Discussion in 'Ancient Coins' started by Kentucky, Nov 22, 2019.
Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.
It's not so appealing on a 127-year-old US Indian cent - mostly because of general collector consensus - but that sort of patina would not likely be considered such a negative attribute on an ancient bronze coin.
this ancient has.) I believe it is just the sort appreciated by collectors of ancient bronze. (And post-1864 Indian cents are, of course, bronze.)
Most US coin collectors would view such patina negatively but I find it appealing- at least on a dug relic coin, when there's not too much porosity present.
And since most ancients come to us as a result of having been dug relics at some point, I guess it's par for the course.
That 1892 cent spent some time in the ground. You could call it "environmental damage" or "patina". Or both, in this case. Either way, for better or worse, it's history.
..i think he/she/they/it meant 'before cleaning'..
I know, but before "cleaning" (soaking in some baking soda solution and toothbrushing) it looked the same, just dirtier. The green didn't show as well as it did in-hand.
Separate names with a comma.