I like Cleaned Coins and you should to thread

You are a saint.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Nice example. Without looking at the coin in-hand, and assuming it is not an incredible rarity that was not PF-70 before, I think you did a good job. Now if you continue treatment until the coin is blast-white and the details tend to fade against the background, I would call that harshly cleaned. However what you did looks good. Now, how many people looking at the second (cleaned) picture would turn up their noses and say that it is cleaned?

 

I can not read something this long. Please send it as a PDF?

 

I'm not sure of this actually. I think coins are supposed to be naturally toned according to its age.

 

D.T Menace replied to: It must be what A.J. is talking about, there has been a shift on acceptability of cleaning.
DT said: I would hope not

Read more: http://www.cointalk.com/t205352-25/#ixzz1y0zCd382

What I meant is a long time ago it may have been acceptable or something to clean coins but it is no longer acceptable.
​

 

They also tooled the coins, especially coppers.

 

That sounds like NYC. 8 million people who can't get along, but everyone votes Democratic.

 

Cleaning anything does damage to it. Not cleaning something also damages it. All conservation eventually becomes restoration.

 

I don't agree, first you need to define the word harm. Light can cause harm to a coin.

 

Well, if he defines light vs. harsh by whether it harms the coin, then light does not harm the coin (by his definition). But you're right, an explanation for "harm" is required to understand where he is drawing the line between the two.

I think that GD's opinion of light cleaning includes nonabrasive removal of foreign matter (dirt, oil, debris) from the coin's surfaces, and anything beyond that is harsh. So, this definition negates any approach that would have any effect on the actual appearance of the coin itself. In summary, there are zero options for improving the appearance of a coin that is not harsh cleaning.

 

I'm talking about photons harming coins.

 

Oh that kind of light. :foot-mouth: Are you cleaning your coins with a laser or something?

 

Trust me, you're better off not going there

 

Who said Doug made his won standard and that there is no objective standard?

 

you can let it toned beautifully.

 

Examples?

I suppose dipping may be on the list. I have read posts where you condone dipping, and you specify that it must be done properly. But what confuses me is the fact that dipping does exactly the same thing as the process that I applied to my quarter, it reacts with tarnish. If a coin is damaged by overdipping, or damaged by the process that I applied, then ANY dipping causes damage to the coin. The definition of harsh cleaning can't be characterized by "damage" and "no damage" if the definition of damage is based on a measure of degree.

 

That isn't really drawing a line, it's circular reasoning. As somebody just said above, what does it mean to harm a coin? "Harsh" cleaning or "harming" a coin is in the eye of the beholder.

Do the oils on the skin "harm" a coin? Is acetone a "harsh" cleaning agent? What about distilled water?

Even the smallest exposure to touch or friction or even light can cause microscopic changes to the surface of a coin.