Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="GDJMSP, post: 8231559, member: 112"]It can be very difficult at times to tell if a coin has been harshly/improperly cleaned when all you have to go by is pictures. That's because pictures, any pictures, can be way beyond deceiving. If you change the angle just a tiny bit or change the angle of the lighting just a tiny bit you can often see things that appear to be day and night different. It is less difficult when judging a coin in hand, but even then it can still be hard to tell if a coin has been harshly/improperly cleaned. Especially if it was an old harsh/improper cleaning and the coin has toned or re-toned. As stated by others, being able to detect harsh/improper cleaning is one of those things that one can only learn with extensive experience. Oh there are times when it's downright easy. But there are far, far more when it's beyond difficult. As for these two coins, I'm gonna have to go the opposite way here. The 1914 looks fine to me and 1909 looks to have been harshly/improperly cleaned, particularly the right hand fields. You can see traces of it elsewhere on the coin but in that area they stand out. And the lines, scrapes, scratches - whatever you wanna call them - appear to be too evenly spaced, all running the same direction, and covering too much area for them to have occurred in the course of normal circulation. My opinion of course, but that's what was asked for.[/QUOTE]