| Author |
Replies: 16 / Views: 2,722 |
|
New Member
United States
20 Posts |
What are the signs of an "old cleaning?" Also, how does an old cleaning differ from a modern one - i.e. what materials were used in "old cleanings?" I'm thinking of 19th century coins in particular. Do TPG's slab coins with "old cleanings?"
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Old cleanings differ only in the amount of time elapsed since, essentially. Time for the coin to acquire a new patina; time for circulation to obscure old damage. Mechanical cleanings generally remain visible to the educated eye, and quite frankly if the physical evidence of cleaning has worn off, then the coin's not cleaned. Cleaned coins generally tone differently than non-cleaned ones, and often (again the discerning eye) can be spotted for that reason. There's no doubt that TPG's slab coins with "market-acceptable" cleaning.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1054 Posts |
Lots of hairlines, absence of luster, all covered and smothered by a new skin of toning. That's just one way to discern old cleaning.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
206 Posts |
I'm interested to see where this discussion goes. I was just talking to a dealer in town today about "market-acceptable" cleaned coins. He had a lovely XF Shield nickel that I was about ready to purchase until he said he had minimally cleaned it in order to remove wax from a coin purse. I quickly lost interest and bought a nice large cent instead (I hate to waste the man's time :-) ). Maybe I'm too much of a purist. I'd be interested to hear other member's thought's on this topic.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Good golly, all you have to do to remove wax is an acetone soak, and nobody would ever know you did it. Unless that was what he was referring to as "cleaning," it'd cost me a bunch of confidence in that dealer.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
2362 Posts |
Quote: "market-acceptable" cleaned coins I'm sure there may be disagreement here. Some coins like bust half dollars are so hard to find in 'never cleaned' condition. Many of these coins were family keepsakes and were cleaned in the early to mid 1800's. Fifty cents was a lot of money in those days and so the coins were maintained and thus cleaned. As long as it was an old cleaning that is re-toning and there is no physical damage like scratches from the cleaning I will buy these.
Member ANA and EAC "You got to lose to know how to win". Dream On by Aerosmith
|
|
Valued Member
United States
206 Posts |
I may have misspoken, SsuperDdave. That is exactly what he said he did: give it an acetone soak. I was paraphrasing (perhaps too generally) when I said he cleaned it. I have a lot of confidence in this dealer, especially since he volunteered this information when I was examining the coin.
So, is an acetone soak a process that most collectors here would not find too offensive? Also, my apologies to arkmanxx, I may have changed the subject in this thread.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Quote: So, is an acetone soak a process that most collectors here would not find too offensive? Glad to hear that's all he did. The point about acetone is, if you choose the right coin, it's physically impossible to tell it's been done because no part of the coin itself is changed in any way. Some purists (and I'm not using the term in a derogatory fashion) might hold objections, but you'll find acetone to be generally considered an acceptable form of conservation.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
206 Posts |
SsuperDdave, I think that is an excellent distinction to make that I hadn't really considered: cleaning vs. conservation. Can you please elaborate a bit on what you mean by "the right coin". Are you referring to the type of metal (copper vs. nickel vs. silver) or a coin that is heavily soiled vs. one that is only slightly dirty. Thanks!
Edited by chetzler 05/04/2013 4:31 pm
|
|
Valued Member
United States
325 Posts |
1. hairlines, 2. lack of luster, 3. extra covering.
|
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Quote: Can you please elaborate a bit on what you mean by "the right coin". You have to be first, cognizant of what (I'll use acetone, but other "acceptable" procedures qualify for the same interpretation) acetone can and can't do. Acetone is an organic solvent, and will only affect organic substances on a coin. It cares not at all for toning/tarnish, which isn't organic, and won't affect it. You got PVC byproduct contamination? Acetone is imperative. Tape residue? Probably, depending on your personal opinion of the result. Second, you need to understand what is and isn't an appropriate candidate from an appearance standpoint. Never forget that the goal is to leave a coin in its' original state - exactly as its' lifetime of use or non-use by innocent people has left it - accept the life as it has lived and be happy with the result. Circulated coins accrue crud, sometimes. Acetone can remove that crud, sometimes. The coin will be darker where the crud is, and a bit lighter where the crud isn't, but those dark and light spots will be there for two different reasons. One is outside stuff choosing to cling to the coin; the other is normal environmental/chemical processes. We call it "toning" or "tarnishing," depending on how "pretty" we think it is. Same process, same result, choose your own adjective. If what you do ever makes that coin look unnatural, you have failed. The only exception is PVC contamination, which could eventually dissolve the whole darn thing and is the enemy of us all. It is your duty as a numismatist to stop it whenever you find it, to preserve your temporary possession for those who follow. But that "dark/less dark" coin which could be changed by acetone is going to be adversely affected by the process. It will change from "dark/less dark" to "less dark/light" because the crud-covered part hasn't toned, what you've removed will reveal surfaces more original, and anyone with half a clue will know the coin has been treated. That is....sub-optimal. So sometimes you have to live with a cruddy coin, as the lesser of two evils.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1432 Posts |
Quote: to preserve your temporary possession for those who follow SsDd . . . very well said. I never really thought of myself as a custodian but basically that is what we are. Just the one currently responsible to pass them on to the next caretaker no worse than when we took possession. And hopefully to someone who will enjoy them as much as we did. 
|
|
Valued Member
United States
206 Posts |
Quote:
SsDd . . . very well said Agreed!
Edited by chetzler 05/04/2013 10:19 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1374 Posts |
Yeah, dipping in acetone can get rid of harmful, acidic oils and grease on the surface of the coin. It can help neutralize virdigris. Rubbing it is a completely different thing, and creates hairlines. I think old cleanings, if a coin has been polished or rubbed, is most easily identifiable by looking at the edges of devices. They will appear smoother than the rest of the coin.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
1028 Posts |
Some people are are not addressing the question very well with the acetone off-shoot discussion. I think the OP wants to know how he can spot an old cleaning when he's looking at coins to potentially buy.
Coins that had an "old cleaning" were usually 19th century or early 20th century silver types. Copper was cleaned as well, but is usually much more obvious to spot. No nickel type has ever been cleaned with much frequency. These old cleanings were usually done on coins that would grade about XF and AU as these were the nice looking keepsakes that these early collectors wanted. The MS coins, usually, though not always, were left alone as they already looked good enough. People back then didn't bother to clean lower graded coins as much. Many of these lower graded cleaned coins, which are rampant, were actually done in the modern era (since the 60's possibly) by stupid and/or unethical sellers. These have not had the time to really re-tone and are thus, also easy to spot. The primary thing people wanted to achieve when doing their cleaning was to remove grime and increase shine. An expert eye can generally spot an old cleaning just by a glance at color versus many they've seen before. Most of these re-toned old silver coins were never re-circulated so they never got any new grime. So to finally answer your question, one good way to spot an old cleaning is to look for a coin that shows wear and has a surprisingly even tone, yet no grime, even in well-protected crevices.
|
|
New Member
 United States
20 Posts |
Good discussion. (I don't mind talking about acetone) Personally, in reference to acetone, I am not against it. I have used it myself to remove tape residue (scotch tape used to hold silver coins into Whitman folders - ugh). The coins were circulated and following dipping in acetone, the old tape fell right off. Only a couple of coins had dark areas above and below where the tape was covering part of the coin. It is what it is.
hesgut, that makes a lot of sense. The absense of grime is a big giveaway. I definitely look for grime on copper coins. Most of the older coins I've gotten so far are of lower grades, and thus, I look for coins which are dirty (they've had lots of time to accumulate grime). I bought a capped bust dime at the Whitman show in Baltimore and the dealer I got it from had about 20 to choose from. Only one really looked un-messed with. Ended up being a Good-6 from the late 1830s. The fields just didn't look right in the others, even Fine and VF ones.
Does toning look different from an old cleaning vs a new(er) one?
|
| |
Replies: 16 / Views: 2,722 |