Too expensive, but I got it anyway . . .

The high point wear is distinguished by the slight color change. A weak strike would have continuous and uninterrupted luster across the high points. Even in these static images, I can see that is not the case.

And I'll agree, it appears to have very strong luster. I don't think anyone would argue that. I'm saying the color/patina isn't right because it has been stripped. Stripping the patina doesn't *necessarily* affect the luster if it hasn't been too much.

Nope, that's not how coins are graded. If there is no obvious wear but the coin has been cleaned, it might drop a point in the MS scale, but it will still be an UNC coin. The only thing that will take it from UNC to AU is wear.

Now, if it is graded MS-61 with obvious cleaning compared to an AU-58 with gorgeous original patina, the AU-58 coin might be worth more.... but the MS-61 coin will still be UNC.

I'm super confused by your post.

Dipping is cleaning. You admit it has been dipped.

It hasn't been *harshly cleaned* like with a wire brush or baking soda. But it has 100% clearly and obviously been cleaned.

This goes back to the debate of what is considered "market acceptable" cleaning... the market has determined that dipping like this is acceptable. Hence PCGS graded it, and people are buying it. But make absolutely no mistake, this coin has been cleaned in a way that I would not be a buyer.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

This top coin is graded PCGS AU-58, and it is actually overgraded. But it shows you better where the wear points are.

As you get to lower grades, such as this EF-40, the wear points become super obvious.

 

Here is an 1825 AU58; you can see light rub in about the same areas as the coin in the OP.

 

Jason, I think you and I will just have to "agree to disagree." I don't think dipping is cleaning unless carried to an extreme, where the coin loses whatever luster it had and has a dead chalky appearance. I don't think that chemical removal of tarnish, carefully done, constitutes cleaning.

 

Can I explain my perspective? and if we still disagree we can go our separate ways.

In my mind, anything that physically changes the metal of the coin is cleaning. This is different than conservation, which is removing foreign debris that isn't supposed to be there in the first place. Thus, a soak in acetone to remove PVC is conservation, not cleaning.

However, a dip is removing actual silver atoms that have chemically reacted with sulfur in the air. When you dip, no matter how slight or how it looks afterwards, you have changed the surface of the metal.

Now, done properly this widely considered acceptable. I personally prefer to avoid coins which were obviously dipped even if they retain their luster, but that is my own personal preference.

Anyways, that is why I consider dipping to be cleaning. Your opinions may vary.

 

If that's your perspective, then it seems like you're defining toning itself as "cleaning", because that's what physically changes the metal of the coin!

And once that metal has been turned into a compound on the surface of the coin, removing it by dipping is, by your stated definition, "conservation".

I don't think that's what you intended your definitions to state. I also imagine most people wouldn't interpret them that way. I guess I'm just feeling lawyer-ish after a morning of wrestling with code that's also doing exactly what we said, instead of what we meant...

 

That's not what I meant and you know it!

Lol.

 

Jason, I agree with you up to a point. As long as dipping doesn't visibly disrupt the coin's surface structure ( to naked eye/low mag) I don't have a problem with it. Disruption of aesthetics is another matter, and I generally don't go for unnaturally bright coins. But I don't think it should affect the grade or lead to a "details".
My bust half, above, probably had a dip at some point, but not to excess, and I think it has a nice look. I would not call it "cleaned."

 

I know, but PCGS called it AU58 and according to their own definition they got it wrong. This coin sure doesn’t have « attractive eye appeal and nearly full luster » so when somebody argued there’s no wear, this was the only logical explanation. PCGS made a mistake either way.

 

That seems like an unduly harsh and absolutist call to make based on one pair of photos.

 

That’s probably true and I’ll adapt my statement if the OP shows us another set of pictures which makes the coin look more original. But I think we spooked him away.