Can I conserve/clean this properly?

I am pretty sure I remember reading in an older guide to dipping coins a suggestion to test on a high point first. That way if the underlying surface is not desirable an abortion doesn't look completely out of place.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm not going to try a bunch of different things. One maybe two. But we'll see when I get it in hand in a few days.

 

I was looking for this video. Thanks. Crazy rich guys!!! This is also funny to me because I have seen an 1805 MS63 NGC draped bust dime for sale by Julian that's now in a UNC details cleaned holder. Either he tried to "improve" it, or his consignee did....
If mine were in a straight holder, for course I wouldn't touch it.

 

I kinda like how it looks - I don't mind tarnish at all, though there's probably some more things going on that that. I'd still definitely put it in acetone.

In fact, one of my 19th century half dollars has some very heavy, dark toning that is still in an acetone bath right now even after several days later, and the acetone is visibly affecting and working on it. Little by little, the dark matter is "flaking" off. I've also randomly and carefully swished the acetone around in the bath without moving the coin inside the glass jar, which may help to apply force on the coin.

And, it may have had some help with using acetone then Xylene, then back to acetone. Maybe the transitions do something more than simply putting them in one or the other (?). I don't know. Though, I think mine was more or less a stain, so your situation may be different.

 

Interesting thread. Havent had a good "Im gonna clean this" thread in awhile. Personaly, I never touch my coins. I just leave them alone. I have experimented with acetone to which it didnt really do much to the coins I had experimented with. Other than that I have no experience with "conservation" of coins.

Im curious to see how this turns out. However, I have a feeling that @C-B-D isnt going to do it once he has it in hand. Seeing it in hand, I find, changes your mind on the things you may see in the blown up picture of it seeing all its faults. In hand with no magnification, I bet it will look much nicer. And besides I think you can turn and sell it as is, and make a decent profit with the variety premium. So if we are betting, I bet you get it in hand and change your mind about "conserving" it

 

Whatever you attempt, just stay away from rubbing or otherwise touching the surface.

 

I wonder if @V. Kurt Bellman would comment on his citric acid/thiourea concoction.

 

1) Why is the OP's coin pic so stinking ... BLUE? It's not the density that bugs me, it's the "chroma".
2) I would never dip this coin. There is no luster to be revealed, therefore ... no! Not even my stuff.
3) I agree fully with Dave at post#12.
4) Taken to extremes, any treatment looks like Larry's pic. at #62.

This is the "poster child coin" for "don't mess with it", unless you can neutralize the blue - like I need to for my skin each summer.

Oh, Tuck? Tag, you're it! @Kentucky

 

I always suspected you were a Smurf...

 

A while back I cherry picked a significant capped bust quarter variety, an 1834 B-5, in AU. This is the scarcest of three varieties with the reverse from the 1834 presentation proof sets (like the King of Siam set). It's an R5 and near impossible to find an example above VF.

The example had brown terminal toning, but there was evidence of luster in the protected areas. I had enough sense not to try and improve it. NGC graded it an AU50, making it something like the 5th finest known according to the JRCS census. While this kind of look would be very undesirable on say a Morgan dollar, on circulated bust coinage it's a completely acceptable look that is best left alone.

 

Lost twice that in a pool game, dang scratch

 

Q: How can you tell Smurfs collect coins?
A: Only one female in the whole village.

 

I'm praying you have images of this one to share. Just don't tell @kanga.

 

Ow ow ow ow ow ow ow ow ow ow ow ow ow ow ow ow ow ow ow ow ow

 

I do, but the pics of that coin aren't great. I haven't gotten around to shooting it properly yet.

Edit: Found them. The pics are good enough to get the idea.



I'm pretty sure he's seen my bust quarter set online. I sold him a nice R4 last year that graded XF40 (also a cherrypick).

 

Much nicer than the PCGS CoinFacts AU50, with nice color but a crater in the right obverse field that probably shouldn't have straight-graded.

Kanga's too much a gentleman to feel anything but pleasure at your good fortune, anyways.

 

Here's the coin in-hand. It was mailed to me in an old paper Whitman flip. Good Lordy, what a coin!

 

A lovely coin, far nicer than the sales images indicated. Its' absolute ceiling - in my opinion - is AU50. A conservative viewer could look at it and contemplate two separate toning processes, considering the much darker, spotty obverse against the much lighter reverse showing completely "clean" patches.

I don't think this one has the objections you originally saw, correct as they were at the time based on the info you had.

 

Let's hope there are no more copies of that publication around! That recommendation is nuts!

Rather than say why, perhaps valued members like @Treashunt, @Cascade, @ldhair, @britannia40, or @SuperDave can tell us why.

 

I Agree. AU50