"Conserving" vs. "Cleaning" - Do I Have It Right?

Based on a recent post I find I need to get a definitive answer to the
"Conserving" verses "Cleaning" coins topic.

My DEFINITIONS:
-- "Conserving" is a positive. It only interacts with debris on a coin's surface.
-- "Cleaning" is a negative. It works on the results of the interaction of the coining metal and environmental conditions (such as oxidation).

As I understand it, "conserving" a coin does not alter a coin's surfaces.
It will just remove extraneous debris.
Acetone dips fit in this category.

On the other hand, as I understand it, "cleaning" will alter a coin's surfaces.
Verdicare fits in this category.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That's close, but not identical, to my definition. To me:

"Conserving" is a positive, because it removes debris or contaminants that obscure a coin's true surface, and often protects the coin from further damage.

"Improper cleaning" disturbs the coin's surface -- it removes or distorts metal.

"Cleaning" can be conservation, or can be improper.

A dip (to remove ugly toning) can count as conservation, even though part of what it's removing was originally coin metal. If you want to call that "damage", okay, but the "damage" happened during the toning process.

I do NOT consider using VerdiCare to be improper cleaning. It removes a substance that hides the coin's surface, and potentially protects against further damage. It certainly doesn't undo the damage verdigris has already done, but it doesn't cause any further damage itself.

VerdiCare also leaves something behind on the coin. I'm of two minds about this, but (a) that layer doesn't further attack the coin's surface, (b) it doesn't obscure the coin's surface, and (c) it's easy enough to remove later (as I understand it).

 

I think those are reasonable definitions. I have never left a coin in Verdicare to see if it affects the coin's surface, but long enough to neutralize the organic activity. So undecided if that shifts from conserving to cleaning. MS70 seems to fit your cleaning definition...yet I hear that it's an acceptable solution for conservation and the TPG's won't gig folks for it. Not sure that is the case either, but seems like acetone and DI water are the conservative tools to use.

Our fellow Ancient's Collectors might have some wisdom to share.

 

Ah...Jeff chimed in during the writing. Yes...that seems to align with my understanding of Verdicare.

 

Personal definitions are fine as long as you understand that:

CONSERVATION IS some form of CLEANING!!! No exceptions.

The only difference is if the cleaning (conservation) was done in such a way that the coin was preserved with acceptable eye appeal and originality.

Now I'll wait for some to point out that putting a raw coin into a container to protect it is also a form of conservation....which it is.

 

Putting a raw coin into a container to protect it is also a form of conservation.

YW.

 

I have Verdicare, I was on a waiting list and picked up a bottle from Wizard, but I'm still afraid to use it, lol. Not sure how actually. I did soak an SLQ in acetone overnight once. That was kind of neat. I then submitted it and it came back straight graded, so that was a relief.

 

If you can tell something was done to the coin, that is "cleaning" (i.e. harsh cleaning) if you can't tell, that's "conservation".

 

Why?

 

Simply put. Bravo!

 

.

You know, now that I think about it, I don't know. Maybe it is the Tupperware.

 

"Conserved" = you did it right.
"Cleaned" = you did it wrong.

 

I like the "Improper" descriptor.
Many (mostly older) coins have been cleaned but are allowed to re-tone and thus get a straight grade.
The "Improper" descriptor is generally used when abrasive cleaning was involved.

 

I'm pretty sure you don't use acetone on Zinc, maybe I'm wrong though.

 

I've seen people here say that they've used acetone on zinc coins without problems. But I've seen lots of people say they've used it on copper without problems, and that turns into a circus, the people who've seen problems arguing with those who say it can't possibly cause problems unless you do something perverse.

 

To clean or not to clean that is the question! NO

 

Accurate, concise and clear.

 

Sounds like, if you ran a stop and got caught, you ran a stop...if you didn't get caught, you didn't run a stop...

 

Close. In both cases you ran the stop sign. In both cases the coin was cleaned. If you didn't get caught or the cleaning goes undetected you are a winner. As long as you didn't have an accident after running the stop sign.