Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;imrich, post: 1348144, member: 22331&quot;]<b>Uninformed In Past</b></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><b>Doug, I now stand informed. I&#039;ve never seen the clarifiers, but merely &quot;cleaned&quot;. I would think it relatively simple to identify as: </b> 92|N-2 Damage, or&nbsp; 94|N-4 Altered <b>, which would avoid the hostile conversations concerning the word which is not definitive. </b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>Both of the conditions outlined literally are not cleaning as </b><b>authoritatively</b> <b>defined (</b>Free (remove) foreign matter or pollution<b>), </b><b>but conditions of surface alteration. I believe most objective individuals, including myself would be appalled </b><b>by the aforementioned treatment to a Numismatic piece. </b></p><p><b><br /></b></p><p><b>I&#039;ve generally hardly seen harsh alterations with a loupe when viewing the surfaces of coins labeled &quot;cleaned&quot;, so I suspect the general definition of harsh is microscopic alteration. I would expect that harsh alteration would preclude acceptable grading by another TPG. But then again, I suspect that acceptable alteration may be of micron level for some, while at a mil level for others.</b></p><p><b>Thanks for the enlightenment. Rich </b>:hail:[/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