Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Hrefn, post: 7779766, member: 115171&quot;]Once you consider medieval and ancient coins, cleaned versus uncleaned ceases to have much meaning.&nbsp; I have always presumed most centuries or millennia old coins have had some cleaning.&nbsp; 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. [ATTACH=full]1334636[/ATTACH][ATTACH=full]1334637[/ATTACH]&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Here are four examples, all of which have been in my collection for twenty years or more.&nbsp; I have little doubt they were all previously cleaned.&nbsp; The drachm of Mithradates II is in an awkward stage of retoning after an incomplete removal of tarnish.&nbsp; I find the obverse patchy tarnish distracts from an otherwise superb coin.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>The Republican denarius has a bit of honest wear, and honest toning which sets off the devices.&nbsp; Very acceptable.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.&nbsp; This is a highly desired state.&nbsp; Cleaning or dipping this coin would be an abomination.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p>Last is an antoninianus which has beautiful details but looks to have been soaked in lemon juice.&nbsp; Every molecule of tarnish is gone.&nbsp; It could have been struck yesterday.&nbsp; I think this coin will be more beautiful in a hundred years when some natural color has returned.[/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