I've read from all over that after a few days or so of a fingerprint's initial appearance on a coin, it becomes permanent. Specifically, the oils eventually etch into the coin and leave a permanent mark that can't be removed with acetone or any other non-abrasive ("proper") cleaning method. I take it that conservation services wouldn't be able to remove fingerprints either. If the fingerprints do become a part of the coin's permanent feature and alter the physical base of the coin (as opposed to say dirt atop the coin), then isn't that considered physical damage? Whereas, tarnish, toning, etc. are also physical changes, but they're seen as "naturally occurring" and thus expected, as opposed to unwarranted damages to the coin such as scratches, polished coins, etc. So, why aren't coins given a Details grade with "Fingerprints" on TPG labels? What if you take it to the extreme, crack open a slabbed PRooF-70 coin, and imprint your thumbprints on both the obverse and reverse of the coin. All else constant, will the TPGs net grade it or still give it a PRooF-70 grade? Thanks in advance!
My husband Insider would know but he is going for a ride at the moment. I am mostly into foreign coins but it is the same. If the prints are fresh they should be removed as they do affect eye-appeal. @Insider
Perhaps if the grading services had fingerprint records of all of the Mint employees, they could identify those that would be considered PMD. Then again, they would probably have to increase their prices for hiring additional personnel and creating a forensics lab. Chris
Kind of always wondered that too. I won't collect a coin with a print on it - it just doesn't look good!
Come to think of it, I may want to collect a proof coin with a famous, historic person's fingerprints on it. For instance, a silver WWII era proof coin with Churchill's fingerprints, especially since there doesn't really seem to be any "good" design Churchill coins released by the UK IMHO. It'll be like an autograph, but for coins (since autographing a coin is kind of impractical).
You all are funny. I see why he likes Coin Talk. Every so often he runs in and drags me into our study to see the pictures. Today you all were talking about food and dinners! Anyway, he takes his car out to exercise it every weekend. Off to make dinner. I'm sure he'll be on later as I @ him earlier.
I purchased a coin on Ebay recently. When it arrived it had a big fingerprint SPLOTCH across the obverse. The auction photo didn't show it thanks to, unintentional or intentional lighting. I would have been more upset if the coin had cost more than $1.50. But it didn't. Enough woes, I second, third and fourth the opinions about fingerprints here. I won't buy fingerprinted coins unless forced at gunpoint. Thankfully that hasn't been a problem.
In all honesty, I've no idea why the TPG's are so lenient with fingerprints, especially on Proofs. No respectable numismatist would handle a coin in a fashion to leave a fingerprint, no more than we'd deliberately scratch one. Me, I'd call them a grade detraction but not "damaged," on a conditional basis. I've seen some pretty highly-graded coins with obvious fingerprints, and wondered how they got the number. Perhaps because the TPG graders don't wear gloves....
So perhaps something akin to a "star" designation for eye appeal, but going in the opposite direction? Maybe a "black hole" (a bold black dot) for negative eye appeal?
Roots!? I like the original. From the trailers, I decided not to watch the remake. Besides, HBO was running the complete "Band of Brothers" which I've always enjoyed. Golden State is up by 6 with a couple minutes left in the 3rd. Chris
I could offer the same for late-state, detractive toning. Accidents happen, and you can't blame the Mint for an unfavorable atmospheric sulfur concentration any more than you can for some hamfisted sweaty collector who can't keep his fingers to himself. Grading starts with a perfect strike from a perfect planchet, and we subtract from there. Grading is not additive.