The aim of this paper is to argue that there is no requirement of coherence needed to sustain the rationality of epistemic conservatism. Thus, two arguments that challenge the assumption that coherence is one of the reasons to keep our beliefs justifiably will be presented. The first argument draws on the lottery paradox and the second argument builds upon the inability to remember the reason or evidence to which one believes that p. Then, the difference between diachronic and synchronic coherence will be expose to sustain that the coherence is neither entailed by the conservative position, not even as an epistemic desideratum. Finally, one of the causes why we intuitively assume the necessity of coherence to retain our beliefs in the time is explained.