Opinion Wanted...evidence of cleaning on toned silver coins

Question for the experienced collectors out there...

There's many threads out there about natural vs. artificial toning so I want to be specific and assume that the cause of the toning is already understood. My question is specifically related to silver coins with natural toning. If a coin is determined to have natural toning, is that a potential sign that the coin is less likely to have been cleaned? I'm not asking if it's concrete evidence, but rather if there is consideration for it being less likely cleaned due to the toned appearance of the coin having not been altered by a modern cleaning. If so, why? If not, why not? Furthermore, what evidence would you look for on a toned coin that has been circulated, where dings and scratches may or may not be the result of cleaning? Thanks!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Nope, not at all. A cleaned coin could have natural toning, or it could have unnatural toning. Sometimes, a doctor will clean a coin to remove ugly surface effects and then apply some artificial toning to make it look more attractive. Sometimes artificial toning will be applied to hide the evidence of cleaning.

However, when a coin is cleaned, the passive layer which had formed on the surface of the coin is removed. This makes the coin far more reactive. So, if a coin had been cleaned and then put into an envelope, it is more likely to tone than if it hadn't been cleaned. The toning is natural - toning which developed as a result of normal, accepted means of storage. But, the coin had been cleaned. Many coins with colorful patterns are the result of the coin having been cleaned and then stored in an environment which promoted natural toning.

Additionally, sometimes the chemicals used to clean the coin will accelerate the toning. Dip residue, if not properly removed from the coin, will cause certain types of toning. This is not necessarily considered "artificial toning", but neither is it accepted as appealing.

The effects of cleaning, and the effects of toning have to be considered independently. You can have cleaned coins which have toned naturally, and you can have cleaned coins which toned unnaturally. The cleaning will leave its own evidence.

Same thing as on an uncirculated coin, really. Cleaning will leave hairlines, unnaturally bright or white areas, polished areas, etc. A circulated coin which is white in the center and has colorful rings around the edges was probably cleaned and then put into an album. A circulated coin with dark centers and rainbow fields was probably original and put into an envelope by a collector decades ago.

There is no hard and fast rule.... you just develop a feel for it as you look at thousands of coins. I'm not sure I *really* answered your questions, but I hope that may help.

 

Colorful toning on circulated coin can be an indicator that they have been cleaned, especially if the surfaces have a glossy sheen and no luster. Luster on circulated coins can cause rainbow toning to occur on an otherwise grey-toned coin.

Lustrous naturally-toned coin



Naturally-toned coin with partial luster



Glossy cleaned coin with natural-process (artificially-induced) toning

 

Thank you. I think you scratched my biggest itch which was whether or not toning was a consideration. I'm going to add two pictures of two different coins that I found online. I know it's not like examining a real coin but based on your knowledge and experience, would you say that either of these coins have been cleaned from what you can see? And as long as you're looking, natural or artificial toning? And why/not? I have many thousands of coins to look at before I can see what you see, so this knowledge is very helpful.

 

Yes, both of those coins have been cleaned.

The bust half appears to have been cleaned a long time ago and then stored in an environment which promoted natural toning. If you look, this coin has the white center, exactly as I described in my post above. However, because this cleaning appears to have happened a long time ago, and the coin has regained some "skin," this is a look that some would be comfortable with. (Depending on how white the center is, less people will want it - more white, less demand)

The Morgan is a prime example of a coin which was cleaned and then mistreated. Normally, the lighter shade of orange with the blues around the rim at the bottom would indicated to me a coin which was dipped and then not rinsed properly. However, combined with the odd red/purple shades at the top, I'm led to believe that it was enhanced. This is clearly artificial toning.

 

Mmmmm, that is a gorgeous coin. Was it, perchance, stored in a cotton liner inside of a craft envelope? I'll bet it spent decades there.

(I really don't mind if you use pictures of my coins.... just please attribute them properly.... thanks)

 

Thank you! Without spending a lot of time studying these two examples, I would look and see little signs of wear and tear, and rather quickly assume UNC. Pardon my ignorance if you see something different...I'm learning by the minute. So as it relates to my discussion, how would your determination of cleaned; and, in the case of the morgan: cleaned +"enhanced toning", affect the value of a potential MS caliber coin? Maybe a better way to say it is: Would either coin be worth owning if they were rare, key date UNC's in their respective conditions? Is there collector appeal even if not rare? P.S. if you see signs of circulation in your brief analysis, I'd love to know that too. I know there's a can of worms in every detail, hopefully I'm not opening too many.

 

So many questions in one post!

As a general rule, more problems equals lower value. Cleaned reduces value, cleaned and artificially toned (AT) reduces the value even more. The amount the value is reduced depends on how bad the cleaning or AT is.

Key date coins will still be expensive, even if they have problems. Because key date coins are always in demand, certain problems are forgiven more easily. They will still sell at a discount, but not as much.

Yes, for coins like this, you will usually still find someone who wants it. It will be harder to sell, and you will have to take a steep discount from what a problem free, original, or attractive example will bring. The bust half would sell for close to a problem free coin's price because its problems aren't too bad, but the Morgan would probably sell at a pretty big discount.

Yes, both of these coins are circulated and show signs of wear.

On the bust half coin, the pictures aren't great, but wear is readily visible. This coin would probably grade AU-50. The lighting on this picture shows really bright highlights on the cheek and hair, so trying to get meaningful information here is useless (normally, wear will first appear on her cheek and the hair above her ear). However, if you cast your eyes down a bit towards her bust (for shame!)... you'll see wear on her breasts and the folds of her gown. This appears as "flattening" of the high point details. While the high points should be rounded, here they are flattened, and you can also see a subtle change in color. The highest (most rounded) parts are a different shade of grey. In photographs, that is a clear sign of wear.

For the Morgan, I would expect wear to appear on the eagle's breast. One of the reasons that coin doctors artificially tone coins like this (AU coins that they may be able to fool people into thinking are UNC), is because the toning will hide the wear. However, we look here for a very similar thing as the bust half.... a change in color. Notice how the eagle's breast has a different color? That's because the worn areas have reacted slightly differently than the unworn areas. I'd suspect that this coin is a high-AU, but the toning makes you think its UNC.

 

Ha!...I have so many questions! I'll wrap up with one last one regarding toning/cleaning. Would a cleaned/toned coin generally show similar effects on both sides of the coin? For example, on all pictures shown on this thread, is it reasonable to expect the opposite side to have similar details/effects?

 

Eh, not necessarily. Depends on the coin. If one coin was subjected to a harsh environment (end of a roll, facing out in an album, etc....), it would be more likely to be cleaned. The other side might be just fine.

Often, if someone cleans one side then you can expect they'll probably clean the other side too.... but not necessarily.

 

Thanks

 

I believe it was dipped rather than abrasively cleaned. The bright direct light drowns out the luster.

I just have it in my image library as a perfect example of the effect I was talking about. I forgot that it was your coin. Sorry.

 

Awesome thread! Great questions and superb answers/explanations. Very educational! Thanks Coindexter for your questions and thanks Physics-Fan and TypeCoin for your expertise! I have been struggling with the whole toning (NT, AT) Cleaning thing as well.....you guys always amaze me with your insight!

 

It really is a case-by-case basis as each coin has been treated differently.

This 1846 half had a vigorous scrubbing on the lower obverse, while the rest of the coin, particularly the reverse, is still original. The halos aroud the devices are just areas of residual luster consistent with the level of detail on this coin.



This 1813 half, however, was mercilessly scrubbed on both sides, inducing an even appearance on both sides.



As for toning, it depends on how it was stored. Bag-toned Morgans will only have toning on one side since that was the side exposed to the elements. This Morgan here was wrapped in paper with other coins for decades, which caused toning on both sides.

 

Well, Doug, you are absolutely and completely wrong on that one. The toning is completely independent of luster - it depends on the reaction of the surface of the coin with its environment. More reaction, means a thicker layer of toning, means different colors. I can get beautiful, natural rainbow toning on a silver fork or spoon just as easily as a coin, and those certainly have no luster.

Luster will often make the colors "pop" more and seem more vibrant. A lustrous, rainbow toned coin will be more visually appealing than a lusterless coin. But the luster and toning are independent.

I'm just going to post this here dime and see what you have to say (not my coin).... because it is absolutely naturally toned, it is multicolored, and it has no luster: https://www.ebay.com/itm/1836-Caped...-Bullseye-Tone-/113471611145?oid=113439599058

I can find many, many more examples of very low grade rainbow toned circulated coins, if this isn't enough. There is absolutely no luster left on a coin below VF, but plenty of color available based on how it was stored.

 

He’s talking about unadulterated surfaces. That dime has been cleaned.

 

Nowhere does he say that. The dime may have been cleaned, who knows, but not harshly and well within market acceptability. But his basic assertion is still wrong - you can have colorful natural toning without luster.

 

What about well worn ancient Greek coins I have seen with colorful toning...there aren't many, but I've seen a few.