Difference Between Cleaning and Conservation (see updated article in WYNK board)

[James_OldeTowne]

"Cleaning" versus "Conservation"

 

Introduction

 

Much of the debate and misunderstanding in numismatics over what constitutes “cleaning” a coin versus “conserving” it has to do with the lack of simple, clear definition of each of these important aspects of coin collecting. Because these terms can mean different things to different people, the goal of this article is not necessarily to enforce any particular definition , but rather to present arguments for either side of the debate, and to provide an opportunity to take a definitive approach to the meaning of these important terms. This is especially true because, although a pretty clear understanding of each of these terms can be developed, there does exist a “grey area” in which either term, or possibly both, may overlap and apply to certain situations. Examples will be presented to demonstrate both sides of the debate, as well as to shed some insight on the “grey area”.

 

What do the terms “cleaning” and “conservation” mean in numismatics?

 

Although the effect of either cleaning or conserving a coin can visually appear to be the same – that is, the enhancement of the apparent appearance of a coin – the motivation is different for each of these processes, and indeed, that is what forms the crux of the argument about what constitutes cleaning versus conservation.

 

Briefly, the purpose of conserving is to remove from a coin’s surface those contaminants which pose a threat to the coin’s integrity, and/or which may be impairing the ability to view the surface of the coin. Thus, the inherent characteristics of the coin are not changed, which is to say, the physical structure of the metal is not materially altered, but instead, matter foreign to the composition of the coin is removed, visually uncovering the unaltered coin. There is no material loss of the coin’s metallic content itself, only the loss of foreign matter lying between the coin’s surface and the source of observation (the viewer’s eye).

 

“Conservation” is a mandatory process, and should always be performed if possible, since it will allow for the best possible viewing of a coin, and prevent future problems. Opinion is not a basis for the decision to conserve a coin, since the coin will not be altered, but instead, it’s environment will be improved. Therefore, conservation is an objective decision.

 

The purpose of cleaning a coin is to physically remove part or all of the metal that comprises the coin’s visible surface, thereby revealing fresh, new metal that presents a brighter appearance than the removed metal. Thus, there is actual material loss in that some of the metal that originally existed as part of the coin is no longer present. It is important to note that some of the lost metal may have been present in oxidized form, and could have been responsible for “toning” on the coin, but nonetheless, because the metal was part of the original coin, it’s removal distinguishes the act as “cleaning” instead of “conserving”, because metal molecules were removed by intent.

 

So in contrasting these terms, it is important to note that the goal of “conservation” is to retain the entirety of the coin’s metallic content intact, while the purpose of “cleaning” is to physically remove metallic content. This is without question the key factor in determining whether an action performed on a coin constitutes cleaning or conservation.

 

“Cleaning” is an optional process, used when the person performing the act has the opinion that the coin will look better after being cleaned. The decision to clean a coin is based upon the opinion of whether or not it will “look better” after doing so, and thus, cleaning is a subjective decision.

 

Another way to think of it is that “conservation” changes a coin’s environment, but does not alter the coin, while “cleaning” alters a coin but does not change its environment.

 

An Analogy

 

Suppose you are presented with an antique, varnished wooden desk. The top of the desk may present a “dirty” appearance due to having been stored for a long period of time, possibly in an improper environment. It may display sandy dust particles, water stains, ink spots, residues, or other contaminants that were clearly not present just after the time at which the desk was manufactured, but over time and through use, the contaminants were collected on the desk.

 

Furthermore, unknown to us, some of the contaminants might have chemical or mechanical properties that could be dangerous to the ongoing integrity of the desk’s surface. Dust particles are abrasive, and if for some reason something were accidentally slid across the desktop, unwanted abrasion would occur. Or, some of the contaminants might contain dyes or chemicals which could leach into the varnished surface over time, resulting in further discoloration. The simple fact is that the fewer opportunities for contamination there are, the better chances are for preservation off the desk’s original appearance and history.

 

Several actions could be performed that would be categorized as “conservation”. We might use a feather duster to remove dust particles from the desk without abrading the finish. We could used compressed air to blow dust particles off the desk. We might even use a clean, damp rag to remove more stubborn dirt, and although any of these three actions would likely result in improving the appearance of the desk, they would not change its physical structure. The desk would still maintain its varnished finish, and that finish would be in the same condition as before it was conserved, still showing stains and adhering contaminants. The only difference is that after conservation, the dust particles would no longer be lying on top of the finish. Any pre-existing defects in the varnish, such as the scratches and stains, would still exist. Under the assumption that we use these methods carefully, the desk and original finish would remain intact and unimpaired by the act of conservation.

 

There would of course be two reasons for the conservation. In the first place, the desk would simply “look” better, being closer in appearance to how it is supposed to look without the appearance being impaired by the distraction of dust particles. Secondly, the removal of the dust constitutes protection of the desk’s finish, as some of the dust might have abrasive or corrosive properties that could lead to the deterioration of the desk’s condition.

 

It is obvious that none of these conservation activities would address such problems as water stains or ink spots – problems that have altered the integrity of the wood’s varnished finish. The stains have in essence become part of the varnish finish, and they cannot be removed without removing part of the finish. In this case, abrasive or chemical action are the only suitable methods for improving the desk’s appearance.

 

Using sandpaper to remove all or part of the varnish on the desk’s surface would be categorized as “cleaning” in numismatic terms. We would actually strip off a thin layer of varnish, revealing fresher, (hopefully) undamaged varnish lying just below the problematic surfaces, resulting in the visual effect of renewing the desk’s appearance. Similarly, using a chemical to strip off the uppermost layer of damaged varnish would have the same net effect.

 

The desk analogy should strongly suggest what constitutes “cleaning” and “conservation” in the numismatic sense. In essence, removal of all or part of a coin’s surface would fall under the category of “cleaning”, while removal of particles from the surface of a coin should be categorized as “conservation”. But there is one aspect of conservation which has not yet been discussed, and it constitutes the “grey area” that lies between cleaning and conservation.

 

The Grey Area

 

Remember that one part of “conservation” is the effort to remove contaminants which, as a result of their proximity to a coin’s surface, may result in future damage to the coin. For example, PVC residue, if allowed to remain on a coin’s surface, can and likely will eventually result in corrosion of the coin. Leaving a thumbprint on the surface of a newly minted coin is likely to result in future discoloration. There are many examples that can be cited where conservation now can prevent future problems with a coin.

 

In the desk analogy, recall that we wished to remove dust particles from the surface of the wooden desk, because allowing them to remain might result in further detraction from the desk’s appearance. But unfortunately, there is always a possibility that the contaminants have become embedded, or otherwise stuck to the surface in such a way that no non-damaging conservation actions can be employed to remove the contaminants. For example, if corrosive glue was stuck to the varnish of the desk, no amount of dusting, or blowing with canned air, or wiping with a damp rag, would remove the glue. It is apparent that only an abrasive or chemical process could be used to remove the offending contaminant.

 

In this case, conservation can only be accomplished by employing some abrasive method that will dislodge the glue. Therefore, the desk must be “cleaned” for the purpose of “conservation”.

 

In a numismatic sense, PVC contamination is a classic example of a problem that often cannot be conserved. Although acetone or other chemicals may address most cases of PVC contamination, there are situations where only acid can reliably remove the PVC damage. So even though the intent is to conserve such a coin, a method of cleaning must be employed to accomplish the conservation.

 

Examples

 

Here are scenarios that numismatically involve examples of strict conservation:

 

(1) Iced-tea is accidentally spilled onto a coin, and distilled water is used to rinse it off.

 

(2) A certification company uses canned air to remove potential dust particles from a coin prior to its being inserted into a slab.

 

(3) Acetone is used to remove PVC from a gold coin’s surface (acetone does not react with gold, and therefore does not change its metallic composition).

 

(4) A museum knows for a fact that a certain solvent does not react with metal, and uses it to remove lacquer from a large cent.

 

The following numismatic scenarios involve some examples of cleaning:

 

(1) A collector buys a coin with unattractive (to him) tone, and dips it in Jeweluster to remove the toning.

 

(2) A dealer uses a brush to remove the natural patination from a nearly-uncirculated coin, and incidentally imparts unnatural luster (also known as “whizzing”).

 

(3) A numismatist determines that a particular coin with PVC damage has become etched, and resorts to using baking soda to abrasively remove the PVC film.

 

(4) A jeweler employs a polishing cloth to remove tarnish from a silver coin and increase it's brilliance, incidentally imparting a highly reflective sheen.

 

Conclusion

 

“Conservation” and “cleaning” are methods of improving a coin’s appearance, but each method has different motivation. “Conservation” does not physically change a coin in any way, but removes pollutants that may either impair observation of the coin, or endanger the coin’s future integrity. “Cleaning” a coin changes it by subtracting metal content from it, revealing fresher metal that gives the coin a newer appearance.

 

Either process may remove potentially dangerous pollutants from a coin’s surface, and there is a “grey area” that exists when it is determined that a coin can only be conserved with a cleaning process.

 

Because it improves the ability to view a coin, and removes contaminants, “conservation” is a mandatory process. “Cleaning” is optional because the apparent improvement of the coin is a subjective matter.

 

“Conservation” does not alter a coin, but “cleaning” does.

 

This article is a Copyright © of EarlyUS.com, August 9,2006, printed here by permission

[leeg]

Hi James,

Appreciate you taking the time to lay this all out in laymen's terms. Alot of excellent points were made.

[TJ'S Coins]

Excellent article James! I think that you have made clear distinctions between conservation and cleaning of a coin.

 

The grey area still relies on the intent of the process which ends up being subjective since one can never be sure of another's motives in doing something no matter how carefully it is spelled out. But since this is an acknowledged grey area there is room for this kind of discussion. One person may clean a coin in order to conserve it while another would simply clean it to improve its appearance and potential resale value.

 

For instance a local coin shop has numerous coins that obviously have been dipped. A buyer notes that and comments on it to the dealer. The dealer has several options. He can say the coin came to him that way and how can one know the difference? He can say that he dipped the coin to remove what in his opinion is unattractive toning. He can say that he suspected PVC or some other contaminent that would damage the coin further so he took action to "conserve" it. How would the buyer ever know the difference? Has the coin been altered from its original state? Yes. Is it cleaning or conserving? It depends on the intent of the dealer/seller which takes us into the subjective realm.

 

To take this a step further, perhaps we need an open policy regarding a particular dealer/seller's philosophy of coin conservation vs. cleaning. Does he routinely dip coins? Why? Does he try to improve their appearance? How? If the dealer refuses to answer it raises suspicion with an informed buyer. If the dealer reveals his philosophy with coins it can lead to further clarification and information about the coin for sale. Unless someone knows precisely what a particular coin looked like before a dealer acquired it, it remains a matter of trust between seller and buyer that things are what the dealer claims about them. As a buyer, I have decisions to make. Is the coin acceptable to me? Would the changed appearance impact its resale value? Am I being deceived? Is this the coin for my collection at this time or should I pass with my suspicions and wait for another to come along? Do I gladly purchase it and not think about any of this? The bottom line is that both seller and buyer have a responsibility in the transaction. It comes down to trust.

 

Thanks James for your helpful article and stimulating further thought on this topic. There is still a large measure of subjectivity that makes the issue of toning uncomfortable for some, if not many. These posts are helpful in sorting things through.

[physics-fan3.14]

Great article, James, you laid things out clearly and effectively.

 

As for all things numismatic, what you buy should really be determined by what you like. Conserving a coin, I think most of us would agree, is necessary and only improves a coin. However, when it comes to cleaned coins, each of us must determine for ourselves where the line is to be drawn on cleaned coins. I might not like that lightly polished Morgan, but you might. So buy it. You might not like that whizzed St. Gauden, but I might. So I'll buy it. Yes, it may be foolish, but as long as you know what you are doing, then it is your choice. That is why education is so important: to the uneducated who don't know what cleaning looks like, they will get ripped off by the "cleaning." If we know what we are dealing with, we can make informed and educated choices.

 

We cannot get bogged down in arguments about intention. You do not know the intention of the dealer, you do not know the intention of the person who cleaned the coin. It might have been cleaning to conserve, or it might have been cleaning to improve or defraud. All you know is whether the coin is acceptable to you, and whether you want to spend that amount of money on it.

[Newmismatist]

 

The following numismatic scenarios exemplify cleaning:

 

(1) A collector buys a coin with unattractive (to him) tone, and dips it in Jeweluster to remove the toning.

 

(2) A dealer uses a rotating wire brush to remove the natural patination from a coin, and impart the appearance of luster (also know as “whizzing”).

 

(3) A numismatist determines that a particular coin with PVC damage has become etched, and resorts to using baking soda to abrasively remove the PVC film.

 

(4) A jeweler employs a polishing luster to impart a highly reflective sheen on a bullion gold coin.

 

James

 

To my knowledge and in my 55 years of collecting experinece, NO ONE HAS EVER referred to the fraudulent process of "WHIZZING" a coin as "cleaning". Can you point to or cite any published article that equates whizzing and cleaning as the same thing?

 

The same is true of item 4. Polishing has never been referred to as cleaning - it is a separate and distinct process which in effect turns the coin into a jewelry piece.

 

Here's Webster's Definition of the Verb "Clean"

Main Entry: clean

Function: verb

transitive verb

1 a : to make clean: as (1) : to rid of dirt, impurities, or extraneous matter

 

Here's Webster's Definition of the Verb "Polish"

Main Entry: 1pol·ish

Function: verb

1 : to make smooth and glossy usually by friction : BURNISH

 

While these self-crearted "definitions" in your post may be YOUR OPINION, I do not believe your use of these terms as you have attempted to do is even remotely part of the mainstream opinion of the numismatic community. Nor does it assist any collector in navigating his or her way thru this difficult area. You equate dipping in jeweluster as the equivilent of "whizzing" or "polishing". Thus, per YOUR definition, a high percentage of coins in respected third party graded holders (ANACS, NGC & PCGS) which have been "cleaned" (dipped) are the equivilent of being "whizzed"- at least in in your world. This, taken to its logical conclusion, means that these respected TPG services are engaged in a massive conspiracy by grading these "cleaned = whizzed" coins so that these "altered" coins can be sold by dealers for the purpose of defrauding the collecting public.

 

Perhaps you need to rethink YOUR definitions before you lead the less knowledgeable collectors down this very slippery slope

 

Your "attempt" to parse cleaning and conservation by equating "cleaning" to whizzing and polishing is flat out false. A harsh cleaning may irreperably harm a coin, but carefully cleaning a coin by someone who knows what they are doing may both conserve the coin AND enhance its appearance. Conversely, you may "Conserve" (clean) a coin with the sole intent of removing surface contaminents and find that you have uncovered serious unsightly flaws, thereby ruining the appearance of the coin. However, you can't simply make one term (conserving) "good" by assigning good intentions to that process and the other term (cleaning) "bad" by assigning evil or pernicious motives to that process.

 

When I wash my hands before eating, I do so to "Clean" them (remove surface contaminents) - I don't try and remove my skin to accomplish that process, nor do I "polish" them to make them shiny, as it would undoubtedly NOT remove the germs that cleaning does.

 

Your "numismatic scenarios" do NOT exemplify cleaning. Examples 2 and 4 are NOT examples of cleaning. Example 1 is an example of a process that is an acceptable method of "cleaning" a coin if done properly and a process that has been near universally accepted by every respected numismatic grading service and the collecting community. Example 3 is actually an example of a clueless person trying to "Conserve" a coin using an improper method that reduces the coin to the status of a "Hole filler". Note I am not a proponant of dipping coins as there is a greater chance that you will harm the coin rather than improve it. For example: dipping a darkly toned coin is likely to reduce the coin to an unattractive ugly coin and reduce its value and those who want only white widgets often do just that. I would NOT and do NOT recommend it. However, whether you agree or not, there are some silver coins that can be substantially improved by a "quick" dip. The important thing is to have the knoweledge and experience to know which coins can be "cleaned" using an acid dip such as jeweluster and HOW to safely do it so as to both improve their appearance of the coin and not harm or ruin it. The other important thing is to know which ones to "leave alone", no matter what your underlying motive may be.

 

While you may have some good points in this post, your inability to distinguish the terms "cleaning", "polishing" and "whizzing" and your misleading use of these terms as the being one and the same renders this WYNTK post virtually worthless. JMHO

[Newmismatist]

Although the effect of either cleaning or conserving a coin can visually appear to be the same – that is, the enhancement of the apparent appearance of a coin – the motivation is different for each of these processes, and indeed, that is what forms the crux of the argument about what constitutes cleaning versus conservation.

 

Is it really? NCS pruports to "Conserve" coins - to do so they clean them - they do so with the intent of improving the appearance of the coins. Their motiviation is also not to make a coin look worse than it already may look. The "Motivation" is therefore a "dual" purpose - and the underlying motivation is to improve the coin so that it will then become either a higher grade or appear to be a more attractive coin and thus more easily sold (at perhaps a higher price). When you start discussing "motivation you are talking about an INTERNAL state of mind which has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

 

“Conservation” is a mandatory process, and should always be performed if possible, since it will allow for the best possible viewing of a coin, and prevent future problems. Opinion is not a basis for the decision to conserve a coin, since the coin will not be altered, but instead, it’s environment will be improved. Therefore, conservation is an objective decision.

 

I have observed NCS refuse to "Conserve" many coins, even where there were unattractive contaminents on the coin - the reason: The conservation process would render the coin "worse" after than it looked "before".

 

The purpose of cleaning a coin is to physically remove part or all of the metal that comprises the coin’s visible surface, thereby revealing fresh, new metal that presents a brighter appearance than the removed metal.

 

This in my mind is ABSOLUTELY FALSE - If I have an $20 Saint, and I clean off the grease and dirt that is on that coin that was on it from the mint (remember a minting facility is a factory that uses oils and grease to run the machinery), I am NOT physically removing any metal - I would simply clean it the same as I wash my hands - with a mild soap and warm water. Many coins have grease, oil and dirt on the surface that can be easily removed with mild soap and water. I once went thru 500 $20 Gold Saints at the request of a bank to determine the better dates - when I was done my hands were near black from the grease, oil and dirt on the coins - cleaning those coins (and many other mint made products) with soap and water is NOT removing metal. What you are specifically referring to is the removal of toning on most likely a silver coin by using a mild acid dip - that is commonly known in the numismatic community as "Dipping" and that term is often used interchangeably with the term cleaning.

 

Thus, there is actual material loss in that some of the metal that originally existed as part of the coin is no longer present. It is important to note that some of the lost metal may have been present in oxidized form, and could have been responsible for “toning” on the coin, but nonetheless, because the metal was part of the original coin, it’s removal distinguishes the act as “cleaning” instead of “conserving”, because metal molecules were removed by intent.

 

Any lost metal cannot be measured without ultra expensive scientific equipment as we are talking about "atoms", nor is it usually an "oxide" as the most commonly dipped coins are silver and the toning that the "dip and strippers" want removed is silver sulphide, not silver oxide. Also, what is removed is NOT the silver metal, but the surface atoms of silver sulphide, which I think chemically is considered a metal "salt" and not the pure metal - a chemist can clarify this.

 

So in contrasting these terms, it is important to note that the goal of “conservation” is to retain the entirety of the coin’s metallic content intact, while the purpose of “cleaning” is to physically remove metallic content. This is without question the key factor in determining whether an action performed on a coin constitutes cleaning or conservation.

 

James, frankly, I'm doubt very much that this is the goal of either of the terms you are using when coin "conservation" is done. While what you state may exist in a utopian world, in the numismatic community, the primary goal is to improve the look of the coin: IF removing PVC does that then is called conservation - if some unsightly toning is removed, you would call it cleaning, but I do believe that NCS also calls both "Conservation".

 

FInally - just an FYI - both "Conservation" and “Cleaning” are optional processes and the decision to proceed with either of those processes is both objective (I will do this) and subjective (I believe that what I am about to do will result in something better). Doing nothing is the other option - and that simply maintains the "status quo" and whether that is good or bad always depends on the particular coin.

 

Another way to think of it is that “conservation” changes a coin’s environment, but does not alter the coin, while “cleaning” alters a coin but does not change its environment.

 

Actually the changing the coins environment has to do with temperature, humidity and what the coin is stored in - both cleaning AND conservation change what's on the surface of the coin - whether removal of surface contaminents or the surface salts that are on the coin - the end result is pretty much the same: the coin looks different because you see a different surface.

 

What it seems to me that you are trying to do is creat a new numismatic definition that demonizes cleaning and glorifies conservation. Both do much the same and if either is done improperly you will ruin the coin. JMHO

[coinman1794]

Numismatist, usually NCS chooses not to conserve in the event that a coin might downgrade if conserved. Because NCS does not own the coin, they have to be careful in looking out for their customers money (no pun intended ). If they owned the coins, (in a perfect world) they might choose to look out for the well-being of the coins and conserve them so they do not deteriorate over time.

 

Any surface contamination that sits on a coin over time has the potential to cause or to spead up the process of surface etching and damage. However, a coin's grade and a coins physical well-being may be two different things. Thus, NCS has to be careful not to do anything that might lead to a lower grade, even if that conservation may have been in the better interst of the coin's well-being.

 

 

[Newmismatist]

Numismatist, usually NCS chooses not to conserve in the event that a coin might downgrade if conserved. Because NCS does not own the coin, they have to be careful in looking out for their customers money (no pun intended ). If they owned the coins, (in a perfect world) they might choose to look out for the well-being of the coins and conserve them so they do not deteriorate over time.

 

Any surface contamination that sits on a coin over time has the potential to cause or to spead up the process of surface etching and damage. However, a coin's grade and a coins physical well-being may be two different things. Thus, NCS has to be careful not to do anything that might lead to a lower grade, even if that conservation may have been in the better interst of the coin's well-being.

 

I agree 100% - my point being: you don't conserve coins that you will make look worse - In Utopia you "conserve" for the good of the coin - in the real world you ONLY conserve (clean) when it will improve the coin or enhance the value.

[James_OldeTowne]

.((( NO ONE HAS EVER referred to the fraudulent process of "WHIZZING" a coin as "cleaning" ... While these self-crearted "definitions" in your post may be YOUR OPINION, I do not believe your use of these terms as you have attempted to do is even remotely part of the mainstream opinion of the numismatic community )))

 

I did not define "whizzing" as "cleaning". I said a brush could be used to remove patination from a coin as a method of cleaning. The numismatic community at large generally does associate "brushing" with "cleaning".

 

((( You equate dipping in jeweluster as the equivilent of "whizzing" or "polishing" )))

 

Not true. No such equation is expressed in the article. You erroneously deduced such an equation.

 

((( per YOUR definition, a high percentage of coins in respected third party graded holders (ANACS, NGC & PCGS) which have been "cleaned" (dipped) are the equivilent of being "whizzed" )))

 

No such equivalency was expressed. You erroneously deduced such an equivalency.

 

((( Your "attempt" to parse cleaning and conservation by equating "cleaning" to whizzing and polishing is flat out false)))

 

No such equation was expressed. You erroneously deduced it.

 

((( you can't simply make one term (conserving) "good" by assigning good intentions to that process and the other term (cleaning) "bad" by assigning evil or pernicious motives to that process. )))

 

By intent as stated, no judgements were expressed in the article. I do not have authority to pronounce judgement on other numismatists. You erroneously intepreted text as being judgemental.

 

((( this WYNTK post [is] virtually worthless. JMHO )))

 

Others do not share your opinion, but I respect it nonetheless.

 

((( I have observed NCS refuse to "Conserve" many coins, even where there were unattractive contaminents on the coin - the reason: The conservation process would render the coin "worse" after than it looked "before". )))

 

This is a statement of commercial opinion, and disregards whether conservation would actually benefit the coin or not.

 

((( The purpose of cleaning a coin is to physically remove part or all of the metal that comprises the coin’s visible surface, thereby revealing fresh, new metal that presents a brighter appearance than the removed metal.

 

This in my mind is ABSOLUTELY FALSE - If I have an $20 Saint, and I clean off the grease and dirt that is on that coin ... )))

 

Removing dirt and grease from a coin is conservation, and is not the same as removing metal, which is an aspect of cleaning.

 

((( "Dipping" and that term is often used interchangeably with the term cleaning. )))

 

Although the terms have sometimes been used interchangeably, they are not always, and that does not equate "dipping" to "cleaning". Dipping is one of many examples of cleaning.

 

((( what is removed is NOT the silver metal, but the surface atoms of silver sulphide )))

 

Silver sulfide contains silver molecules, which are metal.

 

((( in the numismatic community, the primary goal is to improve the look of the coin)))

 

This is often true, but sometimes not. Many coins that have been conserved do indeed look worse than before conservation.

 

((( FInally - just an FYI - both "Conservation" and “Cleaning” are optional processes)))

 

Conservation is mandatory for the safety of a coin, while cleaning is not. A coin's safety is of paramount importance, while it's beauty is of secondary importance.

 

((( the coins environment has to do with temperature, humidity and what the coin is stored in)))

 

The environment also includes contaminants and anything else that may physically affect a coin.

 

((( cleaning AND conservation change what's on the surface of the coin ...the end result is pretty much the same: the coin looks different because you see a different surface. )))

 

Your statement agrees with my article.

 

((( What you are trying to do is creat a new numismatic definition that demonizes cleaning and glorifies conservation. )))

 

Accurate descriptions of each process were presented in a non-judgemental manner.

 

James

[James_OldeTowne]

Newmismatist, please note that the introduction of my article clearly states " the goal of this article is not necessarily to enforce any particular definition", and that I carefully made the point that "these terms can mean different things to different people". Did these statements mislead you into thinking the article doesn't contain some of my opinions? Did you interpret those statements as meaning that I intend this to be a definitive article?

 

((( To my knowledge and in my 55 years of collecting experinece, NO ONE HAS EVER referred to the fraudulent process of "WHIZZING" a coin as "cleaning".)))

 

I did not equate "whizzing" with cleaning, nor did I equate "polishing" with cleaning. I gave scenarios in which either process can be used to clean a coin, and I feel certain that both are valid. It's like saying a square is a rectangle. While that is true, a rectangle is not a square, and you cannot equate the two.

 

Similarly, "whizzing" can be a form of cleaning, but cleaning is not whizzing. There's no equation here.

 

If I have a coin with severe deposits adhering to it, I could indeed use a brillo pad, or scouring powder, or a wire brush in an ill-fated attempt to clean away the deposits. Similarly, I can indeed take a tarnished silver coin and use a polishing cloth to rub away the tarnish (and surely this is the most commonly seen cleaning method for bust halves). It is surprising that you don't think polishing and scrubbing with a wire brush can be a form of cleaning.

 

((( Can you point to or cite any published article that equates whizzing and cleaning as the same thing? )))

 

Please reconsider what I stated. I did not equate the two, but a coin can certainly be cleaned by whizzing it.

 

Heritage has referred to whizzed coins as being "harshly cleaned", and while I don't consider them the end-all in numismatic definitions, they've sold a lot more coins than I have. Here's just one example, but there are many dozens, if not hundreds, of other examples, in their archives:

 

http://coins.heritageauctions.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=414&Lot_No=2512&src=pr

 

You can simply search the archives for "harshly cleaned", and will discover many of the coins so described are "whizzed".

 

I think the Webster definition you cited for "polish" supports my use of the process as a type of cleaning, as it is impossible to make a "dirty" coin glossy without cleaning it, isn't it? Do you know of a way to make a coin glossy without cleaning it?

 

((( You equate dipping in jeweluster as the equivilent of "whizzing" or "polishing". Thus, per YOUR definition, a high percentage of coins in respected third party graded holders (ANACS, NGC & PCGS) which have been "cleaned" (dipped) are the equivilent of being "whizzed"- at least in in your world)))

 

Newmismatist, why are you making false statements about my article? I have no idea what leads you to believe that I equate "whizzing and polishing" with "cleaning", but again, a coin can most definitely be cleaned by either process. Where in the world did you see me state that they are one and the same?

 

I also have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I am suggesting what is acceptable and what is not. I was careful to avoid judgemental statements, and would ask that you kindly cite where I discussed the acceptability of any process described.

 

Honestly, and I don't say this in any sort of mean-spirited way, but I almost think you did not read the whole article, at least not carefully. I am sorry you consider this article worthless, but I respect your opinion, and welcome others, whether supportive or not.

 

((( If I have an $20 Saint, and I clean off the grease and dirt that is on that coin that was on it from the mint (remember a minting facility is a factory that uses oils and grease to run the machinery), I am NOT physically removing any metal - I would simply clean it the same as I wash my hands - with a mild soap and warm water. )))

 

What does removing grease and dirt have to do with removing metal? By my definition, the process you describe is conservation, not cleaning. I honestly do not understand the confusion here.

 

((( Any lost metal cannot be measured without ultra expensive scientific equipment as we are talking about "atoms", nor is it usually an "oxide" as the most commonly dipped coins are silver and the toning that the "dip and strippers" want removed is silver sulphide, not silver oxide. Also, what is removed is NOT the silver metal, but the surface atoms of silver sulphide, which I think chemically is considered a metal "salt" and not the pure metal - a chemist can clarify this. )))

 

Common sense should make it pretty clear what processes remove metal from a coin's surface. I don't need an electron microscope to tell me that dipping a coin in acid, or whizzing it, or polishing it, is going to remove metal. Similarly, I don't need that microscope to tell me that blowing canned air on a coin is not intended to remove metal. And my article does in fact mention that removal of the silver sulfides, or silver oxides, or other compounds that have developed as part of the coins patina, contain silver that was part of the coin's surface. So removing those compounds does remove part of the original coin's metal, and constitutes cleaning (by my proposed definition).

 

<<< So in contrasting these terms, it is important to note that the goal of “conservation” is to retain the entirety of the coin’s metallic content intact, while the purpose of “cleaning” is to physically remove metallic content. This is without question the key factor in determining whether an action performed on a coin constitutes cleaning or conservation.>>>

 

((( James, frankly, I'm doubt very much that this is the goal of either of the terms you are using when coin "conservation" is done. While what you state may exist in a utopian world, in the numismatic community, the primary goal is to improve the look of the coin: IF removing PVC does that then is called conservation - if some unsightly toning is removed, you would call it cleaning, but I do believe that NCS also calls both "Conservation". )))

 

I don't recall NCS being called the final word in what constitutes "conservation" - just as I don't claim to be!

 

((( both cleaning AND conservation change what's on the surface of the coin - whether removal of surface contaminents or the surface salts that are on the coin )))

 

That is what my article states as well, although cleaning goes one step further and actually removes a layer of metal from a coin.

 

((( What it seems to me that you are trying to do is creat a new numismatic definition that demonizes cleaning and glorifies conservation.)))

 

I just don't see where my article went astray with being judgemental about either process. PLEASE point it out!

 

James

[James_OldeTowne]

Out of respect for Newmismatist's arguments, I have altered slightly the wording of my examples #2 and #4 for "scenarios exemplify cleaning:". I've also emphasized my statement that "the goal of this article is not necessarily to enforce any particular definition".

 

I hope that these changes will lessen any confusion, and lead to a better understanding of my points.

 

James

[Regis44]

James,

Thank you for your article. Newmismatist's coments can be taken as contrarian but, contributed to clearifying one area and demonstrating what you said about some differnt viewpoints. Thank you Newmismatist for taking the time to point out the differences you have with some of Jame's points. Discussions of differences that do not spiral down into endless pits are healthy. And it helps us newer folks understand that opinions are an integral part of the fasinating hobby.

 

Regis

[IGWT]

I can understand why Newmismatist would bridle at placing whizzing under the category of cleaning. It just doesn't fit the commonly understood meaning of the word. That said, James explains himself well enough so that no one should be confused by his use of the term.

 

It's too bad that we can't accept coins as they are. In my mind, the best practice would be to limit work on coins to true conservation, i.e., doing only what is necessary to stop or to prevent degradation without altering the current condition of a coin. True conservation has little to do with appearance and much to do with preservation.

 

But we're not content with preservation. We want to reverse changes to make an old coin look new again; or, in a bit of irony, we want to change coins to make them appear more authentically original (think of restaurant chains like Applebees or TGIFridays that hang antiques on the walls to create the feel of an old neighborhood pub).

[Bruceswar]

Thanks for a great write up

[Newmismatist]

Out of respect for Newmismatist's arguments, I have altered slightly the wording of my examples #2 and #4 for "scenarios exemplify cleaning:". I hope that this will lessen any confusion, and lead to a better understanding of my points.

 

James "Example" and "exemplify' mean the same thing. Plain and Simple: "WHizzing" is not an example of cleaning a coin in the numismatic world that I have traversed for over 50 years, nor does it "exemplify" cleaning a coin. The "new" shiny surface is the by-product of the whizzing process, whose sole purpose is to deceptively make an AU or damaged or scratched coin appear to be an uncirculated coin so that the unsuspecting collector whgo buys the coin is thus defrauded. The fact that this needs to be repeatedly explained to you leads me to believe that you either you have a poor understanding of the subject matter that you are "Attempting" to portray as "scholorly", or your understanding of the subject is substantially at odds with mainstream numismatics.

 

In your post you also say:

Using sandpaper to remove all or part of the varnish on the desk’s surface would be categorized as “cleaning” in numismatic terms.

I beg to differ with you. Using "sandpaper" is NOT the equivelent to “cleaning” in numismatic terms, any more than killing the disease AND the patient by a physcian would be considered a "cure".

 

It is my opinion that you have selected a misleading example to define these terms in a way that is contrary to the generally accepted knowledge within the numismatic community and so long as you continue to use Whizzing as an example of "cleaning" and you believe that using "sandaper' would be categorized as “cleaning” in numismatic terms, I believe your article to be profoundly flawed in its discussion of the terms "Cleaning" and "Conservation".

 

Changing the word example to exemplify does not correct the highly inaccurate infromation that you are attempting to portray as what coin collectors "Need to Know". What coin collectors "Need to Know" is that Whizzing a coin is a pernicious and deceptive practice that should not be tolerated in the numismatic community and "Whizzing" is NOT a form of "Cleaning" a coin. If you think it is within the definition of "cleaning" that you do not understand the topic than you are discussing.

[James_OldeTowne]

((( "WHizzing" is not an example of cleaning a coin in the numismatic world that I have traversed for over 50 years, nor does it "exemplify" cleaning a coin. The "new" shiny surface is the by-product of the whizzing process, whose sole purpose is to deceptively make an AU or damaged or scratched coin appear to be an uncirculated coin so that the unsuspecting collector whgo buys the coin is thus defrauded. )))

 

This is absolutely a false statement when you use the phrase "sole purpose". Yes, one reason whizzing is done (by shysters) is to make AUs look like BUs, but it is NOT the "SOLE" reason that whizzing exists! Wire brushing is also used to remove encrustation and to smooth corroded or contaminated surfaces on severely damaged coins. Indeed that is why so many low-grade holed and plugged coins are whizzed - to smooth away (remove a layer of metal) the area of the repair and impart a consistency to the appearance of the surface in that area. I am absolutely certain that you will find multiple examples of low-grade (ie. NOT AU) coins that were whizzed for purposes other than to pass them off as BU. There is no way a whizzed AG-03 large-cent could ever be passed off as BU! But I have seen whizzed AG coins that were treated when all other cleaning processes failed. Please look at the Heritage search I told you about.

 

((( The fact that this needs to be repeatedly explained to you leads me to believe that you either you have a poor understanding of the subject matter that you are "Attempting" to portray as "scholorly", or your understanding of the subject is substantially at odds with mainstream numismatics.)))

 

I don't know of any other way to point out that a coin, or a frying pan, or a potato can be cleaned with a wire brush, and that a wire brush can also be used to clean or whiz a coin. It doesn't equate the two, but it clearly shows a relation can exist for some cases. You have not explained why you believe scrubbing an encrusted coin with a wire brush is not a form of cleaning.

 

((( In your post you also say:

 

Using sandpaper to remove all or part of the varnish on the desk’s surface would be categorized as “cleaning” in numismatic terms.

 

I beg to differ with you. Using "sandpaper" is NOT the equivelent to “cleaning” in numismatic terms, any more than killing the disease AND the patient by a physcian would be considered a "cure".)))

 

In my example, sandpaper removes the top layer of wood from a desk. Using baking soda to clean a coin removes the top layer of metal. Why is this an invalid analogy? Are you saying that baking soda, along with whizzing, is not a form of cleaning?

 

Regarding the physician, you can't argue that radiation and chemotherapy kill cancer cells and kill perfectly normal, healthy cells. We don't like to kill healthy cells, but that is reality. Tragically, radiation and chemotherapy have both killed patients as well. So ironically, I think your analogy is valid. Some forms of cleaning can kill a coin.

 

((( It is my opinion that you have selected a misleading example to define these terms in a way that is contrary to the generally accepted knowledge within the numismatic community and so long as you continue to use Whizzing as an example of "cleaning" and you believe that using "sandaper' would be categorized as “cleaning” in numismatic terms, I believe your article to be profoundly flawed in its discussion of the terms "Cleaning" and "Conservation". )))

 

I respect your opinion, but I would like to know if there are others who believe that somehow, whizzing a coin does not clean it. Whizzing may do more than clean a coin, but it certainly does clean it! They are not interchangeable terms, not by any means, but they are plainly related.

 

((( Changing the word example to exemplify does not correct the highly inaccurate infromation that you are attempting to portray )))

 

Please re-read my changes and your quotes. I changed substantially more than a single word. That you think I only changed a single word is why I wonder how carefully and thoughtfully you really read it (and again, I say this without any meanness).

 

((( What coin collectors "Need to Know" is that Whizzing a coin is a pernicious and deceptive practice that should not be tolerated in the numismatic community and "Whizzing" is NOT a form of "Cleaning" a coin. If you think it is within the definition of "cleaning" that you do not understand the topic than you are discussing. )))

 

Once again, I state that I HAVE NOT EQUATED WHIZZING TO CLEANING, but I am certain that someone may use a wire brush to scrub (clean) a coin. I am positive of it, and am willing to prove it with images if that will be necessary.

 

And whizzing can certainly be tolerated for those coins that are so heavily encrusted and corroded that no other process will smooth the surfaces to a tolerable level. In the Utopia that you were discussing earlier, it would be wonderful if every collectable coin were a perfectly original and visually acceptable coin, but the reality is that horrors dug up from the ground or from the bottom of the ocean may not even be identifiable until subjected to a very thorough scrubbing, and certainly a wire brush, though a harsh measure, cannot be dismissed out of hand as a valid tool for this purpose.

 

I think by your posts, you've successfully promoted opinions, and I sincerely appreciate it, but it is simply not fair, and not accurate, to claim that I have equated whizzing with cleaning. It is also not fair to imply that I have made judgement calls in my article without stating where you believe I have done so.

 

One final note: I do not try and portray my articles as "scholarly". I am a lowly coin collector, and no numismatic scholar, and my experience is far, far below that of true numismatic experts. I try to write my articles in such a way as to stimulate conversation, and invite discussion and alternate points of view (thus my initial disclaimer). But please do not put words in my mouth.

 

James

[EZ_E]

Newmismatist,

 

You have perhaps expending as much effort as James towards this article. I think that matters would be better clarified if you wrote a brief synopsis of the definition of cleaning vs conservation and posted it in this thread.

 

After all, it is not unreasonable to assume that this article could be used as a reference for years to come.

[Newmismatist]

Newmismatist,

 

You have perhaps expending as much effort as James towards this article. I think that matters would be better clarified if you wrote a brief synopsis of the definition of cleaning vs conservation and posted it in this thread.

 

No one has asked me and if I did, I would NOT put it in this thread which I believe is replete with mis-information. James's reference to "whizzing" to clean encrusted coins that come form the ground is at odds with how the term is commonly understood by collectors. I have collected ancient coins for years and I am very familiar with the mechanical process of cleaning coins that come from the ground as most ancients do. I have NEVER heard of the mechanical process of removing encrustation referred to as "Whizzing". Moreover NO respected 3rd party grading service will grade coins that have been "whizzed" as James references them (heavy abrasives like brillo, a wire brush or a dremel tool to scrub the coin). If the coin comes from the ground, it will probably not be graded and encapsulated as it is and always will be a problem coin. If the is owner of such a coin "whizzes" it to clean it, he's simply changing the look of the hole filler from encrusted to bright - but I do NOT consider that an accepted method of "cleaning" a coin and I don't think anyone else does either. It is in my mind making a coin that you probably cannot even determine what it is identifiable to "file a hole" in an album. It is neither cleaning nor conservation - it is making an unidentifiable coin visible so you know what it is. His other example - filling a hole and then smoothing the surfaces so the filed part of the coin matches the rest of the coin is coin REPAIR and should always be disclosed and that process is certainly NOT cleaning - it is REPAIR.

 

After all, it is not unreasonable to assume that this article could be used as a reference for years to come.

 

I would hope NOT - As IN MY OPINION it is filled with mis-information. Up until the 19th century Physcians used to recommend "Blood letting" as a cure for illness, a practice that was widely followed as the Doctors of that time and they did not know any better and they often caused more harm and often killed the patient. By equating and using the term "whizzing" and continuing to persist in calling it a form of "cleaning" seems to me to be the equivelent of promoting blood letting as a method of medical treatment.

 

AND if you note, James persistently tries to defend his hypothesis that "Whizzing" is a form of cleaning, to the point of absurdity. Repairing a coin is just that - a REPAIR - if they "whizz" the coin to accomplish that, it does not become a cleaning process even if it makes the coin bright and shiny AND, after the "whizz" job, they often TONE the surface to hide both the repair and the whizzing.

 

The mechanical method of "cleaning" coins that come from the ground, when done by experts who know what they are doing, stops short of removing the actual patina of the coin - those that persist and attack the metal - no matter with what tools - whether wire brushes, dremels, brillo, etc are coin butchers. The fact that these butchers who ruin coins THINK that they are "cleaning" them does NOT make this process an acceptable method of cleaning a coin and is far different than "Dipping" a coin to remove the surface tarnish. James apparently does not see, nor understand the difference based on the examples he uses in his initial post and his follow up reponses in this thread.

 

BTW - there are some who feel that tarnish on a coin is NOT its natural state - They feel that tarnish actual destroys the surface of the coin and equate it to "rust" - so removing the tarnish by dipping will by definition return it to its natural ORIGINAL condition that existed when it left the dies that struck the coin.

 

Note: I am NOT an advocate of dipping - all one need do is go to the Toned Coin Collectors Society website and see what I like to collect - but equating "whizzing" a coin as "cleaning" and indicating that dipping to remove surface tarnish are both examples of the same thing (Cleaning) is flat out wrong and mis-leading. The above is my opinion of this thread and James' definitions and examples.

 

Perhaps a final point so you understand my fundamental difference with James on this issue: Both the Sistine Chapel and Rembrandt's "Night Watch" were "Cleaned". The were done by professional museum curators and it took years for both to be completed. They did so by "cleaning" centuries of dirt and grime off of the paintings. They used chemicals, detergents and mechanical methods to clean and restore those great works of art - and if asked, they will all tell you that they CURATED and CONSERVED those art works by CLEANING them. So James' hypothesis that cleaning and conserving are DIFFERENT is not quite accurate - especially to those who are professionally trained to do this type of work.

[James_OldeTowne]

((( I have NEVER heard of the mechanical process of removing encrustation referred to as "Whizzing".)))

 

By not quoting me correctly - AGAIN - you've sidestepped the issue. "Removing encrustation" is definitely not referred to as whizzing, and I've never claimed that it is. But "removing encrustation with a rotating wire brush" IS whizzing, and that is what I have referred to.

 

Please stop this nonsense, and simply point out anywhere where I've stated that "removing encrustation" is a form of "whizzing" so I can make a correction. It is ridiculous to keep making such false accusations, yet be unwilling to simply point out where the mistake is.

 

((( If the is owner of such a coin "whizzes" it to clean it, he's simply changing the look of the hole filler from encrusted to bright - but I do NOT consider that an accepted method of "cleaning" a coin and I don't think anyone else does either.)))

 

Nor do I, but stating what's acceptable and what is not is absolutely not a part of my article. How many times must I write that my article is not intended to pass judgement on what is acceptable and what is not?

 

WHY do you keep insinuating that I am making some sort of judgement? Is there an ulterior motive here?

 

((( By equating and using the term "whizzing" and continuing to persist in calling it a form of "cleaning" )))

 

Newmismatist, I demand to know why you keep falsely accusing me of equating whizzing and cleaning. You refuse to point out where I have stated that equivalency, and as long as you continue to do so, you're accusations are invalid! On the contrary, I've repeatedly stated that they ARE NOT EQUIVALENT, but that a rotating wire brush CAN CLEAN A COIN.

 

Why the repeated false statements? Is there some sort of personal agenda ?

 

I defy you to find one single rational numismatist who believes that the process of whizzing a coin cannot be used to clean a coin.

 

((( James persistently tries to defend his hypothesis that "Whizzing" is a form of cleaning, to the point of absurdity. Repairing a coin is just that - a REPAIR - if they "whizz" the coin to accomplish that, it does not become a cleaning process even if it makes the coin bright and shiny AND, after the "whizz" job)))

 

I can assure you without a doubt that I persoally owned a plugged bust dollar that was whizzed in the repaired area in order to clean off residues caused by the repair process. Of course plugging a coin is REPAIR - and as such can be combined with whizzing to clean the coin and enhance the visual appeal of the repaired area. Maybe you've never owned such a repaired coin, but I have, multiple times and am 100% certain that repairs can be combined with whizzing as I've described. Again, search the Heritage archives for additional examples.

 

((( Both the Sistine Chapel and Rembrandt's "Night Watch" were "Cleaned". The were done by professional museum curators and it took years for both to be completed. They did so by "cleaning" centuries of dirt and grime off of the paintings. They used chemicals, detergents and mechanical methods to clean and restore those great works of art - and if asked, they will all tell you that they CURATED and CONSERVED those art works by CLEANING them. So James' hypothesis that cleaning and conserving are DIFFERENT is not quite accurate - especially to those who are professionally trained to do this type of work.)))

 

I am certain now that you did not read my article completely, as what you describe is precisely what I address in regards to the "grey area". And I don't understand how you can make the accusations you make without actually reading my article.

 

James

[supertooth]

Hello Folks-----This sure has been an unusual week here at Sleepy Hallow. I even went to the calendar to see if it was a 'full moon'. I was actually surprised to find out that it wasn't. James has been one of our finer contributors on our WYNTK posts. And, I want to again thank him for his time and efforts---trying to be of help to all of us. And, I also want to say that Numismatist's comment that James' post was worthless is, IMHO, very much too harsh a comment. For, it got a normally PCGS poster to come on over to our side of the street and offer his knowledgable opinions. And, from reading many of Numismatist's posts on the other forum, I know that he is quite a knowledgable person.

 

As anyone who reads these posts knows, our intent is only to educate on these WYNTK threads. We have very few so called 'rules' here. Among them notifying either myself or CTcollector that you would like to post----then we give you a specific date. We require you to talk about coin related stuff. And we want you to tell the TRUTH as you know it to be. And, then, we ask that all parties be civil with one another----disagreements are fine but all forms of profanity are out and we try to keep confrontations to a minimum. We want to educate and inform---not argue.

 

Numismatist----I will personally invite you to post. Your knowledge would be most appreciated. All you have to do is PM either myself or CT collector and we will give you a date to post. We welcome ALL knowledgable collectors to give of their vast knowledge and experiences----stories are fine too. We need all the help that we can get here---all of us want to LEARN here. Anyone who posts on the WYNTK thread can pick their topics as long as they are coin related.

 

And I would again point this fact out to all of us. All of us here are at various levels in our Numismatic learning curve. We all do not think the same. As my son reminds me often----"Dad, I will never do it exactly as you would, but I do get it done". All of us do not think alike----but we can respect each other as we try to get better. Next week---Regis 44 will post on ALL his experiences at the coin show. I, for one, look forward to hearing how he feels now that it is over. PM me guys----get involved. We can help one another only if we are willing to share what we know. Bob [supertooth]

[James_OldeTowne]

Newmismatist, please answer the following question, for which either "Yes" or "No" would be a valid answer:

 

Can a rotating wire brush ever be used to clean a coin?

 

James

 

Edited to add: I received a PM from Newmismatist, and I hope he will post it here for the further edification of our readers

[Newmismatist]

Newmismatist, please answer the following question, for which either "Yes" or "No" would be a valid answer:

 

Can a rotating wire brush ever be used to clean a coin?

 

James

 

Edited to add: I received a PM from Newmismatist, and I hope he will post it here for the further edification of our readers

 

James - in the theoretical sense the answer is yes, practically speaking the answer is NO! Per your logic - smelting the coin will also clean it, as would using a file to planing off its surface. None of these methods is an acceptable means of cleaning a coin and NO knowledgeable numismatist would advise or advocate using "whizzing" as a method of cleaning. Whizzing does nothing but move AND remove the metal from the surface of the coin. The fact that a consequence of the whizzing process is a "clean" surface does not making it an accepted cleaning process in numismatics. And - how about this: suppose the surface of the coin is already "clean" before you whizz it - Would whizzing an already clean coin still be characterized as "cleaning"?

 

Let me ask you this - Is putting your hand on a rotating sanding disk cleaning you hand? I'm relatively certain that if you hold you hand against the sanding disk long enough ALL of the dirt on your hands will be removed, along with your skin.

 

Washing your hands with soap (a base on the ph scale) is an accepted method of cleaning your hands, using lye (a much stronger base) is NOT, even though the lye will also "clean" your hands. So you would you list these 2 methods as "exemplifying" a way to "clean" your hands? Next time your wife says "Honey, wash the children's hands" are you going to use the trusty sanding disk or a bottle of lye? The consequence of each will "clean" your hands.

 

Unfortumately your analogy is something like this - There is a sick patient who has a disease. If you throw the patient into a furnace, you will surely kill the microbes that are causing the disease. So, per your logic, would you claim that cremating live patients would "exemplify" a treatment to cure a disease?

 

Answer these questions: Will Cremating live patients kill the disease causing their illness? Will washing your childrens' hands with lye clean their hands?

 

My OPINION: Whizzing - whether it "cleans" the surface or not - is NOT an accepted method of cleaning coins and does NOT fall withing the accepted definition of cleaning coins, not does it "exemplify" a method of cleaning coins. No knowledgeable numismatist would advocate nor claim that such a process is a method of cleaning a coin.

 

If "whizzing" in your world "exemplifies" cleaning a coin, then we have a difference of opinion.

 

BTW - Dipping in Jeweluster or EZest to remove toning IS considered an acceptable method of "cleaning" a coin - I am not an advocate of the process, but for some coins, it will successfully improve the coin. Conversely, for most coins it will probably do more harm than good. But to equate dipping and whizzing as "exemplifying" the same process is quite riducluleous, and quite inaccurate. JMHO

[James_OldeTowne]

((( James - in the theoretical sense the answer is yes, practically speaking the answer is NO! )))

 

So according to you, this statement is true:

 

Practically speaking, a rotating wire brush can never be used to clean a coin.

 

That is absurd.

 

((( Per your logic - smelting the coin will also clean it, as would using a file to planing off its surface. )))

 

This is also absurd. My article does not say that "EVERY process that removes metal is cleaning". My article says that SOME processes of removing metal are used to clean coins.

 

Any rational person realizes that metal can be moved in some ways that are not considered cleaning, and my article says nothing that would lead a rational person to believe that every method of moving metal is equated to cleaning. Nuclear fission would certainly remove metal from the coin, but please find one single sane person who believes my article suggests nuclear fission as a way of cleaning coins.

 

((( None of these methods is an acceptable means of cleaning a coin and NO knowledgeable numismatist would advise or advocate using "whizzing" as a method of cleaning.)))

 

You keep repeating this, without taking the time to explain what you interpreted in my article as judging what methods of cleaning are acceptable, and which are not. Please point out where I've denoted acceptable methods - or are you going to continue to evade this simple request?

 

((( Whizzing does nothing but move AND remove the metal from the surface of the coin. The fact that a consequence of the whizzing process is a "clean" surface does not making it an accepted cleaning process in numismatics. )))

 

Where does my article state it is an accepted method, or are you evading this question also?

 

((( And - how about this: suppose the surface of the coin is already "clean" before you whizz it - Would whizzing an already clean coin still be characterized as "cleaning"? )))

 

So if a table has already been cleaned, you can't wipe it off again? How would you characterize it?

 

((( If you throw the [sick] patient into a furnace, you will surely kill the microbes that are causing the disease. So, per your logic, would you claim that cremating live patients would "exemplify" a treatment to cure a disease? )))

 

No, my logic is that ONE way to kill microbes is to throw a patient into a furnace. But NOWHERE does my logic state that it's the ONLY way, or that it's an ACCEPTABLE way of curing disease.

 

((( Answer these questions: Will Cremating live patients kill the disease causing their illness? Will washing your childrens' hands with lye clean their hands?)))

 

Yes to both questions. Again, did I say they are the ONLY cures, or did I say they are ACCEPTABLE? No, I did not. But both of your statements are true.

 

((( If "whizzing" in your world "exemplifies" cleaning a coin, then we have a difference of opinion. )))

 

SOME whizzed coins are examples of cleaned coins. Therefore, whizzing CAN exemplify cleaning. I never stated that whizzing MUST exemplify cleaning, just as I've never stated that ALL whizzed coins were whizzed only for the purpose of cleaning them. Those are your assertions.

 

((( Dipping in Jeweluster or EZest to remove toning IS considered an acceptable method of "cleaning" a coin ... But to equate dipping and whizzing as "exemplifying" the same process is quite riducluleous )))

 

SOME coins are dipped for the purpose of cleaning them. SOME coins are whizzed for the purpose of cleaning them. NOT ALL. There's NO equivalence! What in the world is so difficult to understand about this ?

 

Newmismatist, I state this without malice, but based on other posts and PMs, I really think you are the only person so far that has had difficulty understanding the simple logic of my article. I don't mind answering all your issues as often as needed, but I feel like I'm answering the same questions over and over. Nonetheless, you still need to post the long PM you sent me per our agreement (unless you've decided otherwise).

 

James

[MunkyMan95]

Way to stand up for your article James!

[TJ'S Coins]

I think we are witnessing a tempest in a teapot regarding Newmismatist's response to James on whizzing coins to clean them.

 

No where does James say whizzing is an acceptable method of cleaning a coin. Newmismatist agrees but is offended that whizzing is put into the category of unacceptable means of cleaning coins. Is there an acceptable use of whizzing? James would say no. I believe Newmismatist would too. I cannot understand why Newmismatist is so upset about this point. Are there unscrupulous people who have used whizzing as part of "cleaning" a coin? No doubt there are. Is this acceptable? No. Where's the disagreement?. Methinks Newmismatist doth protest too much.

 

Am I missing something here???

[Newmismatist]

James

 

Let's simplify this:

 

Is "whizzing" a method of cleaning a coin?

 

Does "whizzing" "exemplify" a method of cleaning a coin?

 

edited to add:

 

Have you whizzed a coin to clean it?

 

Will everyone here who uses "whizzing" to clean coins please post letting us know how and when you whizz your coins to clean them.

 

 

[Newmismatist]

Here's the PM I sent to James that he asked me to post:

 

In one of your responses to me you state:

Removing encrustation" is definitely not referred to as whizzing, and I've never claimed that it is. But "removing encrustation with a rotating wire brush" IS whizzing, and that is what I have referred to.

 

Please stop this nonsense, and simply point out anywhere where I've stated that "removing encrustation" is a form of "whizzing" so I can make a correction.

 

This is what you said in one of your responses:

 

Yes, one reason whizzing is done (by shysters) is to make AUs look like BUs, but it is NOT the "SOLE" reason that whizzing exists! Wire brushing is also used to remove encrustation and to smooth corroded or contaminated surfaces on severely damaged coins.

 

You seem to be using "whizzing" and "wire brushing” interchangeably here. There is no other way to read the above sentence.

 

Newmismatist, I demand to know why you keep falsely accusing me of equating whizzing and cleaning. You refuse to point out where I have stated that equivalency, and as long as you continue to do so, you're accusations are invalid! On the contrary, I've repeatedly stated that they ARE NOT EQUIVALENT, but that a rotating wire brush CAN CLEAN A COIN.

 

Well, this is what you said:

 

The following numismatic scenarios exemplify cleaning:

 

(2) A dealer uses a rotating wire brush to remove the natural patination from a nearly-uncirculated coin, and incidentally imparts the appearance of luster (also know as "whizzing").

 

Here's the Webster Definition of exemplify:

Main Entry: ex-em-pli-fy

1 : to show or illustrate by example. . .

3 a : to be an instance of or serve as an example

 

Here's the Webster Definition of equivalent:

Main Entry: equiv-a-lent

2 a : like in signification or import b : having logical equivalence <equivalent statements>

3 : corresponding or virtually identical especially in effect or function

synonym see SAME

 

As you have stated that whizzing "exemplifies" cleaning (that is, by definition it is an example of cleaning), then it MUST logically follow that whizzing is equivalent to cleaning. Or stated another way if whizzing is an example of cleaning, it IS THE SAME as cleaning - which is precisely what you have said. Perhaps you have not understood the meaning of what you have said. Perhaps you meant to say something else?

 

I have responded to the words that you have used and their plain meaning - if you have mis-stated what you meant to say, then you need to correct your posts.

 

I've not met you, I have no "agenda". I am only stating that "whizzing" is NOT the equivalent of cleaning in the numismatic world that I know. That fact that whizzing a coin may also clean it, does not make whizzing a coin a method of "cleaning", any more than smelting it would, or using a metal plane to completely remove the top eighth of the surface - both would leave the metal "clean and pristine" but they are NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, "cleaning" as the term is used in numismatic circles.

 

If you don't mean what you have said in your posts, then you need to edit your posts to clarify what you really mean. If whizzing and cleaning are not equivalent, then you cannot say that whizzing is an example of cleaning. It's really that simple.

[James_OldeTowne]

... and here was the exact response I PMed to Newmismatist:

 

(1) I have stated - and am certain that it is true - that "the whizzing process can be used to clean coins", and I can prove it. It is exceedingly obvious that a rotating wire brush can be used to clean most any kind of metal, including coins, and there must be hundreds of examples of such cleaned coins on Heritage alone.

 

I have NEVER stated that "the whizzing process is only used to clean coins". You seem to think I've made such an equivalency, but I certainly have not. I'm perfectly aware that whizzing is mainly used to created artificial luster. But to deny that whizzing can ever be used to clean a coin is just plain false.

 

The following statement would be a false equivalency:

 

"Whizzing is solely done to clean coins"

 

This is the statement you seem to be falsely accuse me of making or paraphrasing. I do not believe this statement, which is why I have never made or implied it.

 

Please find even once instance where I have stated that the whizzing process is only a cleaning process, and I will make a correction immediately.

 

(2) What I have stated (paraphrasing) is that:

 

"A coin can be cleaned by whizzing"

 

That is a true statement which nobody can rationally deny. I can apply a rotating wire brush to a filthy coin and remove the dirt in that manner.

 

You can satisfy the argument by simply supplying a yes or no answer to the following question: "Can a rotating wire brush ever be used to clean a coin?", and indeed, I posted this question to the thread, addressed to you. I would appreciate an answer in that thread.

 

(3) Your following statement IS a false equivalency:

 

"The "new" shiny surface is the by-product of the whizzing process, whose sole purpose is to deceptively make an AU or damaged or scratched coin appear to be an uncirculated coin so that the unsuspecting collector whgo buys the coin is thus defrauded"

 

Because it denies that any other purpose could ever exist for whizzing a coin, this statement can be proven false simply by finding one exception (or more). I did that, and gave you examples on Heritage which you evidently refused to look at. The fact that there are literally thousands of lower-than-AU coins that are whizzed proves your statement to be false. Why are you unwilling to retract it?

 

(4) I - and two other board members who PMed me - are be led to believe you must have ulterior motives when you choose to make false statements.

 

You stated

 

"your inability to distinguish the terms "cleaning", "polishing" and "whizzing" and your misleading use of these terms as the being one and the same renders this WYNTK post virtually worthless."

 

You accused my article of being "virtually worthless" - but that was based on your own false statement! I have never made such an equivalency. Again, this sure sounds like an ulterior motive at play.

 

(5) You stated:

 

"you either you have a poor understanding of the subject matter that you are "Attempting" to portray as "scholorly", or your understanding of the subject is substantially at odds with mainstream numismatics."

 

Here, you accuse me of fraud when you claim that I am trying to portray myself and my article as "scholarly". Where in the world did I do that? How can you make such a baseless accusation without at least explaining how I perpetrated such a fraud? Ulterior motives perhaps? Such an accusation is blatantly a personal affront, and I found it insulting, as I have never, ever claimed to be a numismatic authority, and in fact have frequently given disclaimers to the contrary. This statement on your part offended other members as well.

 

(6) With all the false statements and fraud you accuse me of, as illustrated above, you refuse to answer my questions. Why is that? Let me repeat some of the questions that you chose to ignore:

 

Q1: please note that the introduction of my article clearly states " the goal of this article is not necessarily to enforce any particular definition", and that I carefully made the point that "these terms can mean different things to different people". Did these statements mislead you into thinking the article doesn't contain some of my opinions? Did you interpret those statements as meaning that I intend this to be a definitive article?

 

Q2: I think the Webster definition you cited for "polish" supports my use of the process as a type of cleaning, as it is impossible to make a "dirty" coin glossy without cleaning it, isn't it?

 

Q3: Where in the world did you see me state that they [whizzing and cleaning] are one and the same?

 

Q4: What does removing grease and dirt have to do with removing metal?

 

Q5: In my example, sandpaper removes the top layer of wood from a desk. Using baking soda to clean a coin removes the top layer of metal. Why is this an invalid analogy? Are you saying that baking soda, along with whizzing, is not a form of cleaning?

 

Q6: WHY do you keep insinuating that I am making some sort of judgement [on stating what is acceptable cleaning practice and what is not]?

 

(7) whizzing "exemplifies" cleaning (that is, by definition it is an example of cleaning), then it MUST logically follow that whizzing is equivalent to cleaning.

 

Newmismatist, according to your logic, the following also makes sense:

 

Cat "exemplifies" animal (that is, by definition cats are an example of animals), then it MUST logically follow that animal is equivalent to cat.

 

Your logic is rather absurd, isn't it?

 

But it makes perfect sense stated the way that I have, as follows:

 

Whizzing can exemplify cleaning (that is, by definition, some cleaning is done by whizzing), then it MUST logically follow that whizzing is one of many ways that coins are cleaned.

 

Indeed, whizzing was ONE OF FOUR examples I gave, which obviously supports the correct logic as just stated, that it can be one of many known ways of cleaning coins.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

I sure hope that by the simple example of #7, you realize that your understanding of logic and equivalency is fatally flawed, and that is why you do not understand my article.

 

I would appreciate it if you would indeed post your PM to the thread, or otherwise I will have to. But I strongly urge you to reconsider the fatal flaws in your argument that accuse me of making false equivalencies that are not there. You should also answer at least my six questions summarized above, as it isn't fair to just keep making additional accusations without taking reponsibility for responding to my questions.

 

((( Just curious - What is your opinion of dipping a tarnished silver coin in jeweluster? Does that ruin the coin? )))

 

Personally, I believe that nothing "ruins" a coin, short of melting it down. It may damage a coin, or lessen it's appeal, but ruin it beyond all possible hope of value? I think not. Many large-cents have been dipped in Jeweluster and are not ruined, just simply less valuable. But if Jeweluster removes the top layer of metal molecules from a coin, then it is a form of cleaning.

 

James

[James_OldeTowne]

Hi TJ, and thanks for the possible clarifications.

 

I want to stress that my article is not intended in any way, shape or form, to state what is acceptable or not acceptable from the standpoint of conservation or cleaning. My only goal was to propose a way to categorize processes based on the manipulation of a coin's physical metal content. I leave it to the wisdom and integrity of our collector base to decide what is acceptable, and will never degrade another collector for his decision (though I might well disagree).

 

Personally, I do not want to own whizzed coins - but I have. Years ago, due to budgetary constraints, I had to accept an 1802/0 half-cent that was whizzed, because that made it financially feasible to me. The coin was not whizzed to present as "BU" - indeed, it had only "fine" details at best - but was processed to remove verdigris and smooth the surfaces. I feel certain that it's appearance was more tolerable after being whizzed. But yes, I would always prefer a non-whizzed coin.

 

James

[truthteller]

"Will everyone here who uses "whizzing" to clean coins please post letting us know how and when you whizz your coins to clean them."

 

 

When I was a new collector, I would use a metal wire emery wheel to clean my low grade copper. I then learned this was called "whizzing". I learned so much by doing instead of talking.

 

 

 

TRUTH