GTG: 1871 Seated Dollar

Not crazy about the seller's photographic skills, but have a look:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

AU details or maybe xf. It definitely looks cleaned to me.

 

Yup what he said...Au cleaned

 

What about it says "cleaned"? The color?

 

It's not necessarily the color, but the surface. It's too 'smooth' and even across the fields and devices.

 

There is absolutely no luster on the coin and all of the scratches are the same color as the rest of the field as well as the recesses.

 

Not everyone is a great numismatic photographer and the lackluster images may very well be due to lighting. What should not be debatable, however, is that the coin definitely appears to have had its skin removed. I run away from these coins like heck and they can sometimes be tough to grade because they look so different than how I am accustomed to them. It looks like an AU coin to me.

 

Looks AU but dipped to death, possibly cleaned as well. Not a nice example and the sort of coin I bought raw off ebay in my early collecting days. For example:



This one has retoned a bit since I put it in an envelope and left it in an oak desk. It will never have nice skin, though.

 

Au 50 but dipped may have graded clean but not a surface I care for

 

Here is one on eBay that I think has a much nicer look to it: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1871-1-Libe...94?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item19f97c33be

 

AU details. Looks cleaned/polished. Like others have said, the surfaces look too smooth and shiny.

 

Sorry to say that it looks cleaned/whizzed. I'd suggest going with ksparrow's suggestion. Good luck!

 

I'll just add that with the possible exception of Trade Dollars, Seated Dollars are about the most frequently messed-with of mid to late 19th century coins. Chances are that any raw example that looks XF or higher has had something done to it. Speaking from experience (see above!) I would stick to pcgs/ngc certified specimens. Happy hunting!

 

I second that opinion. Not as many fakes as trades but there out there but so many cleaned altered surface whizzed or damaged coins. The ones that corculated got hard use and they often weren't treated well by future owners either

 

The coin has the meat of an AU piece. It looks like it has been cleaned to me, but I cannot rule out the possibility that the images do not adequately show the coin's luster. At best, the piece looks dipped out.

 

I agree with your comments regarding the luster; however, I question the diagnostic value of the last part. The last part would also seemingly be true of a freshly dipped piece.

 

I think you are confusing whizzing with cleaning. Smoothness of the fields would suggest significant movement of metal which is something associated with whizzing more so than cleaning.

 

Maybe a freshly IMPROPERLY dipped coin. i.e. a cleaned coin. And once improperly cleaned, it will retain those features for a long time if not for the life of the coin. If you don't believe me, here is a properly dipped coin https://www.cointalk.com/threads/1892-cc-on-the-way-to-pcgs-grade.239144/#post-1821527

 

I like to look at sellers other coins he might have for sale. It looks like he does know how to take pics that show the coins surfaces, possibly when it's to his benefit. I'd pass on this one.
BTW, the seller having a PNG logo, in my experience, doesn't necessarily mean a problem coin will be described as such.

 

Although some may colloquially use the terms interchangeably, as the term is widely used and has been accepted in the numismatic community, the processes are distinct. Dipping refers to the use of an acidic solution to remove a thin layer of metal on the coin's surface. When done properly it, the luster should survive and in most cases, the results should be market acceptable. Improper dipping typically results either from improper rinsing (leaving a film or residue that typically turns a brownish color) or overdipping (also known as a coin having been "dipped out") to the point that the coin is stripped of luster. In that context, typically the resulting impairment of luster is usually different between cleaning (often a dull, dark look) and dipping (often just stripped, completely lifeless, white looking), although in some cases I agree there could be ambiguity in a limited number of cases where there is no evidence of mechanical damage (i.e. wiping or other hairlines from the cleaning).

With regards to your initial post, I may very well be misinterpreting what you wrote. I understood you to say that the lack of patina in the recesses/contact marks and the rest of the fields is dispositive of cleaning. I disagree. If a coin was never acquired a patina (less likely here but included for completeness) or if a coin was dipped so as to remove the silver oxide (i.e. toning) from the surface of the coin, then the marks would similarly be devoid of color. A properly dipped coin will appear blast white, as the coin you linked shows. I have no problem with calling it a properly dipped piece. My point is that it is the luster and not the coloration necessarily that is dispositive. A coin without a patina may very well have been cleaned, but it could have also been altered by other means.