Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;eddiespin, post: 1916066, member: 4920&quot;]OK, this is from my 1965 Redbook. From Page 2: &quot;IMPORTANT: Coins in any condition with defects, such as those which are bent, corroded, scratched, holed, nicked, stained, oxidized, mutilated, or have other imperfections are worth less than if free of these defects.&quot; From Page 60: &quot;Collectors should beware of coins which have been buffed to look like&nbsp; proofs and should use a magnifying glass. Buffed coins have myriad hairlines and lack perfect detail.&quot; And you mean to tell me it was acceptable practice among collectors to harshly clean and polish their coins back then? I think you may have been reading the accepted practices on holiday silverware, Doug. The first thing I learned as a collector was you don&#039;t clean coins because you destroy the luster. The Smithsonian? Get real. There&#039;s polished antiques and polished furniture all over in that museum! That&#039;s not for collectors, it&#039;s for tourists. We had kids in our coin club who could spot dipped coins an arm&#039;s-length away, they were that nitpicking. Today, I&#039;ll grant you, the word gets out quicker. But while the novices of today are more knowledgable than the novices of yesterday, they&#039;re still novices, and a lot of them, still, don&#039;t know better. Did QDB recommend back then that collectors harshly clean and polish coins? Who recommended that? You&#039;ll have to show me where you&#039;re reading that. It&#039;s like something I&#039;d expect to read in a comic book. All that 1965 Redbook talks about is luster in the higher grade coins. Why would any collector want to destroy that? Show me one example, I&#039;m easy. If it&#039;s credible, I&#039;m sold.[/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