I'm confused
BobSav
Posts: 937 ✭✭✭
When someone has a coin that is deemed to have been " cleaned " everyone puts it down and assigns a lower worth to it.
When NCS 'conserves" aka cleans" a coin it;s OK.
So it's ok if a company can clean a coin with making it look cleaned but if a coin is cleaned some other way it's deemed as a bad thing.
Please point me in the right direction because I'm confused.
Happy Holiday to all..
Bob
When NCS 'conserves" aka cleans" a coin it;s OK.
So it's ok if a company can clean a coin with making it look cleaned but if a coin is cleaned some other way it's deemed as a bad thing.
Please point me in the right direction because I'm confused.
Happy Holiday to all..
Bob
Past transactions with:
Lordmarcovan, WTCG, YogiBerraFan, Phoenin21, LindeDad, Coll3ctor, blue594, robkoll, Mike Dixon, BloodMan, Flakthat and others.
Lordmarcovan, WTCG, YogiBerraFan, Phoenin21, LindeDad, Coll3ctor, blue594, robkoll, Mike Dixon, BloodMan, Flakthat and others.
0
Comments
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>So it's ok if a company can clean a coin with making it look cleaned but if a coin is cleaned some other way it's deemed as a bad thing.
>>
I think you're pretty close. If anyone can clean a coin without making it look cleaned ... is more like it.
Having said that, there are certain coins that just aren't supposed to have bright shiny surfaces. After a while, you get to know what is supposed to look like what.
For instance: yesterday afternoon I dipped a 1971-S silver Ike proof. It went from hazy with ugly brown tone, to a nice bright black and white cameo. This, in my view is good.
On the other hand, I would not want you to dip my seated dollars and make them white. They are old, circulated coins and in my view they should have a layer of darker patination.
What is categorically bad is anything that abrades the surface of the coin or in any other way leaves permanent physical traces of having happened.
Does that help?
Me too
When a coin is “dipped” with a mild form of acid some metal has been removed, but the virtually all of the original mint surface is intact. If you dip a coin repeatedly, however, it can get down to the “cleaned” category because each dip removes more metal. After repeated dippings you have a cleaned coin.
I am not a huge fan of NCS. Some of their work does improve coins. When a coin as really ugly spots that NCS can remove without too much change, that is to the good. But all too often they have dipped gold coins leaving them with a “white gold” appearance which I find unattractive. To me such coins are as good as cleaned, but a lot of collectors or perhaps investors (a.k.a. speculators) don’t agree with me.
Like most collectors I prefer attractive original coins and will pay more for them. Sometimes, however, such coins are too hard to find, or they don't fit my budget. In those cases a coin that has been dipped can be okay. Here are a couple of examples.
PCGS graded each of these 19th century silver coins, that have been dipped, MS-64, and given the price paid they are okay by me.
most coins with evidence of being cleaned show it with ugly hairlines or pits or complete loss of luster
so there is clearly a difference in a coin that is cleaned or conserved
and the expertise in how it is done
if you don't believe me, give a little kid a brown penny and pencil eraser and they can make it red
then look at what you got
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Obv. Before
Obv. After
Rev. Before
Rev. After
Franklin-Lover's Forum
<< <i>Dear confused....if you are a mere mortal and cannot get your cleaned coins past the TPG standards they will be worthless....!!..but then If you are a super-star who has developed a technique to get your laundered coins past the graders then
I think I see the light. That about sums it up, thanks !
Bob
Lordmarcovan, WTCG, YogiBerraFan, Phoenin21, LindeDad, Coll3ctor, blue594, robkoll, Mike Dixon, BloodMan, Flakthat and others.
I agree, dipping some coins makes them really look great, but I don't see why that doesn't fall into the same category as other cleanings. If they are being categorized by "damage caused while cleaning", then yes there is a bit of difference between that and sc/rubbing a coin to make it "shiney". However, if rubbing a coin, which removes some of the surface, is considered damage, then aren't ALL circulated coins damaged?
So it's OK to clean a coin, as long as it doesn't LOOK like it's been cleaned? A bit hypocritical?
Or, is it all a matter of "how and why" the coins have been cleaned/damaged?
Rubbing/wear due to normal circulation=OK.
Rubbing/wear due to trying to improve it's appearance=NOT OK.
Dipping to remove harmful tarnish=OK;
Dipping to make it look newer and better=OK?
It just doesn't add up, and I don't get it.
<< <i>In my opinion, cleaning is OK, evidence of cleaning is not OK. >>
Ditto.
The first rule of Bright Club is you don't talk about Bright Club.
<< <i>But isn't the generally accepted rule "Anything that has been done to improve the look or grade of the coin is not acceptable >>
Uh, no. Dipping a hazy proof is nothing more than restoration. And, in most cases, dipping a 19th century circulated coin doesn't improve the look. It usually makes the coin ugly.
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>dipping a 19th century circulated coin doesn't improve the look. >>
A circulated silver/gold coin is not supposed to look "too nice," and once expected dirt and toning is removed, it will, hairlines or not. The more fragile surfaces of uncirculated and proof silver/gold coins can be chemically "conserved," and if there are no hairlines, graders often give it the OK. Copper is a different animal, and chemical cleaning can result in an unnatural color. Those get bagged, if the grader is on the ball.
my early American coins & currency: -- http://yankeedoodlecoins.com/
The color changes and the coin is ruined.
Put your old pennies in virgin olive oil and let them soak for days... very little happens to them aside from working on the grime , dirt, etc that is in the cracks and crevices.
I guess we could say there are proper and improper ways to effectively "treat" them. And both effects affect the coin in some way or another.
Mistreating them results in a bodybag. Treating them often results in quite the opposite.
PROOFS that have haze are so much different than a coin that has toning.
Bob, it should be confusing. It's a long story.
Period.
cleaning methods as nothing molecular is removed from the surface of
the coin. Acid dips,for silver, if used properly, diluted properly and neutralized properly
are , in my opinion , OK, as the molecular displacement is so small , as to leave
the original skin intact. Excessive dipping, or improper dipping ,
in such acid cleaners,'s surface is almost a living
entity. It responds to the environment somewhat like living skin. Treat it well and it
will treat you well as a collector.
Camelot
Seriously, the concept of cleaning is not monolithic. There is a continuum - and to be successful, you have to know how far along an individual coin can be pushed.
Right to the edge of market acceptability: fine. Over the edge, the coin falls into the rocks and surf of the market below, its battered body shopped around until it finds the right buyer at the right price.
Check out my current listings: https://ebay.com/sch/khunt/m.html?_ipg=200&_sop=12&_rdc=1