Which Version Of This 1919 Quarter Holds More Value?

This has to be a joke, there's only 1 logical answer.

Your debate opponent is apparently some sort of purist nut job peering in at the hobby through a distorted lens. I'd love to talk to him directly.

There are some within the archaeological community that believe a coin found in the ground in an archaeological context should be cleaned up to the point where it can properly identified and dated - at which point further cleaning efforts should cease. For ancient coins, especially bronzes, this makes some kind of sense; an ancient bronze coin's patina is several millimetres thick, and the boundary between "surrounding dirt" and "original coin surface" is not obvious at all. Any form of "cleaning" such a coin risks damaging it, and risks replacing "actual original surface" with "artist's reconstruction". Under such conditions, one can see the logic that perhaps it's better for the coin to remain crusty, and either await a future, better restoration technique or to be content with advanced imaging technology to "see" the coin underneath the dirt without having to remove it.

Of course, to an archaeologist, a coin's "value" is completely and utterly non-monetary; it's value lies entirely in the archaeological context, the information the coin can contribute to the archaeological layer it was buried in, not in the amount of money it can be sold for.

All of which is quite moot discussion for an American silver coin that's been sitting in the ground in America for less than 100 years; that dirt's just dirt and archaeologists should by all reason have zero interest in them since they have zero interest in things that are that young. But archaeologists like to argue with metal detectorists, since they really don't like them anyway.

I see your point however I think marketability has to also be taken into consideration. If you threw both versions of the coin up on ebay and the slab had the details grade, I'm inclined to believe the interest/purchase of the details slab would far exceed the dirty coin.

EDIT TO ADD: eg - there is no market for the dirty version

The Seated Liberty dollar (with Motto) in my 7070 was freed from a "cleaned-detail" slab. I passed up several, much cheaper examples that looked like the pre-conserved quarter above.

Not shovel marks Earl, just minor abrasions in the skin. Confident further conservation would have eliminated but ran the risk of a details-cleaned grade if I pursued. Likely from me placing in mylar out in the field and debris causing from the slide-in.

One of the craziest questions ever posed on this forum.

May very well be but it does expose an interesting dilemma for those in the DO NOT CLEAN camp. To remain true they choose the unaltered version even though evidence suggests the slab is the correct choice. They have no way to defend their decision so they lose all credibility.

But more importantly, they are forcing the DNC concept into a situation that requires additional consideration/flexibility - dirt coins. Exposing dates or varieties, neutralizing corrosion, etc. As SAP aptly points out, even the purist archaeologist has to do it.

What I'd like to see is the DNC camp just bite their tongue (aka: shut their pie hole) when it comes to dirt coins - hold your ground for general circulation coins. There is a significant difference between the two.

Thanks to all that voted.