1909-S Indian Pick up Cleaned?

looks 8-12 pushing , looks cleaned, details only,..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I have the same question of those that are saying cleaned. What are you seeing?

 

gut instinct, lines obv. & rev. but not many, just looks cleaned, rubbed to me
X times

 

Looks rubbed gut. The only reason I want it slabbed is easier to sell. Piece of mind to the buyer. I know there is a great chance it will come back details grade. I am ok with that. Paid $200. So not in too too deep. I'd throw it in economy and see it in 30 plus days.

 

I'd say that's a fair buy. Nice coin. Has a lot of character, too.

 

I'm still waiting. I wish to know what on this coin leads anyone to say it is cleaned?

 

I see an improperly mixed alloy, or woodie, from the photos provided.

 

The luster breaks, especially on the reverse side, can cause a grader to be hard on this one.

The important thing is, the breaks are there, whether they're caused by an old attempt at cleaning or not. Whether the coin was in fact cleaned is irrelevant, except to a label-fanatic. The condition of the reverse has luster breaks--period. There's no meaningful reason to play detective on the origin of same, they're there. And on this coin, they're hardly what one would call "fatal." Some bozo (...as in, "professional grader") wants to hang a label "cleaned" on it, now there's what one calls "fatal."

 

The important thing is, the breaks are there, whether they're caused by an old attempt at cleaning or not. Whether the coin was in fact cleaned is irrelevant, except to a label-fanatic. The condition of the reverse has luster breaks--period. There's no meaningful reason to play detective on the origin of same, they're there.

I do think a poll of CT'ers would be interesting. On the cleaning question, I mean.

 

The scratch makes it 100% it comes back detailed grade. I think I read there were only 2 reverse dies for this coin. If it's a die break, half the coins would have this same marker. I don't think they do.
Wish I had a 300,000 mintage 1909-S IHC.
As for the cleaning, maybe it has retoned off an old cleaning?

 

Pickin and Grinin, posted: "I see an improperly mixed alloy, or woodie, from the photos provided."

I agree, a very minor one at that. Thank You!

eddiespin, posted: "The luster breaks, especially on the reverse side, can cause a grader to be hard on this one. The important thing is, the breaks are there, whether they're caused by an old attempt at cleaning or not. Whether the coin was in fact cleaned is irrelevant, except to a label-fanatic. The condition of the reverse has luster breaks--period. There's no meaningful reason to play detective on the origin of same, they're there. And on this coin, they're hardly what one would call "fatal." Some bozo (...as in, "professional grader") wants to hang a label "cleaned" on it, now there's what one calls "fatal.

This is a really small thing that I hate to even mention but please let me suggest in a nice way that you may wish to stop calling wear on a circulated coin "Luster Breaks." That's because there is no original luster left on this coin (to "break") - not even in the recesses of the letters.

Your Pal, Mike

PS With a great deal of reading, study, and hands-on professionally supervised instruction, one day you may even reach the knowledge level of one of the newly-hired, twenty-something, rookie "BOZOS" at a major TPGS.

Until then...

 

I don't collect much copper,but I don't see any signs of a cleaning . The scratch is the only limiting factor. Having it in a "genuine" holder from any major tpg makes sense because there are so many fakes out there.

 

I'd hate for you to hurt yourself, "pal," but try to think. A surface stripped of luster doesn't age the same way an unstripped, lustrous surface ages.

Regarding your PS. That's BS.

 

So insider, are you putting yourself in the "non-cleaned coin" group? You rather danced with the others, but didn't really come out and say yea or nay.

It is rhetorical as there is no test other than one's observation whether one considers it cleaned or not, so when one says it looks cleaned , as I did in a post, it means I saw what was indication for me of cleaning. Now if you and later the TPG does not say so, then I am happy for the owner, who I suspect is the only person to see it in person. So, cleaned or not cleaned? Jim

 

I'd just like to take a moment to step away from debating the cleanliness of a coin with a large scratch on the reverse to leave this public service announcement:

Please, please, please make sure the staples in your cardboard flips are securely flattened.

This is exactly the type of damage I associate with poorly stapled cardboard flips.

 

I agree with you on how it looks, especially that reverse. But I'll call it how it looks, I'll describe that attribute, and I'll let it go at that. I'm not trying to put a noose around its neck, that's why.