm sure that'd stay in the news too.

[Hoot]

More great replies…

 

We're left with a difference of opinion that makes for interesting conversation among friends.

 

Absolutely. I would never expect such a controversial subject to gather consensus. That’s what lays the ground for good thought.

 

Wouldn't the hammer in that damaged condition be more valuable as an artifact of history than the "restored" hammer that he showed to me?

 

I would say that there are big differences between the coin and the hammer. The coin is still the original metal, and many of its original characteristic still remain. Indeed, it’s my belief that the coin looks closer to how it did prior to abuse (a work of the mind's eye). Only the original metal of the coin filled the spaces (whence it originally came). The hammer, on the other hand, was replaced, one part at a time, and not restored.

 

This got me thinking…

 

I truly think the coin was abused. It had edge damage that made it appear that it had been dropped or placed in a vice. The cuts were strikingly across the face of Liberty, and not the seemingly random cuts of repeated use from a person snipping his cigar. I found the original evidence of abuse far more disturbing than the story behind how it got there, especially since the latter was pure conjecture.

 

Anyhow, I wondered how people would have felt had the cuts been contemporary and nothing but the malicious act of a “coin hater” or an ignorant human? What would the difference be between historical and contemporary abuse? Just because the coin had been saved in the state it was in, does that mean that time makes abuse sacrosanct? Many questions…

 

Jeff – I am also glad that you are stirred to disagreement with the restoration. A couple of ideas…

 

coins are not art, even though they share some of art's characteristics (beauty, aesthetics etc.). These works are functional, they served a purpose in commerce. … the mint created 1804 cents to be spent and saved and buried and eventually to be melted to create new cents.

 

A lot of art is functional, but I’d agree with you that coins are reproductions of original artwork. However, one might ultimately claim (alternatively) that the coins are the intent of the original artist, and therefore the intentional art form. All staged of artwork in various media that precede the coin are but intermediate stages in the artistic process. I think that the viewpoint is entirely open to interpretation.

 

In conversation with Mint engraver John Mercanti at last summer’s ANA show, he made several statements that implied that the coins were his art that he laid the foundations for while in the Mint’s employ. He was quite modest, but also evidently proud of his accomplishments. (A very good person to meet.)

 

So, I believe in the functionality of coinage, but I waffle on the idea that it’s not art. Indeed, I would claim coinage is art, and it’s the art of the nation that is presented to the world. How sacred is this art? How lasting is this art? What are the conveyances of history through numismatic art?

 

can't help but think of the double eagle found in the civil war ship that was bent out of shape as it stopped a bullet and saved the owners live. Numismatically, that coin is worth about $530, but the history contained in that misshapen disk is priceless!

 

Beyond a shadow of a doubt! But the history of that coin is well known. Indeed, it’s the damage that reminds us of the story that makes it valuable!

 

Finally, it scares me to think of what is possible now and what may be possible in the future in the world of "restoration."

 

Nothing like history to tell us about our future. And to think that this coin was restored using techniques and tools as old as coinage itself! Already we have heard of hairlines on proof gold being healed by lasers… is it wrong? Are the hairlines any more or less acceptable than restored surfaces? Has harm been done and does that judgment hinge on whether the restoration is detectable, flawed, or flawless?

 

I have no answers to many of these excellent questions that each of you raised. I find this story one that brings up a paradox that is resolved only by each individual’s willingness to choose and exercise their internal sensibilities and wisdom. Nothing like a paradox to make a person think.

 

Hoot

[jtryka]

Do the same work for a damaged 1950 double eagle and it quickly sinks into a murky realm.

 

Where'd ya get one of those?!? I'm sure that'd stay in the news too.

 

My bad, I fixed it. Though I still have a dream of hiring Hoot's guy to transform a 1909 Saint into a 1969 Saint for my birth year!

[Hoot]

Do the same work for a damaged 1950 double eagle and it quickly sinks into a murky realm.

 

Where'd ya get one of those?!? I'm sure that'd stay in the news too.

 

My bad, I fixed it. Though I still have a dream of hiring Hoot's guy to transform a 1909 Saint into a 1969 Saint for my birth year!

 

Let that only be a dream, my friend, as he won't make such alterations - only restorations.

 

Hoot

[jtryka]

Do the same work for a damaged 1950 double eagle and it quickly sinks into a murky realm.

 

Where'd ya get one of those?!? I'm sure that'd stay in the news too.

 

My bad, I fixed it. Though I still have a dream of hiring Hoot's guy to transform a 1909 Saint into a 1969 Saint for my birth year!

 

Let that only be a dream, my friend, as he won't make such alterations - only restorations.

 

Hoot

 

So let me get this straight, she will only make alterations that may be used to intentionally deceive and defraud, but she won't make alterations to create a fantasy piece that no one in their right mind would ever believe is real?

[Hoot]

So let me get this straight, she will only make alterations that may be used to intentionally deceive and defraud, but she won't make alterations to create a fantasy piece that no one in their right mind would ever believe is real?

 

This is an interesting thought, but it also shows how quickly our minds turn in the direction of cynicism. I will remind you of a couple of things. (1) There is more than the single perspective that you proffer. Granted, what you say is legitimate, but it's also not what has come to pass, nor is it a singular truth. You have to live with the paradox. (BTW, more art is restored than only one-of-a-kind valuable pieces. This is considered legitimate in much of the art world, is a discipline of study, and many people (not all, obviously) believe in its extension to coins.) (2) This artist takes restoration seriously. This person also does not collude with those who are deceptive. (3) Anyone who is properly educated with early American coppers will always be able to detect the restoration - even when the color has been properly restored. Countless coppers have been restored. Just have a look through the Reiver catalog and see how many in NCS holders were labeled "burnished." This is why the hapless should not buy coins unless they are willing to lose their money. (4) I would say that a fantasy piece created from a legitimate coin is nonsense (albeit fun) and only would serve to wreck a coin, as it is an alteration from original concept. These may be shades of gray to some, but for me they are conditions of restoration that distinguish it from wanton alteration. (5) Banking on deception is a by-product of what we have learned as "buyer beware." It's a sad comment on people and on the time we live in. Bear in mind that on the level of trade that this coin will enter into (eventually), there is a majority of honest people. There is also a majority of well educated people who will recognize the restoration, no matter the attending story. I would suggest that we have some faith in that which is good and positive there. It's all a matter of the path we each choose.

 

Hoot

[jtryka]

Congratulations Hoot!

 

You now hold the record for the longest and most thoughtful responses to one of my sarcastic comments!

[Hoot]

Congratulations Hoot!

 

You now hold the record for the longest and most thoughtful responses to one of my sarcastic comments!

 

 

Hoot