Dipped Or Original Skin? Pattern Coin

@typecoin, PM sent. I'm not sure if it went through. I might be restricted due to my 'new member' status.

I must admit that I wouldn't have recognized the difference between the 2 coins as DSFreeWorld pointed out and I've been involved with coins for nearly my entire life. It just shows, there's always something to learn!

So, is the main subtlety here that the worn surfaces also show signs of toning? Or is the color the dead giveaway?

A circulated pattern is probably not the best coin to use to try to learn about cleaned coins.

I realize that you probably chose it because it is bright silver with no indication of it having been cleaned according to PCGS, which would certainly merit an inquiry.

The best way to learn grading and if a coin is cleaned, or not, is by focusing on a type first and learning other types after you've had some experience with one type.

You will soon find that what you learn from studying Buffalo nickels will carry over to your interest in Indian Head cents, and will allow you to make better estimates of grade (or cleaning) on types you've never even handled before.

If you want to learn grading, go get a bunch of Jefferson nickels, which are most likely to have coins that have been in circulation for a good long time.

Take each nickel and put it in a horizontal row with the worst grades on the left and the best grades on the right. Look over what you've done as you continue to go through the nickels and move them from pile to pile as you need. Once you've done this with a fair number, you will start to be able to get a good idea of the "grade" with just a glance.

Once you've learned Jefferson's you can begin to use that same knowledge on just about any coin from any country. Even types you've never seen before. That doesn't mean you will be an expert on every coin type, but it does give you the first steps toward a true understanding of how circulation, or lack thereof, affects the placement of a coin along the horizontal line from worst to best.

I made a rebuttal in a following post explaining how the color could naturally occur.

what I am trying to point out to the OP are the differences between original unmolested surfaces and those that have been compromised to some degree.

The first dime is absolutely cleaned. If you don't want to take my word for it, PM me and I will send you private and personal correspondence between myself and a Hall Of Fame Numismatist who happens to specialize in the series and we're discussing this exact dime a few years back.

Both 1847 dimes are EF. Both are from the Philly mint.

Here is a better example of what "cameo" circulated looks like and the effect of fingers rubbing the high points in any part of the world:

Note the reliefs of this coin versus the cleaned 1847. Yes it contrasts compared to the mirror but notice how it doesn't POP, its much more subtle. It was truly rubbed by fingers versus a rag/cloth wiping away at it. that is the difference. Hence, cleaned versus circulated.

I see what you mean. But how do you know that it wasn't someone rubbing their thumb over the devices to make them stand out more? How is it different? I have used my thumb for the same reason and got the same results.

You can see before and after pictures here:

http://goccf.com/t/262875#2234344

Or it could have been used as a pocket piece. That would be unintentional.

But I see where you are coming from. But I think the coin should not be considered damaged as most of the original surface is still there, and the eye appeal is not decreased (and in this case, it was improved). The matter of fact here is that we don't *exactly* know how the devices got a thinner patina than the fields. Being very lightly and carefully cleaned is just as much conjecture as any of the theories I have put forth. However, upon review of the pictures, I agree that the surfaces on the devices have probably been intentionally altered to some degree.