Has my coin been cleaned?

An absence of flow lines is not indicative of cleaning. Coins struck with newly manufactured dies had no flow lines on them.

Flow lines were imparted upon the planchet by negative topography in the dies, resulting from radial erosion of the dies as material flowed toward the rim from the center of the prior coins struck with those dies.

As for evidence of cleaning, it can sometimes be difficult to discern between normal wear and cleaning, but not often. Conclusive evidence usually comes not from the areas where one first focuses on what doesn't look right, but on other important, yet seemingly unrelated traits.

One obvious example would be a coin with AU detail, and absolutely no luster whatsoever . . . most definitely a victim of cleaning, whether chemical or abrasive.

A more subtle example might be a coin exhibiting more substantial removal of material from the coin's lower lying fields than from its high points . . . usually by a coin doctor trying to remove signs of spotting / corrosion in isolated areas while attempting to preserve relief, and connote a higher grade. I don't see this often, but such coins are out there.

There are many other signs of cleaning, best learned through observation.

 

What you're saying is true Mike, but I believe the reason some people don't grasp that concept is because the word "cleaned" is used incorrectly most of the time. They used the word cleaned when what they really mean is harshly cleaned. What you're talking about and describing is the difference between cleaned and harshly cleaned. Two entirely different things.

A cleaned coin shows no visible evidence of damage or alteration

A harshly cleaned coin does show visible evidence of damage or alteration.

If people would use that terminology correctly, no one would ever have a problem grasping the concept.

 

This is not true, all struck coins, including those struck with fresh new dies, have flow lines on them. Flow lines are what cause and create the luster of a coin, so if there were no flow lines there would be no luster. And since coins struck with new dies do have luster, then obviously they have flow lines.

But again the problem with your comment Mike is one of using the wrong terminology. And this is where you describe it.

What you're describing here are wear lines in the die, also known as die erosion. Wear lines in the die are caused and created by the repeated metal flow of the planchets across the face of the die. The two terms that are often used incorrectly are "flow lines" and "wear lines". They are two very different things, and in point of fact the one is created by the repetition of the other.

Wear lines begin immediately, with the very first coin that is struck. But it takes a while before wear lines become actually visible, detectable if you will. At first you cannot see them, can't tell that there even are any. But with each repeated striking of coins the wear lines grow ever so slightly bigger and deeper in the face of the die. And the bigger and deeper they get the more easily their effects can be seen. And eventually they can even be picked out themselves, individually.

The first visibly detectable effects of wear lines is a disruption and lessening of the luster on a coin. The highest quality of luster is present on coins struck with new dies and it is of the highest quality because of its consistency. The flow lines are all basically equal in size and depth, and it is this consistency that cause them to reflect and refract the light the way they do, producing the highest quality luster. But as wear lines begin to become visible, that consistency is disrupted, broken up if you will because the wear lines become bigger and deeper than the flow lines themselves are.

Think of it like this. If you look in a mirror you see a high quality image of yourself. That is because the silver backing on the mirror is smooth and even, consistent. And it reflects everything quite well because of that consistency. But if you were take a piece of steel wool and rub the back of that mirror with it, and then look in the mirror, the image would be somewhat distorted. And if you rubbed it again it would be even more distorted, the reflection of the light would be broken up because of the wear to the backing imparted by the steel wool.

The same kind of thing happens with coins as the wear lines on the dies get progressively worse and worse. The more wear a die has, the lower the quality of the luster on a coin will be.

Another way of looking at it is Proof coins. Some people think and might even claim that Proof coins do not have luster. But not only do Proof coins have luster, they have the highest quality of luster of all coins ! And again this cannot be disputed because metal flows on all struck coins. And if metal flows then luster is created. And it cannot be created unless metal flows. And the reason that Proof coins have the highest quality of luster is because it is the flow lines on Proof coins are the most consistent, much more so than they are on business strikes due to the additional polishing that the dies, and the planchets are given. And this is easily seen in the reflective qualities of Proof coins.

Proof coins also prove the point of wear lines in the dies disrupting and lessening the quality of luster. For the more coins that are struck with a Proof die the more the reflective quality of those coins lessens, and thus their luster lessens.

 

The problem with some people not grasping the concept as mikenoodle stated in the OP was created by people themselves - human nature if you will. We have this nasty habit of taking terminology and or phrases and shortening them, turning them into contractions just like we do with cannot when we made it can't.

Well, harshly cleaned, or improperly cleaned (which are both the exact same thing), and the original terminology, was taken and turned into a contraction, it was shortened to Just "cleaned". And as with almost all contractions, as well as other incorrect forms of word usage, in our language the more they are used the more they become accepted. And over the years far, far more people used the term "cleaned" when what they really meant was harshly or improperly cleaned. And it really is just that simple as to how it happened.

The problem is there is and always was another original term - which was also cleaned, and it has entirely different meaning. So gradually because so many people used the contraction, confusion was created among those who did not really understand the difference between the two terms. Somebody could say cleaned, and somebody else could say cleaned but yet they were both talking about two entirely different things.

It's another example of the law of unintended consequences. Because people are lazy, or as a matter of convenience if you prefer to think of it that way because you makes you feel better, shortening the correct term and using its contraction created the entire issue that never existed in the beginning.

edit -

And the same kind of thing happens or has already happened when other terminology is used incorrectly in numismatics. Numismatics has its own very specific meanings that apply to some terms and or phrases that are quite different than what those same terms or phrases mean in other aspects of life. So it is all to easy to make people think you mean one thing when you use a term incorrectly or use the wrong term, when you actually mean something entirely different. And the more they are used incorrectly, the more other people who hear you say it or write it will also begin to use it incorrectly. That is why it is so very, very important that terminology be used correctly at all times.