Has this been cleaned?

I somewhat like the back of this coin... and apparently so does the seller since he used it as a main pic... but does the front look cleaned?
Just trying to get a handle on what "cleaned " looks like. I've seen 5x photos where you can see the individual abrasions all flowing in the same direction.
But a bit harder to tell at this magnification.
I mean... I know there a slew of variations out there... but when the coin has this look where it's all a bit too clean and even ... but w/o much luster, I'm inclined to think it's been cleaned.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200716129135&ssPageName=ADME:B:WNA:US:1123

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

My guess would be yes. There is so much glare on the coin which would raise a lot of red flags. If you're interested in it, ask the seller for better pics.

 

I would say yes it has been cleaned

 

looks like someone used a pencil eraser on it.

 

Yeah, it does have that "look"... and I should know, I've been cleaning coins with pencil erasers since 1952 (well, it was more "acceptable" back then, lol).

 

Poor example of an exceedingly common coin. No premium above melt.

 

That's not the point of this post.... but thanks.

Actually I have a MS64 or 65 of this coin already. I just wanted to see if others thought this one had a cleaned look.

 

Hard to say if it's been "cleaned" or simply "dipped".

Regardless, it does not appear to be "original", and I say that with a great deal of confidence.

To the point raised by the OP: The angled pictures could be hiding the luster, and it is not unusual at all for this example to be prooflike (and therefore no luster in the fields). A lack of luster in the photo, in and of itself, doesn't cause me much concern.

To the point raised by a few that this coin was cleaned with an eraser: I see no telltale hairlines that I would expect if the coin had been cleaned with an eraser.

What suggested the coin being unoriginal to me was the overall look of the coin. The dark edges and even coloration along with the lack of luster. That says to me it was edge toned and dull to begin with, then was dipped/cleaned to get it shiny.

 

I'll guess it was once a really dark coin and had a few too many dips.

 

When you dip a coin does that make it "clean" shiny.. but usually eats away the "luster" shine?

As opposed to say this one... very clean.. yet still has luster. This one looks okay to me...but for all I know it's been cleaned and then buffed?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/19064315607...AX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649#ht_500wt_1413

 

Cleaned and buffed to a high shine... good for shoes, not so good for coins!

 

This one has been polished.

When you dip a coin it takes away a layer of the metal. Luster is caused by the flow lines when the coin is struck. These flow lines get stripped away when dipped.

 

That's... not luster. I think you're mistaking "luster" for "shine". Yes, that coin is heavily polished -- it's shiny as can be, but not a trace of luster.

 

That coin has been cleaned and shined.

 

When dealing with ebay - when in doubt assumed cleaned. The last one was polished as mentioned by others. If you are going to buy raw coins you have to be very careful on ebay - you can angle coins, juice pictures and other things to make the coin look nicer than it is. And if they can't take decent pictures I avoid them.

 

OK.. can anyone define the visual difference between luster and shine?
Or post examples??
Thanks if possible.

 

This will explain it somewhat. Luster is difficult to photograph. The "cartwheel effect" is visible when you tilt the coin into the light.

http://reviews.ebay.ca/The-Meaning-Of-Mint-Luster?ugid=10000000001433485