Define a “cleaned” coin

I think this would be an interesting discussion. What are your definitions for a “cleaned” coin? Are there different levels of a “cleaning?” Should other terms be used? What makes a coin “cleaned?” At what point does the coin become damaged? Etc.

Several of us have different definitions. I know that several of us have differing opinions, so I look forward to the debate.


My definitions:

A coin has been “cleaned” when any material has been intentionally removed from the coin. Thhis includes both a harmless acetone dip and vigoroous scrubbing with steel wool.

A coin has been “dipped” when a coin was immersed into a chemical agent to remove material from the surface.

A coin has been “overdipped” when the chemical agent has removed enough of the metal on the surface to give the coin an annatural appearance. Usually, the mint luster has been chemically stripped, giving the coin a dull, lifeless appearance. Any coin below AU-55 that has been dipped is automatically included in this category.

A coin has been “abrasively cleaned” when an abrasive has been used to srape away some contaminants or the top layer of metal. An abrasive can be anything from your finger to sandpaper. Hairlines will be left from the process.

A “harshly-cleaned” coin is a subcategory of “abrasively cleaned” where the abrasive used or the scrubbing done has left severe hairlining.

A coin is “polished” when a chemical agent or cleaning tool is used to make the coin uniformly shiny.

A coin is “whizzed” when a tool (usually a high-RMP rotational tool like a Dremel) is used to alter the surface to give a coin a fully-lustrous appearance.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I wish that the preeminent TPG would send a simple slip of definition when they return a coin which was recently removed from a competitive TPG slab stating 1902 S $20 MS62, now arriving as a non-grade definition of AU DETAILS CLEANED. A coin without perceivable wear, having nice cartwheel luster in fields without any hairlines or shadows around devices. It seems to have the original "skin" with signs of environmental accumulation that a 116 year old entity would have, with few bag marks or abrasion.

It appears that "CLEANED" is a mysterious definition for a bad days inspection, which has been seen from both premier TPG when doing a raw "cross-over" determination. Just another coin to be sold at close to spot, which will probably be removed from slab, dipped, and sold as raw "treasure".

I believe that "CLEANED" is a term utilized to define a coin which has an uneven dispersion of environmental accumulations on its surface, relative to that expected by an experienced inspection, having nothing to do with unnatural handling.

I've a proprietary process for removal of minor surface accumulated contaminates without any chemicals or mechanical contact, not altering the natural coin surface. It produces a beautiful pristine restoration, but inspectors believingly expect to see a uniform surface accumulation of environmental effects. I DON'T USE THAT PROCESS ON COINS SENT TO TPG FOR RESALE, AS IT WOULD BIAS THE EVALUATION OF THE DIFFERENT TPG WHO ESPOUSE SIMILAR CAPABILITIES. IT IS USED FOR MY PERSONAL COLLECTION, AS I HATE SEEING GEM GRADED COINS WITH UNNATURAL APPEARANCE FOR THE GRADE. Handling, storage, effects often produce an appearance of "CLEANING/TONING" that aren't easily explained.

JMHO

 

I agree with ToughCOINS.

 

Too broad, I think; this would cover things like tooling and plugging holes, and I can't think of those as "cleaning".

I'm with OP's first definition: a coin has been cleaned if foreign material has been removed from its surface. I almost have to say "intentionally", but "intention" is a tar-pit.

Dipping? That's cleaning -- you're removing oxide/sulfide from the surface. But that also removes some of the coin's surface, and eventually that trashes the coin.

Whizzing? Not (just) cleaning, IMHO, because the goal isn't just removing stuff, but reshaping the surface that's left. It has more in common with tooling.

Improper cleaning, the kind that makes a coin ungradeable, is "cleaning that leaves traces potential graders can't ignore". It's inherently subjective, but that's what we're stuck with in today's grading environment.

 

Very interesting thread to me and I am responding primarily so I can get alerts when the thread is responded to.

In fifty years of collecting I have never altered the appearance of a coin. And I do have a few pieces that are hideously unappealing that I could justify in my mind cleaning. But I won’t because to me it is an irresponsible act for future benefactors of my coins.

And to define the act, I am in agreement that any act that alters a coins appearance is inclusive. I would even go so far as to include phony toning.

 

It does not have to just be foreign material. It can be any material on the coin. I can clean a coin that came right out of a mint-sealed package that has no foreign material on it.

I agree. What if you accidentally spill EZest on your collection? Not intentional, but all of the coins will have been “cleaned.”

That was a grey area I was aware of when posting. Someone could “clean” a coin using a Dremel tool with the intentions of just cleaning it, the result of which is a whizzed coin. Thus I include it in my definitions.

This is key. How far do you go to say it is improper? Where I draw the line line is if I can tell for sure that the surface is not original. No market-acceptable crap.

The grey area is where the probability of the coin being dipped is extremely high (blast white MS-63 Bust Dollar, for example), but I can’t say with 100% certainty that it was not stored in an environement that did not allow toning to happen.

 

I guess my definition should also include “being removed from the surface.” As it sits, it can also include holes and the like.

But it would still encompass engraving and carving. How to exclude those...

 

I guess I was not clear. I originally meant that “dipping” is a subset of “cleaning”.

 

Nor was I; I was agreeing with you completely on that point.

 

No, now it's too narrow!

"Oops I splashed beer on my coin, I'll rinse it off" -- that's cleaning, but there was no chemically induced change. (Unless you're saying "all normal macroscopic matter is chemical in nature", in which case I'll shake your hand, congratulate you on joining me in the Science Pedants Club, and remind you that most people get annoyed with us when we do that.)

 

It's probably impossible to determine where "too far" is without seeing the coin before cleaning. If a coin was well on it's way to irrevocable environmental damage, is there a too far? At a certain point a coin has been undeniably cleaned one way or another, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is worse off than before the cleaning.

 

I'm not sure what to think about this statement.

If there's non-coin material on the coin, it's "foreign material", whether it got stuck there in the press, in the packaging room, or on the bottom of somebody's shoe a century later.

If my definition implies that removing a coin from its Mint cellophane is "cleaning", it means my definition needs more work.

But you can rinse a coin in distilled water or acetone, or blow air across it, or dip it in EZEst, or scrub it with a toothbrush, even if there was no foreign matter on it. That's still cleaning, even though you DIDN'T remove any foreign material from the coin. So I guess my definition won't work. It would work if I added something about intent, I guess, but then we're back to being fuzzy and subjective.

It's much too nice a day outside for this level of philosophy, though, so I should back away from the keyboard...

 

Yes, if it looks unnatural after the cleaning. But would it be better off or market acceptable after the cleaning? That can only be answered on a case-by-case basis.

That is what I meant.

So dipping a coin in acetone and letting organic materials not chemically bonded to the coin dissolve should be considered a “rinse” rather than a “dip,” and thus not be considered “cleaning?”

 

And I think that's where we'll have to agree to disagree. In this instance, water is a solvent, no more no less. (Okay, a bit more -- it's also a mechanical tool, dislodging stuff by physical force.)

 

I believe you've simply argued my case that the majority of coins have been cleaned. Many as when using Acetone without any mechanical contact that haven't generated an adverse conditioning of the coin.

I believe it can be proven that the finest rubbing of a coins surface by man-made fibers, as with a gloved hand can alter the surface of a coin.

I've experimented with various atmospheres, materials, patterns, pressures to ascertain that normal handling of "coins" can alter a the surface. The normal handling process can produce abnormalities as "hairline" scratches, prints. Effects that are seen on many coins, described as "bag rub", "toning", "scratching", "coin-clash". Some in this venue have complained these alterations as being intentional/accidental by TPG processing.

If surface alterations aren't in a pattern conducive to appearance improvement, it may/should be argued natural.

To prove a point, because of an arbitrary declaration by TPG, valuable coins receiving a cleaned statement were posted on this site at virtually melt value, without response. I documented when one of the coins was resubmitted to opposition it received a grade significantly different, increasing the stated value several thousand dollars

A check list for cleaning justification/declaration would be quite simple, generally allowing less ramification than a grade change.

JMHO