This is def cleaned.......

The porous and bright surface suggests it was wire wheeled, yet the seller makes no claim of it being a details coin.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1856-BRIADED-HAIR-LARGE-CENT-SCARCE-UNNCIRCULATED-HIGH-GRADE-G8003-/281043203840?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item416f7af700

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I will hold off on the Dave Hester "Yuup!" video, but... Yuup!

 

If the photos are accurate....

The color is unnatural and I would more properly call that coin dipped. The TPGs might say improperly dipped, improperly cleaned, or the catch-all "altered surfaces". More to the point, I don't see any evidence of a "wire wheel" or any burnishing or whizzing (the numismatic equivalents). But the coin's luster looks burnt none-the-less.

If it were properly recolored by an expert it would be more saleable (it could be re-toned a more pleasing brown kind of like this coin: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1851-Braide...96?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item416f6364d8 ), but really that coin has be ruined, IMO.

Here is what a mint state natural mellowed red-brown large cent from that period should look like (IMO, of course ):



See the difference in hue? See the frost?

For $80, I'd much rather have this coin: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1856-Braide...91?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item20ce5159df

 

There are tiny pits all over the coin. A the bristles of a wire brush will dig into the metal and leave such pits.

 

Not really that look like this, but you will see those types of dents on a coin that's been a bit beat up and then dipped then "flashed" into a camera.

When a wire brush is used on a coin, you can usually see areas around the tight crevices that are untouched.

This coin doesn't have that.

On the other hand, the color is also a dead giveaway of a dipped coin. They simply don't come that light bronze color, and when you whiz them they come out looking much "brighter", more copper colored, and have telltale hairlines/brushmarks.

What happened to confuse you, if I may be so bold, is this: The way the photos have been done, with heavy sharpening and the coin being "flashed", makes the bumps and pits look more pronounced than they do in-hand, and gives the appearance of your wire wheeled coins.

Let's see what others have to say....

 

To me the coin just looks like it has had a tough life. Dipped for sure but not whizzed. Whizzing has a different look.

 

Def a cleaned problem coin.

 

Agree chemically cleaned not mechanically wire brushed or whizzed. And would not grade by any of the services.

 

The color and surfaces are dead, definately cleaned, probably multiple times.

 

I don't know who they're trying to fool (or maybe they don't know themselves), but that is definitely not uncirculated. There's too much wear in the high points of the hair, particularly the hair around Liberty's ear and the hair over her neck. It's a whizzed XF, or maybe AU at best.

 

All of that sellers photos typically appear enhanced....I wouldn't be surprised if the coins were altered/cleaned/dipped/whizzed/etc either....

 

I do not think the coin is uncirculated as the seller is advertising.

 

I'm not sure I agree with you, unless you are grading to EAC (or GDJMSP's :hail: ) standards.

Compare that coin to the 1855 I posted. Please tell me where that coin is XF and my coin is UNC. I think you will find the areas you mention are flat not necessarily because of high point wear but rather because of weak strike. I see no friction on that coin whatsoever to suggest an XF grade (outside the luster is not visible to form a more informed opinion), the rims are as clean as one would expect in a UNC example, and all the areas you mention are also areas of typical weakness in the braided hair large cent's design.

The coin looks mint state details to me, using TPG grading as our standard.
If we are grading to EAC standards, AU details (sharpness) makes sense to me (and likely netted down to VF or XF because of the abuse).
But in no case do I see obvious signs of wear that would drive the coin below a MS-details TPG and/or AU-sharpness EAC grade.

Also, I am fairly certain that coin is not whizzed. As explained above, I see none of the telltale signs present in whizzed coins.

But perhaps you're seeing something I'm not....

Respectfully...Mike

 

I dunno guys.. blow the coin up and look at the Rev leaves just to the east of the T in Cent. I see buildup.. The more I look, the more I am in the whizzed camp on this one. (Not wired however) I am betting this was a an UNC coin that was dug up and washed, cleaned, dipped, whizzed and dipped again. Than payed a short visit to the recoloring station that didnt work to well

 

With all due respect, here is a thread that may be useful for those of you who think this coin was whizzed:

http://www.cointalk.com/t60475/

Where are the telltale hairlines?
Where is the metal buildup around the devices?

What are you seeing that I'm not?

 

Yeah, I kind of rushed into judgement on that one and didn't give myself enough time to really look. On closer inspection I would say AU details cleaned. In terms of standards I just use basic ANA and photograde standards for me. But yeah, I definitely believe that wasn't the best judgement call on my part. If anything though I think we can both agree that it's definitely cleaned.

 

If I can't prove my knowledge in writing, then lets use some pictures.

Test subject: 1964 cent.


Now I took a Dremel with a wire wheel and scrubbed the coin for a few minutes.


In the end result, you can kind of see this "orange peel effect". This is caused by thousands of tiny little pits in the surface of the coin. It gives it an almost matte kind of look.

Here is a close up of these pits.


Now let's look at the large cent again.


Do you see the same pattern?

A chemical dip is supposed to remove tarnish, verdigris, or other oxides, it's not supposed to alter the original metal surface in any way. The only kind of "dip" that could do such a thing is a dip into something acidic.

The little steel bristles of a wire wheel dig into the surface of the coin, it removes the tarnish, but it also puts thousands of tiny pits in the coin. Every time the wheel comes across the surface, each one of the tiny bristles stabs the surface of the metal.

Now if we were to clean a coin, by using metal polish and a buffer wheel, we would see a different effect. The fields would be much smoother.

 

See how the marks in your coin are grouped and in an aligned fashion?

See how the marks on the '56 are more random?

The reason is your marks were made by a high speed wheel, they are aligned because the wheel on the dremel was aligned, but you can see where you moved your hand and the lines moved a bit too. The '56 has a more random pattern because the nicks were a result of mishandling and/or circulation as opposed to a wire brush turning at 1000+ RPM.

See how your coin has much of the detail on the coin "flattened" or "melted"? See how un-square the lettering, date, and edge of Liberty's portrait are?

See how much of the fine detail on the '56 remains? See how the edges are much sharper and the coin itself doesn't look "melted"?

That's because you've worn off a significant amount of metal with the dremel, and I would argue the dipping on the '56 has not. Incidentally, that's why your coin doesn't show the "halo" typical of whizzed coins -- you've completely obliterated that detail.

The photos look similar, at first glance, but as you look deeper you can see the difference.

Respectfully...Mike

p.s. Is your after-dremeled photo color accurate? Because that doesn't -- at all -- look like the copper coins I've stripped similarly -- they have a much more copper and much less brassy color.

p.p.s. Dipping copper ABSOLUTELY DOES remove metal -- first off, the corrosion/toning is attached to metal and if it comes of so does the metal it is attached to, and, second, most dips are acid.