Take the Cleaned Coin Challenge!

In the recent thread about a friend cleaning coins, one person mentioned that the board probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between cleaned and uncleaned coins.

Well here is the challenge : 7 different coins, all dated 1864, all graded either AU 55 or 58 by ANACS and some NET OR DETAILS GRADED, all photographed by the same company (Heritage) within the same period of time. Can you tell which are cleaned or not?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7


Edited to also say some are details graded. Thanks for the comment Fish.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

1,2, 6, and 7 look cleaned to me

 

1,2,6 I think. I dont know about 7


-Rob

 

I'd say three and four cleaned... Possibly two as well. By the way, it's my understanding that the new ANACS wasn't net grading coins anymore, and there's one in a new ANACS holder. Is my understanding incorrect, or is that a red herring?

Fish

 

Fish,
I have seen problem coins in the new Clearview holders, so I don't think that means much, and the new ANACS does still net grade coins.

 

yes, red herring. anacs will not put problem coins in its new holder, so 3 and 6 are OK.
1,2 and 4 look funny to me, but i am not a copper guy (do a challenge with silver! )

 

where have you seen problem coins in the new anacs holder? its company policy to put problem coins in the old holder... I asked them in person last friday...

 

2-5 are NET graded IMHO----some of the other ones look like it too but from what I hear the new ANACS isn't putting NET graded coins in the new slabs...but IMHO some of them look like they should be NET graded.

Speedy

 

I think numbers 1, 2 and 5 have been cleaned. Just something about the toning of these coins look different than the others.

 

#3,6,7.Look cleaned to me.Thats my vote.

 

I'll say 1,2,4, and 7.

 

2, 4, 5 and 7 look cleaned, but I don't like the look of any of them really.

 

cleaned?

I think 2, 3, and 7 have been cleaned. To me 4 looks like it has had body oils on it. sometimes it hard to tell in person, let alone in pics. I have found it interesting the variety of answers we have all came up with. I can't wait for the answers.

 

Another observation:
someone needs to fire the photographer at Heritage. some of these pictures downright suck.
specifically: 6 & 2

 

Some odd looking finishes but I'd say 1 , 2 and 4 are cleaned and 5 looks to be recolored.

 

I'd say only 2 looks cleaned.

 

1 and 4, maybe 2 have been cleaned. But I'm a complete amateur at that sort of thing.

 

Actual:
1- Cleaned
2- Cleaned
3- Not Cleaned
4- Cleaned
5- Cleaned / Recolored
6- Not Cleaned
7- Not Cleaned

Very interesting results. A number of people mentioned 6, and I agree that the streaks of red among all that brown look unusual, but cleaned? ANACS says no. Of them all, number 1 was probably the worst offender. The colors and luster look very uneven and unnatural (Do I see hints of blue and purple on a business strike IHC! ) 5 was cleaned, but I didn't expect anyone to mention it since it is also recolored (Impressive job spotting that one vincent).
Ranchhand- Heritage's photos (especially copper) are among the worst in the industry, possibly the worst. They tend to portray coins much darker than in reality - it's not uncommon for a flaming red IHC to appear brownish.

 

For comparison purposes, here is a problem-free solid AU (slabbed by PCGS).

 

maybe we can get cave troll to talk to them about their photos.. he works there now
I did better than i thought i would, only missed #5