Tried acetone any other ideas?

Looking for ideas to remove a fingerprint from 1 coin and some unknown black spots from another. Neither coin is ultra valuable but if possible I'd like to stay away from damaging either coin any further. The coin with the fingerprint is a 1926P Peace Dollar and the other is a 1923P Peace Dollar. I'll attach some pictures too. I already tried an acetone bath using pure acetone.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The fingerprint is near the word "trust" and the neck area. There is also some small brownish spots on the neck as well.

 

You are correct, these coins go into the melt pot; however, you can learn from them first - then trade out of them for a decent coin. Try MS-70 on the first one as acetone has no effect on prints that are set. It looks polished and I doubt anything can save it. The second coin is harshly cleaned. Dip it. Someone here will tell you how to do it properly. Then trade out of it.

 

The first coin, 1926, looks to me as though it was heavily polished.
The second coin, 1923, looks to me like a cast fake.

 

I'll agree with @rickmp on the 1926 - looks polished, so I'm not sure anything can be done to "save" it. Not sure about the 1923 - can't tell if the coin is off or the photos are making it look off, but most of that black tarnish could be removed by a quick dip in EZest. I'm not sure what the coin will look like afterwards, though...who knows if that black "booger" under E PLURIBUS has eaten into the metal at all, or if the coin will be completely lifeless afterward.

Looking at the bigger picture, these are two common date Peace dollars that aren't in high enough grade to warrant any kind of price jump (from a knowledgeable collector) by cleaning them further. IMO they are best left as is.

 

Thanks, I figured I would use them to learn with since they are both damaged coins. I've never tried dipping or bathing any coins. If the print won't come off I'll probably just let my little one keep it and handle it all she wants. Won't matter if she puts anymore on there lol.

 

It's definately silver and I don't believe it's fake. Could be my crappy pictures. I didn't pay anything for either coin though so I guess it doesn't matter too much lol

 

It won't. It's etched in with body salts.

 

Both coins are 100% genuine. The second coin may look "funny" to novices because the buffing (easily seen as vertical hairlines on the obverse) has changed its color.

 

If your going to clean them...E-Zest coin dip.

 

http://www.lincolncentforum.com/for...0-The-First-Steps-to-Proper-Coin-Conservation

 

Just an opinion but that difference between cleaning and conserving is a big load of semantic malarkey. NCS cleans coins. Period. That article, "scientifically proven," my tail end! There are harsh methods of cleaning and not-so-harsh. "Acceptable?" Boy, there's being kind to oneself in one's own mind. Let's not confuse this for the rest of us because some of us have to play pretentious word games to justify their staying in business. I'll clean my coins the way I want to clean them and I won't deceive anybody because in my mind it's conservation and as such I'm not ethically obliged to disclose what I did to it. Even your formula should be disclosed to the buyer when selling the coin. But that's the big, big thing nobody considers. If the coin is cleaned, you have to disclose. If you can twist your mind into calling it conserved, great for you, you don't have to disclose. Tell me that's not how it works, the ethic. Tell me that's not why the strong need to differentiate, as well.

 

@eddiespin I disagree with some of your post:

"Just an opinion but that difference between cleaning and conserving is a big load of semantic malarkey. NOT TRUE NCS cleans coins. Period. This is absolutely true! In a nit-picky technical sense, you can consider holding a coin under flowing ionic water, putting it in an ultrasonic bath, blowing it with compressed air, or picking off some debris under a stereo microscope cleaning - which it is ! They also do more involved cleaning like removing the haze from proofs, etc. That article, "scientifically proven," my tail end! See below. There are harsh methods of cleaning and not-so-harsh. Yes, and that is key! "Acceptable?" Boy, there's being kind to oneself in one's own mind. Let's not confuse this for the rest of us because some of us have to play pretentious word games to justify their staying in business. I'll clean my coins the way I want to clean them and I won't deceive anybody because in my mind it's conservation and as such I'm not ethically obliged to disclose what I did to it. Decades ago I learned that there is NOTHING WRONG with cleaning coins. If a coin is cleaned PROPERLY, neither you or anyone else can tell or prove the appearance of its surface was altered in any way! That is the key to calling anything done to a coin as "acceptable." No marketing or deception is involved and I'll bet you a dollar that NCS and the conservation services at ICG, ANACS, and PCGS can put you in contact with hundreds of pleased customers. Even your formula should be disclosed to the buyer when selling the coin. But that's the big, big thing nobody considers. If the coin is cleaned, you have to disclose. IMO, this comment is absolutely politically correct, fairytale, BS. If you can twist your mind into calling it conserved, great for you, you don't have to disclose. Tell me that's not how it works, the ethic. Tell me that's not why the strong need to differentiate, as well." Call me a twisted old cheat You or anyone else is not going to detect anything I clean unless I screw up or the coin "explodes" on me for some reason (it happens to the best of us ) and I'm not obligated to say a peep about what I've done to CONSERVE it.


As for that article you mention:

"There is a huge difference between cleaning and conservation. True Cleaning is a very harsh process that is not recommended for ANY coin. This sentence demonstrates both an over simplification to the point of being pure nonsense and a complete lack of understanding of the DEGREES involved with the act of cleaning an object. IMO, it needs to be modified as it will mislead new collectors. It will leave obvious signs behind that any good numismatist can spot. False! If I clean a coin properly it leaves no evidence. The true part of the statement only applies if the cleaning is not done correctly, is more harsh than needed, or the coin "blows up." Then, most likely it will leave the traces mentioned above. Again the key is the DEGREE of cleaning. Conservation is a delicate process that is performed with the utmost care. You might be surprised - it depends on our understanding of "delicate." I know what you are saying and I agree. It involves scientific methods that generally do not destroy or alter the coin’s natural patina or leave behind obvious signs of damage. It is important to differentiate between the two and the terms should never used interchangeably. Cleaning = Bad, Conservation = Acceptable. Very well put. Professional companies who specialize in conservation, such as NCS (Numismatic Conservation Services), are not considered coin cleaners. I don’t think they’d get much business if their company name was Numismatic Cleaning Services! Every collector I’ve met despises cleaned coins. I've got a humorous business card in my collection from the first conservator at NCS. I wish I could lay my hands on it now. As I remember that was the company name he used. The motto was something like: "We clean 'em up real good." The name he used on the card was "Dipper."

 

Very good rebuttal. I can't say I agree with all of it, but with much of it. What I really liked is it was easy to follow where your issues were. This method was much better than the traditional quote/comment rebuttal. Having said that, maybe my line between cleaning and conservation is different from yours. What do you say to that, Sherlock? I know for a fact that the PCGS "coin sniffer" at least used to detect the chemicals in @BadThad's dip as "doctoring." Hmmm. Maybe somebody ought to get out of the way and make you boss, huh? You got a "like" from our chum @green18, but then he likes everybody around that happy hour.

You disclose what you know to me. And I'll ask the right questions, and you find the answers. Your ethic, not being obliged to disclose when you in your infinite discretion determine it's conservation as opposed to cleaning, falls apart when asked, directly, because it forces you to lie. Are we understanding this? Let me simplify it. You don't put makeup on a coin you want to sell me. I find out you ever did, it's the last one. You let me have the freedom to decide what's acceptable to me, you don't decide it.

 

@eddiespin

I seriously think you started your "5 o'clock somewhere" long before @Green 16 today as I was having a little trouble understanding your post. I just finished a glass of merlot with dinner so I will try again. Your last sentence is perfectly clear and sums up what I think we both will agree on: "You let me have the freedom to decide what's acceptable to me, you don't decide it."

Now... You wrote this: "Very good rebuttal. I can't say I agree with all of it, but with much of it. Thank you and I liked your comments also. What I really liked is it was easy to follow where your issues were. This method was much better than the traditional quote/comment rebuttal. Having said that, maybe my line between cleaning and conservation is different from yours. I'm sure it is! As for me, if I can tell a coin was "conserved," then it becomes a bad cleaning job. It's that simple. The problem comes when someone does not have the expertise to tell when a coin looks/is original (and acceptable for an original coin) or not. In my experience, 85% of the dealers and 95% of the collectors who have not had formal training CANNOT TELL if a coin is original no matter what it grades! What do you say to that, Sherlock? I say that you may be in the 85 - 95%; however, at the moment, based on your comments, I don't think that is the case. I know for a fact that the PCGS "coin sniffer" at least used to detect the chemicals in @BadThad's dip as "doctoring." Hmmm.
Perhaps that is as good a reason as ever to make some adjustments to the "sniffer." I wonder if that machine can detect the smell of "ass" that professional graders at NGC call one of the substances a specific coin doctor uses. Maybe somebody ought to get out of the way and make you boss, huh? Not at all. I'll ignore your comment - possibly made out of frustration for being challenged and apologize to @Green 18 for being dragged into this. I don't want to be the boss of anything; I prefer to be considered an informed numismatist. You got a "like" from our chum @green18, but then he likes everybody around that happy hour.

You disclose what you know to me. And I'll ask the right questions, and you find the answers. Your ethic, not being obliged to disclose when you in your infinite discretion determine it's conservation as opposed to cleaning, falls apart when asked, directly, because it forces you to lie. IMO, this is totally nuts! I spent fifteen minutes this afternoon writing on this thread in order to clarify what I consider some misconceptions about cleaning. What more can you ask for? Cleaning is a matter of degree. At some point between conservation (proper cleaning) and improper cleaning, even an uninformed, visually challenged, coin hoarder can tell a coin is not original!
Actually, you just caught me posting one of those lies you accused me of. As I wrote above, MOST CANNOT! Show a typical collector a polished Peace dollar and an original satin Unc and they'll prefer the polished coin 10 times out of ten! Try it at your next coin club meeting. Are we understanding this? Let me simplify it. You don't put makeup on a coin you want to sell me. I find out you ever did, it's the last one. Since you'll never see my work, you'll never know will you... You let me have the freedom to decide what's acceptable to me, you don't decide it."

PS I really enjoyed our discussion. Good night.

 

Hey, that's what we're here for. No, I didn't mean here to drink.

 

Very well said and more to the specific point. I wish I would have taken that approach but it never even dawned on me.

I just realized that I give my "likes" mainly to the posts I agree with.