1886 Indian Head Cent Type 2 - What To Do With This?

And I disagree 100% with saying nothing should ever be done to a coin. Using things such as acetone, water, verdis care etc that do absolutely nothing to the coin itself can hardly be considered as a negative. If dirt and grime on a coin (which is the ONLY thing affected in this case) can be considered history, then I submit all ancient coins are now worthless hunks of metal. As are any coins recovered metal detecting or the like. These coins are cleaned in these completely non damaging manners all the time. And I am quite sure my statement they are worthless will be argued. And rightfully so. Its ridiculous to say something like that.

YES, the coin DOES look different. It isn't dirty anymore! Thats the difference. The acetone did NOT affect the coin itself. It simply removed the grime on that coin that it could thereby resulting in the REAL appearance of the coin to be revealed. So to say that using the acetone affected this coin in any kind of negative way, which was the original statement, is wrong.

This insane insistence that cleaning, even in perfectly non abusive manner, is bad is just that. Insane.

Very well. Of course, for the record it needs to be noted that I said you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills after you brazenly mis-represented my words in both your posts. It also wasn't me who attacked you. This thread is the record for all to see. It will show you flying in out of nowhere writing me a comment telling me to "please learn..." and "shaking your head" at me. Maybe you should try and walk up to a random person on the street whom you've never spoken to demanding they learn something and shake your head at them. It was disrespect and diluted facts from the get go with your comments.




You know, not everyone wants a coin like that. I've sold coins just like the one is this thread and they simply do not go for what the untouched ones go for. If a coin looks really really ugly like some buried ancients, then yes, they should be cleaned...I eluded to that earlier in this thread. The coin in question is pretty far away from that.

Why would removing the dirt or grime make a coin any more real than it's prior counterpart. The most real any coin can look is whatever natural circumstances impacted the development of said coin...not when somebody throws a perfectly attractive coin into a flammable solvent in their garage.

I guess most ebayers, most dealers, most collectors, and the majority of those in this thread must all be insane to think that an uncleaned coin is best. How "nay-sayers" in this thread continue to assert that a coin that has been tampered with doesn't count as a cleaned coin, because the solvent only acts on biological aspects on the coin is beyond me.

Just out of curiosity, to what degree can one "artificially" change the appearance of the coin you're looking at, for it to be okay. Some in previous generations thought full on cleaning was fine. You may fall on the wrong side of history if you want to toss your entire collection in acetone.

OK, I figured out the way to illustrate this...

The coin before...


The coin after...

Was the appearance of the truck changed? Of course it was. Duh. But was the truck damaged by the cleaning? Of course not.

Simplistic, but the same none the less.

That's one reason I avoid grading AU and MS IHCs online--there's just not enough information in a single picture. Admittedly, I still make qualitative judgements based on photos, whenever I buy coins online. The "dirty truck vs. clean truck" anology is humorous, but unless you're pulling coins out of a muddy hole, aren't real comparison a bit more subtle? I wasn't trying to come across as harsh, so apologies if I did.

This comment is in reply to smokeriderdon;

You've mentioned quite a few things, let me respond to them. Since you won't listen to me, at times I'll use quotes from other individuals to illustrate my points.

You claim that me, you, and nobody else can tell whether or not a coin has been dipped in acetone. If the coin was an AU or BU, it might slip my eye, but XF or lower coins have the expectation (and for most the preference) of some degree of grime.

Another poster wrote



Not to put words in anyone's mouth, but I believe the inference to the use of acetone would be in cases of simple personal preference or in severe circumstances, not ever for a normal looking coin.

You seam to fail to realize that some people do, in fact, want their coins to have grime on them and that it IS considered part of the coin.

The OP, himself, the only one who has actually seen this coin, wrote


I have again been accused me of not knowing what acetone does


It's becoming funny at this point. I have made statements that indicate the contrary in posts numbered #20, #26, #30, and #35 of this thread. It's gotten old.

Making claims that I don't support acetone or other cleaning in much more damaging situations have been brought up again as well.


I have already stated in posts numbered #20 and #35, that some situations do call for some type of repair.

It's fine that you disagree with me (and others), but what I don't understand is that you fail to realize that that somebody may see things differently.


I have already mentioned in this thread that some people will indeed prefer a coin with acetone treatment. It does not appear as though you accept any such diversity of thought

Another poster, who actually prefers the acetone coin wrote


That was a very level-headed response

On the other hand, you have implied that all people who don't agree with you are not just wrong, but that they are in fact, insane


Really? That post was also mostly in response to Superdave, who probably left the most eloquent (and best) post of this thread. He is apparently insane for what he said. Actually, almost everyone in this thread and most collectors would seam to be.

So done.