It's difficult for me to identify coins that are cleaned by looking at photos, but some of you are able to tell instantly. I guess it comes with years and years of experience collecting and examining coins. Can you tell if this coin is cleaned just from the closeup photo? So, just to clarify on the definition of cleaning from the numismatic standpoint... I've read other threads here on cleaning and I would like to better understand what that means. If "cleaned" also includes removing dirt, oils, gummy residue from circulated coins under running warm water, then I'm lost in the point of having the numismatic definition. Technically, one is cleaning a coin under water, or even rubbing dirt off with your hands, but I don't see it "harming" or taking away from the natural characteristics of the coin. I can see harsh physical cleaning as "cleaning", e.g. scrubbing using abrasive materials like a scotchbrite, which scratches the coin thus leaving a physical mark. But surface dirt removal under warm tap water... is that cleaning in the numismatic definition of cleaning? Then throw in years of circulation... where there are natural circulation and bag marks, which can make things more confusing. Though, harsh physical cleaning will have more fine and patterned scratches to differentiate it from bag marks. And, circulation marks do take away from the natural, original characteristic of the coin. But I believe the biggest differentiation is that it's expected. Is that the correct way of looking at it? Anything else to look for? And I know cartwheel luster is a sign of uncleaned coins, but that's easier to see in-person (as I'm sure all coins are easier to diagnose in-person). Also, acid solutions etching into the coin, such as hydrogen peroxide with vinegar, are easy to tell as well. Thanks in advance and I appreciate your patience in this long write-up.
Cleaning as in using chemicals/solvents or abrasive materials that leave visible signs on the coin. In that sense, the coin you posted has not had a "cleaning".
iPen - The issue you are discussing is one that I have written about for years on this forum. But it does no good for the misuse of the terminology is apparently ingrained into the minds of many of those who participate in the hobby. The issue is this - many, if not most, use the term, (and use it incorrectly), "cleaned" when what they really mean is "harshly cleaned". There is nothing wrong with cleaning, cleaning is not harmful to coins. There is something wrong with harsh cleaning, and harsh cleaning is harmful to coins. That's really all there is to it.
Numismatically, what most people mean by a cleaned coin is IMPROPERLY cleaned. A properly cleaned coin will have no trace it was ever cleaned. An improperly cleaned one will have scratches or other evidence of cleaning. That 64 does not look cleaned. However, the exact same coin if it were a 1818 capped bust half would at least at first glance be expected to be cleaned. Why? Because its almost impossible to keep silver from toning that long. Upon further inspection, its almost assured the 1818 would show cleaning scratches.
OK, it's simpler than I thought. Improper / harshly cleaned coins is numismatically cleaned by definition. It was just confusing when people started discussing the literal dictionary definition of cleaning on the web.
It shouldn't be that way sir. Numismatists should properly use the term improperly cleaned, but life being like it is, many just use the term cleaned as a shortcut for meaning improperly cleaned. I have cleaned coins for years, but I was shown how to properly clean coins. Please, no one ever clean a coin until you can learn to do it properly.
Hard to tell from the pic, but my guess is that's it has been cleaned. There appear to be signs of surface pitting, particularly in the lower left quadrant out and below the nose. If it is pitting, then I think it had to be cleaned to show as brightly as it does. (but what do I know... )
