JKK

My general rule of thumb is that a light cleaning docks one grade in value, and a nasty cleaning docks it two.

No reason why I would.

If you're right, which I don't concede but acknowledge is theoretically possible, then I guess whichever grading guide I read that in was incorrect. Guess you can't trust anything you read these days.

MS stands for mint state, and begins at 60. AU stands for almost uncirculated, and begins at 50. If the coin has been circulated (as opposed to dinged up in mint bags), it cannot be MS or better.
There is a slight variation on this for proof coins. Most proofs are uncirculated and follow a grading track parallel to MS (60-70), yet with slightly different criteria because the expectations for proofs are different. However, there is such a thing as a circulated proof (usually happens when some kids swipe someone's coin collection and then go out and spend the proofs), so a coin can get PR-50 for example. I think the cutoff is at PR-45 or so; below that, my information is that they're graded like circulation strikes.

If you're right, which I don't concede but acknowledge is theoretically possible, then I guess whichever grading guide I read that in was incorrect. Guess you can't trust anything you read these days.

MS stands for mint state, and begins at 60. AU stands for almost uncirculated, and begins at 50. If the coin has been circulated (as opposed to dinged up in mint bags), it cannot be MS or better.
There is a slight variation on this for proof coins. Most proofs are uncirculated and follow a grading track parallel to MS (60-70), yet with slightly different criteria because the expectations for proofs are different. However, there is such a thing as a circulated proof (usually happens when some kids swipe someone's coin collection and then go out and spend the proofs), so a coin can get PR-50 for example. I think the cutoff is at PR-45 or so; below that, my information is that they're graded like circulation strikes.

If you're right, which I don't concede but acknowledge is theoretically possible, then I guess whichever grading guide I read that in was incorrect. Guess you can't trust anything you read these days.

Ah. Thank you for sharing that understanding, and please pardon my mistake.

If you want help with the ancients, ask away.
If you mostly want to do it yourself, Wildwinds as mentioned is a good source. For Roman stuff, so is Aorta or ERIC II (both by PNW homie Rasiel Suarez), but either of those might cost you more than the whole ancient collection is worth. The Sear volumes are another expensive but potentially useful attribution tool. All of the above probably cost me $800 in total.
The method I use to study an ancient coin and sort out its devices, I call BORTE. I take out a little slip of paper (the little notepads charities give you as "gifts from the children" are very helpful), leave room at the top, and write in column at left: B O R T E. Bust (or other obverse device), obverse legend (including writing in the field), reverse legend (same but other side), type (as in reverse device), and exergue (area at the bottom reverse where Roman imperial mint marks are common; also can refer sort of to writing in the field). I then write down what I see. If a legend is missing letters or they are indistinct I try and use underbars for those spots. At the top I write what country I think it comes from, the evident metal, and its weight and diameter (grams and mm). Once I have organized my approach in this way, I start looking through my books or Wildwinds. I update it as I figure out what I'm really seeing. Wildwinds will generally supply you with catalog numbers so there is no need for you to become a total ancients nerd with more money invested in books than in coins, though if you want to go hardcore you'll find that antiquarians--in history studies as well as numismatics--tend to be a very kind bunch, eager to share what we've learned.
If you want the fastest approach to doing it yourself, post pics here, sharp and cropped obverse and reverse, one coin per thread, and tag me (I normally ignore this forum and just happened in; ever since they consolidated basically all coins here, it ceased to mean anything). If you post them without weight and diameter, of course, I'll be patient and wait for you to realize you need to add that (if you don't bother, that's fine, but neither will I). Once they're posted in usable form, I'll at least give you some idea of where to start looking. That combined with Wildwinds should get you through quite a few of them. It will also tell you just how many subvariations can exist for a given denomination.
Metal abbreviations: AV=Au or electrum, AR=Ag, AE=all the copper-based alloys, BI=billon (debased or even trace silver). That is the language of ancient metal alloys and you might as well soak it up. I had to create one of my own recently: SN=Sn, for attributing a tin dinheiro of one of Portugal's Indian Ocean colonies. I admit it: I just thought it was cool to have a real tin coin, and really really wanted to put that on the insert. Plus it wasn't too spendy. A juvenile indulgence, which is totally okay in ancient numismatics.
You probably trust the attributions you see on some of the holders. I wouldn't. One of my rituals when I buy new stuff is to take it home and check on the attribution. Dealers don't always know much about ancients and are rarely willing to spend an hour or two on an ancient bronze, so they'll just write Constantius AE 12 (or whatever) and charge the $8-12 one may reasonably charge for a worn example. You should look them up yourself and make your own judgment. I even look up coins I buy from the ancients guru in our coin club, one of my great mentors--not because I don't respect him, but for learning purposes and because he would expect it of me. In fact, he'd be proud to have helped equip me to question his attributions.

It's a Republic AR denarius, probably second century BCE, but I haven't looked it up. They aren't very expensive, typically $70-100. If I recall correctly, that type is fairly common and should be affordable. The coinage doesn't have a ruler because the Republic of course did not have rulers, just consuls and censors and praetors, so there's something on the obverse other than a living person's head--at least until the mid-first century BCE if memory serves. Usually the name of the magistrate in charge of coinage is in the legend, I think; memory slips me as to whether that was a consul, praetor, aedile, etc.

If you want help with the ancients, ask away.
If you mostly want to do it yourself, Wildwinds as mentioned is a good source. For Roman stuff, so is Aorta or ERIC II (both by PNW homie Rasiel Suarez), but either of those might cost you more than the whole ancient collection is worth. The Sear volumes are another expensive but potentially useful attribution tool. All of the above probably cost me $800 in total.
The method I use to study an ancient coin and sort out its devices, I call BORTE. I take out a little slip of paper (the little notepads charities give you as "gifts from the children" are very helpful), leave room at the top, and write in column at left: B O R T E. Bust (or other obverse device), obverse legend (including writing in the field), reverse legend (same but other side), type (as in reverse device), and exergue (area at the bottom reverse where Roman imperial mint marks are common; also can refer sort of to writing in the field). I then write down what I see. If a legend is missing letters or they are indistinct I try and use underbars for those spots. At the top I write what country I think it comes from, the evident metal, and its weight and diameter (grams and mm). Once I have organized my approach in this way, I start looking through my books or Wildwinds. I update it as I figure out what I'm really seeing. Wildwinds will generally supply you with catalog numbers so there is no need for you to become a total ancients nerd with more money invested in books than in coins, though if you want to go hardcore you'll find that antiquarians--in history studies as well as numismatics--tend to be a very kind bunch, eager to share what we've learned.
If you want the fastest approach to doing it yourself, post pics here, sharp and cropped obverse and reverse, one coin per thread, and tag me (I normally ignore this forum and just happened in; ever since they consolidated basically all coins here, it ceased to mean anything). If you post them without weight and diameter, of course, I'll be patient and wait for you to realize you need to add that (if you don't bother, that's fine, but neither will I). Once they're posted in usable form, I'll at least give you some idea of where to start looking. That combined with Wildwinds should get you through quite a few of them. It will also tell you just how many subvariations can exist for a given denomination.
Metal abbreviations: AV=Au or electrum, AR=Ag, AE=all the copper-based alloys, BI=billon (debased or even trace silver). That is the language of ancient metal alloys and you might as well soak it up. I had to create one of my own recently: SN=Sn, for attributing a tin dinheiro of one of Portugal's Indian Ocean colonies. I admit it: I just thought it was cool to have a real tin coin, and really really wanted to put that on the insert. Plus it wasn't too spendy. A juvenile indulgence, which is totally okay in ancient numismatics.
You probably trust the attributions you see on some of the holders. I wouldn't. One of my rituals when I buy new stuff is to take it home and check on the attribution. Dealers don't always know much about ancients and are rarely willing to spend an hour or two on an ancient bronze, so they'll just write Constantius AE 12 (or whatever) and charge the $8-12 one may reasonably charge for a worn example. You should look them up yourself and make your own judgment. I even look up coins I buy from the ancients guru in our coin club, one of my great mentors--not because I don't respect him, but for learning purposes and because he would expect it of me. In fact, he'd be proud to have helped equip me to question his attributions.

If you want help with the ancients, ask away.
If you mostly want to do it yourself, Wildwinds as mentioned is a good source. For Roman stuff, so is Aorta or ERIC II (both by PNW homie Rasiel Suarez), but either of those might cost you more than the whole ancient collection is worth. The Sear volumes are another expensive but potentially useful attribution tool. All of the above probably cost me $800 in total.
The method I use to study an ancient coin and sort out its devices, I call BORTE. I take out a little slip of paper (the little notepads charities give you as "gifts from the children" are very helpful), leave room at the top, and write in column at left: B O R T E. Bust (or other obverse device), obverse legend (including writing in the field), reverse legend (same but other side), type (as in reverse device), and exergue (area at the bottom reverse where Roman imperial mint marks are common; also can refer sort of to writing in the field). I then write down what I see. If a legend is missing letters or they are indistinct I try and use underbars for those spots. At the top I write what country I think it comes from, the evident metal, and its weight and diameter (grams and mm). Once I have organized my approach in this way, I start looking through my books or Wildwinds. I update it as I figure out what I'm really seeing. Wildwinds will generally supply you with catalog numbers so there is no need for you to become a total ancients nerd with more money invested in books than in coins, though if you want to go hardcore you'll find that antiquarians--in history studies as well as numismatics--tend to be a very kind bunch, eager to share what we've learned.
If you want the fastest approach to doing it yourself, post pics here, sharp and cropped obverse and reverse, one coin per thread, and tag me (I normally ignore this forum and just happened in; ever since they consolidated basically all coins here, it ceased to mean anything). If you post them without weight and diameter, of course, I'll be patient and wait for you to realize you need to add that (if you don't bother, that's fine, but neither will I). Once they're posted in usable form, I'll at least give you some idea of where to start looking. That combined with Wildwinds should get you through quite a few of them. It will also tell you just how many subvariations can exist for a given denomination.
Metal abbreviations: AV=Au or electrum, AR=Ag, AE=all the copper-based alloys, BI=billon (debased or even trace silver). That is the language of ancient metal alloys and you might as well soak it up. I had to create one of my own recently: SN=Sn, for attributing a tin dinheiro of one of Portugal's Indian Ocean colonies. I admit it: I just thought it was cool to have a real tin coin, and really really wanted to put that on the insert. Plus it wasn't too spendy. A juvenile indulgence, which is totally okay in ancient numismatics.
You probably trust the attributions you see on some of the holders. I wouldn't. One of my rituals when I buy new stuff is to take it home and check on the attribution. Dealers don't always know much about ancients and are rarely willing to spend an hour or two on an ancient bronze, so they'll just write Constantius AE 12 (or whatever) and charge the $8-12 one may reasonably charge for a worn example. You should look them up yourself and make your own judgment. I even look up coins I buy from the ancients guru in our coin club, one of my great mentors--not because I don't respect him, but for learning purposes and because he would expect it of me. In fact, he'd be proud to have helped equip me to question his attributions.

I don't doubt your assessment, but I also don't recognize this relaxation of standards by them as valid. This is one of those rare situations where it either is or isn't, in my view, and if they are subjective about it I consider them incorrect.

I don't doubt your assessment, but I also don't recognize this relaxation of standards by them as valid. This is one of those rare situations where it either is or isn't, in my view, and if they are subjective about it I consider them incorrect.

I would assume because you purchased them. But if they bother you, seems sensible you could sell them.

1) Because people will pay less money for it, and if valuable, would not straight grade at a TPG.
2) My definition would be: Cleaning is any chemical or abrasive process used to remove some matter that was not part of the coin when minted. Tarnish, PVC slime, gunk, bronze disease, chewing gum, nail polish, etc.--except where the matter is causing ongoing damage to the original coin. When it's putting a stop to deterioration in that way, we consider that conservation. So yes, those methods you described are cleaning.
3) It is beyond bad. Never ask me what I would do to people who do that if it were in my power. They would never do it again.
4) For you, none. Here's the truth with the bark on: The fact that you have to even ask these questions is proof that you, personally, absolutely should not alter the surface of any of your coins until you learn a lot more about the process. That is not a putdown of you, please understand, just an assessment of where your knowledge stands and how you can best avoid harming your coins. In fact, if anything, I respect that you came out and asked the question before doing it. So no sting intended, but that's the plain facts.
You may reach a day when you can somewhat safely indulge in some forms of cleaning, but that day is far away. The people who can do this know who they are and they never have to ask beginner questions. To use an analogy, this is like a first-quarter accounting student sending a résumé to a Big Howevermanyitisnow firm and asking how to become a partner. It's okay to ask, but the guidance you'll get will tell you not to skip all the steps in between.
Here's the main reason for you to look at this differently: When new collectors look at a coin with dark toning, or that isn't shiny, most of the time they think it would be nicer if it were shinier. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. There are uncirculated coins that are so patinated you have to take a good look to realize they still aren't circulated. Most collectors still like them. By contrast, most forms of cleaning create unnatural colors that are twenty times uglier than whatever patina they removed: blast white heavily circulated silver, salmon-pink bronze, and so on. We can tell. Oh, and if you think that your cloth wiping can't possibly be detected, try this. Get a brand new penny. Rub it for about five seconds with a q-tip. Look at it under magnification. Check out all those cute little scratches! Damage, freshly inflicted.
In case any of that seemed to offer a path to encouraging you to clean any coins, or was interpreted that way, let's correct that. Please do not clean any of them. This is the best kindness I can offer you.

1) Because people will pay less money for it, and if valuable, would not straight grade at a TPG.
2) My definition would be: Cleaning is any chemical or abrasive process used to remove some matter that was not part of the coin when minted. Tarnish, PVC slime, gunk, bronze disease, chewing gum, nail polish, etc.--except where the matter is causing ongoing damage to the original coin. When it's putting a stop to deterioration in that way, we consider that conservation. So yes, those methods you described are cleaning.
3) It is beyond bad. Never ask me what I would do to people who do that if it were in my power. They would never do it again.
4) For you, none. Here's the truth with the bark on: The fact that you have to even ask these questions is proof that you, personally, absolutely should not alter the surface of any of your coins until you learn a lot more about the process. That is not a putdown of you, please understand, just an assessment of where your knowledge stands and how you can best avoid harming your coins. In fact, if anything, I respect that you came out and asked the question before doing it. So no sting intended, but that's the plain facts.
You may reach a day when you can somewhat safely indulge in some forms of cleaning, but that day is far away. The people who can do this know who they are and they never have to ask beginner questions. To use an analogy, this is like a first-quarter accounting student sending a résumé to a Big Howevermanyitisnow firm and asking how to become a partner. It's okay to ask, but the guidance you'll get will tell you not to skip all the steps in between.
Here's the main reason for you to look at this differently: When new collectors look at a coin with dark toning, or that isn't shiny, most of the time they think it would be nicer if it were shinier. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. There are uncirculated coins that are so patinated you have to take a good look to realize they still aren't circulated. Most collectors still like them. By contrast, most forms of cleaning create unnatural colors that are twenty times uglier than whatever patina they removed: blast white heavily circulated silver, salmon-pink bronze, and so on. We can tell. Oh, and if you think that your cloth wiping can't possibly be detected, try this. Get a brand new penny. Rub it for about five seconds with a q-tip. Look at it under magnification. Check out all those cute little scratches! Damage, freshly inflicted.
In case any of that seemed to offer a path to encouraging you to clean any coins, or was interpreted that way, let's correct that. Please do not clean any of them. This is the best kindness I can offer you.

1) Because people will pay less money for it, and if valuable, would not straight grade at a TPG.
2) My definition would be: Cleaning is any chemical or abrasive process used to remove some matter that was not part of the coin when minted. Tarnish, PVC slime, gunk, bronze disease, chewing gum, nail polish, etc.--except where the matter is causing ongoing damage to the original coin. When it's putting a stop to deterioration in that way, we consider that conservation. So yes, those methods you described are cleaning.
3) It is beyond bad. Never ask me what I would do to people who do that if it were in my power. They would never do it again.
4) For you, none. Here's the truth with the bark on: The fact that you have to even ask these questions is proof that you, personally, absolutely should not alter the surface of any of your coins until you learn a lot more about the process. That is not a putdown of you, please understand, just an assessment of where your knowledge stands and how you can best avoid harming your coins. In fact, if anything, I respect that you came out and asked the question before doing it. So no sting intended, but that's the plain facts.
You may reach a day when you can somewhat safely indulge in some forms of cleaning, but that day is far away. The people who can do this know who they are and they never have to ask beginner questions. To use an analogy, this is like a first-quarter accounting student sending a résumé to a Big Howevermanyitisnow firm and asking how to become a partner. It's okay to ask, but the guidance you'll get will tell you not to skip all the steps in between.
Here's the main reason for you to look at this differently: When new collectors look at a coin with dark toning, or that isn't shiny, most of the time they think it would be nicer if it were shinier. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. There are uncirculated coins that are so patinated you have to take a good look to realize they still aren't circulated. Most collectors still like them. By contrast, most forms of cleaning create unnatural colors that are twenty times uglier than whatever patina they removed: blast white heavily circulated silver, salmon-pink bronze, and so on. We can tell. Oh, and if you think that your cloth wiping can't possibly be detected, try this. Get a brand new penny. Rub it for about five seconds with a q-tip. Look at it under magnification. Check out all those cute little scratches! Damage, freshly inflicted.
In case any of that seemed to offer a path to encouraging you to clean any coins, or was interpreted that way, let's correct that. Please do not clean any of them. This is the best kindness I can offer you.

On the subject of inconsistent grading, I think people forget that at least a healthy minority of us actually look at the coin. Even if one managed to get a coin overgraded, the issue then would be people's disgust with it and the seller. This is not a world in which TPGs are some secret superhero called Numisma-Man (faster than a speeding grumpy old dealer; more observant than a grumpy old dealer with teenagers in the store; able to assess bad cleanings in a single glance), whose decisions descend from Mt. Sinai on stone tablets. If you were trying to unload it, you'd be hoping for a dumb sucker because all the smart people would actually look at the actual coin and form their own opinions as to an actual grade.
Graders are human; some are less experienced than others; people can have bad days. But I'm pretty sure that the major problem with misgrading is not people's insider pals giving them numismatic reacharounds. I'm pretty sure it's the heavy pressure from very big guns on certain very expensive coins, combined with 'market grading' and all the many excuses people invent for 'why my coin should get a grade higher than it could possibly merit.' Watch when someone posts a coin here. We've got several people who are consistently 1-2 grades high and sometimes even worse. It's like they didn't even look at the f-booming coin.

On the subject of inconsistent grading, I think people forget that at least a healthy minority of us actually look at the coin. Even if one managed to get a coin overgraded, the issue then would be people's disgust with it and the seller. This is not a world in which TPGs are some secret superhero called Numisma-Man (faster than a speeding grumpy old dealer; more observant than a grumpy old dealer with teenagers in the store; able to assess bad cleanings in a single glance), whose decisions descend from Mt. Sinai on stone tablets. If you were trying to unload it, you'd be hoping for a dumb sucker because all the smart people would actually look at the actual coin and form their own opinions as to an actual grade.
Graders are human; some are less experienced than others; people can have bad days. But I'm pretty sure that the major problem with misgrading is not people's insider pals giving them numismatic reacharounds. I'm pretty sure it's the heavy pressure from very big guns on certain very expensive coins, combined with 'market grading' and all the many excuses people invent for 'why my coin should get a grade higher than it could possibly merit.' Watch when someone posts a coin here. We've got several people who are consistently 1-2 grades high and sometimes even worse. It's like they didn't even look at the f-booming coin.

Or even more draconian. When I worked for an investment management firm, we were categorically forbidden to trade in separate issue securities. Every quarter, we got a sheet requiring us to list our separate issue securities transactions (or check the box for 'none'). If we already owned something, we had to get permission to sell it. We were never pressured to be in the firm's funds, but we were required to be in funds of some sort if we wanted to invest in securities markets (which if we had been too stupid to do that given the proximity of very educated market wisdom, we'd be throwing away one of the major intangible benefits).
I think the primary logic was that, since we traded blocks of stock large enough to affect market pricing, we could be considered at least suspect as to insider information, and the partners didn't want even the appearance of potential risk.

Stupid, no; valuable, also no. I'd guess that the faint lines you see are a slight die crack. This was pretty common with Morgans, but minting came a long way by the bicentennial. No special value.

Twenty-two minutes and you're impatient already? Great look.

Looks to me like it took a hit that pushed up some metal around it. It's the sort of impact that is only getting notice because it happens to be located in the legend.

Doesn't look like any Ike dollar I've ever seen. Too small and the wrong composition.