Coins damaged in fire conserved (doctored) by NCS!
I know many of you will view the "After" photo as a great result. This was a very unfortunate situation with a fire and the damage resulting in respect to the coins. I somewhat find it odd that the only coins graded in the "After" photo are gold coins. Did the owner not have any of the silver coins graded after the conservation? Apparently, all of the coins in the fire underwent the conservation process. Notice that all of the graded coins in the "After" photo are in NGC holders with regular labels without any mention of this conservation.
http://www.ncscoin.com/news/viewarticle.aspx?NewsletterNewsArticleI...
Coin doctoring is defined as the personal attempt or enabling of another to alter the surface of a coin to deceive another of its true condition. Does this fit the definition of "coin doctoring"? It is obvious to me!
-True Money!
http://www.ncscoin.com/news/viewarticle.aspx?NewsletterNewsArticleI...
Coin doctoring is defined as the personal attempt or enabling of another to alter the surface of a coin to deceive another of its true condition. Does this fit the definition of "coin doctoring"? It is obvious to me!
-True Money!
Views: 104
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Buffalo on -
TM, once again you accuse NCS of coin doctoring without knowing specifically what methods were used to conserve these coins. You also repeatedly seem to infer that only NGC will grade and holder coins which have been cleaned or conserved. The PCGS article at the following link states in part "No matter how the results are achieved, many coins have been improved by judicious cleaning with commercial dips, solvents, or plain soap and water. PCGS grades many coins that have had their surfaces altered by the removal of "problems," perceived or otherwise."
Detecting Doctored Coins, Part 1- PCGS - April 4, 2000
You have provided nothing whatsoever to show that any grading service would have rejected these coins, or that there is indeed any issue with the current "true condition" that would have prevented their grading. If a coin comes in contact with PVC, and that PVC is removed, is the coin somehow ruined forever and "doctored" from that day forward (assuming the PVC has not already caused damage)?
I guess this is just a topic we will never agree on. If this was indeed an attempt to deceive anyone why publish an article telling everyone about it? I haven't seen any coin doctors do that yet.
-
Permalink Reply by True Money on -
Well, apparently this conservation is considered acceptable by NGC since NCS is a wholly-owned subsidiary within the same confines of the same building and NGC has the endorsement of the PNG, the organization that recently publicized the definition of "coin doctoring". The entire scenario raises too many questions about the integrity of this top-tier grading company with its conflicts of interest. Every one of these "professionally conserved" coins carries minute tale tale signs of surface alteration, usually through loss of luster for uncirculated coins and slightly dulled reflectivity and less cameo contrast on brilliant proofs. If you take a microscopic approach, a coin receiving such doctoring will weigh less than its original weight and the metal flow lines will appear dulled and worn down when viewed under a microscope as a microscopic layer of metal is removed through such surface alteration processes. Yes, this is cleaning, surface alteration, coin doctoring, professional conservation, or whatever you want to call it. It is all the same. It is surface alteration and by all aspects fits the definition of "coin doctoring" published by NGC's endorsing partners PNG. Somehow, NCS only works with one grading service in the submission of these doctored coins. Wouldn't you ask questions if such a service only worked with one grading company to submit these altered coins and then grade them and slab them in a regular grading label as and unaltered coin with a grade with no mention of this altered condition? This is one of the main reasons why so many people are upset with PCGS grading such altered coins as "GENUINE" and is a contributing factor for coins graded by NGC commanding less than their counterparts graded by PCGS with a legitimate grade.
-True Money!
Buffalo said:TM, once again you accuse NCS of coin doctoring without knowing specifically what methods were used to conserve these coins. You also repeatedly seem to infer that only NGC will grade and holder coins which have been cleaned or conserved. The PCGS article at the following link states in part "No matter how the results are achieved, many coins have been improved by judicious cleaning with commercial dips, solvents, or plain soap and water. PCGS grades many coins that have had their surfaces altered by the removal of "problems," perceived or otherwise."
Detecting Doctored Coins, Part 1- PCGS - April 4, 2000
You have provided nothing whatsoever to show that any grading service would have rejected these coins, or that there is indeed any issue with the current "true condition" that would have prevented their grading. If a coin comes in contact with PVC, and that PVC is removed, is the coin somehow ruined forever and "doctored" from that day forward?
I guess this is just a topic we will never agree on. If this was indeed an attempt to deceive anyone why publish an article telling everyone about it? I haven't seen any coin doctors do that yet.
-
Permalink Reply by Buffalo on
-
Asking questions is fine, but to characterize NCS as coin doctors and imply that both NCS and NGC are working together to deceive collectors goes beyond that. You seem to be making the assumption that PCGS would have not graded these coins at all or would have put them in "Genuine" slabs. Again, you do not know specifically what actions NCS took in conserving these coins, or whether there would have been any such issues . There are solvents which do not affect silver or gold to any detectable degree. The statement I referenced above from PCGS was published in 2000 and was to do with grading, not any "Genuine" service. My point is simply that you are making accusations based on assumptions that you do not have real evidence to support.
-
Permalink Reply by True Money on
-
Well, all I am saying is that you can't preach one thing and do another. This is exactly what is happening here!
-True Money!
-
Permalink Reply by Buffalo on
-
For what it's worth, NCS has this statement posted at their site, which discusses some of these issues with regard to conservation:
Benefits of conservation
-
Permalink Reply by True Money on
-
Buffalo, it is obvious that NCS will tell customers that this service is perfectly fine and an acceptable practice for cleaning coins. This is the basis for their business and negotiating factor for providing a service in conjunction with a top-tier grading company and passing it off as legit. NCS uses the following misinformation (taken from the link above) to convince people to pay for their services:
Professional conservation should not be confused with "Coin Doctoring", in which an attempt is made to improve the appearance and grade of a coin through deceptive means such as artificial toning and where unaccepted or unorthodox methods are employed. Also not qualifying as conservation is restoration where mechanical repairs are made such as filling holes, smoothing out scratches, and re-engraving of detail. It is essential to speak with an NCS professional:
* when you notice changes in a coin, such as discoloring or spotting
* before you try to conserve a damaged coin yourself
* if your coin has been subjected to extreme environmental conditions
* after you have submitted a coin to a grading service and had it returned with a "no grade" designation for certain reasons such as "PVC," "artificial toning" or "Residue."
If this was indeed an accepted practice, don't you think PCGS would also accept direct submissions from this conservation service?
What, then, is the difference between this "conservation" and artificial toning?
-True Money!
-
Permalink Reply by Clair Alan Hardesty on -
I think it is important to not that not all conservation qualifies as doctoring. Removing toning, even undesirable toning is doctoring, in my opinion. Removing foreign material that has adhered to the surface of a coin is not doctoring, as long as the metal atoms/molecules are left virtually intact. Most fire damage should be able to be removed without crossing the line, but I would expect silver coins to still show signs of the intense heat as that should have caused some surface alloying and/or tarnishing (AKA toning) to occur. I would never expect PCGS to accept direct submissions from NCS but I would expect that a fair number of coins that had been conserved by NCS would grade if submitted to PCGS as raw coins, especially ones that had been through fire or flood and only had foreign matter carefully removed. I do believe that NGC should set up a system where submissions from NCS come in "blind" so that any potential conflict of interest is removed.
-
Permalink Reply by Buffalo on
-
I think this discussion points out that different people have different views on these issues. Right or wrong, many artificially toned coins have had that toning removed. In my opinion, most of those coins would still grade with the major TPGs. As indicated in their statement above, even PCGS supports what they call the "judicious cleaning with commercial dips, solvents, or plain soap and water." An artificially toned coin will never be "original" again but I can still understand the logic of removing the chemicals which have been applied often in an attempt to conceal defects or otherwise inflate the value of the coins. Personally I see it as attempt to mitigate the damage, obviously it cannot completely reverse the effects down to a microscopic level.
The direct submission of coins conserved by NCS to NGC for grading is an option that has to be selected by the submitter. In other words, it is done only when requested as an extra service, not automatically. Anyone submitting coins to NCS for conservation is free to submit them to any grading service afterwards. Just a guess, but I would think many coins in TPG holders other than NGC have been conserved. As far as NCS sending coins directly to PCGS after conservation, I also would not expect that for purely business reasons. NGC did reportedly send a shipment of coins to PCGS recently that were alledgedly sent to NGC by mistake and were said to be intended to be sent elsewhere for "doctoring". This was reported In CoinWorld around the end of August, so apparently NGC also supports the actions being taken against doctoring and does cooperate with PCGS in this area.
I was not able to find anything at the NGC site that specifically stated that grade submissions were given to the graders "blind" so that they did not know the owner or history of the coin. I am pretty sure I have read such a statement before with regard to grading at NGC but again I was unable to locate it.
Just one last comment- I have never dipped a coin or sent a coin to NCS. I try to avoid buying problem coins, artificially toned coins, etc. Personally I prefer "original" looking coins, but at the same time I believe conservation can be appropriate at times and should not be summarily labeled as doctoring, especially without specific knowledge and facts to support that claim.
-
Permalink Reply by Bruce Wiseley on -
I wonder how you would feel if that had been your collection that was restored? Personally, I would have been thrilled! Regardless of any TPG involvment, just to have my collection viewable again, is worth any petty comments from the TM peanut gallary.
-
Permalink Reply by True Money on
-
Of course I would be happy. At least now I could actually hold these coins in my hand and set up photographic displays with no worries of destroying their value. Hahaha!
-True Money!
Bruce Wiseley said:I wonder how you would feel if that had been your collection that was restored? Personally, I would have been thrilled! Regardless of any TPG involvment, just to have my collection viewable again, is worth any petty comments from the TM peanut gallary.
© 2013 Created by coinnetwork.
