Sad tale of the demise of an 1877 GOLD proof set

[gmarguli]

There is a 7 year statute of limitations. I checked with my lawyer about that years ago.

 

On the crime itself. I am almost positive that title of stolen property cannot transfer. If the watch was stolen it still belongs to the original owner no matter how much time has passed. Perhaps one of the forum lawyers or law enforcement officers know for sure?

[gmarguli]

I was collecting proof gold when Trompter was putting together his Proof Gold (he wanted one of every date - I was happy to do a type set - never did get theTy1 $20, Ty1 $10 or the Ty2 $1 - but Proof Gold is neat stuff) - Anyway one of the very knowledgeable dealers told me that ALL of Trompter's Proof gold was dipped after he bought it - whether by him or someone else he didn't know - but he had sold a number of very nice coins that he said he saw them later slabbed and they were definately different (appearance-wise).

 

Forum member Mark Feld, who was a grader at NGC when the Trompter coins were submitted, mentioned that he had been told freon had been applied to the surfaces of his coins to preserve them and they had a "distinct look" to them.

[Oldtrader3]

Greg you might mention that Freon will not attack the metallic surface (it is very inert) and that it evaporates in seconds without any residue. I would guess that Freon's use would probably be limited to removing oil based soil and dirt.

 

Before the Montreal Accord outlawed it's use, we used Freon in a Medical Device plant to ultrasonically vapor clean stn. steel needles after tip grinding.

[braddick]

Is this Freon the same stuff found in those cans of compressed air/? that is used to spray and clean electronic equipment? I know after using it the can is extremely cold to the touch.

 

Also, title is NEVER passed on stolen property if the owner is identified.

[gmarguli]

Is this Freon the same stuff found in those cans of compressed air/? that is used to spray and clean electronic equipment? I know after using it the can is extremely cold to the touch.

 

No. It might have been in the past, but I believe freon is banned for most uses now since it depletes the ozone.

[TomB]

Compressed air might simply be compressed air.

 

As for the supposed Barrow watch, I think there is more chance of George Washington, yes, the George Washington, being my son than that watch ever having been near Clyde Barrow during his lifetime.

[Newmismatist]

Freon is specifically what I had heard was used to clean the coins - It became quite widely known that Trompetor (or someone on his behalf) was cleaning the coins - He bought my 1868 Ty2 Proof $20 through the dealer that told me this - he was selling him lots of Proof gold - I don't think he thought too much of what was being done to the coins because he was an old time dealer who believed in originality - My point in my original post was that if the 1877 Proof $20 came from Trompetor's collection it certainly didn't have original surfaces - because Trompetor took care of that for sure - whether Trompetor's form of conservation was good or bad I'm not sure - I had never heard of freon being used to clean coins, & when I saw them in one of the auction displays (I think when Superior had them originally to auction) - they seemed to all have the same color - which pretty much confirmed that someone had cleaned them all - As I remember they all had a somewhat bright yellow color - almost seemed a bit too yellow - but it's been a few years since I saw those coins so I could be wrong on the coloration - BUT as both the $10 & the $20 came from Trompetor, they could not have been "totally original" - unless they were the only 2 that Trompetor didn't "clean" - Keep in mind when you find a Trompetor pedigreed coin that they were cleaned - whether he improved them or harmed them is somewhat a matter of debate - which is precisely what this thread seems to be all about. I'm sorry to be the one to tell Sunnywood that if he owned some Trompetor Proof gold it probably was NOT "totally original"

 

As for proof gold, I bought my 1st proof gold coins in the early 70's - a group of 8 proof $2 1/2 Libs (I passed on the $2 1/2 Indians, they didn't look like proofs to me) - they all had been in 2x2 brown envelopes for a long time - they had original "toning" - all looked quite dull & hazy, but with good mirrors under the toning - - from a real old time collector - dates from the 1890's. Over the next 10 years, I sold them one at a time (had a couple of children during that period & my wife insisted that we feed & cloth them - so sometimes coins got sold to pay bills or whatever - you all know how wives get about those things!) when I sold them I was able to make a little profit - the nicest ones got picked 1st & after about 10 years (still the early 80's - before slabbing), I had 2 left, but nobody wanted them because they were too "dull" - Couldn't sell them - the only "offers" were for much less than I paid for them. About 2 years went by & I still had them - so out of desparation I dipped them in jewel luster (diluted about 4 to 1 with distilled water). I was quite worried about doing this because these were (to me at least) expensive coins & I was afraid they would be ruined & then couldn't be sold at any price. When I dipped the 1st one, the dull haze disappeared instantly & when I finished, I had 2 of the most gorgeous cameos you can imagine - suddenly my 2 ugly unsaleable coins were drop dead gorgeous - Sold them to the 1st dealer who saw them at a Central States show for twice what I had previously asked - & He told me they were the most original coins he had seen in years - I didn't have the heart to tell him that 2 seconds in diluted jewelluster was all that it took for that "originality" - That was my 1st lesson in "cleaning" proof gold - they looked 100x better. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder & as I found out, so is "originality". From what I saw on the bourse floor in Baltimore, most proof gold has been dipped (& a lot of it not very well).

 

But I'll never forget those $2 1/2s - I wish I had everyone of those proof $2 1/2s back! They'd probably all grade PR67DCam

 

If anyone wants to see some real original proof gold - look at the ones from the Eli Lilly collection that are in the Smithsonian - I don't think Lilly ever cleaned them & I don't think the Smithsonain did either - The only problem with looking at those coins is you can't get close enough to really get a good look at them. What a collection!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Oldtrader3]

Pat: Usually, those cans of compressed are either plain air or nitrogen.

[Sunnywood]

Newmismatist,

 

Freon is a superb solvent. It is a classic CFC (chlorofluorocarbon) of the type now widely banned due to its potential role in ozone depletion. Applied to a coin, Freon would quickly dissolve away any oils or grease on the surface, which might also help to remove any debris, grime, or caked on dirt. It would NOT, however, reduce or remove any oxides or sulfides on the coins surface. Remember that toning typically comprises oxides and sulfides of the component metals of the alloy, for example silver sulfide, or copper oxide. Removing molecules of this toning entails removing atoms of the metal itself, which are part of the toning molecule. So there is a BIG difference between Freon solvent cleaning, which removes only oils & dirt, and dipping or "conserving" to remove the toning oxides (and hence part of the metal ... which is why dipping destroys true luster).

 

When art is conserved, what is removed is typically atmospheric grime and dust, as well as oxidized lacquers that darken over time. Conservationists are extremely wary of removing layers of the paints themselves in order to reveal bright, unoxidized paint below. My understanding is that the removal of grime and oxidized lacquer at the surface is the more typically accepted approach.

 

If Trompeter dipped his gold proofs in Freon, that would not affect the color (except to the extent that oils were removed). The Garrett $20, for example, had several faint toning spots right on the obverse rim, which are discernible in the Garrett catalog, and which were still on the coin when I owned it. I can assure you that this coin, and the $10, had not been dipped to remove toning, oxides, sulfides, natural haze or patina. Besides, David Akers, who was instrumental in putting that collection together, would never have stood by and allowed those coins to be mistreated. So I'm not sure I agree with your comments about the Trompeter coins ...

 

Sunnywood

 

[lclugza]

According to Michael on the PCGS boards, Trompeter dipped his coins with tolulene, not freon.

Link

[Oldtrader3]

I do not know what Trompeter did to clean his coins. However IMHO, Freon is not the chemical agent that changed the surface color or tone of his gold proofs. I used/engineered Freon for many years in a variety of Medical Device manufacturing processes and never saw it affect the surface structure of anything (certainly not anything metallic) except to cause swelling of some soaked elastomeric seals (EVA, PVC). Anyhow, this is all academic because Freon and most other aerosol Chloroflorocarbons are now illegal to own.

[Sunnywood]

Same difference, toluene or Freon, they are both highly volatile organic solvents that would not affect the toning or the metal surfaces, nor leave any residue !!

 

Having spent HOURS examining these two coins (1877 $10 and $20) and looking at old photographic records, I would dispute the notion that the coins were not original. Be that as it may, whether or not Trompeter played with them does not affect my views that:

 

1) beautiful classic coins should not be dipped or conserved unless they are ugly or at risk of environmental corrosion;

 

2) pedigreed coins should not be parted from their provenance and history;

 

3) dipped coins should not be any more likely to upgrade than original coins (they should be LESS so);

 

4) dipping a coin and removing or concealing the pedigree should not make the coin worth twice as much (if anything it should be worth HALF as much);

 

5) the grading services should not act in such a way as to provide incentives to dip coins (e.g. scoring DCAMS higher in Registry Sets, when DCAMS are typically awarded only to dipped coins; or making dipped coins more likely to upgrade)

 

Sunnywood

 

[Newmismatist]

1) beautiful classic coins should not be dipped or conserved unless they are ugly or at risk of environmental corrosion;

 

2) pedigreed coins should not be parted from their provenance and history;

 

3) dipped coins should not be any more likely to upgrade than original coins (they should be LESS so);

 

4) dipping a coin and removing or concealing the pedigree should not make the coin worth twice as much (if anything it should be worth HALF as much);

 

5) the grading services should not act in such a way as to provide incentives to dip coins (e.g. scoring DCAMS higher in Registry Sets, when DCAMS are typically awarded only to dipped coins; or making dipped coins more likely to upgrade)

 

Sunnywood, I agree with most of the above (see below for the little bit I think needs further explanation) - and whether Trompetor dipped/cleaned or conserved his gold proof coins, I wasn't there - but I was familiar with several that ended up in his collection because they were previously mine - there was a distinct before and after look - some looked better, some didn't, which is always the problem when coins are cleaned or conserved - sometimes they look worse because the dirt/grease/grime toning hides something - usually hairlines. Was Trompetor an expert in understanding the conservation of proof gold? Probably not at first, but an educated guess is that after a certain learning curve he began to understand what was the end result of whatever it was that he did to the coins - Did he tamper with the coins to get higher grades in Slabs - I don't think he ever did that, but an awful lot of people have since slabbing started because there is tremendous profit in upgrading coins from Pr64 to Pr65 - sometimes a nice five figure sum -

 

And none of the above even begins to address the doctoring done to coins to get them into higher grade slabs - bondo, putty, hazing etc., etc. - now I understand that someone is lasering hairlines away. This didn't happen until slabbing - but now it's endemic - most of the Pr gold I see now is all "done" & there's not much originality left at all - maybe these various "upgraders" all give them that little "dip" in the hopes of a blast cameo or deep cameo (the 1st dip may be ok, but after that its a downhill slope) - when I was collecting Pr $3 gold there were no cameos & no Pr66's, then 1, then 2 now 120 cameos and deep cameos and that's JUST PCGS - so it looks to me like there's been a lot of dipping/cleaning conserving going on OR yesterdays Pr65 is today's Pr66Cam or DCam - either way, as far as I know the mint isn't making any new ones, but there sure are a lot of very "untoned" proof gold coins around today.

 

As far as the upgraders who obliterated the pedigree, seems very stupid to me UNLESS when you go back and look at the pedigree catalogues you will see that now something is no longer there (a scratch, hairlines, an identifying mark of some kind) then if its a doctor changing/removing/masking covering, lasering, etc - they don't want anyone to know the pedigree of the coin because then the grading services will know exactly where to look to find the alteration(s). BUT ALL of the above is done to maximize the grade number in the plastic insert because they sell for a higher price - with proof gold, alot higher.

 

Remember the premise of the grading services: We as collectors are Stupid and Cannot grade - therefore they will tell you what the grade is and you don't have to use any knowledge, expertise or even your eyes to figure out what the grade is - then the nice coin dealer newsletter/greysheet/blue sheet will set the price of this newly assigned plastic grade - so you don't ever have to go to a bourse floor, an auction etc to know what the real value of this now "certified" gem. All you need to do as the unknowledgeable collector (sheep to be sheared) is look at the number - run your finger down the appropriate column and take out your check book - (sort of like buying stock based on the Brokerages companies advise - Buy Enron, it will only go up!)

 

As long as there are collectors who are unwilling to educate themselves, there will be dealers who will do whatever is necessary to get the coin into that higher grade because they can convince those that choose to rely only on the plastic grade, that todays overdipped washed out "Gem" is worth MORE money than yesterdays gorgeously toned gem (with its unfortunate lower assigned plastic grade number) - Are the grading services at Fault - I don't think so - but the collectors who continue to buy thes coins for ever higher prices are responsible becasue they provide the incentive for this to occur.

 

However, something more must be added to your premise that "dipped coins should not be any more likely to upgrade than original coins (they should be LESS so)" because if the coins prior to dipping are unsightly and have no eye-appeal then dipping will be more likely to upgrade than not - and here's a real example from just the past several months - I owned a 3CN pattern, an 1865 J-410. It was in a NGC Pr66 holder - a very hazy and dull coin, good mirrors beneath the haze, but not an eye-appealing coin - I tried to cross it to PCGS - no luck - tried to sell it - the only offers were for far less than I paid for it (I used to have a complete set of 3CN in Pr66 but they got traded in for Pr IHCs) I didn't have any place for this pattern as it didn't fit with my proof FEs & IHCs - a dealer who I have a lot of respect for suggested I give it to NCS - it was conserved by NCS & came back as an incrediably eye-appealing Pr66UCam - I sold it & this former PCGS reject promptly upgraded to a Pr67DCam - and if you ever see it, it is a headlight from 10 feet away - I don't know what NCS did to this coin, but it looked a lot better after than before. Heritage auctioned it for 4 times more than what I could get for it previously - but the bottom line is the coin acquired tremendous eye-appeal - which is what makes a beautiful collection - eye-appealing coins. So "dipping/conserving" will likely increase the chances of a coin being PROPERLY graded IF it IMPROVES the eye-appeal of the coin - (but that is mostly NOT the case as more coins are harmed by improper cleaning than anything else, but properly done it can definately improve the appearance, value and saleability of a coin). I don't disagree with your premises - I just think there's a little more to it than: dip = bad / original (but ugly) = good. This is not a suggestion that all coins should be dipped - it is the observation that some coins will be greatly improved if properly cleaned/conserved (dipped?). The % that will be improved is NOT that great, & it should only be done by someone who is very knowledgeable & competant.

 

I don't agree with your statement that not having a pedigree should make a coin worth "half as much" - While I think a pedigree adds some historical context to a coin, and perhaps should add a smidgen of value (1-2%) or at least make it easier to sell, The real pedigree is the US Mint & and who got the chance to own that little bit of history for some short period of time doesn't add any significant value to

the coin itself IMO. Its the rarity & condition that create the value - IF you've owned it & its nice that says a lot about your good judgment - but I wouldn't pay a dime extra because Tromptetor owned it (or King Farouk, or Louis Eliasberg) - some of the great "collectors" had more money than sense and more than one of them simply "filled a hole". I was at the 1st Eliasberg sale (his gold collection) & 1 thing I noticed was that if Eliasberg bought it himself it was a marginal coin - but if it came from the John Clapp collection it was wonderful - But on the plastic, the services put "Eliasberg" - not the real numismatist, who was Clapp & his name never appears on the pedigree. Because a wealthy individual with no appreciation for quality got one of every coin (a monumental achievement to be sure), the collecting fraternity considers him a great "collector" - If he had taken the time to upgrade a few coins here and there - then his collection would truly have been a collection for the ages - but instead he was a hole filler & I if someone told me he had an Elaisberg coin for sale that I needed - I definately would need to look at it - he had no eye for quality. On the other hand, if you told me you had a coin that I needed, I believe I would make a U turn to look at it - something tells me that you've got a great eye for quality - and the quality that you like would be the quality that I would love to own

 

 

[DWLange]

I agree that the Clapps, Sr. and Jr., don't get the credit they deserve. Eliasberg bought their estate en bloc in 1942 via Stack's, and the quality of these coins was superb. They had acquired their coins directly from the various U. S. Mints during the period roughly 1893-1908, and those proved to be the most outstanding coins in terms of quality. In selecting earlier coins, they showed the same degree of discrimination.

 

When Eliasberg needed to complete his collection with later issues, he simply instructed Stack's or Abe Kosoff to build him a BU set of Walkers, a BU set of Mercuries, etc. These sets were hastily assembled and sold to Eliasberg, who paid little attention to their quality. Some of the later pieces proved to be AU, and the few real gems seem to have gotten into the collection by mere chance.

 

I agree that Eliasberg was no numismatist, though he was generous in sharing his collection and promoting coin collecting as a hobby. That is his real legacy.