| Author |
Replies: 55 / Views: 6,232 |
|
Moderator
 United States
23522 Posts |
Poll Question
This has become a bit of a popular topic in the last few days, so I thought I'd solicit opinion.
It's a known practice in numismatics to take a cleaned/damaged coin, and carry it as a pocket piece for the purpose of wearing away the bad stuff and ending up with a "market acceptable" coin, albeit at a lower grade. It's been proven to work time and again, with "successful" slabbings.
My take: I'm all for it. All grading is subjective, to include originality of surfaces. It's the "market," numismatists as a whole, who decide what's acceptable or not. There have been periods when cleaning and/or lacquering a coin was considered appropriate. Heck, I'm not so down on the idea of lacquering, either - it totally arrests a coin's surface development at the moment of application and is easily removable later with acetone, even if "later" is 100 years down the road.
Right now, we like "original" coins. The more realistic of us understand that the percentage of coins which have been cleaned in the past is far higher than it appears; time, circulation and aging have converted many of those to coins that "look" OK. If they look OK, they're OK. It's that simple. That also applies to dipping; most Morgan experts understand there's a strong chance that the coin we're holding has been dipped in the past, whether it appears that way or not. Done right, there's no evidence of past dipping....
What's your opinion?
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
1751 Posts |
Totally acceptable. IMHO, of course... carrying a coin with you every day for years is a labor of love, the reward should be obvious in the value return or the dumping of a details grade.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
4944 Posts |
I don't see anything wrong with this.
Since the coin is being worn down over time in your pocket, you are essentially wearing down the cleaned or altered surface.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
9862 Posts |
"Dipping" is not considered cleaning... -from PCGS website
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
548 Posts |
You take a cleaned coin and then carry it around until it gets even more damaged...am I right so far?
But because that damage is the result of normal wear and tear (albeit done deliberately) the end result is a more acceptable product?
I'd like to see some before and after pictures of this process.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1373 Posts |
I'm not sure I'd ever try that, but I do believe that what he is saying is true.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was found that more than half the coins out there have been cleaned somehow over their lifetime. This would include raw and slabbed coins. I don't know what chemical (acid?) is used for 'dipping', but I assume that it strips a layer of metal off of coins. I'm not sure that age will bring that layer back, but there are probably other cleaning methods that can be disguised by later wear and tear.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Israel
2420 Posts |
It is acceptable, although you have to consider that even after spending a year or so in your pocket, it wouldn't look right as it would ruin the patina created over decades. For it to really achieve the look of older circulated coin you'll need to wait 20-30 years.
|
|
Moderator
  United States
23522 Posts |
Quote: I don't know what chemical (acid?) is used for 'dipping', but I assume that it strips a layer of metal off of coins. Thiourea, usually, and you've figured it right. Done right, an expert can't tell. Done wrong, and you have a coin with a VF30 finish and Mint State details. The overwhelming majority of coin wear comes from rubbing against other coins; they really spend very little time being rubbed by human fingers. It stands to reason that wearing them down in one's pocket would have the same result as "normal" circulation wear.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
919 Posts |
I guess I kind of started the discussion with my low ball graded set question on Monday.
For me dipping and pocket pieces are in the same category (unless the coin is carried around for sentimental reasons). I know many coins out there have been dipped. I now know that many coins out there are getting worn in the early 2000's and not the early 1900's.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
160 Posts |
Is the wear coming from the friction with the pocket or contact with other coins? If it is the latter then wouldn't you get the same result from throwing it in a coffee can full of change and rolling it around the floor?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United Kingdom
548 Posts |
Seems like an absurd waste of time to me.
Rather than trying to cover up the fact that it was cleaned by doing further damage to the coin why not just accept that the coin is what it is, acknowledge the fact that it was cleaned by a previous owner, and forget about getting the coin graded.
Edited by Demarco Bishopp 11/13/2013 10:50 am
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3253 Posts |
I suppose that the real question is whether modern wear is the same as the wear received in a coin's original working life. Were the 19th century leather coin purses and money belts an equivalent environment to the pocket of your Gap pants? And of course, your 1878 Morgan isn't being spent, is it? It's not changing hands. We speak a lot of honest wear, but ethically speaking, how can intentional wear be "honest?"
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2543 Posts |
Quote: 1878 Morgan isn't being spent, is it? It's not changing hands. We speak a lot of honest wear, but ethically speaking, how can intentional wear be "honest?" I totally agree, I have been biting my lip on this for the past few days, not wanting to hijack other people's threads. Thanks Dave for this thread. Honest wear is honest wear pure and simple. Trying to justify doctoring a coin by time limits is still doctoring a coin. If I put it in a tumbler for two weeks with other coins, it is doctoring. But if I put it in my pocket with other coins for a year, it is acceptable " honest " wear ? The fact that one uses no tools or chemicals and it takes a year, does not change the fact that it is an attempt to bring value back to a damaged coin by a deliberately " doctoring " the surfaces. IMHO it is the same as intentionally putting a coin in an oxygenated atmosphere to create expedite a " natural " patina. This is just my opinion and I truly mean no offense to anyone.
Edited by denco7 11/13/2013 11:04 am
|
|
Moderator
  United States
23522 Posts |
There's a coin sitting on the velvet in front of you, under your observation light. It's a nice XF-ish Walker, whose surfaces seem quite original. How did it come to look that way? Tell me, with absolute certainty. You could either spend the rest of your life agonizing over whether or not somebody deliberately did something to it, or you can simply accept what you see. Reality is a point in time, a thing of zero duration. What's real right now? Does the coin look right, right now? If a kid went swimming in the creek in 1893 wearing his pants, with a nickel in his pocket, isn't that coin cleaned? You've all (almost certainly) handled cleaned coins. Anyone who's ever collected circulated coins has (almost certainly) handled cleaned ones. Is the cleaning deliberate if a non-numismatist does it? If it got dry-cleaned in the pocket of a suit? If it laid out on the lawn for a couple days in the rain? What if I got a circulated '55 Double Die in change, accidentally washed it in the change pocket of my jeans and PCGS slabbed it anyway because it didn't "look" cleaned? Does the fourth owner down the road from me care, if it doesn't "look" cleaned? Does it really matter? Edited for comment posted while I was typing: Quote: If I put it in a tumbler for two weeks with other coins, it is doctoring. But if I put it in my pocket with other coins for a year, it is acceptable " honest " wear ? The fact that one uses no tools or chemicals and it takes a year, does not change the fact that it is an attempt to bring value back to a damaged coin by a deliberately " doctoring " the surfaces.
IMHO it is the same as intentionally putting a coin in an oxygenated atmosphere to create expedite a " natural " patina. This is just my opinion and I truly mean no offense to anyone. I would not trust any concept on which we all agree unanimously. Now, riddle me this: Is a cleaned coin acquiring wear in the pocket of an innocent who never knew it was cleaned - owned it only as money - different from someone who did the exact same thing deliberately? Does the coin care?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
919 Posts |
I'm willing to bet some/many of the coins in the Everyman's Collection PCGS registry sets have been created through recent wear. How many of the AU58 coins listed were once low end MS60? All you need to do is take a low end MS coin, carry it around a little and you have an AU58.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
2543 Posts |
Riddle me this: (hypothetical) My Dad owned a 1893 S Morgan dollar, it was the prize of his collection, he showed it off, he bragged on it , it was the culmination of his lifetime collection efforts. While he was an avid collector, he was no expert. When he passed, I posted his coin here, and found it to be a very....very well done doctored 1893. Do I feel horrible for my Dad ? Do I thank the person that doctored it for giving my Dad so much joy in the ownership of this coin ? Do I stop my efforts to keep counterfeiters, crack-out artists and such out of the hobby because there are thousands and thousands of people out there with coins in their collections that they have waited a lifetime to own, that will spend the rest of their lives never knowing that their coin is counterfeit, doctored, or an ungradeable crack out ? 
Edited by denco7 11/13/2013 11:37 am
|
| |
Replies: 55 / Views: 6,232 |