What do you see in these images that indicate improper cleaning?

When the original surface of a coin becomes worn, damaged, or cleaned it looks different. What evidence do you see in these images indicating various DEGREES of cleaning?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Well, obviously it took a bit more work to clean around the date in the first image. Obviously can see the areas around the devices, but even the plain fields are showing some 'pockmarks' as I'd say.

 

• Image #1 appears whizzed to me. The build up of metal around the devices is my evidence.
• Image #2 was on a buffing wheel. The build up of polishing compound in one direction leads me to that conclusion.
• Image #3 is a difficult one for me. I believe it was dipped and not properly rinsed.

 

1. This appears to be whizzing, but it makes no sense to just disturb the metal around the devices and lettering and leave the fields undistrurbed.
2. This is a common effect known as "pull away" toning where areas under the peripheral lettering/stars is resistant to toning and remains untoned while the rest of the coin exhibits toning. As a former metallurgist, I've contemplated that the cause of this might be localized strain hardening caused by the strike pressure, but I have no plausible explanation why that would inhibit toning, other than to reduce the diffusivity rate in the area.
3. That isn't a very good photo, and to me it looks simply like someone spilled a liquid in the coin that either couldn't be removed or no attempt was made to remove it.

 

Agree with the first one or two, but as someone who was taught to never clean a coin, the word "improper" (cleaning) does not compute because it infers there's a proper way. I dunno...although I confess to doing a bit of soft/clean/gentle Kleenex rubbing to remove certain dirt/build-up and reveal a bit of luster, but without overdoing it to appear rubbed/buffed shiny. In essence, I make sure to rub out the rubs that might show under X-mag. Never had a rejection for a straight grade on the few select one's I've done and submitted. These in the photos are pretty obvious...the 1st being somewhat harsh, I'd say...although not as harsh as toothbrush and cleanser or brillo-pad-HARSH

 

#1 looks like it was whizzed, then heavily polished. The polishing smoothed away the whizzing hairlines on the devices and in the middle of the fields, but couldn't reach the areas around the devices.

#2 just looks like pull-away toning; from this photo, I can't tell whether the coin was cleaned.

#3 looks like a dip or other solution was left to dry on the coin's surface without proper rinsing.

 

#1 cleaned with a machine like a dremel and then polished leaving a "halo" like effect
#2 looks to be pull away effects from the strike
#3 Attempt to remove a varnish coat, polishing lines are visible across the face

 

Mac McDonald, posted: "..., but as someone who was taught to never clean a coin, the word "improper" (cleaning) does not compute because it infers there's a proper way. I dunno...although I confess to doing a bit of soft/clean/gentle Kleenex rubbing to remove certain dirt/build-up and reveal a bit of luster, but without overdoing it to appear rubbed/buffed shiny. In essence, I make sure to rub out the rubs that might show under X-mag. Never had a rejection for a straight grade on the few select one's I've done and submitted...."

When an object like a coin for example has been "properly cleaned" (also referred to as "conservation") no one can tell - apparently as you have done it. Not all conservation is undetectable.

 

...but, is detectable "conservation" acceptable?

1) whizzed
2) polished with polishing compound
3) stain from whatever agent was used for cleaning.

 

#1: the remaining mint frost shows the "flow lines" in great detail. Whizzing, iirc, moves metal around and leaves a raised edge where the whizzed area ends; I'm not seeing that here. Looks more like polishing with something softer than a metal brush.
#2: Agree with Lehigh the light areas look like pull away toning, but I also see hairlines running N-S in the field, as from use of a mild abrasive.
#3: Getting Rorshachy here; some kind of chemical gunk with hairlines behind, map of Atlantis?