I like Cleaned Coins and you should to thread

Here's one suggestion.

And let it soak for a couple days to make sure it's really,really clean.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Is that so? One of the newer members here claimed that the coin was cleaned because something about surface dirt inside the grid but not on the grid on the reverse Eagle. Could this "surface dirt" just ware off from carrying the coin in someone's pocket. I am not sure about this, about the non-presents of surface dirt. I could see someone dipping it in acetone to remove dirt at one time sure. But if you are going to clean something, why leave it like this? It kind of looks like a turd. If you wanted to clean something shouldn't try to make it more attractive. I am also wondering too about these "problem" coins. Wouldn't "problems" be created just by circulating for long periods of time? Coins take a beating while in circulation, and unless it was something kept in a vault since its creation, I would expect some sort of "problem". Of course I would not use nitric acid since it does have silver content but if all I could sell this for is melt, you know it would get sanded with sandpaper, a whole through the head, and struck with a hammer a few times first. My point is that it isn't the most attractive "heavily cleaned" coin I have. The cleaned one to the left below kind of looks nice I think:
"Heavily cleaned grid" Does anyone know what this person meant about this, the lack of surface dirt but dirt in the grid? Is this really a sign of heavy cleaning? I don't understand this.

Cleaned to the left:



In my opinion, more attractive cleaned coin with even color:

 

I it is circulated, you can't do much harm to it.

 

What I think, exactly.

My old coins are circulated. I believe that many circulated coins are potential "problem coins" because coins go threw a lot when they are circulated for long periods of time. I think that a "problem free" circulated coin is just odd since coins when circulated become beat up. They are dropped, they clang together, and they are not properly stored. The coin in question has probably been threw alot already during its long time spent in circulation. It is a part of history because it has been handled by people during the Civil War, WWI, WII until it made its way into someone's collection or silver hoard. An uncirculated coin of the same age in my opinion did not experience history, it just experience a vault, safe, or somebody's collection. They aren't a piece of history, they are just old. Other historical objects have gone through restoration whether it is the Statue of Liberty, Independance Mall, or Liberty Bell. As someone from Philadelphia I have often witnessed historical objects being restored.

 

This gets to be an intensely emotional subject with many on this forum. Many of the members here are super-serious collectors who have mostly or exclusively slabbed coins and appreciate pristine members of the numismatic world. Now, should you chance to find a pristine example of an old coin (perhaps stashed in an old grandfather clock), your first move shouldn't be to take the metal polish and an electric buffer to it, and I don't think that many people would. On the other hand, if it is a well worn specemin, there is nothing wrong with leaving it as it is. The Barber coins you showed are a good example. The one that is cleaned seems to lack definition while the one that is au natural shows off well as a kind of cameo. If a coin is gunky, cruddy or just plain nasty and is a circulated coin, any kind of moderate cleaning will do it little or no harm. Totally stripping off any toning so that it is blast-white does make it look un-natural, but in a few years, it might look just fine. On the other hand, with corrosion, that is a whole nother story.

 

Which coin has corrosion or are you saying the blast white coin may have had corrosion? The coin to the right with the thing on it I took back and exchanged it for a nicer coin below. I know what you mean though about gunk and crud on coins. The dime I should early with the gunk on it had been soaking for days in distilled water, soaked several times in acetone, and washed with soap and water and the gunk was still there. It was much worse. Vinegar did the trick and now see I found a 1949P even though there is still gunk stuck to it. Since the seated coin doesn't appear to me to have the toning removed because why would it look like that? There might have been a bunch of crud stuck to it and someone wanted to remove it and for that I don't blame them. It really depends on what I did to circulated finds. Sometimes I just can't be bothered and just stick it in my folder or if it is wheat cent double it goes in the felt bag with the rest. If there is gunk stuck to it or from roll done by hand that was particularly disgusting (lots of hair or pieces of tissue) then the coin goes for a swim in alcohol then distilled water or acetone. That makes sense though, that seated quarter probably was cleaned to remove gunk not toning. I agree with you though about the blast-white Barber, it would look better with toning.

 

I am with you on a lot of points, and I think the bias against cleaning is somewhat arbitrary. But then again, I can't understand why the market bears more for a Lincoln cent with a bit of doubling than it does for a common silver denarius.

But the point is that this is what the market does, in fact, bear. It is not false, even if you or I might think it is irrational, it is what is actually going on in the world. Cleaned modern coins lose their numismatic value.

That's because people who are interested in modern coins are operating on a microscopic level. To say a cleaned coin is better looking than an uncleaned coin is based on an illusion. When view under a microscope, a cleaned coin is a world away from an uncleaned coin. So a cleaned coin might have a superficial resemblance to an uncleaned coin in good condition, but in reality, and to someone who is looking for an original surface on their coin, is going to be dismayed to see the original surface off the coin obliterated by cleaning.

So cleaning does real damage to a coin, and it isn't fair to say that people are confusing an attitude towards cleaning with the appearance of the coin, because the appearance of a cleaned coin is, in fact, radically different from an uncleaned coin.

Does that difference in appearance really matter? I, personally, do not think so. But I don't collect with the mindset of most buyers, who are interested in the microscopic surface of the coin.

Weird that the market is like that, isn't it? I've heard there was a shift toward placing high emphasis on grade of coins at some point in the mid to late twentieth century. Prior to that collectors were more interested in filling sets. One has to wonder if this was an artificial shift, engineered by some sort of marketing campaign to benefit the collectible coin industry.

 

So many older coins are cleaned. If you search for seated coins on Ebay there are tons of coins that are labeled cleaned or people have said they are cleaned. If cleaning is bad why are there so many coins are cleaned? It must be what A.J. is talking about, there has been a shift on acceptability of cleaning. Nobody is going to put their coin under a microscope. I am talking about the known cleaned coin not including all those that have been cleaned at some point that aren't so apparent.

 

A beautifully cleaned coin.

 

I hear what you're saying AJ, and in most cases I would agree. If by "clean" we are talking about some type of abrasive or polishing process, then your line of reasoning definitely applies. However, when talking about chemical treatment to remove tarnish, then it is not so cut and dry. Removal of tarnish does effect the present surface of the coin, but does it alter the "original" surface of the coin? The original surface of a tarnished coin is already lost. The metal that originally constituted the surface of the coin is either gone, or has been converted to an oxidated compound. Assuming that tarnish represents the original surface of a coin is analogous to believing that the rust on a car represents the original fender.

The mints never issued tarnished coins. Therefore, removing tarnish from a coins surface actually increases originality in my opinion.

This, again, is the type of perception that I take issue with. Everyone is entitled to their opinions about coin cleaning, and I respect those opinions, but they are just that: opinions. It's not a matter of now "knowing better". Knowing better implies that the knowledge is based on some type of logic, or cause an effect. Like, "the kid decided to touch the hot stove, now he knows better".

Coin cleaning was an acceptable practice among numismatists in the past. They cleaned their coins because human beings have a natural tendency to appreciate clean, shiny, un-mottled surfaces. They couldn't have known better because there was nothing better to know. And, we do not know better today, we simply know differently. Our perception of cleaned coins isn't based on any line of reasoning, it is simply based on the overriding opinion of modern numismatists. 100 years from now people may be yaking away in this forum and say, "100 years ago coin collectors had an aversion to cleaned coins, but we know better now."

 

So if you were the owner of this statue, the original one mind you, you would make it nice and shiny too? After all it didn't have the patina when it was first created.

 

No, the patina on that statue is beautiful. It is a deep, rich, attractive color that is even over the entire surface. Now, if there were some blueish green pitted blotches growing on the horses rear end, then yes, I would try to do something about that.

I do not dislike oxidation for oxidation's sake. When it occurs as what is typically called "patina", then that is one thing. When it occurs as corrosion, or when silver reacts with sulfur compounds to produce an uneven blackening, then to me that is something different. Removing (or better yet preventing) the later type discoloration is a step toward preserving the original intended appearance of the piece in my opinion.

 

I can assure you that conservation of artworks is a constantly debated and performed, even statues. Rembrandts seem to have a habit of finding themselves the victim of acid, partially because of the great symbolism and pride that people have in them. Without repair and conservation, they'd lost altogether.

 

While I agree with your statements Doug, I think it would better to just simplify it by saying it's better to let those who know what they're doing to do the cleaning as most people are amateur and more likely will do more harm than good.

 

Is what I did to my quarter in post #338 harsh cleaning?

I've never indicated any misconceptions about coin cleaning and impact on value. Cleaning a coin reduces value, this is a fact. But impact on value is not an analogy for right or wrong, or correct verses incorrect. The value impact is dictated by prevailing opinions of collectors. The prevailing opinion also does not represent a measure or correct verses incorrect, it is simply opinion. The stigma is so ingrained into the hobby that people forget the relativism. They then go about ingraining hobby newcomers with their perspective as though it is the only acceptable way of thinking.

People prefer nice looking coins, this has always been the primary motivation behind coin cleaning. This being the case, newcomers will naturally consider cleaning as a logical means of "improving" the coins that they can afford. Numismatists are fighting an uphill battle in this respect, and therefore may resort to insulting the intelligence of people in an attempt to enforce their opinion on the matter. People that appreciate cleaned coins are made out to be inferior members of the hobby. This is ultimately the thing that bothers me in the end. It really has nothing to do with coin cleaning, it is certain people's attitude toward, and default inflexibility on the subject bothers me.

This is true in general, but I'd say that coins and guns represent the most extreme cases. In the world of collectables the examples in perfect, original, unaltered condition certainly are at the top of the heap for price and desirability. But, the difference from one collectable to another is the perception of the non-pristine examples. I would never even think about swapping the engine out of a pristine, garage kept, fully original classic car (just like I'd never condone the cleaning of a mint state coin). However, I have absolutely no problem doing it to my 65 Malibu Chevelle, which lead the typical life of a 47 year old car. I love my car, and I'll take great pride in it when (and if ) I ever finish restoring it. Some high-brow car collectors may not see any value in my car, as it will be far from original condition, but I will appreciate it just the same.

And therein lies the difference. People do not go out and buy rust-bucket cars to put in their collections. If it is important to them, and if they can afford it, then they buy a pristine example. Otherwise they restore a not so pristine example. It is acceptable to do this because the car does not represent an original example, therefore, nothing is being lost. Coin collectors have inexplicably been wrangled into a condition where they appreciate rust-bucket coins. They appreciate them because they accept the condition as original, even though there is very little originality about them. I'll appreciate my restored car, and I appreciate my cleaned coins based on the same premise.

 

If you're selling something because you do want it, You're Doing It Wrong.

A seller would rather have money; a buyer would rather have the item. That's just the way it works, whether the "item" is a scrubbed IHC or a pop-1 none-finer PCGS rarity.

 

Exactly. Heck, this is what ancient collectors already say. If you have an aversion to cleaned ancients, your collection is only going to consist of coin-shaped clumps of dirt.

 

GDJMSP wrote a great post and made a lot of great points, but this question went through my mind too. What exactly is the difference between harsh cleaning and proper cleaning? Where do you draw the line?

I've heard collectors who are against any sort of cleaning at all, even soaking a coin in distilled water is anathema to some.

Somebody said earlier in the thread that if you clean the gunk off a really dirty coin from circulation, it isn't going to change the value. I think that's because were talking about common coins without a high premium anyway, so the difference between the diminution in value from cleaning versus the diminution in value from the dirt is negligible.

While attacking a coin with steel wool and acetone or something is a pretty clear cut case of "harsh" cleaning, where is the line?