Henri Charriere Posted October 6, 2023 Share Posted October 6, 2023 Elsewhere on another popular long-running thread is a coin member Sandon posted which, for lack of a better word, is Outstanding in every respect. It is an 1857-O Seated Half-Dollar, uncertified, but which he has self-described as "AU details, "cleaned." Now that non-Mint State has been alluded to, there is a natural inclination on the part of the viewer to ferret out the alleged deficits. Sandon's personal photography is superior. My eye is drawn to surface phenomena I don't know whether I would have looked for otherwise. But in doing so, I am guilty of the same inclinations every serious collector is afflicted with: minimization, maximization, or in the case of one viewer, not given to observing the niceties of cordial conversation: firm and final, outright condemnation. Herewith my bias on the subject, phrased as a rhetorical question: Can anyone state with complete certainty that NONE of the numismatic items recovered from the S.S. CENTRAL AMERICA Shipwreck were subjected to "cleaning," a/k/a "conservation?" No, because the pros were determined to outweigh the cons -- which evidently included those coins which were adjudged to be Mint State, some of which undoubtedly displayed original mint luster. What about high-tier coins generally? Proofs, Uncirculated coins -- and my favorites, the AU-59's the gods have proclaimed do not exist (with the requisite sepulchral awe!) I am prepared to say, absent exigent circumstances, no high-tier coins should be tampered with. But what about the majority of coins occupying the lower end of the scale? Is it not peculiar to single out coins that appear to be Poor, Fair or Good, with the harsh designation "cleaned"? Briefly, but directly, should there be (or is there) a threshold beyond which pejorative such labels ought to be dispensed with and the coin deemed to be exempt from that kind of scrutiny? Many members, I believe, are reluctant to submit coins they feel may be problematic for no other reason than having their worst fears officially substantiated. Your thoughts on this? GoldFinger1969 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobymordet Posted October 6, 2023 Share Posted October 6, 2023 "I like big b*tts and I cannot lie. . . " I feel like I am back in College when I read your linguistically simplistic exposition. Just kidding, but seriously, you make my brain cell hurt and my hamster very tired. But I do agree with you on the double standard of it all. I do think that Shipwreck and any other "conserved" coins should have the same (cleaned/conserved) disclosure out of fairness. Unfortunately, I have found every collector club gets to set rules on the "proper etiquette" of their respective inclination as a way to keep the rift-raft out or constantly running in circles. Personally, I play around with cleaning coins that are not valuable or worthy of maintaining the dignity of natural degradation. I like foreign coins and for the most part - the ones I collect - have limited value but have appealing designs. I gotsta get my bedazzle on! Spell-check is awesome and thesauruses are 2, I just hope I don't perjor myself Henri Charriere 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Charriere Posted October 6, 2023 Author Share Posted October 6, 2023 Perjure... Ha! Ha! Ha! I appreciate your input! Nothing I write surprises the old-timers here -- or the Moderators. 🤣 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandon Posted October 7, 2023 Share Posted October 7, 2023 If I understand the inquiry correctly, your supposition seems to be that grading services are more likely to designate circulated coins "cleaned" than uncirculated coins. In my experience, this is not true. I have seen numerous coins designated "Uncirculated Details-Cleaned" for the usual reasons--extensive hairline scratches due to being scrubbed with an abrasive object or substance or an unnatural shine or color or blotches due to treatment with chemicals. The grading services numerically grade both circulated and uncirculated silver coins that have likely been "dipped" to remove "toning" if the "dipping" was done properly, although "dipping" apparently tends to reduce the numerical grade of uncirculated pieces. However, pieces that have been "dipped" for too long or too many times, resulting in a dull or "washed out" appearance are usually designated "cleaned". I understand that many of the gold coins recovered from the S.S. Central America and other deep-water shipwrecks were encrusted with deposits that had not chemically bonded with the coin metal and were removed by some (proprietary?) process that allegedly did not physically or chemically alter the coin metal. Such processes are termed "conservation" rather than "cleaning" and are considered acceptable, although in my opinion some of these gold coins look "too good to be true." Henri Charriere 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Charriere Posted October 7, 2023 Author Share Posted October 7, 2023 Question: What is the lowest graded certified coin you have ever encountered which bore the verdict, "cleaned"? An even more pointed question which, depending on the collector being asked: "Have you ever seen photos of Before- and After-Cleaned [usually older] coins that appeared to look quite a bit better after the least abrasive method had been used? Apart from the above, are electronic currents ever used, under any circumstances, to dislodge foreign debris from a copper, silver or gold coin? I do not believe I have ever seen this mentioned anywhere in print. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Charriere Posted October 7, 2023 Author Share Posted October 7, 2023 On 10/6/2023 at 8:29 PM, Sandon said: If I understand the inquiry correctly, your supposition seems to be that grading services are more likely to designate circulated coins "cleaned" than uncirculated coins. In my experience, this is not true.... Sorry if I appeared to have advanced that perception. On magnificent examples like yours, that qualifies as truth-in-advertising. Undeniably unfortunate, but hazards to be expected in the hobby. My concern is circulated coins which would undoubtedly look better if their denticles were flossed or legends rudely sporting muddy muck, rinsed off using plain running water. My subjective test is simple: you wouldn't show up at an important job interview with uncombed hair, dirty clothes and unshined shoes so why would you showcase coins on this Forum that, at the very least, could simply be rinsed off -- with water? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conder101 Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 I always loved the term "Shipwreck Effect". A polite euphemism for "saltwater corrosion". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powermad5000 Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 On 10/6/2023 at 8:21 PM, Henri Charriere said: Question: What is the lowest graded certified coin you have ever encountered which bore the verdict, "cleaned"? I had a G 6 1818 Coronet Head Large Cent come back as cleaned. For the record, this was on my first TPG submission and I thought the coin might have come back as VG. I have since sold off that slab, so I do not have photographic evidence of it. You will have to take my word for it. I would have to say, as far as there being a "cutoff" for cleaned coins, what about when it comes to key dates? Take for example, an 1873 CC Arrows Seated Liberty Dime. In Poor, or AG, it still lists for $2,250 in the price guide. If you were spending over $2K would you not want to know that the coin you are buying is still an uncleaned original surface coin? I would. As for Unc. Details - Cleaned slabs, I have many. Take the below coin. This was a real kick in the pants for the great details this coin has with very few marks at all on the coin. I think regardless of grade, cleaning or original surface should be factored in. Henri Charriere 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Charriere Posted October 12, 2023 Author Share Posted October 12, 2023 Over the coming weekend, I am going to try something I don't believe I have heard discussed on this Forum [except possibly during my many disciplinary expulsions]. I am going to go well beyond acetone, extra virgin olive oil and vinegar and bring out the heavy artillery: a thorough spritzing and soaking using water-displacement formula # 40 [WD-40] on a few select coins that have long-since lost their original mint luster or satin sheen. I will post the results as soon as I can summon up the nerve to do so. If anyone has tried this at home, feel free to weigh in. My feeling is the bath would be of comparatively short duration and another more responsible, not quite as adventuresome sort, will suggest a rinse without rubbing, brushing or friction of any kind.. Now, if there is something about this you know that I don't, by all means speak up before a semi-classic coin is irreparably damaged. 🤣 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobymordet Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 What is your definition of a semi-classic coin? I would not ruin any coin prior to 1900. I got a bunch of crappy foreign coins that I waste for that. I have never tried WD-40 on a coin. From what I don't know about WD-40 is basically that is oil in one chemical form or another. Oil never worked well for me on coins. It seems you have to let it sit for weeks/months. I have no patience for that. Good luck and get before and after pics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ldhair Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 I believe that WD-40 is more of a solvent. I used it on a few coins and tokens that I dug from the ground. It helped remove some rust/corrosion. It's not something I would use on anything of value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Charriere Posted October 12, 2023 Author Share Posted October 12, 2023 Gentlemen, thank you. Now on to my Special Project: restoring a coin's Original Mint Luster, the answer to which has confounded coin collectors since pterodactyls took to the skies. 🤣 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobymordet Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 On 10/12/2023 at 11:11 AM, ldhair said: I believe that WD-40 is more of a solvent. I used it on a few coins and tokens that I dug from the ground. It helped remove some rust/corrosion. It's not something I would use on anything of value. how long did you let coin cook? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J P M Posted October 12, 2023 Share Posted October 12, 2023 QA I for one think you should not be even asking about this stuff. We try to discourage the new people from doing any more damage than is all ready being pushed around the internet. Henri Charriere 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Charriere Posted October 12, 2023 Author Share Posted October 12, 2023 Blast from the Past! ... now I know how galileo felt when he was told to put down his telescope... 🐓 : ... well, when J P Morgan speaks... (silence) people listen... maybe you ought to change your name back to QA, for all the good HC is doing you. J P M 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tj96 Posted October 27, 2023 Share Posted October 27, 2023 On 10/5/2023 at 10:27 PM, Henri Charriere said: "Cleaning Coins" Don't! rrantique 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
numisport Posted October 29, 2023 Share Posted October 29, 2023 On 10/12/2023 at 6:54 AM, Henri Charriere said: Over the coming weekend, I am going to try something I don't believe I have heard discussed on this Forum [except possibly during my many disciplinary expulsions]. I am going to go well beyond acetone, extra virgin olive oil and vinegar and bring out the heavy artillery: a thorough spritzing and soaking using water-displacement formula # 40 [WD-40] on a few select coins that have long-since lost their original mint luster or satin sheen. I will post the results as soon as I can summon up the nerve to do so. If anyone has tried this at home, feel free to weigh in. My feeling is the bath would be of comparatively short duration and another more responsible, not quite as adventuresome sort, will suggest a rinse without rubbing, brushing or friction of any kind.. Now, if there is something about this you know that I don't, by all means speak up before a semi-classic coin is irreparably damaged. 🤣 WD40 formula may have changed over time. I was told that WD40 had fish oil in it years ago but not sure if that is fact or myth. Have you considered mineral oil ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Charriere Posted October 29, 2023 Author Share Posted October 29, 2023 On 10/29/2023 at 10:59 AM, numisport said: WD40 formula may have changed over time. I was told that WD40 had fish oil in it years ago but not sure if that is fact or myth. Have you considered mineral oil ? No. Why? Perception. If I were to consider mineral oil, which to me seems awfully tame, I might as well move on to castor oil, Vitamin E oil, kerosene, ammonia, turpentine or any number of odd facilitators I have never seen mentioned in association with numismatic activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
numisport Posted October 29, 2023 Share Posted October 29, 2023 On 10/29/2023 at 11:32 AM, Henri Charriere said: No. Why? Perception. If I were to consider mineral oil, which to me seems awfully tame, I might as well move on to castor oil, Vitamin E oil, kerosene, ammonia, turpentine or any number of odd facilitators I have never seen mentioned in association with numismatic activity. Havn't tried any oils yet but in my food service technical experience mineral oil is used any place there could be contact with food. Any machines used in food prep have special consideration choosing lubricants. WD40 is never ever used as it can leave residues behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
