Help me see the 'Improper Cleaning' on this 1859-S Seated Lib quarter
golddustin
Posts: 838 ✭✭
A brief background - the coin was cracked from an ANACS holder labeled VF details, 'Scratches'. I set the coin on a windowsill for well over a year & forgot about it. While going through some invoices, I saw one for this coin...and then remembered where I had stashed it.
Since I was sending some coins to Heritage for the FUN auctions, I figured I would send this one along and see what they thought about it.
It turns out that after they submitted it to NGC, it was given the same VF details grade (pretty obvious & solid), but now the coin is 'improperly cleaned'. I have pulled up the image, and looked at both sides full page with the brightness improved, and I can't see any signs of cleaning. I see a die crack along the base of ATES in STATES, and there are plenty of scratches - the coin looks as though it may have gone through a war! But unless somebody tried cleaning it with a dinner fork, I just can't see it being labeled as improperly cleaned...maybe somebody can help me see what I am missing.
Lastly, for a key date like this, would you rather have the label say scratched or improper cleaning....do you think it affects the value?
Have a good look
Thanks for the help...
Since I was sending some coins to Heritage for the FUN auctions, I figured I would send this one along and see what they thought about it.
It turns out that after they submitted it to NGC, it was given the same VF details grade (pretty obvious & solid), but now the coin is 'improperly cleaned'. I have pulled up the image, and looked at both sides full page with the brightness improved, and I can't see any signs of cleaning. I see a die crack along the base of ATES in STATES, and there are plenty of scratches - the coin looks as though it may have gone through a war! But unless somebody tried cleaning it with a dinner fork, I just can't see it being labeled as improperly cleaned...maybe somebody can help me see what I am missing.
Lastly, for a key date like this, would you rather have the label say scratched or improper cleaning....do you think it affects the value?
Have a good look
Thanks for the help...
Don't you know that it's worth
every treasure on Earth
to be young at heart?
And as rich as you are,
it's much better by far,
to be young at heart!
every treasure on Earth
to be young at heart?
And as rich as you are,
it's much better by far,
to be young at heart!
0
Comments
“I believe in intuitions and inspirations. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy, went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that their conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong. I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.” Albert Einstein- quoted in Saturday Evening Post interview (1929)
“Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.” For Einstein, honesty was fundamental. Attention to truth in small things reflected a person’s integrity on a larger scale.
Still an acceptable 59-S, IMHO.
Tom
Regarding the scratching vs cleaning designation, I suppose it is a matter of collector preference - the coin was slabbed under both problem designations, and there are many collectors who simply don't want to buy cleaned coins (even though they probably have plenty if they collect anything older than 50 years). My take is that it is an over 150 year old coin that shows the typical coloration and wear pattern of the series, but picked up some scratches at some point. They all seem to have been inflicted at the same time, and I look at it as adding some character to the coin - where has it been, what has it been through? Scratches happen during the normal course of circulation, even though in this instance it is a bit excessive. But improper cleaning is something done to alter the coin in an attempt to enhance the coin's value, and I don't see that as being the case here.
-Is it damaged - yes, but not to the point of being noncollectable - there is no environmental corrosion, it's not bent, no verdigris. The coin has, in fact, been slabbed by 2 different services - so 90+ % of the folks would be wrong. Maybe it made it into plastic because of the date, but it doesn't appear 'altered' or 'unusual' other than the scratches.
-It is an authentic, low mintage, key date quarter that still has plenty of detail showing, which is what attracted me to it in the ANACS holder a few years ago. I just don't like the 'improper cleaning' tag being added to the label when that was certainly not the purpose of the numerous surface abrasions. I may have to use a buddy to place a bid for me and get the coin back & return it to its corner of the windowsill for a few more years.
I do appreciate everybody taking some time and adding opinions about the coin - it's why I still stop in to read and post once and a while....lots of good folks and good eyes on these forums!
Chuck
every treasure on Earth
to be young at heart?
And as rich as you are,
it's much better by far,
to be young at heart!
Maybe if the coin's color was more uniform the lower obv wouldn't stand out so much. The numerous hits and gouges don't help the TPG's case to try and grade it. They chose "cleaning" and could have also chose "damage."
The bright color contrast around the date looks the most out of place for this coin. It looks scrubbed. Looks like wipe lines to me. That coin was probably uniformly dark at one time. Now it's not. How did it get that way? I'd say from a combo of a chemical and abrasive scrubbing. The coin is still presentable though. I think NGC did what was right.
Maybe if the coin's color was more uniform the lower obv wouldn't stand out so much. The numerous hits and gouges don't help the TPG's case to try and grade it. They chose "cleaning" and could have also chose "damage."
I agree. The area around the date looks to have been scrubbed. That's probably where it got the "cleaned label." It could have also been called "environmental damage." I don't which of those to defects is more detrimental to the value.
The fields around the date have the look of being cleaned. I'm thinking that's what they were looking at.
this
As mentioned, that is the one area that does give me pause. The dark toning between the numerals compared to the surrounding field is certainly suspect.....and there is a very slight hint of a possible light scrubbing in a small spot to the left of the date, but it takes some really close eyeballing to see it.
I also agree that coin is still presentable, otherwise I would not have purchased it. Also, consider that it was sent to the experts at Heritage as a raw coin, with instructions to handle it as they felt would be best - even if it meant returning it to me...they chose NGC.
I did encourage folks here to enlarge the image to see the surface details, but sometimes that distorts what the coin actually looks like in hand. Take another look at the coin with the original sized photo, and it doesn't appear nearly as damaged.
Maybe a few more years of simple oxidation will solve the 'cleaning' issue, even though those scratches aren't going to disappear!
every treasure on Earth
to be young at heart?
And as rich as you are,
it's much better by far,
to be young at heart!
If that coin was presented raw, I suspect that 90+ percent of folks here would opine that it would not slab. Scratched or cleaned, it doesn't matter. In fact, as someone pointed out, cleaned is likely better for the seller. While a 59-s is a tough date, and while the 59-s comes ugly, that coin doesn't do ti for me.