what is the actual difference, not a guess, between dipping and cleaning.
While dipping is carrying out one action, cleaning be in form of many different actions carried out.
Running warm water to remove dust is cleaning or using compressed air to dry or blowing off dust is cleaning right???? wrong??
I believe that there is hardly a coin which at some has not been cleaned in some way or another or by some method or another.
Hence:
why does a TPG need to tell us when they only THINK it is cleaned but have no proof of it?
Are we all dummies to see or recognize cleaned coins? are we not allowed to make up our own mind about it?
Personally I have sent back coins that came back TWO times from a TPG in Canada and suggested that the TPG was hired to straight grade the coins and not give me a lesson in cleaning, UNLESS he could proof positively the coin was cleaned. A few were sent again raw, a third time by a friend. NO cleaning was indicated in each case.
.
And finally a question:
are "preserved" coins acceptable as NOT cleaned? A straight grade would quasi be cheating????
I think the argument for buying it all is that you want people to think of you when they go to sell because you never know what they're going to bring in next. If you continually refuse to offer on the ordinary stuff, they might start going someplace else.
As long as you haven't invested a lot of money in "stuff" (your boss says he has essentially no money tied up in it), what's the harm if it accumulates for a while?
@YQQ asked: "What is the actual difference, not a guess, between dipping and cleaning?
LOL, don't complicate this.
"While dipping is carrying out one action, cleaning can be form of many different actions carried out."
Correct, and one of those "different actions" is dipping!
"Running warm water to remove dust is cleaning or using compressed air to dry or blowing off dust is cleaning right???? wrong??"
RIGHT
"I believe that there is hardly a coin which at some has not been cleaned in some way or another or by some method or another."
You are probably correct for 98% of the coins out of their original packaging. I just blew off some dust on a coin several minutes ago! That might make me a "coin doctor" to some folks.
"Hence: Why does a TPG need to tell us when they only THINK it is cleaned but have no proof of it?"
Ah, possibly because you are paying for their profession opinion?
"Are we ALL dummies to see or recognize cleaned coins?"
Ah, I would not call the majority of collectors I encounter who cannot identify a cleaned coin dumb. I consider them either uninformed, untrained, or having bad eyesight.
"Are we not allowed to make up our own mind about it?"
Of course you can and should! The only thing that will guarantee is the uninformed and untrained collector with bad eyesight, will probably be mistaken! TPGS are around to help educate collectors. Some believe this task is more important than others.
"Personally I have sent back coins that came back TWO times from a TPG in Canada and suggested that the TPG was hired to straight grade the coins and not give me a lesson in cleaning, UNLESS he could proof positively the coin was cleaned. A few were sent again raw, a third time by a friend. NO cleaning was indicated in each case."
Without knowing the amount of time between submissions, your qualifications or that of your friend PLUS seeing the actual coins, "things as this happen." Someone once is reported t have told his audience that "Any coin worth submitting once is worth submitting twice." While I can sympathize with your experience, perhaps the "THIRD TIME" was the "charm" for your coins. Sorry, I cannot understand your last question.
Seemingly most collectables that have specimens that are hundreds of years old require conservation efforts to maintain the quality of the collectable. Perhaps, only in numismatics is conservation frowned upon........unless performed by a TPGS. Reality is that most coins over 100 years old have been "conserved" or cleaned which has a broad definition.
Collectors who value original skin on 200 year old coins live in their own cloud. By their standard all of these coins should be graded .92 Cleaned. But a grade of .92 would not sit well. Their coins should be straight graded and all RAW coins submitted should be .92. Good case in point would be TDN's 1794 SP66, which cannot be proven to never have been cleaned in 25 years. should grade .92 cleaned.
This is all preposterous, of course. We should be focused upon preserving out numismatic heritage and cleaning might just be a role we play to preserve our coins for the future of collectors. But preservation is not easy anymore as coins are enslabbed. TPG restoration services can play a very positive role.
Directly from our host's website on grading standards.
92-Cleaning
Surface damage due to any form of abrasive cleaning. "Cleaned" covers a wide range or appearances, from a grossly polished coin to one where faint hairlines can be seen only at a particular angle or in only one area on an otherwise perfectly normal coin. This is perhaps the most frustrating of all the No Grades, because subtle cleaning is often difficult to detect in less-than-optimal grading conditions. "Dipping" (the removal of toning with a chemical bath) is not considered cleaning under this definition.
@Goldminers said:
Directly from our host's website on grading standards.
92-Cleaning
Surface damage due to any form of abrasive cleaning. "Cleaned" covers a wide range or appearances, from a grossly polished coin to one where faint hairlines can be seen only at a particular angle or in only one area on an otherwise perfectly normal coin. This is perhaps the most frustrating of all the No Grades, because subtle cleaning is often difficult to detect in less-than-optimal grading conditions. "Dipping" (the removal of toning with a chemical bath) is not considered cleaning under this definition.
That only means they don't include dipping under code 92. I'm not sure it addresses the question more generally.
I think the first sentence is clear. Code 92-Cleaning is abrasive cleaning in any form, dipping is not. I think that answers the OP question adequately. Edited for clarity.
@Goldminers said:
I think the first sentence is clear. Cleaning is abrasive cleaning in any form, dipping is not. I think that answers the question adequately.
That answers the PCGS question, which wasn't really my intent.
So, you would say that taking a shower is not cleaning unless you use a loofa?
@Goldminers said:
I think the first sentence is clear. Code 92-Cleaning is abrasive cleaning in any form, dipping is not. I think that answers the OP question adequately.
Not to parse the sentence too minutely, but the 1st sentence actually implies that not all form of cleaning is abrasive. They have defined 92 - cleaning as: SURFACE DAMAGE due to any form of ABRASIVE CLEANING. That at least implies that there are "non-abrasive" forms of cleaning that may not result in surface damage.
Dipping is clearly a form of cleaning. That's even if it's not considered to be abrasive and even if it's acceptable to the major grading companies and many/most industry participants.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Goldminers said:
I think the first sentence is clear. Cleaning is abrasive cleaning in any form, dipping is not. I think that answers the question adequately.
That answers the PCGS question, which wasn't really my intent.
So, you would say that taking a shower is not cleaning unless you use a loofa?
@Goldminers said:
I think the first sentence is clear. Code 92-Cleaning is abrasive cleaning in any form, dipping is not. I think that answers the OP question adequately. Edited for clarity.
Directly from our host's website on grading standards.
92-Cleaning
Surface damage due to any form of abrasive cleaning. "Cleaned" covers a wide range or appearances, from a grossly polished coin to one where faint hairlines can be seen only at a particular angle or in only one area on an otherwise perfectly normal coin. This is perhaps the most frustrating of all the No Grades, because subtle cleaning is often difficult to detect in less-than-optimal grading conditions. "Dipping" (the removal of toning with a chemical bath) is not considered cleaning under this definition.
That only means they don't include dipping under code 92. I'm not sure it addresses the question more generally.
IMO, this definition by our host needs to be modified as we can see from the comments here and elsewhere it has caused confusion.
A better definition might be:
92-Cleaning
Surface damage due to any form of cleaning. "Cleaned" covers a wide range of changes to the condition and appearance of the coin's surface either by chemical means, abrasion, or a combination of both. This is perhaps the most frustrating of all the No Grades, because subtle cleaning is often difficult to detect in less-than-optimal grading conditions. "Dipping" (the removal of toning with a chemical bath) is not considered cleaning under this definition unless it was done in such a way that the coin appears cleaned.
IMO, a better approach (more educational also) would be to break #92 down with a description of each:
@MFeld said:
This shouldn't be nearly so difficult.
Dipping is clearly a form of cleaning. That's even if it's not considered to be abrasive and even if it's acceptable to the major grading companies and many/most industry participants.
That is the crux of it, though, isn't it? It's not really about "cleaning" or "not cleaning". It's about "market acceptable cleaning". That's really what code 92 is saying: nonabrasive cleaning is market acceptable.
In some sense, I think this is why "dipping" is the problem child. Dipping is chemically abrasive but is not noticeable if done very lightly because it is molecular level abrasion. So, dipping can cross over from "market acceptable" (apparent lack of abrasion) to "market unacceptable" (noticeable chemical abrasion).
Added clarification: We all know that nonabrasive (chemical) cleaning is not always market acceptable. It is often not the "dip" but how the coin is neutralized and dried that can be problematic. I've said many times that many properly preformed dips to the same coin can go undetected. However, when the "toning" has reached end-stage or close to it, a dip will reveal the damaged surface the corrosion covered.
@Insider2 said:
Added clarification: We all know that nonabrasive (chemical) cleaning is not always market acceptable. It is often not the "dip" but how the coin is neutralized and dried that can be problematic. I've said many times that many properly preformed dips to the same coin can go undetected. However, when the "toning" has reached end-stage or close to it, a dip will reveal the damaged surface the corrosion covered.
I tend to agree with all of this but isn't the crux of the problem that "market acceptability" is central. That makes the definition context dependent. What goes for bust halves isn't the same as what goes for Walkers.
@Insider2 said:
Added clarification: We all know that nonabrasive (chemical) cleaning is not always market acceptable. It is often not the "dip" but how the coin is neutralized and dried that can be problematic. I've said many times that many properly preformed dips to the same coin can go undetected. However, when the "toning" has reached end-stage or close to it, a dip will reveal the damaged surface the corrosion covered.
I tend to agree with all of this but isn't the crux of the problem that "market acceptability" is central. That makes the definition context dependent. What goes for bust halves isn't the same as what goes for Walkers.
Great observation.
And that my friend is the reason the SIMPLE ACT of examining a lump of metal and determining its condition of preservation from the time it was struck has been made into a very subjective and complicated exercise so that most of us need to rely on the experience and determination made by professionals who are checked by other professionals with a sticker! "COIN TYPE, RARITY, MARKET ACCEPTABILITY, COLORFUL EYE APPEAL and VALUE = the five "complications."
Perhaps, what's desirable when valuing a watch should not be desirable when grading a coin.
Comments
what is the actual difference, not a guess, between dipping and cleaning.
While dipping is carrying out one action, cleaning be in form of many different actions carried out.
Running warm water to remove dust is cleaning or using compressed air to dry or blowing off dust is cleaning right???? wrong??
I believe that there is hardly a coin which at some has not been cleaned in some way or another or by some method or another.
Hence:
why does a TPG need to tell us when they only THINK it is cleaned but have no proof of it?
Are we all dummies to see or recognize cleaned coins? are we not allowed to make up our own mind about it?
Personally I have sent back coins that came back TWO times from a TPG in Canada and suggested that the TPG was hired to straight grade the coins and not give me a lesson in cleaning, UNLESS he could proof positively the coin was cleaned. A few were sent again raw, a third time by a friend. NO cleaning was indicated in each case.
.
And finally a question:
are "preserved" coins acceptable as NOT cleaned? A straight grade would quasi be cheating????
No - conservation
I think the argument for buying it all is that you want people to think of you when they go to sell because you never know what they're going to bring in next. If you continually refuse to offer on the ordinary stuff, they might start going someplace else.
As long as you haven't invested a lot of money in "stuff" (your boss says he has essentially no money tied up in it), what's the harm if it accumulates for a while?
AT and it's not cool
Brings to mind one of my favorite cartoons.
This one is close, though.
@YQQ asked: "What is the actual difference, not a guess, between dipping and cleaning?
LOL, don't complicate this.
"While dipping is carrying out one action, cleaning can be form of many different actions carried out."
Correct, and one of those "different actions" is dipping!
"Running warm water to remove dust is cleaning or using compressed air to dry or blowing off dust is cleaning right???? wrong??"
RIGHT
"I believe that there is hardly a coin which at some has not been cleaned in some way or another or by some method or another."
You are probably correct for 98% of the coins out of their original packaging. I just blew off some dust on a coin several minutes ago! That might make me a "coin doctor" to some folks.
"Hence: Why does a TPG need to tell us when they only THINK it is cleaned but have no proof of it?"
Ah, possibly because you are paying for their profession opinion?
"Are we ALL dummies to see or recognize cleaned coins?"
Ah, I would not call the majority of collectors I encounter who cannot identify a cleaned coin dumb. I consider them either uninformed, untrained, or having bad eyesight.
"Are we not allowed to make up our own mind about it?"
Of course you can and should! The only thing that will guarantee is the uninformed and untrained collector with bad eyesight, will probably be mistaken! TPGS are around to help educate collectors. Some believe this task is more important than others.
"Personally I have sent back coins that came back TWO times from a TPG in Canada and suggested that the TPG was hired to straight grade the coins and not give me a lesson in cleaning, UNLESS he could proof positively the coin was cleaned. A few were sent again raw, a third time by a friend. NO cleaning was indicated in each case."
Without knowing the amount of time between submissions, your qualifications or that of your friend PLUS seeing the actual coins, "things as this happen." Someone once is reported t have told his audience that "Any coin worth submitting once is worth submitting twice." While I can sympathize with your experience, perhaps the "THIRD TIME" was the "charm" for your coins. Sorry, I cannot understand your last question.
Seemingly most collectables that have specimens that are hundreds of years old require conservation efforts to maintain the quality of the collectable. Perhaps, only in numismatics is conservation frowned upon........unless performed by a TPGS. Reality is that most coins over 100 years old have been "conserved" or cleaned which has a broad definition.
Collectors who value original skin on 200 year old coins live in their own cloud. By their standard all of these coins should be graded .92 Cleaned. But a grade of .92 would not sit well. Their coins should be straight graded and all RAW coins submitted should be .92. Good case in point would be TDN's 1794 SP66, which cannot be proven to never have been cleaned in 25 years. should grade .92 cleaned.
This is all preposterous, of course. We should be focused upon preserving out numismatic heritage and cleaning might just be a role we play to preserve our coins for the future of collectors. But preservation is not easy anymore as coins are enslabbed. TPG restoration services can play a very positive role.
OINK
Directly from our host's website on grading standards.
92-Cleaning
Surface damage due to any form of abrasive cleaning. "Cleaned" covers a wide range or appearances, from a grossly polished coin to one where faint hairlines can be seen only at a particular angle or in only one area on an otherwise perfectly normal coin. This is perhaps the most frustrating of all the No Grades, because subtle cleaning is often difficult to detect in less-than-optimal grading conditions. "Dipping" (the removal of toning with a chemical bath) is not considered cleaning under this definition.
My US Mint Commemorative Medal Set
That only means they don't include dipping under code 92. I'm not sure it addresses the question more generally.
I think the first sentence is clear. Code 92-Cleaning is abrasive cleaning in any form, dipping is not. I think that answers the OP question adequately. Edited for clarity.
My US Mint Commemorative Medal Set
That answers the PCGS question, which wasn't really my intent.
So, you would say that taking a shower is not cleaning unless you use a loofa?
I edited it to reflect an attempt to answer the OP's question, I am not playing semantic games.
My US Mint Commemorative Medal Set
Not to parse the sentence too minutely, but the 1st sentence actually implies that not all form of cleaning is abrasive. They have defined 92 - cleaning as: SURFACE DAMAGE due to any form of ABRASIVE CLEANING. That at least implies that there are "non-abrasive" forms of cleaning that may not result in surface damage.
This shouldn't be nearly so difficult.
Dipping is clearly a form of cleaning. That's even if it's not considered to be abrasive and even if it's acceptable to the major grading companies and many/most industry participants.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Nothing exfoliates quite like a Brillo pad.
Collector, occasional seller
NUTS!
@Goldminers said:
IMO, this definition by our host needs to be modified as we can see from the comments here and elsewhere it has caused confusion.
A better definition might be:
92-Cleaning
Surface damage due to any form of cleaning. "Cleaned" covers a wide range of changes to the condition and appearance of the coin's surface either by chemical means, abrasion, or a combination of both. This is perhaps the most frustrating of all the No Grades, because subtle cleaning is often difficult to detect in less-than-optimal grading conditions. "Dipping" (the removal of toning with a chemical bath) is not considered cleaning under this definition unless it was done in such a way that the coin appears cleaned.
IMO, a better approach (more educational also) would be to break #92 down with a description of each:
92-chemically cleaned.
92.1-abrasively cleaned.
92.2-abrasively buffed.
92.3-abrasively polished.
That's because each of these surface alterations looks COMPLETELY different.
PERIOD!
That is the crux of it, though, isn't it? It's not really about "cleaning" or "not cleaning". It's about "market acceptable cleaning". That's really what code 92 is saying: nonabrasive cleaning is market acceptable.
In some sense, I think this is why "dipping" is the problem child. Dipping is chemically abrasive but is not noticeable if done very lightly because it is molecular level abrasion. So, dipping can cross over from "market acceptable" (apparent lack of abrasion) to "market unacceptable" (noticeable chemical abrasion).
Added clarification: We all know that nonabrasive (chemical) cleaning is not always market acceptable. It is often not the "dip" but how the coin is neutralized and dried that can be problematic. I've said many times that many properly preformed dips to the same coin can go undetected. However, when the "toning" has reached end-stage or close to it, a dip will reveal the damaged surface the corrosion covered.
I tend to agree with all of this but isn't the crux of the problem that "market acceptability" is central. That makes the definition context dependent. What goes for bust halves isn't the same as what goes for Walkers.
I suck at dipping.
In fact Coin Amnesty picketed my coin cave once.
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working" Pablo Picasso
Great observation.
And that my friend is the reason the SIMPLE ACT of examining a lump of metal and determining its condition of preservation from the time it was struck has been made into a very subjective and complicated exercise so that most of us need to rely on the experience and determination made by professionals who are checked by other professionals with a sticker! "COIN TYPE, RARITY, MARKET ACCEPTABILITY, COLORFUL EYE APPEAL and VALUE = the five "complications."
Perhaps, what's desirable when valuing a watch should not be desirable when grading a coin.
Yup!
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry