Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="GDJMSP, post: 1162040, member: 112"]Hmmmm - semantics maybe, but if you took one of those black coins the OP is talking about and used a coin dip on it would you call that cleaning ? Some would say it is cleaning and some would say it is not, but then that's the problem with using the word "cleaning". Now there are really 2 possible scenarios here. You could take one of those black '41 Walkers the OP mentions and dip the coin. The dip will remove the heavy black toning, but you don't know what you will find under that black toning until you do it. In case #1 you might find a coin where the toning has eaten away all of the luster and you end up with a coin that is worth little more than melt. In case #2 you might find a coin that has substantially all of its original mint luster, very few contact marks and one that will grade MS65 or better - thus a coin that is worth anywhere from a few hundred to over a thousand dollars. Now in both cases it's pretty hard to argue that you did not "clean" the coin because you absolutely did "clean" it. But in neither case was it the "cleaning" itself that was the problem, nor was it the "cleaning" that reduced the value of the coin. The "cleaning" merely revealed was under that heavy black toning. The damage that was done, or the damage that was not done depending on the outcome, occurred long before the "cleaning" ever took place. The "cleaning" did no harm whatsoever to the coin. It merely revealed the harm that was already there in case #1. That's the problem with using the word cleaning to mean 2 entirely different things. There is cleaning - which does no harm whatsoever to a coin. And there is harsh cleaning - which does harm the coin every single time. So, SilverBlue - to answer your question, you don't know, you can't know what you have or don't have unless you "clean" the coins.[/QUOTE]

Create my FREE Account!

Log in or Sign up

Reply to Thread

Useful Searches