New to the sport and have a question. Looking for a Tiberius Denarius and noticing lots of the examples for sale show signs of cleaning. In the world of modern coins, cleaned coins are devalued and a big no-no for the most part. My question is whether the same stigma applies to ancient coins, i.e. are obvious cleaned coins devalued? Guessing that since so many are unearthed after centuries, many would require cleaning. But then again, as a newbie I don’t know much; therefore I ask. Thanks for any information you might offer. p.s. photo is from a current ad and used as an example. Please let me know if using such is frowned upon and I will remove and not repeat. Bob
This one looks fine to me. Very nice coin Keep in mind that the concept of no cleaning is rather modern. Many collectors have likely had any coin over its history, they'd wax them, tool them, who knows. if a cleaning is old enough it shouldn't be an issue as patina will redevelop over time.
With ancient coins I think cleaning is just part of the process of owning one. Virtually all of them require cleaning, if for no other reason than to just identify them.
With ancient coins cleaning is a must, though there is a limit to the cleaning. You would only want to clean certain coins to the extent of dirt, grime, bronze disease or encrustation removal and no further. Removal of Patina is a no no, as far as I know, not many collectors like the patina removed but there are some. With Silver coinage there is generally a horn silver build up which is generally removed through cleaning as well. This involves chemicals and a process, of which I am not experienced in. Funny enough I have had modern collectors try and yell at me about my ancient coin cleaning. Generally I have to explain to them the process of and why, I understand where their mind set comes from but still find it funny.
Since all ancient coins have been cleaned it does seem a bit odd that it is still considered a fault if the coin looks like it was cleaned or, worse, if you can tell how it was cleaned. No coins spent twenty generations in someone's sock drawer but there is a distinct preference for coins that look like they did. If you see signs of polishing, buffing, localized scraping or anything that draws the eye away from the design, it is not good. Another little point is we have some coins that were fully cleaned a couple hundred years ago so they have more 'naturally' toned surfaces than a coin that had its bath yesterday. Being cleaned is not a fault; being cleaned poorly most certainly is.
Thanks again for all the replies. I went ahead and purchased the coin displayed in the OP. I sorta like how in the photos the legend appears to be enhanced by contrast with the dark background that I assume to be uncleaned areas.
Yes, almost all ancient coins require cleaning. The issue is the degree of cleaning, as I see it. There's a balance that always needs to be met between cleaning to remove deposits and over cleaning, which leaves an ancient silver coin bright and shiny (almost polished), and in the case of bronze down to almost bare metal.
I'm no expert but I think the picture shows a good level of cleaning. Its a highly subjective thing and the basis for many an argument. I like when there's enough patina to add contrast with the letters, but I also want to be able to see all the details. Some people say it loses value to clean too much and they are probably right, and thats something to take into consideration if you're a dealer. But if you're just a collector you'd think the #1 factor would be how you like it, and not how other people like it.
