Speaking strictly for ME, I DON'T value "original surfaces"; I value attractive ones. Someone recently showed a picture of a butt-ugly MS67 quarter that was loaded with ugly toning. I wouldn't want that coin for free. I don't care what it might sell for.
You seem to be missing the point of it you can't tell. We aren't talking about newbs that can't tell were talking about people with knowledge. They can guess it was because it looks to good but that's just egos trying to prove to be superior, if no one can tell it didn't happen
Same. There's plenty of awful original surfaces, that PCGS sunken gold comes to mind as a great example. I'd much rather have it restored than be original
"If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around does it make a noise." or "If a husband says something in the woods and there isn't a wife around, is he still wrong?" Seriously, if you (the impersonal "you" that includes "professionals") can't tell if it is cleaned (conserved), it hasn't been cleaned. Not meaning to sound pedantic, but this is a topic that has really been beaten to death many times. Everyone is welcome to their own opinion, but, if you can't tell if it has been cleaned, how would you know?
See, I really don't think that there was much of a disagreement about this whole subject to begin with. I'll just be more cautious about making bad coin cleaning jokes in the future Perfectly fine, as long as there is a general understanding and agreement that "Restored"="Cleaned"="Altered". Hah!!!!!! If a person pays someone to clean a coin, and it comes back looking better than before, then they know that it has been cleaned. If they subsequently sell it to a person that legitimately appreciates originality, then there is a bit of a moral dilemma (What he doesn't know won't hurt him????). If the coin is slabbed without details by a person that knows what happened (even if nobody could ever tell), then that is even worse.
When I was at the University of Kentucky, one of the faculty members had a machine that would bombard objects with neutrons and make them radioactive (a little bit) and the decay of these elements could be detected and give a fairly full elemental analysis. Original samples of the first moon rocks brought back were sent and analyzed because this was considered a non-destructive analysis because of the very small number of atoms that were destroyed. Was it non-destructive, of course not, but how could you tell?
If quantum mechanics has taught us anything, it's that the very act of measuring anything is destructive. At the quantum level, the system could be completely disrupted, whereas, at the macro level, the effect could be negligible. These things are all points on a very large spectrum. Technically, the very act of touching a coin "alters" the surface in some way. The effect is imperceptible, but changes at some scale do occur. Is this destructive? Unless you've just finished eating a greasy pizza and didn't wash your hands, we should all agree that the answer is "No". Of course, we would all also agree that a wire brush would be a "Yes". I guess it all comes down to where you draw the line, and where other's draw their lines. Quite frankly, I'm not all that worried about it, I just like a good debate. But, I'm good to let this one go, we could go around in circles for days.
On the quantum level, even the act of observing something has been found to alter the way a particle behaves. That's why I keep all my coins in a bottomless pit.
I've only been a member on this board for a little over a year, but it seem that questions about cleaning comes up from neebies every couple of months. Perhaps a moderator should pin something at the top of the board about cleaning coins, since the answers are prettly much always the same.
Cleaned: a coin can be properly (numerical grade) or improperly/harshly cleaned (details grade) Altered: coins with altered surfaces/altered color are always considered problem coins (details grade) Restored: I believe “conserved” is the most commonly used term; “restored” makes me think of shipwreck coins
In a lot of cases that is what they do. And people pay them because they don't know how to even use those things. In other cases they do other things, use different chemicals. And in some cases the use of one chemical presages the use of another following it. It is also important to realize that even using the 4 things I mentioned, it is quite possible to harm a coin if any of those 4 things are not used correctly. Even distilled water, if not used correctly can cause harm to a coin. But if they are used correctly, no harm at all is done. This where we begin to get into trouble. And when I say we I mean all of the people participating in this discussion. The reason we get into trouble is because of the words we use, words like cleaned, damage, alteration, originality - all of those words and more have different definitions to different people. So when you use them they mean one thing and when somebody reads what you said that same word means something else entirely different. And it is the different definitions that result in the responses being posted. Again, it's definitions. In the strictest sense of the word is altering the surface of a coin damage ? Well, even rinsing a coin in distilled water alters the surface in the strictest sense of the word because it removes something from the coin. So is that damage ? In most people's eyes it is not. To the contrary, I believe most would see it as improving the coin, being beneficial to the coin. And the same thing is true of using something as harsh as coin dip of one kind or another - all of which contain an acid. And that most definitely alters the surface of a coin. So is that damage in your eyes ? But again, the numismatic world as a whole sees using coin dip as being beneficial. In point of fact 80% or more of all older coins have been dipped at one point or another in their lives. And yet they are cleanly graded and slabbed on a daily basis. Dipping coins has been an accepted and approved practice for well over a hundred years, and in some cases much longer. So do you see what I mean ? It's definitions. What one sees as damage another sees as beneficial. Some of the contradictions in opinion and logic that you see in various posts are made because the person making them has bad or inaccurate information. Others are made because of the differences in definitions.
Cherd, posted: "I have a PhD in environmental engineering. I've had enough chemistry to have a working knowledge of the basic types of chemical reactions." To my way of thinking, that makes you more of a "chemist" than many of us posting who know a little about cleaning coins and virtually nothing about the chemistry involved.
Much of this has probably been posted here and in past discussions. Nevertheless, a little reinforcement may put the "stake" into this thread. Words mean something. With our different backgrounds, even something as simple as "cleaned" gets battered all around and is perceived differently by each of use. One common example found on CT is a coin with a few hairlines from mishandling being labeled as "harshly cleaned!" Just about everything associated with coins happens in DEGREES. Degrees of strike, degrees of wear, degrees of damage, and degrees of unoriginality. Then we have DEGREES OF KNOWLEDGE to really screw things up. I'm going to use some of the posts here to "spin-off" without trolling anyone in particular. Cherd, posted: "I've been reading through the last handful of posts in response to this subject, and I'm finding it difficult to formulate meaningful responses. (?) That's because the majority of what is being said actually aligns with the points that I've been trying to make, however, is presented as being in disagreement. I think that we are all of the same opinion for the most part, (?) and the back and forth can be chalked up to mis-interpretations of what the other is saying. So I'll take a shot at whittling things down to what I see as the major sticking point. First off, in this context, "cleaning" means an action that alters the surface of the coin in some way YES! You got it! (Not picking off dirt or dipping in water). NO, you didn't Please see above: "DEGREES." The whole modern aversion to cleaning isn't because people don't like cleaning in general, it's because the purists have trended toward an extreme preference for "original" surfaces (which have ALWAYS been desirable to EVERYONE. I consider your usage of "purists" to mean "knowledgeable" because the majority of folks I interact with - both long-time professionals and collectors HAVE NO IDEA WHAT AN ORIGINAL, FRESH AS MINTED (Mint State) COIN LOOKS LIKE! and everyone else has followed along (I'm not indicating that I have a problem with this). Now, the definition of "original" is another debate all together, ONLY IF THE DEBATER IS ONE OF THE IGNORANT I just mentioned above. but for the sake of argument, lets say it's "a surface that hasn't been intentionally, physically or chemically altered for the sake of improving appearance". The debate seems to have shifted toward delineations in "cleaning" skill level between "professionals" and lay people. On this we agree. GOOD I could restore an old car in my garage, but the results will be waaaay better if I pay a professional, fair enough. But, no matter the quality of the work, a restoration was done either way. And, the car is no more-or-less "original" regardless of who did the work. From an "original" perspective, there is no better or worse, there's only "yes or no" (original or not). "If you can't tell that it is cleaned, then it's not cleaned": This is the key sticking-point ONLY to someone such as me who loves to pick out little silly things to make a point that does not matter or change anything just to prove how "right" I am. that we seem to have here. The real question is: Why am I taking the time to hash over nonsense that has been asked and answered over-and-over when I AM IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH YOU - you win, ANYTHING ANYONE DOES TO A COIN after it is struck makes it UNORIGINAL! "Do you truly value original surfaces? Or are you anti-cleaning because everyone else is anti-cleaning?" (AKA: anti-cleaning because it decreases value) I will not accept this misinformed premise. Most coins that are CLEANED CORRECTLY so that no one can tell INCREASE in eye appeal so their value and desirability are INCREASED. This isn't a loaded question. I'll go ahead and admit that, while I don't feel strongly one way or the other, I probably fall more into the later category. But, if you "truly value original surfaces", then the "if you can't tell that it is cleaned" definition holds no water. What I hear is, "I prefer a more aesthetically pleasing, altered coin as long as it was done so well that nobody can tell." Reworded: "I don't value original surfaces, I prefer aesthetics". BINGO! Another way: "I'm willing to improve aesthetics as long as it doesn't decrease the value (nobody can tell)". And this is all fine! Collect how you want! BINGO! But, being of this frame of mind, it jumps out at me when people say that cleaning is bad ONLY when done in such a way that is noticable and lowers the appearence and value of a coin. because it alters the surface, and then proceed to recommend that kind of thing should be left to professionals. This is contradictory (?) if originality is the primary consideration. Actually, it is more about the KNOWLEDGE of the person. Cherd continued: "If a person pays someone to clean a coin, and it comes back looking better than before, then they know that it has been cleaned. If they subsequently sell it to a person that legitimately appreciates originality, then there is a bit of a moral dilemma (What he doesn't know won't hurt him????). If the coin is slabbed without details by a person that knows what happened (even if nobody could ever tell), then that is even worse." LOL. Let's complicate this more and bring morals in. How much should I gouge the eyes out of this ignorant collector who cannot tell the coin was cleaned professionally? Better yet, I'll sell the stupid, ignorant idiot this whizzed XF as he cannot tell that either. Mo money. Mo money. Please...there must be some Religious Forum you can reserve this moral stuff for. Cherd, posted: "If quantum mechanics has taught us anything, it's that the very act of measuring anything is destructive. At the quantum level, the system could be completely disrupted, whereas, at the macro level, the effect could be negligible. These things are all points on a very large DEGREE? spectrum. Technically, the very act of touching a coin "alters" the surface in some way. The effect is imperceptible, but changes at some scale do occur. Is this destructive? Unless you've just finished eating a greasy pizza and didn't wash your hands, we should all agree that the answer is "No". Of course, we would all also agree that a wire brush would be a "Yes". I guess it all comes down to where you draw the line, and where other's draw their lines. Quite frankly, I'm (?) not all that worried about it, But only after I switch from "morals" to bring up "quantum mechanics." PLEASE... You win, you won, way up this post. I just like a good debate. But, I'm good to let this one go, we could go around in circles for days. Bet you don't let it go.
I agree with everything that you said entirely. Even the parts where you insinuate that I was making uninformed assumptions, I was. I presented arguments using extreme over-generalizations. This is done because that's the easiest way to get the point across (admittedly, kind of lazy on my part). But, it's also done with the anticipation that someone will thoughtfully, politely, and comprehensively address the faulty assumptions. Unfortunately, that's generally not the case in these forums. When people immediately jump to insults, sarcasm, and other false demonstrations of self-assumed superiority, then the conversation goes nowhere. I'm certainly not saying that @GDJMSP is unique in having been productive in the conversation, but his posts serve as good examples of a more effective way of doing things. I don't take these things personally, as I mentioned before, I just enjoy a good discussion. However, it is worth mentioning that a private message discussion with @Kentucky has helped put the occurrences of this particular thread in perspective. He pointed out that the topic of cleaning is contentious in general, largely because it's been addressed from every angle so many times in these forums that's it's "played out" in the minds of those that have been around for a while. From that perspective, it's somewhat understandable that people would tend to be short. We just have to keep in mind that "newbies" don't have that perspective, and could get the wrong idea.
When you clean a coin you disturb it's flow lines which are accountable for giving it its glow and depth and you end up with something as washed-out and two-dimensional as a piece of cardboard. That's why we tell every young collector, do not clean your coins. This a real difficult rationale to grasp...
