I wish I had the 3 days for a "live" ANA grading course in Colorado. But for now, that's not possible, and so I read up as much as I can, when time allows. Here, I'd really appreciate some professional input and comments. (Please pardon and bear with me if my question is silly or the if answer is obvious to professional eyes.) Have a look at this IHC. The details are still very sharp. It weighs 3.13 g. (vs. 3.11 g officially, but I believe that's within the standard deviation). It's "shiny" in a brilliant and lustrous sense, not in a satiny and dull sense (although that's not apparent in my photo). There's no "dirt" around or within the loops of the characters. There aren't fine scratches. But one feature that I don't see is the "Cartwheel Effect" and so my question is whether the absence of that effect automatically means a coin has been cleaned. Okay - I know nothing is fully black-and-white. Few rules are absolute and there may be other compensating factors. But perhaps, if one tries to quantify it, would you say that the absence of the cartwheel effect means a 90% probability that a coin has been cleaned? 95%? 80%? 75%? In this particular case, do you feel that this IHC has been cleaned? Finally, for me personally, regardless of cleaning, I still see it as a beautiful coin to have. I wanted to know mainly for education. As always, thank you all for your help.
It was most likely a clean coin that had unappealing toneing that the owner didnt like so they polished the value rite off of it. Its the color and the shine that says cleaned to me. The easiest way to learn about alterd coins is to study original coins. Look at as many certified ms coins as you can. Also something that helps me is to photo a coin. Or just look at it through the view finder on the camera.
For the cartwheel question...if a coin doesn't cartwheel it could very well be due to a cleaning/being overdipped. But it could also be wear causing breaks in the luster and just not be an MS coin. In some series the coin could be proof like and mirrored and won't cartwheel or the coin could actually be a proof and not cartwheel. Also different series show the luster in different ways and may not cartwheel the same way a Morgan or an IHC would cartwheel when fully mint state. A lustrous $2.50 gold Indian acts a lot differently than a lustrous $2.50 liberty head, etc. So really it comes down to handling a lot of coins and getting a feel for how they should look when they're right and when they don't look how they should knowing there's a problem.
Thanks everyone, and especially to @steve.e and @IBetASilverDollar for the elaborations. Appreciate it.
Coincidentally, I saw a very "nice" $2.50 gold Liberty Head in the same album where I found this coin! I haven't taken photos yet, but when I do, I hope you don't mind if I tag you for your comments? (Thanks in advance.)
Been following this thread. Wanted to see what the educated guys had to say. I saw your post when it first came up and as pretty as that Indian is to look at... It sure screamed dipped to death to me. Hard to justify a 140 year old copper not display any kind of tarnish/toning.
Now that said, there's more that needs to be said. Every single coin there is that is newly struck, has luster, cartwheel luster. But every single type of coin there is also has its own unique kind of luster. Walkers for example have a different kind of luster than Frankies. And Kennedys have a different kind of luster than either one of them. Peace dollars have a different kind of luster than Morgans. And Seateds have a different kind of luster than either one of them. Indians have a different kind of luster than Lincolns. The list goes on and on. And Proofs have a different kind of luster than business strikes. But all newly struck coins have luster, and all luster cartwheels. It just looks different on this coin that it does on that coin. And there are many varying degrees of luster. It can be high quality luster or low quality luster. And that can sometimes be determined by quality of strike alone, or by something that has happened to the coin after it was struck. And all of this only scratches the surface when it comes to what one must know about luster. And if you don't already know it, that's where this comes in - If you look at enough original coins, of any given type, you'll soon be able to identify one that has something wrong with it for one simple reason - because it doesn't look right ! The lesson here is that any time you see a coin that doesn't look right, well then you should probably stay away from that coin - even if you don't know what it is that's wrong with it. Learning how to tell exactly what it is that's wrong with that, that comes with time and experience from looking at tens of thousands of other coins. But knowing when they don't look right - that comes pretty quick. So trust your gut, trust your eyes. And then spend the time learning the specifics.
wow! I need help to understand the toning on this piece I just got and how toning works. This was found in a safe in anold laundromat that was being demolished in a large cache of old silver and gold. I need help figuring out whether it is uncirculated and if i should have graded. I do not sell these items I am just new to collecting and would like to know how it works with toning and such. I have seen so many different variations of luster and lack there of which have my ire. Thanks.
Please consider starting your own thread to discuss this coin (and others from your find). Resurrecting an old thread confuses people who haven't seen it before, and repurposing an existing thread can rub people the wrong way (like barging into a conversation at a party with a change of subject). If you click on the US Coins Forum link at the top of this page, you'll go to a page with a button that says Post a New Thread. Hit that, and you can put in your thread title and your post. (It may look like you also need to add a poll, but you don't.) Welcome to CoinTalk!
