Conserving vs. Cleaning - Tentative Definitions

This may open a can of worms but I think it's a useful effort.
The idea is to keep it as simple as reasonable BUT correct and comprehensive.
I'm looking for changes, additions and deletions to this FIRST attempt.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The difference between "conserving" and "cleaning".

"Conserving" is the process of removing debris from the surface of a coin that IS NOT a product of the coining metal's reaction with the environment.
The original coin's surface IS NOT changed by the process.
Dirt, glue and stuff like that.

"Cleaning" is the process of removing "something" from the surface of a coin that IS a product of the coining metal's reaction with the environment.
The original coin's surface IS changed by the process. There is metal loss.
Toning, verdigris and PVC damage are common examples.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Uh, nope. I do not agree. To me, the definition is one of intent. To me:

1. Conserving - the act of saving the coin from certain destruction. This includes removing anything from the coin or its surfaces that will, if unchecked, eventually destroy the coin.

2. Proper cleaning - the act of using widely accepted methods and materials to improve the look of the coin.

3. Improper cleaning - the act of using widely non-accpeted methods and materials, with the almost certain result of forever damaging and devaluing the coin.

What most people mean by "cleaning" is improper cleaning, since there is not way of knowing if a coin has been cleaned properly. Improper cleaning, though, leaves all kinds of telltale signs. The issue, though, is you do not know if that coin was dipped or scratched by improper cleaning or conservation. An example would be a very improperly stored silver coin that corroded to matte black stage. All of the damage that coin had might be labeled improper cleaning, but in reality it was conservation to try to save what was left of the coin.

My two cents at least.

 

conserving and cleaning is the same thing. basically if you clean your coins and then submit to NGC they won't grade them. However if you pay them to clean your coins then they will grade them and act like nothing happened. it is a very dishonest practice from a company that is supposed to be reputable. All they care about is money. They don't care what their customers think and that's what is wrong with America today.

 

I would disagree with this definition. I would say that conservation is the removal contaminants, debris or harmful toning. Surface alteration may occur, but should not be noticeable (ie, due to proper dipping). IMHO, conservation and "proper cleaning" are synonymous.

However, improper cleaning can result from a a failed attempt to conserve the coin where the surface is altered to the point where the coin has damaged surfaces. The end result of an improperly cleaned coins is damage to the surfaces...regardless of intent.

 

Wow, you are completely wrong. There are tons of properly cleaned coins sitting in NGC slabs...that were sent in that way. It's not a scam or a dishonest practice at all...and frankly, they don't guarantee one of their "conserved" coins will grade either. They will only reject coins that have been improperly cleaned...a properly cleaned coin should show no evidence of cleaning.

 

I think it is a dishonest practice because there is no indication that it went through the conservation process.

 

But there shouldn't be. A very high percentage of coins are conserved by someone other than NGC before being submitted...and those aren't marked (such as virtually every blast white 19th century silver coin). Conserving a coin should leave behind no ill-effects to the coin whatsoever. If it does, the coin has been damaged and shouldn't be graded.

 

Fair enough.

 

I believe cleaning is used in conservation, but conservation itself goes beyond that by protecting the object from further deterioration like what is done to relics from the sea floor.

 

Doug is right in that most people use the term conserving and proper cleaning interchangably. I never have though, since to me I will do things to a coin if its in danger of being destroyed I would never do if its only to improve the appearance. The matte black toning is the major example in my mind, bronze disease being the other. I will stop at literally nothing to remove this from a coin, because stopping short would basically mean I am condemning that coin to "death". So, maybe its just me, but conserving can mean a slightly different thing than proper cleaning, but most of the time the word conserving is used as a cheap euphemism for proper cleaning, to make the owner of the coin feel better about themselves.

 

Let me add to what Doug said, you don't want to get hung up on these labels. Kanga, you nailed the issue in both your definitions, when mentioned the "coin's surface." It's about that, the degree of impairment to the coin's surface. If you can live with it, it's what collectors call "conservation." If you can't, it's what collectors call "cleaning." That's all those labels mean. We learn right out of the chute to not clean coins because of how that irreparably-impairs the coin's surface. Keep your focus on that, the degree of impairment to the coin's surface, and learn how to describe that better than just, "it's cleaned," or "it's conserved." You'll be better off for the effort. Trust us.

 

You start your statement by saying that it's nonsense that toning destroys a coin...and then you finish it by saying that toning should only be removed if it is irreversibly damaging the coin. I feel like this is a little contradictory.

I think I understand where you are saying though. I too agree that coins should be left as is with toning intact, and the use of proper storage should be used to reduce the progress of toning. However, the end stage of toning is the destruction of the surface of the coin. If the oxidation is getting that point...then it should be removed to save the coin from irreversible damage.

 

Folks;

Got my start in coin in the late 1950's. Back then the understood rule was that a coin could be cleaned ONLY IF YOU DID NO DAMAGE TO THE COIN! That rule hasn't changed, just modified, expanded, cussed, discussed, ad nasusium
My answer to the question of whether a coin had been cleaned was always "Damned if I know! I didn't clean it but I have only owned the coin a short time. Prior to that I haven't the foggiest idea what they did to the coin. It's a nice coin and my price is this. Take it or leave it."

People kept coming back to buy more coins so I couldn't be too wrong,could I?

The Old Sarge

 

True. I am just old fashioned I suppose. The literal meaning of conserving is to preserve. That is why I chafe at calling normal cleaning as conservation.

 

I'm looking to codify the two terms.
I believe cleaning and conserving should have different meanings.
BUT
It's not black and white (a situation I failed to address in my first cut of the definitions).
And it's the gray areas that cause problems WHICH may never be agreed on.
That puts the two terms in the same position as coin grading.
Not everyone agrees on the same grade for the same coin.
I guess I should be aiming for definitions that 80-90% of people will say, "Okay, I can live with that".

One thing I haven't done is look at what the TPG's say.
But I tried once and found their wording to be somewhat fuzzy.

 

But what of things like removing active bronze disease Doug? Do you consider this just "cleaning"? Badthad's product helps with mild stuff, but worst cases require a scalpel to physically cut off infected parts of the coin. This is why I differentiate between cleaning, (to me simply improving the look of the coin), and conserving, (physically altering the coin to prevent further damage). Museum conservators differentiate between cleaning and conserving objects, so I just take my cue from their terminology.