Coin Cleaning: The Statute of Limitations

On several occasions, I've seen CT members and TPGs give a non-Details grade to a coin that was admittedly cleaned. The rationale for this forgiveness appears to be that the offense occurred "a long time ago." If this is indeed a valid reason for a Details waiver, what exactly is the qualifying "long time ago" criterion/cutoff?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Interesting question..... I bet you get a myriad of answers. For me, if the coin has been cleaned to a point that the luster has been eliminated, that is too much. Coins cleaned long enough ago to have "skinned" back over (I don't know how else to describe that).... I will take it. The coin in my avatar is 144 years old. Unquestionably that coin has been cleaned as it has absolutely zero tarnish. But it also retains full luster. I think it is the most beautiful coin that I own and it has a straight grade...... Very old coins that have been cleaned tend to skin or heal over and that is a decades long process. Once they reach that point I think they become market acceptable. Anyway, that's my take on it.

 

Moving goal line. No cutoff. Early US coins, especially 18th century issues, have always gotten more of a pass than later coins.

 

When you're selling to dealers, there is no forgiveness. I brokered an Indian head cent collection I posted about a while ago, and every dealer I took the coins to would pay considerably less than the coins were worth in uncleaned condition (even though they looked to be cleaned/dipped a long time ago.)

 

The Market asked often and loudly and unapologetically for same, and the Market was accommodated. The rationale was and is $.

 

No statute of limitations on coin cleaning. A cleaned coin is a forever cleaned coin. Sometimes, TPGs will straight grade a cleaned coin that was not particularly damaged by cleaning. That is essentially market grading, as nobody can “unclean” a cleaned coin.

 

Yeah but. Tell me all 1796 quarters and flowing hair halves and dollars straight graded do not have cleaning marks. The TPG simply overlooks certain dates and issues much more than others.

For Morgans you are correct, even though I would say a 93 S or an 89 CC might get more of a pass than something like a 81 S.

 

Doug, I think they were referring to improperly cleaned coins, not carefully dipped ones.

 

A life in being and 21 years. We borrowed it from the Rule Against Perpetuities, since the states aren't using that rule, anymore, under the theory, why let a good rule go to waste?

Another way to put it is, ask a silly question, get a silly answer. I mean, seriously, who seriously believes there's some mysterious, elusive "criterion/cut-off" that somehow can be mechanistically-applied? And further, understand this. No collector in their right mind gives a crap whether some other collector thinks a coin was "cleaned." Collectors who are smart look to the degree of surface-compromise, without regard to "why"--not to some edited, emotionally-charged label--in evaluating their coins. I'm sorry to inform you all, that's the way it is. Good idea to get on board with it, dropping the relentless inquisition into a label for opening your eyes and articulating what's going on in the coin. Get good at that, and it won't hurt you none.

 

That was heavy fast eddie...

 

And all this time, I thought Mister Ed had the best horse vocabulary.

 

Get used to it, you humans. This animal is just full of surprises.

 

@spirityoda do you realize that you have committed a serious offense?

You could be banned for what you did!


You gave Doug a like!

 

If there was an agree button I may consider hitting it.

As is, I ain't gonna hit a like.

 

I'm sure someone in the Pacific Rim area is working on that very issue, how to impart luster to a coin.

 

Once you consider medieval and ancient coins, cleaned versus uncleaned ceases to have much meaning. I have always presumed most centuries or millennia old coins have had some cleaning. The question is whether the cleaning is aesthetically objectionable, which to me usually means overly zealous cleaning, where the surface is scoured, scratched, or chemically planed off to the bare metal. Here are four examples, all of which have been in my collection for twenty years or more. I have little doubt they were all previously cleaned. The drachm of Mithradates II is in an awkward stage of retoning after an incomplete removal of tarnish. I find the obverse patchy tarnish distracts from an otherwise superb coin.

The Republican denarius has a bit of honest wear, and honest toning which sets off the devices. Very acceptable.

The next denarius has what I would term “cabinet toning” which to me implies the appearance of a coin which has been reposing in a collection for decades or longer, as indeed this coin has. This is a highly desired state. Cleaning or dipping this coin would be an abomination.

Last is an antoninianus which has beautiful details but looks to have been soaked in lemon juice. Every molecule of tarnish is gone. It could have been struck yesterday. I think this coin will be more beautiful in a hundred years when some natural color has returned.

 

Virtually all ancient coins have been cleaned mechanically and chemically. To see how they look coming out of the ground, see the pic. This is a pot hoard of ancient Roman silver denarii found in the UK. They look a little different here than the ancient coins in dealers’ trays and catalogs.

Cal

 

One of your best posts ever, Doug. Most collectors do not even know that the vast majority of 19th century bright, shiny coins have been dipped, and it can be done properly, without lasting damage to the coin.