Please help me understand "cleaning" for this common-date $5 Lib?

FredF

Hi everyone-

Backstory on this 1882 $5 - it has been in my possession for 50 years. It was a gift when I was born. For the first 40 years or so, it lived in a plastic Capital holder, and then a bit over 10 years ago I sent it to our hosts. So any sort of anything that would affect a coin chemically and then turn later would have already turned by now, so I'm assuming it was never puttied or anything like that.

I do not have photo equipment but spent a bunch of time with a magnifying glass and my phone trying to get images of the relevant parts of the coin. While there is some blurring around the edges of the photos, I think there is enough detail in the center to see what I believe I see.

There are plenty of contact marks in the fields. There doesn't seem to be any pattern to them (meaning, they aren't all running in the same direction). IMO there are many more contact marks than one would expect for a coin that lived its entire life in a bag, so I am pretty certain it circulated. Looking at the high points on the obverse, specifically the tip of the headband above the L, the back of her hair near 3 o'clock, and the middle of her hair on the top edge, it's clear that the high points have been worn. I feel like the stars on the left half of the coin are weakly struck, but there is clear wear as well, especially on the stars at 7 and 8 o'clock on the obverse. Based on the photograde on-line sample images, I would grade the obverse between XF40 and XF45. I lean towards the 45 because the curl coming down from her ear is more defined than even the XF45 image, whereas the other wear would have me thinking 40. So on balance I went with 45. The reverse I feel is stronger than the obverse. Again, lots of chatter in the fields from circulation. Looking at the detail of the feathers and the tip of the beak, I went with AU50. The weakness you see on the right wing feathers near the A in America is blur in my photo - the feathers on the right are equivalent of those on the left (which themselves get blurred near the tips, again that's photo error not actual coin).

So then I looked at some specific marks that stood out, and I identified them in the zoomed out photos that come second. Looking at LIberty's hair, there were four marks in the photo that concerned me. You will see three circled in green and one in blue. The three in green, I checked and are on the holder, not the coin. The blue circle looks like a contact mark right in the band above the R in Liberty - as if someone took a coin the thickness of maybe a quarter and dropped it right on that mark. Looking down at the date, in the photo there is a dark mark that goes from one side to the other of the 8 in 82. This looks very pronounced in the top two pictures of the obverse, but in actuality that is the effect of a shadow. The actual line is very thin, much more a scratch. It is in two pieces - one piece top of the 8 the other under the 8. The scratch does not go through the 8. It may actually be two separate scratches because the angle isn't exactly perfect, but it could be one. With naked eye in normal light, it's possible to miss these. With a 5x loupe and good light, tilting the coin around you can see the reflection change so it becomes much more obvious. I took a zoomed-in photo of the date. This photo removes the shadow effect, but also unfairly removes the mark on the bottom of the 8, so it may be overly favorable. This is clearly a scratch, so in my mind the question was, would this net grade something like XF40, given that I think the obverse is otherwise 40-45 and the reverse 50, the coin was (at the time) 130 years old, and gold is a soft metal, plus it's not super obvious with naked eye? Or would this come back genuine-scratched?

On the reverse, there were 3 dings that I felt showed the strongest and were worth calling out. These look like honest contact marks when coin is in hand, not damage. So the only scratch I really see is on the obverse near the date.

What surprised me is that when the coin came back, it came back 92 - cleaned. I have spent more time looking at this one coin than any other coin in my collection, simply because I've owned it my entire life (literally). When I think cleaning for a coin like this I think one of two things - something harsh & chemical, or a wire brush/whizzing. If someone took a cloth and wiped it, I don't think it would count as "cleaned" for an XF-ish coin that showed honest wear. If the coin had been cleaned with harsh chemicals, I believe the surface would look off. I have handled a few gold coins in my day and I don't see anything on the surface that stands out. Even if it were cleaned the day before it was bought for me, it would have had 50 years to turn. I admit I'm biased but in normal light to the naked eye, the coin looks fine on the surfaces. The contact marks in the fields are evident under magnification and good light, not naked eye and normal light.

I have a couple whizzed coins in my collection as well, because they were tolerable and made an otherwise unaffordable coin affordable. When I see a wire brushing, I'm looking for marks that are parallel. Someone drags a brush across a coin, it will scratch the coin all in the same direction. If someone is crazy with a brush and moves it around in a bunch of circles I would expect again some sort of pattern to the marks, where the "same mark" appears in many places around the coin. I don't see anything like that. In the fields I see a coin that certainly got around a bit, but nothing that looks whizzed.

Libs aren't my series - gold is expensive and my budget is much more modest. Is there something else I should be looking out for as far as how to tell when a coin is cleaned? Let's accept as truth that the grade is accurate and it is cleaned. How would I figure that out?

coinbuf

I am no expert either but I suspect that the issue is the light tan/pink color that outlines the stars and central devices that is the issue.

Nysoto

There could be fine, uniform hairlines that were not created by circulation, but from a mild cleaning using baking soda or other abrasive. These cleaning hairlines can be hidden by photography, and difficult to see in person unless the coin is rotated under a bright light. I don't know if that is the case with your coin, but is a common cause for a 92. At one time baking soda was recommended in numismatic books for cleaning coins.

lcoopie

Here’s my guess
It’s so bright, obviously quite circulated, so I think cleaned.

coinhack

I agree with what @Nysoto said. Also, in the photos the coin looks a little flat, lack of luster, for an XF/AU coin. I've seen coins up close in-hand that had no hairlines or any indications of cleaning but the luster was flat or duller than you would expect for the grade and it was deemed to be "cleaned".

airplanenut

Bear in mind that on lightly cleaned coins, hairlines may only be visible at a few angles. Use a rather harsh light (fluorescents will mask hairlines) and look at the coin from every angle--rotate it, tilt it, look at it upside-down--and perhaps some hairlines will appear.

MFeld

Forget about looking for hairlines or focusing on marks or the color of the coin. Look at the sheen/luster - it's off/unnatural looking. Look at lots of images of graded XF, AU and mint state examples and compare them to your coin. Over time, you will see a district difference in most cases.

BryceM

Yeah - what @MFeld said. I was trying to spit out much the same thing but his version is stated much more clearly. Even at XF levels of wear a coin should have a decent bit of mint luster in some places. This one doesn’t have it.

PerryHall

@MFeld said:
Forget about looking for hairlines or focusing on marks or the color of the coin. Look at the sheen/luster - it's off/unnatural looking. Look at lots of images of graded XF, AU and mint state examples and compare them to your coin. Over time, you will see a district difference in most cases.

Agree with Mark. The surfaces look dull and porous like it was left too long in a coin dip and the chemicals etched the copper alloy from the surfaces. I've seen this same effect on a sea salvaged gold coin after a long immersion in salt water and the surfaces were totally flat and dull as if it were almost a matte proof.

FredF

Thank you all. The aspects about coloring make sense. As I mentioned I don't have gold to really compare it to.

Since the value to me of the piece is how I got it, that it is cleaned is not of any concern. Just wanted to know how to recognize it. Appreciate all the feedback

ricko

Your coin was likely 'cleaned' by the well intentioned person that gifted you many years ago. Back then, many coins were cleaned, and being a gift, the giver wanted it to look nice. Cheers, RickO

ambro51

It might make you feel better to resubmit, possibly a different TPG. I think though as others imply, your grade wasn’t determined by hours of detailed examination under a loupe, it was an experienced eye looking at the coin for a few seconds. It’s an in hand opinion, probably naked eye, and probably correct.