Meaning of "Improperly Cleaned" on a Classic Proof...

C0inCollect0r

Hi all,

I was just curious about this after running across a Proof Morgan slabbed by NCS as "Improperly Cleaned" today. To my (limited) knowledge, Classic Proofs with evidence of hairlining have for the most part all been "improperly cleaned," yet these often seem to slab up to 65 by TPGs. On top of that, this particular specimen seemed to show very little evidence of hairlining (probably on the level I'd expect for a 64/65).

So...my question is, what type of alteration/cleaning exactly get's a classic proof BB'd for "Improper Cleaning"? How would one detect this on a raw coin?

Sorry again for my limited knowledge - just looking to learn. Thanks for your time.

GoldenEyeNumismatics

a number of things...

there's no such thing as "evidence of hairlining." There's either hairlines or there aren't. A hairlines are perfectly acceptable on proofs--it's when there is a large quantity of parallel hairlines that you should be concerned.

"Improperly cleaned" can mean the coin may have been wiped too harshly, or scrubbed, or harshly overdipped. Evidence of the latter may be severely imparied mirrorfields or a strong hazey appearance over the mirrors.

rld14

You mean like the coin that I had come back BB'd for altered surfaces that was resubmitted and is now in an MS64FH holder?

Me? Cynical? Naaahh...

collegecoincollector

i've seen classic proofs described as cleaned even though they do not say so on the TPG holder. i saw an anacs pr60 on the web just the other day. would have graded higher but it has hairlines suggesting an ancient cleaning. lets see if i can find it......ah, here ya go

guess it could really mean anything. most classic proofs i find are often toned, making it even harder to see hairlining and other signs of cleaning.

lordmarcovan

Classic proofs got wiped a lot, back in the old coin cabinet days. They also got cabinet friction.

I suspect "improper cleaning" could be a wipe that went too far.

Surely it's a matter of degrees, since some wiping was inevitable back then and is acceptable today. But if the coin got too scrubby looking or overshiny, with the aforementioned parallel hairlines... well... I could see them calling it "Improper Cleaning".

Edit- then again, what you describe doesn't sound scrubby or overwiped at all. Perhaps somebody dipped it too much or did some chemical no-nos to it. It's really hard to say without seeing it. (And for me, it could possibly still be hard to say even after I saw it).

Lastly, rld14's "cynical" reply is not out of the realm of possibility. It could have merely been the whim of the graders on that particular day.

lasvegasteddy

i think lordm nailed it fine

C0inCollect0r

Thanks for all the info guys - it definitely did have a conspicuous lack of toning and overall appearance that could have been consistent with over-dipping. I suspect there's a good chance that was the case.

PerryHall

Some here say hairlines are acceptable on classic proofs. I wouldn't say "acceptable". I would say "tolerated".

lcoopie

the surfaces of proof coins are very easily "hairlined"
due to contact with almost anything like
being put in a flip, or envelope, etc.
Business strikes are more resistant to this.
So hairlines on proofs may be due to contact, and not cleaning,
unlike business strikes, which usually result in marks, not hairlines.