Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 5009752, member: 112&quot;]The &quot;definitions thing&quot; raising its head again - everybody has their own definitions.</p><p><br /></p><p>Yeah, I know that to you Mike harshly cleaned and improperly cleaned are two different things. But to me, and many others, they mean exactly the same thing.</p><p><br /></p><p>Here&#039;s the issue as I see it. There&#039;s a probably a hundred different ways that a coin can be harshly or improperly cleaned. There may even be more than a hundred of them ! But the bottom line is this - any and all of the harsh/improper ways of cleaning do harm to the coin. </p><p><br /></p><p>That said I do understand your thinking. Or at least I think I do. To you harsh cleaning is defined as cleaning method that leaves either fine or course lines/scratches/hairlines on the coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>Well, I do agree that is what happens in some cases. But it isn&#039;t what happens in all cases. For example, if a coin is what we call polished. That coin has been harshly cleaned, but there aren&#039;t any visible lines or scratches, or at least not any visible without high magnification. Or, take a coin that has been over-dipped, that coin has been harshly cleaned too. Only difference is the surface has been damaged by over-exposure to acid. But the acid doesn&#039;t leave any lines or scratches - but the coin has still been harshly cleaned. </p><p><br /></p><p>Now anybody that wants to can say none of that is harsh cleaning, that&#039;s improper cleaning. Well, OK, if that&#039;s what they want to call it. But to me there isn&#039;t any difference because the coin has been harmed. The coin being harmed at all is the deciding factor, that&#039;s the important thing - not the way in which is has been harmed.</p><p><br /></p><p>But hey, whatever floats your boat.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in