| Author |
 Replies: 20 / Views: 3,490 |
Page 2 of 2
|
|
|
|
Forum Dad
  United States
24161 Posts |
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
<3 Laura Sperber. <3 her to death.
|
|
Forum Dad
United States
24161 Posts |
I just wish she'd speak her mind once in a while.  |
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
9792 Posts |
Quote:
<3 Laura Sperber. <3 her to death. So much so I sent her an email, telling her just how glad I was she was on the right side of the issue For the record I've never been too enamored of the PNG myself for similar reasons as Laura.  And I've never even met her though we have a bunch of mutual friends in the business. I've worked with dealers that were members but I could never see any benifit from them myself. "Buy the Book Before You Buy the Coin" - Aaron R. Feldman - "And read it" - Me 2013! ANA Life Member #3288 in good standing since 1981, ANS, Early American Coppers Member (EAC), Colonial Coin Collectors Club member (C4), Conder Token Collector Club member (CTCC), Civil War Token Society (CWTS) member, Liberty Seated Collectors Club (LSCC) & Numismatic Bibliomania Society member (NBS), USMex, Member in good standing, 2˘ variety collector. See my want page: http://goccf.com/t/140440 |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
17884 Posts |
OK the link shows a version that John Albanese has been promoting but not what the final definition they will be voting one is. I think if I was in the PNG I would vote no on any definition I'm asked to vote on without reading. Laura want everyone to vote yes no matter what it says. I would expect them to be informed what the definition is before they are asked to vote, but it would also be nice if they had some time to think about it too. This is sounding like Here are your ballots, here is the definition, vote yes or no, pass the ballots to the end of the aisle for collection.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1554 Posts |
From what I've read so far I'd vote NO.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
333 Posts |
http://www.coinweek.com/news/coin-g...-definition/It is adopted. "1) Movement, addition to, or otherwise altering of metal, so that a coin appears to be in a better state of preservation, or more valuable than it otherwise would be. A few examples are plugging, whizzing, polishing, engraving, "lasering" and adding or removing mint marks. 2) Addition of any substance to a coin so that it appears to be in a better state of preservation or more valuable than it otherwise would be. The use of solvents and/or commercially available dilute acids, such as Jeweluster, by qualified professionals is not considered coin doctoring. 3) Intentional exposure of a coin to any chemicals, substances, or processes which impart toning, such that the coin appears to be in a better state of preservation or more valuable than it otherwise would be. Naturally occurring toning imparted during long-term storage using established/traditional methods, such as coin albums, rolls, flips, or envelopes, does not constitute coin doctoring."
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Quote:
The use of solvents and/or commercially available dilute acids, such as Jeweluster, by qualified professionals is not considered coin doctoring. Interesting. |
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
19957 Posts |
Seem reasonable to me. Importantly, they addressed conservation, which is critical to mention if you're defining what is and what is not acceptable: Quote:
2. Conservation
Conservation of coinage may include, but is not limited to, the removal of loosely adhered surface contaminants or incidental oils or grease; removal of prior, intentionally applied coatings; and the removal of harmful surface contaminants, with subsequent stabilization of the underlying metal. Additionally, the historically accepted procedure of dipping coins in dilute acids to remove unattractive toning may in some cases be considered conservation. The goals of such conservation steps are to stabilize the surface of any treated coin, as well as to bring the coin within current market standards of acceptability. In all cases, conservation should be performed by skilled, well-trained technicians as even very minor mishandling can cause permanent and irreparable damage to a coin's surface.
Methods of conservation that are considered acceptable by the PNG-
1) Low intensity, short term ultrasonic bath.
2) Use of rose thorn or similar device to remove carbon or particles without exposure of underlying raw metal.
3) Immersion in non-reactive solvent (water; acetone; alcohol; surfactants and other non-reactive organic compounds).
4) Additionally, when performed properly, dipping coins in dilute acids to remove unattractive toning is considered conservation.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1554 Posts |
OK, sounds more reasonable as to the conservation. I'm quite scepticle to rules imposed on any aspect of the coin hobby regardless and specificaly if it involves Dealers resposibilities. As in any trade/business/etc. as for the consumer it has always and will and should always be "buyer beware", unless of course as it seems to be as of late that we need a law or rule governing or protecting everything and everybody....Anyways...
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1554 Posts |
A few more thoughts,
sounds like Laura has an "axe to grind" with PNG.
also brings to mind collectors who think common or even rare coins are an investment vehicle.....Dealers don't stay in business long by doctoring coins no matter who they are....
|
|
Moderator
United States
23522 Posts |
Laura grinds half a dozen axes a year down to bare wood. If you agree witj her, she's the conscience of high-end numismatics. If you don't agree with her, she's a nightmare.
Part of the reason it came to this, 1893S, is because doctoring has been such a widespread problem at the very highest end of numismatics for so many years.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
108 Posts |
Quote:Quote:
The use of solvents and/or commercially available dilute acids, such as Jeweluster, by qualified professionals is not considered coin doctoring.
Interesting. It should really come to no surprise as PCGS and NGC were both directly involved in the development of this so-called definition. "It is ethical for us to do it, but not for you to do it." Quote:
Seem reasonable to me. Importantly, they addressed conservation, which is critical to mention if you're defining what is and what is not acceptable True. But, unfortunately, the only definition of "conservation" is "by qualified professionals". Thus, whoever has the "authority" to define that particular term has absolute, arbitrary power to exclude any individual or entity of their choosing. caveat numismatis |
|
New Member
United States
38 Posts |
"by qualified professionals" sounds like another way for the TPG to make money in fees. |
|
Valued Member
Australia
243 Posts |
I agree with the above - I only have a problem with "by qualified professionals". But I guess its a trade off for the implementation of a standard which is definitely needed.
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
Replies: 20 / Views: 3,490 |
Page 2 of 2
|
First Page
Posted 04/16/2012 8:55 pm
