| Author |
Replies: 11 / Views: 1,571 |
|
|
Valued Member
United States
295 Posts |
Do this coin's surfaces look original or cleaned? I'm having a hard time telling from the pictures.  
|
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
744 Posts |
I don't see any luster... dipped?
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Obverse in particular has certainly been poorly cleaned. Reverse looks more natural.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
3479 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8517 Posts |
Nice coin before they worked it over.
Oregon coin geek.....*** GO BEAVS ! ! ! ***
|
|
Valued Member
 United States
295 Posts |
Quote: Obverse in particular has certainly been poorly cleaned. Reverse looks more natural. Thanks for the input. I'm curious how you determined that the obverse had been cleaned though. What tripped me up were the rings around some of the stars on the reverse, as well as the overall bright and flashy look of the entire piece.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
719 Posts |
Quote: Obverse in particular has certainly been poorly cleaned. Reverse looks more natural. I see it like Coinfrog. Lots of hairlines on the obverse. Baking soda treatment gone bad 
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
94367 Posts |
Your pictures show the differences well. Obverse has a harsh unnatural look, somewhat bright, with lots of fine polishing scratches evident to the eye. Reverse is much softer in appearance, a natural light gray, with no such scratches evident. Overall grade EF details (cleaned).
|
|
Pillar of the Community
7234 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
8715 Posts |
It has hairlines and is blast white with no luster. Cleaned.
|
|
Valued Member
240 Posts |
|
|
Moderator
 United States
189075 Posts |
I agree with the consensus.
|
| |
Replies: 11 / Views: 1,571 |
|