Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;dougsmit, post: 3105901, member: 19463&quot;]I believe we differ on the term &#039;altered surfaces&#039;.&nbsp; The standards for 1794 US cents which are expected to have spent 200 years in a sock drawer are different than those for ancient bronzes that do not exist uncleaned.&nbsp; All ancient coins have been cleaned.&nbsp; Those with an inch of dirt used to have two inches.&nbsp; We judge based on how well they were cleaned not <i>that</i> they wee cleaned.&nbsp; Certainly we do discriminate against coins that have been poorly cleaned or overcleaned and certainly reject coins that have been tooled to enhance detail or add detail that never was there in the first place.&nbsp; The seller you used has a variety of degrees of processing but I have seen worse.&nbsp; Part of the problem might be the photography.&nbsp; Modern collectors might be shocked that every ancient does not start the description with a &#039;details&#039; grade but I guarantee there are other VCoins dealers whose surfaces are a lot more non-original.&nbsp; By standards of your 1794 cent, ancients would be more akin with coins found by metal detectorists than hose found in drawers or attics. You might enjoy the past Coin Talk discussions about the coins with &#039;sand patina&#039; or other forms of added enhancements that are way past polishing.&nbsp; I don&#039;t see this coin as uncollectable (but I would not have paid the price either).&nbsp; What specifically was done to this coin&#039;s surface that you see as making it look fake?&nbsp; Does it show in the photo or did you buy it having seen the photo and thinking it was different?[/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