This Looks Like a Cleaned Coin

Shane6596

If not cleaned, why not?

Ive seen details-cleaned coins that looked less cleaned than this one.

dsessom

Professional graders can tell if the surface has been cleaned by putting it under high magnification. It's much harder to tell from photos, although I can definitely see why you would think this coin was cleaned.
Sometimes, even if a coin has had an old cleaning, as long as it has re-toned or "re-skinned" and is market acceptable, TGP's will go ahead and straight grade it. At least, that is my understanding.

jclovescoins

Definitely looks like it to me. Amazing how some coins like that get straight graded by all grading services.

I've had coins cracked from Au details- cleaned holders submitted to NGC and PCGS that graded.
I had a Gobrecht dollar that I bought in a VF details repaired holder and cracked. I tried to sell raw and was told at a show it was fake. Then I see it in a major auction a few months later straight graded as VF30 lol.
Grading is an opinion, not an exact science.

fathom

Yes it can be about retoning but that one isn't quite there yet IMO.

ricko

In a case like this, I would trust the grader, since they had the coin in hand, under ideal light and available magnification. We are often to quick to throw out the 'cleaned' opinion on coins pictured here... Cheers, RickO

Shane6596

Ive been purchasing with the "buy the coin not the holder" as many of you told me to do. Thats why this one made me pause. Straight graded but looks cleaned. Like someone took a rag and spit shined all the areas a rag could reach.

coastaljerseyguy

Unless egregious, always difficult from photos and appears the brightness was turned up on these photos which may not be how it looks in hand.

Riley1955

@ricko said:
In a case like this, I would trust the grader, since they had the coin in hand, under ideal light and available magnification. We are often to quick to throw out the 'cleaned' opinion on coins pictured here... Cheers, RickO

I noticed that from some, in my short tenure.

Walkerguy21D

If that coin was raw and posted on here with comparable imaging it would be getting slammed.

jayPem

I've bought some great coins from bad photos from this seller.

dsessom

It sure would be nice if Trueview images would become standard with ALL submissions, since counterfeiting and "coin swapping" is becoming so prevalent. At least this way, potential buyers would be able to view the coin at the time it was graded, to ensure that it's the same coin. The cert for this half checks out, but there is no photo of it on the cert page, so is it the same coin? Or has someone cracked it out and swapped in a lesser value coin and resealed the slab?

lkenefic

It's tough to tell from pictures and a professional grader did have this coin in-hand and under optimal conditions, so it might not be as bad as the OPs image suggests. That said... I've seen a few straight graded coins that only a mother could love...

No Headlights

Hard to tell from photos, but certainly unattractive to me.

jesbroken

Which coin would you rather have for looks alone? The OP coin or this one?
Jim

BillJones

@jesbroken said:
Which coin would you rather have for looks alone? The OP coin or this one?
Jim

I would have to pass on both. The second one has a coat of toning which is hiding the cleaning problem, but it's still there. in the photo, the surfaces look very unnatural.

seatedlib3991

This might not be what you want to hear, but if you intend to collect coins that only have original skin you might want to consider something different than Seated coins. I would not be surprised if more than 95% of all seated coins have had some kind of treatment or alteration in their past. You want to avoid the egregiously altered and ugly coins, but most Seated coins are a measure of acceptance. Just my opinion. James

jesbroken

@BillJones
Not my question, Bill. You have only one choice, which coin of the two? Not for a competition or registry, but of the two which is the most pleasant to view?
Jim

BillJones

@jesbroken said:
@BillJones
Not my question, Bill. You have only one choice, which coin of the two? Not for a competition or registry, but of the two which is the most pleasant to view?
Jim

Having to choose, I would take the second one.

BillJones

@seatedlib3991 said:
This might not be what you want to hear, but if you intend to collect coins that only have original skin you might want to consider something different than Seated coins. I would not be surprised if more than 95% of all seated coins have had some kind of treatment or alteration in their past. You want to avoid the egregiously altered and ugly coins, but most Seated coins are a measure of acceptance. Just my opinion. James

I realize that most all seated coins have been dipped, but there is a big difference between dipped and whizzed, polished or rubbed. When a coin is dipped, a very small amount of metal is removed by fairly mild acids. When a coin is whizzed or otherwise worked upon, the metal is moved or a fair amount of the surface is removed beyond the upper most areas of it.

The "purist collectors" insist on "original surfaces." What they don't realize is that what they often interpret to be "original" is really "original now." That means the dipped coin has retoned, usually naturally, but sometimes with a little coin doctor help. Sometimes a coin can have original surfaces, but the purists won't buy it because it is unattractive. This is why many coins are dipped. You can't sell them for a decent price until they have been "restored."

Of all the seated coins in my collection, which is far more type coins than anything else, most have been dipped. I have a few Proof coins that I think are original. Here is one of the few Mint State coins that I think has never been dipped. This is a PCGS MS-64, CAC, which won't get you to the top of the registry.

I don't think that this Proof quarter has ever been dipped.

And for those who want to turn away in horror, here is an obviously dipped coin.

I liked all of these pieces well enough to buy them.

Higashiyama

As an aside, Bill’s 1853 arrows and rays is an excellent example of a dipped coin with great character.

Rexford

It looks dipped, not Cleaned with a capital C. It doesn’t even look that unpleasant as far as seated coinage goes

AUandAG

Pics of coins with toning always throw me off. This one does too. I see no cleaning.
bob

Barberian

My guess is the OP coin was wiped with a cloth or tissue but not cleaned with an abrasive. One has to see the coin in hand to check the nature of the hairlining. The other coin has darker, attractive toning, but the coin shows some light corrosion as if it's been in a soft flip or a humid environment for a while. I'd choose the 2nd coin for its eye appeal to me.

jesbroken

The purpose of the post, was that the 1st coin while graded XF45 does not have an "I want it" look and the second coin while rejected for grade as environmentally damaged is by far a coin I would wish to own compared to the 1st coin which graded. While some might choose the 1st for value/registry, it would appear to me that for a collection the 2nd coin would surpass the 1st. JMO
JIm

coinkat

The coin was clearly enhanced or processed as some like to say. I suspect the coin looks better in hand than in the image.

The question of cleaning as opposed to a coin that was merely enhanced will always be a subject of controversy and even dispute. The biggest litmus test for a straight grade is surface impairment which leave hairliines that are distinguishable from wear/circulation. Next but equally important is lustre impairment from the enhancement. And if the lustre is dull and not attributable to toning, there is a chance a straight grade will not be in the cards. See exhibit A

This is an MS coin. Our hosted determined it was cleaned. And while I am not completely sold that their opinion was appropriate or reasonable, I have at least tried to look and seek out what they saw that I did not that would lead to two opposing opinions. The coin has die polish- not hairlines. And I suspect they see lustre impairment as the lustre is muted which they attribute to a cleaning. I see it as toning whereby the muted lustre was simply not impaired by some effort to enhance the surfaces.

My point is there is a very fine line (no pun intended) between what is market acceptable and what is not. And that line is not always constant or as easy as it should be.

Back to the question of the op... the coin was clearly enhanced. The picture does not help the cause for a straight grade. Seated Coinage is rarely found in an original state of preservation... so is this one market acceptable? That is the real question with competing arguments of which some are more persuasive than others. I see the coin that I posted as having a strong claim to a straight grade than the straight graded coin that started the discussion.