New Walking Liberty

That is not crud or dirt on the coin, that is toning. Or the remains of toning, either is possible.

As for the TPGs dipping the coin at their own discretion, yeah they have been known to do that. But typically not with coins like this one. And since both NGC and PCGS now have their own conservation services, I would rather think they wouldn't do that anymore. But ya never know.

 

It's a fact Tom, and documented. Both NGC and PCGS have publicly admitted that they do it, well, at least used to do it. The first instances of them admitting this, that I am aware of, date back to 1995 and it was published in both Numimsmatic News and Coin World.

 

Yeah, that's true. I wouldn't pin it down to "two atoms thick" but the gist of your comment is true.

No I'm not saying that at all.There is a very distinct difference between dirt & grime and toning.

I made that comment because that is one of the two possibilities. If anything I think far more likely that the dark areas, including the spots, are the remains of toning as opposed to just toning. But perhaps you don't fully understand what I mean by that. In other words I think it likely that that coin had at one point in its life toned to the point that virtually the whole coin, or a large part of it, was very dark in color, maybe even black. And that it was dipped at some point which removed the majority of the dark toning, leaving behind the dark color that we see now in the most stubborn areas. In other words, the remains of toning.

I say that for basically 2 reasons. 1 - experience. I have seen a great many coins that were basically toned black and then dipped. And it is quite common for some of that dark or black toning to remain on the coin after it was dipped. And 2 - all I have are the pictures to go by, but it is also quite common for a coin that was black and then dipped to have muted luster. And this coins appears to have muted luster. And there are 2 common reasons for that, one being that the toning itself progressed to the point that it destroyed some of the luster, and two being that dipping always removes at least a portion of the luster. Either, or both, could be the case with this coin.

Well, it's kinda sorta correct but not really. It is correct in that most people when they attempt to "improve" a coin end up making it worse than it was to begin with because they don't know how to do it correctly. So as kind of a general comment I would advise most people to just leave their coins alone.

However, I know for a fact that some coins can be improved, cleaned, conserved - choose your word, if you know how to do it correctly. And it is also a fact, not an opinion, that some coins should be improved, cleaned, or conserved. But again, only if you know how to do it correctly. And I say it is a fact because if the cleaning is not done, then the toning or environmental contamination, whichever the case may be, will continue to act on the coin until the coin is basically ruined. So those coins not only should be cleaned, they need to be cleaned in order to save them.

The caveat that goes along with this thinking is that you also have to be to judge to coin in question as to whether or not it is a good candidate for the type of cleaning you intend to use. That is the hardest part of it all. And even the very best will often be wrong in their judgment. That's just how it works out. That is because nobody can ever know for certain what the outcome of cleaning will be until after the cleaning is done. And for point of clarification, I define using distilled water, acetone, xylene, commercial coin dips, all as cleaning. Because all of them, if used properly, will not harm the coin.

No I wasn't offended at all. I just think you made an honest mistake, something that a lot of people do when they see a certain coin. It is quite easy to mistake dark toning for dirt & grime because they both look so similar to each other, especially in pictures.

As for cleaning down to the alloy, sometimes that can be done without harming the coin, and sometimes it can't. Sometimes dipping a coin will safely remove all traces of toning. But there are also times when you must make a judgment call and say, that's as far as I dare go.

Dipping a coin is a tedious process and it must be done with great care. There are two basic ways to do it, you can use straight dip or you can dilute the dip. Each has its benefits and each has its drawbacks. And there are several different kinds of dip, each with its own benefits and drawbacks. You have to be familiar with all of this, experienced with it. Otherwise it is very, very easy to ruin a coin.

The coin in this thread for example, if it were dipped again to the point that all of the dark coloration were removed then I have little doubt that the luster remaining on the coin would be destroyed and you would end up with a over-dipped coin.

Make more sense now ?