Love this coin. Hope it grades!

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Hmm, interesting. I suppose it's just like any problem coin...the degree of the problem may differ to every collector.

 

Simple answer: It was cleaned with tools.

 

My goodness, from where did you get cleaning was a good thing back then?

 

There was a time in this hobby when harshly cleaning coins was considered acceptable. It's a well known fact.

 

Looked at a few of this issue in the Heritage Archives. To be honest, I can't see any signs of manipulation of metal on this coin. It looks like a nice XF 40 that some graders decided was cleaned.

 

Yes that is exactly what is done. Dental probes were used to sharpen the edges of the devices, so as to make the coin appear "sharper" to the naked eye. Just like when you're having your teeth cleaned, and tartar is picked away, the gunk on the surfaces of the coin is pulled away--along with part of the metal. Hope my dental analogy is accurate--except Dentists and Dental hygienists are far more gentle with their probing, than coin doctors.

 

Actually I meant deliberate working of the surfaces with some sort of tool, not cleaning. I could have been more clear.
It still would not surprise me if this coin were to straight grade on a subsequent submission.

 

Whoa! Where did you get that from? If you're going back to the Chalcolithic, I don't think they even had coins, then, I think they used things like shells.

 

Almost no chance. Sorry.

 

I'm going back 50 or so years.

 

^This is highly unfortunate

Is there any reason why they continue this practice Doug?

 

I'm not Doug, but the answer is simple, it makes them look shiny and sparkly and attracts the eye of all but the purists.

 

OK, this is from my 1965 Redbook. From Page 2: "IMPORTANT: Coins in any condition with defects, such as those which are bent, corroded, scratched, holed, nicked, stained, oxidized, mutilated, or have other imperfections are worth less than if free of these defects." From Page 60: "Collectors should beware of coins which have been buffed to look like proofs and should use a magnifying glass. Buffed coins have myriad hairlines and lack perfect detail." And you mean to tell me it was acceptable practice among collectors to harshly clean and polish their coins back then? I think you may have been reading the accepted practices on holiday silverware, Doug. The first thing I learned as a collector was you don't clean coins because you destroy the luster. The Smithsonian? Get real. There's polished antiques and polished furniture all over in that museum! That's not for collectors, it's for tourists. We had kids in our coin club who could spot dipped coins an arm's-length away, they were that nitpicking. Today, I'll grant you, the word gets out quicker. But while the novices of today are more knowledgable than the novices of yesterday, they're still novices, and a lot of them, still, don't know better. Did QDB recommend back then that collectors harshly clean and polish coins? Who recommended that? You'll have to show me where you're reading that. It's like something I'd expect to read in a comic book. All that 1965 Redbook talks about is luster in the higher grade coins. Why would any collector want to destroy that? Show me one example, I'm easy. If it's credible, I'm sold.

 

Ancient coins are a separate issue, though. It's extremely rare that an ancient coin is excavated that doesn't need some sort of cleaning. It's still an accepted part of the hobby today.

I should think that even a cursory look through the US coinage of the 19th century would convince you that cleaning was de rigeur in the hobby at some point. For every problem-free coin, you've got a dozen that are harshly scrubbed.

 

Doug, I didn't look at the others, but if this is a typical example, I don't need to. This is what it says at the top of the Page 1: "INTRODUCTION 101 The necessity for cleaning coins. The basic rule of every coin collector should be to leave and preserve every coin in the condition in which..." I can't make out the rest, as it's cut off, but it's enough. I don't care what techniques some clowns may have related. Even this one concedes, they should be left in the condition they're in, that's the basic rule. It sure was. Show me a credible collector from then who said otherwise, I'd be stunned.