Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;ToughCOINS, post: 1950946, member: 20480&quot;]I hesitatingly offer up my own take on this controversial subject . . .</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><b>Cleaning</b> is the detectable removal of some of the coin&#039;s surface in the process of removing distractions therefrom.&nbsp; Detectable being the operative word here . . . hairlining, abrasion with rubber eraser or paste, subdued luster from chemical dipping</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><b>Conservation</b> is the removal of detracting oxides and / or foreign matter upon the surfaces of a coin, without leaving detectable evidence of their removal.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Technically, I view both as cleaning, but I agree that some specimens will be destroyed if not conserved.&nbsp; In most cases, where destruction is not both inevitable and impending, my preference is to leave the coin as-is.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I&#039;ve heard and read too many using the excuse that toning destroys a coin . . . nonsense.&nbsp; A coin&#039;s affinity for oxidation is never greater than immediately after stripping off the toning . . . More microns are lost to repeated dipping (let&#039;s say every 20 years) than to stripping a thick oxide layer when necessary to protect the coin (perhaps every 100 years).</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Just because a certain coin tends to oxidize rapidly, does not mean that it is right for every new owner to strip the oxide layer off, to the point that the coin is lifeless in just a few generations.&nbsp; Far better for the collecting community to repect the natural tendency, and strip it only if and when essential to prevent irreversible damage to the coin.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>- Mike[/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