Now, I know that cleaning coins is generally not recommended, and I've yet to do it other than a little distilled water to get some dirt and gunk off. However, last weekend I did clean a couple of wheat pennies. This is in regards to metal detecting, the penneis were so far gone they were never going to be worth anything and I really wanted to see the dates on them. I learned that a 50/50 mixture of distilled vinegar and water with some salt added worked to get lots of crud off the copper coins. Twirled the coins around for about 10 seconds then rinsed them off. The dates were still very hard to see but I did manage to figure them out. I DO NOT condone this method for anything other than junk coins retrieved from the ground.
We all have made mistakes in a coin purchase - anyone who remarks that they never have is lying. Many years ago, at an antique shop I bought an 1855 half, probably in F+ condition, but was cleaned so so well that is has a mint state condition. I look at it today and think and laugh - what made me buy that? I never had one? It was unique? Any of you guys tried muriatic acid?
This is an excellent point. Taken literally, what I said in my previous post was, "You don't have to be a professional, you can do it if you become a professional", which is circular. But this is why I continuously put "professional" in quotes. I was using the word to specifically refer to people that offer conservation as a paid service. The point that I was trying to make by this is that action on a coin shouldn't be evaluated based on whether it was paid for, but by what was actually done. Agreed. We just have to be careful to not settle into a culture where: -If you do X, it damages the coin -If a "professional" is paid to do X, it is not damage As passionate as most collectors tend to be on the subject of cleaning, it's extremely hypocritical when this is the case. You can either demand originality, or give in to our natural preference for beauty. You can't have it both ways unless you can afford the few coins that satisfy both criteria (most of us don't fit into this category).
Agreed. We just have to be careful not to settle into a culture where we assume this happens with no evidence to support that assumption.
I'm not gonna claim to have lines of evidence in support of the argument, and hell, I might be completely wrong. All I have to go on is my perception of people's attitude on the subject, and that fact that these services exist within a structure that allows for some "conflict of interest" issues. And then there is simple logic: 1. We say, "The only coin treatments that do not damage are xylene, dist water, acetone, and dip" 2. Presumably, the experts are doing something other than these things, as it would be silly to pay someone for something so simple. 3. Therefore, what they are doing is damage. Again, I might be wrong, but this is what I have to go on. If my assumptions are incorrect, then I appreciate being set straight and educated (preferably without insults or extreme sarcasm). If the coin alterations are systematically and fairly recognized as such on slabs, then good, that is fair. If they are not, then that is a problem that we shouldn't ignore as a matter of convenience. As I mentioned before, I'm not terribly passionate about the cleaning issue one way or another. I do not have a problem with what conservationists do, I'm not arguing that they should stop. I'm not saying that one thing or another is or isn't deserving of earning "details" designations by TPGs. It may have been a poor attempt, but my original post in this thread was intended to be humorous more than anything. But in the end, when I see contradictions in opinion or logic, I can't help but point it out. We should all do that, it keeps us honest.
The best way to clean coins is------DON'T! I've removed a lot of value from nice coins by cleaning them. Don't get me started on the XF+ 1917-S obv Walking Liberty half my father got in change. Mike
If you can tell if a coin has been cleaned, it has been cleaned. If you can't tell a coin has been cleaned, it hasn't been cleaned. Now, @Cherd since anyone can do this, why should we pay a TPG to do it?
I have a PhD in environmental engineering. I've had enough chemistry to have a working knowledge of the basic types of chemical reactions, and I know that the metals used in coinage do not participate in all of them. In particular, I build numerical models of contaminant transport in groundwater. Many of these contaminants are metals, and I have to characterize the reaction kinetics that affect transport properties. These reactions take place in a different type of environment, but they are still effectively the same thing. If this is your definition of "cleaned", then your point is valid. But, this is like saying, "If you can't tell that the coin is a forgery, then it's not a forgery". So, you should just pay really good counterfeiters to make your coins, right? It may be impossible to tell if a coin has been cleaned, but if you paid to have it cleaned, then you know that it is, in fact, cleaned. If the aversion to cleaning is that the original surface has been altered, then it's hypocritical to dismiss this fact in the case that it's not apparent by looking at it.
Now there's a question in there...how can you tell if a coin has been cleaned? I know others here have said you can tell, but not having their experience in such matters, I'd like to know. "We know a thing or two because we've seen a thing or two!"
Cherd, posted: "Seems that I've struck a sensitive nerve with my TPG sarcasm, settle down guys!" Not a nerve, what you posted is simply uninformed gossip. No contradictions either. Another member already used the brain surgery comparison. Here is the thing that folks need to understand, as another member posted: If you cannot tell a coin is cleaned, IT ISN'T. It does not matter if a "professional" did the job or you did it. BTW, Brain surgeons screw up all the time , so do "professionals" who clean coins, and so do ignorant idiots. It's just that the percentages vary.
OK, if you can't tell if a coin is a forgery, it isn't. Now of course by "you" I will include authorities that know more than "me", considering I have bought ancient coins that I have had members here tell me are forgeries and I accept their word 100%.
This is a logical fallacy- false authority: When a person making a claim is presented as an expert who should be trusted when his or her expertise is not in the area being discussed.
A fair question...evidence of cleaning (to be more correct, harsh cleaning since we can refer to proper cleaning as "conservation") can include such things as hairlines, lines on the coin running in the same direction, haloing around devices, and in general an unnatural look. Others know MUCH more than me and this is a question that has been addressed multiple times.
The first thing that goes is the flow lines (...on the business strikes, the proofs do not have those). You do not get those back. It is an irreparable injury calling on cleanings to be permanently enjoined.
"Cherd, posted: "I have a PhD in environmental engineer. I've had enough chemistry to have a working knowledge of the basic types of chemical reactions, and I know that the metals used in coinage do not participate in all of them. In particular, I build numerical models of contaminant transport in groundwater. Many of these contaminants are metals, and I have to characterize the reaction kinetics that affect transport properties. These reactions take place in a different type of environment, but they are still effectively the same thing." Not only do I claim to be able to tell if a coin is not original, I can also tell a PhD when I read a post from one. I'll look forward to reading more of your opinions about coins! Cherd continued: :If this is your definition of "cleaned", then your point is valid. But, this is like saying, "If you can't tell that the coin is a forgery, then it's not a forgery". So, you should just pay really good counterfeiters to make your coins, right? NOW you have caught on! You have proved to be well educated and I especially like the way you provided another example to make the point that you truly understand! Cherd contends that: It may be impossible to tell if a coin has been cleaned, but if you paid to have it cleaned, then you know that it is, in fact, cleaned. If the aversion to cleaning is that the original surface has been altered, then it's hypocritical to dismiss this fact in the case that it's not apparent by looking at it." If I remove something from a coin it may not affect the underlying original surface. Did I clean it - YES. Can anyone who didn't see the coin before I got it tell that I changed it - NO! You see, this topic can go on, and on, and on with everyone adding opinions and gossip that does not really matter in the real world. If you are really interested in cleaning coins, do a lot of reading, go find a mentor/teacher (much faster), and then play around with some junk until you get good at it. BTW, Cherd made this comparison: "...But, we are not talking about brain surgery here. Aside from the minority of cases where action is taken to preserve a coin that would further degrade for some reason, we are talking about making small, metal disks more aesthetically pleasing. What we are talking about is less like dentistry, and more like mopping the floor at the dentist's office." BTW, many of those small, metal disks are worth more than the dentist office and the dentist's education combined.
I didn't present myself as an expert. @Kentucky asked "What leads you to believe this?" and I explained that my belief was based on my background experience. I'm not a chemist, never claimed to be an expert, and may very well be wrong. I was just answering the question.
I've been reading through the last handful of posts in response to this subject, and I'm finding it difficult to formulate meaningful responses. That's because the majority of what is being said actually aligns with the points that I've been trying to make, however, is presented as being in disagreement. I think that we are all of the same opinion for the most part, and the back and forth can be chalked up to mis-interpretations of what the other is saying. So I'll take a shot at whittling things down to what I see as the major sticking point. First off, in this context, "cleaning" means an action that alters the surface of the coin in some way (Not picking off dirt or dipping in water). The whole modern aversion to cleaning isn't because people don't like cleaning in general, it's because the purists have trended toward an extreme preference for "original" surfaces and everyone else has followed along (I'm not indicating that I have a problem with this). Now, the definition of "original" is another debate all together, but for the sake of argument, lets say it's "a surface that hasn't been intentionally, physically or chemically altered for the sake of improving appearance". The debate seems to have shifted toward delineations in "cleaning" skill level between "professionals" and lay people. On this we agree. I could restore an old car in my garage, but the results will be waaaay better if I pay a professional, fair enough. But, no matter the quality of the work, a restoration was done either way. And, the car is no more-or-less "original" regardless of who did the work. From an "original" perspective, there is no better or worse, there's only "yes or no" (original or not). "If you can't tell that it is cleaned, then it's not cleaned":: This is the key sticking-point that we seem to have here. The real question is: "Do you truly value original surfaces? Or are you anti-cleaning because everyone else is anti-cleaning?" (AKA: anti-cleaning because it decreases value) This isn't a loaded question. I'll go ahead and admit that, while I don't feel strongly one way or the other, I probably fall more into the later category. But, if you "truly value original surfaces", then the "if you can't tell that it is cleaned" definition holds no water. What I hear is, "I prefer a more aesthetically pleasing, altered coin as long as it was done so well that nobody can tell." Reworded: "I don't value original surfaces, I prefer aesthetics". Another way: "I'm willing to improve aesthetics as long as it doesn't decrease the value (nobody can tell)". And this is all fine! Collect how you want! But, being of this frame of mind, it jumps out at me when people say that cleaning is bad because it alters the surface, and then proceed to recommend that kind of thing should be left to professionals. This is contradictory if originality is the primary consideration.
