Characteristics of cleaned coins

Here are two coins currently posted on Heritage. One is identified as AU details -cleaned, and the other as AU 50.

1859 Seated

1878 Seated

I am still trying to learn about the less obvious (at least for me) characteristics of cleaned coins. I agree with the argument that it is better to study the coins in hand, and that the TPGs sometimes get it wrong. But using these photographs as a guide, what charateristics of this 1859 Seated Half stand out to you as an indication that it has been cleaned & retoned, and what is it about the 1878 that points to orginal surfaces?

Jonathan

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

The 1859 does not look cleaned, there could be hairlines that I can't see in the photos though. Hairlines and unnatural luster are the biggest things I use to determine cleaned coins.

 

On the 1859, take a closer look at the fields on both sides of liberty. Note the color and the look compared to the rest of the coin. It was messed with.

 

Doesn't look cleaned to me. Uneven toning can be due to how it was stored. Remember. This coin is 156 yrs old

 

Keep in mind that the TPGs differentiate Cleaning with Improper Cleaning. They would definitely hit it with IC if there were noticeable hairlines as a result from the cleaning. In my series (copper) you can get hit with the "cleaned" designation if you put some additive on the coin (like CARE or Blue Ribbon). Even though these products have been used for years, protect the surfaces, and don’t alter a coins color, they are technically a no-no in slabs.

 

It definitely looks dipped to me. The areas in red are too flat compared to the areas around the stars.

 

Do you think the 1878 was dipped as well? I see the same tone variations on that coin (more so, as I see it).

 

I was thinking that the darker area on the obverse of the 1859 was the giveaway (chemical residue reacting over time?) - but maybe not.

 

On the 1858, are the halos around the stars (particularly #s 11, 12, & 13) indicative of cleaning, or should they be somewhat lighter since they are raised and somewhat protect that area of the field?

 

Yes, I think the 1878 was probably cleaned and has retoned. The toning looks like secondary toning and the cleaning could very possibly have been done very long ago.

 

Not necessarily. You will see this effect on many AU and XF coins. Even though the images blow up quite large, lighting can play a big part in determining surface condition of a coin from photos. There may be hairlines over the devices that we aren't seeing.

 

When I look at the areas in green the toning looks better (distribution) and the surface does not look as flat like they do in the areas of the other coin I pointed too. The coin may have been dipped but not for as long or as strong of a solution. It was done in a more acceptable manner IMO and that of PCGS.

 

Enjoying this thread. Educational.

 

Kinda depends on what type of cleaning was applied, and the idiosyncrasies of this specific lighting setup used on this specific coin. Just because the images don't show obvious evidence of cleaning doesn't mean that evidence isn't there. Me, I'm not sure of the originality of either, although the coin in the righteous slab has obviously been at the toning process for far longer.

 

Remember - the grader had the raw coin in hand and can rock and rotate it - which will show things that no amount of looking at a static image will show.

 

A belated thank you to all who offered their opinions. I know I am still negotiating that learning curve, but thanks to you all I am further on my way.

 

I actually like the 1859 more. It's still a really nice looking coin.

 

Harshly cleaned on the 59' ? I don't think so. Probably dipped, but no rub that I can see.

 

How much value is lost on average when a coin is cleaned? Does it matter what they cleaned it with? I'm fairly new to coin collecting. I'm collecting morgan"s. If their not cleaned, what don't you see?, if that makes sense.