Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;imrich, post: 2780994, member: 22331&quot;]As previously stated, I believe the term cleaned is subjective, possibly unrelated to a physical action, but occasionally an unsupported declaration.</p><p><br /></p><p>I believe you&#039;ll find that oxidization is a natural metamorphic process, generated without the presence of a &quot;foreign&quot; agent/substance. If a proprietary process could reverse/neutralize this perceived deteriorative evolution without contact to the object, would this be cleaning, meeting your stated definition?</p><p><br /></p><p>This process is possible. Would application of the process be titled/claimed as cleaning, restoration, conservation....?</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;ve observed the process to a TPG PL defined object being resubmitted, returned without any apparent surface disturbance, defined as &quot;harshly cleaned&quot;.</p><p><br /></p><p>I now have TPG designated high-grade Gold objects being resubmitted. My representative received a notice of residue on surfaces. I authorized processing of the &quot;residue&quot; previously unnoticed when originally encapsulated. Should the objects be designated as &quot;cleaned&quot;, when generating a residue while &quot;slabbed&quot;, if the surfaces aren&#039;t physically contacted for neutralization? If I&#039;d implemented the &quot;restorative&quot; process to induce a semi-pristine state, would the condition declaration be identical?</p><p><br /></p><p>I believe not, as may the TPG.</p><p><br /></p><p>JMHO[/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