In the past few months I've bought some relatively common, uncirculated workd coinage from a very reputable French and a very reputabel German company. In both cases the coins had been cleaned to an extent where I would expect a dealer in modern US coins to note the cleaning. The cleaning was minor but still distracting and not what I expected. Have others had similar experiences? Are European standards a little more lax when it comes to a few scratches and impaired lustre? Or am I making too much out of two incidents?

I'll just say that many of the 19th century coins I get from Europe are cleaned. In one case I got a piece that was harshly cleaned (nearly polished) described as "with some light hairlines". Yeah right.

Let me say that I have never seen a dirty 200 year old French coin
Sofar I only got distilled water washed coins
Lucky me

Yeah that's the era all right.

For me, it only the silver coins I have a problem with. Coppers are fine 95%+ of the time, as are nickel coinage. I don't deal with gold, so no comment on that.

I have seen, within the past two years, U.K. listings on Ebay where the seller says something like, "all these need is a good polishing to be perfect" !!! I'm amazed that these guys still think like that. I have asked for, and received larger photos from a couple of British sellers where the coins had tons of hairlines. Needless to say, I passed.

Oh my. In my opinion there is a difference between cleaning and polishing. The former makes sense (if done in a professional manner) with ancients that have some kind of crust for example. The latter, well, I would not want my (future) coins to be rubbed this way. But I cannot comment on differences between American and European dealers here, due to a lack of experience in that regard.

Christian

I would have to say it is rather common for many of the European dealers, reputable or not, to offer cleaned coins with no comment of the cleaning in the description. There was a time when the same was true in the US.

I think that's a large part of the reason why the slabbing of coins is still unpopular in Europe, but it is becoming more accepted as time passes. Collectors don't want to know their coins have been cleaned and most of them can't recognize that they have been. To a large degree that is true here in the US as well.

I don't think that is the case at all, and I certainly don't think that slabbing is becoming any more accepted in right pondia with the passing of time. At least not based upon my observations of attitudes here in Britland.

Many people here are used to carefully handling coins that range from 500 BC through to present time. Slabbing effectively `kills' the opportunity to examine edge inscriptions and engrailings (as well as checking for fakes!) it also `encapsulates' the opinion of graders with the somewhat dubious ability to grade the particular coins in question. Having seen some attempts by ANACS, PCGS, NGC, SEGS, ACG I am 100% safe in the statement that the can't grade worth a dog's patoot as far as `world' coins are concerned.



I hope that you had your tongue in your cheek when you suggested that collectors here on the darkside don't know when their coins have been cleaned or not (?).

Consider that many world coin types simply don't exist in any better condition.....at least not in sufficient quantities to satisfy the collector marketplace. Certainly we darkside collectors do get used to accepting coins that don't quite have the few hundred years patination we would otherwise like to see. We wouldn't have examples of some coins at all if `cleaned' was as big a `no-no' as it is in the US. That does not mean to say that we wouldn't prefer `uncleaned'. Similarly with holed and otherwise damaged coins. Accepting holed or otherwise damaged coins does not imply that we wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a damaged and an undamaged coin either!

The whole subject of `cleaning' has so many caveats associated with it. If you collect ancients the norm (with few exceptions) is that the coin will have been cleaned. For some countries (for example Malta) most large silver pieces have long since been made into brooches / pendants/ fobs. Many have been repaired, but........well let's just say that for some locations just finding one that hasn't been holed or brooched, let alone had a little a bit of cleaning, is a hard task!

Some slabbers even have their own `conservators' (that's a polite way of saying `cleaners') but of course, that's alright because the `conservators' are doing it `professionally. LOL!!! From what i see it's all a bit of a hypocracy is it not?

All the crossover nonsense is proof positive that slabbing means practically nothing. I am particularly amused by collectors taking coins in slabs of X company and sending them to Y company to see if it will grade higher. It is a bit like the Dutch Tulip trading scandal of the 17th century.

Americans in the main seem to be gullible for slabbing, somehow the ridiculous opinion of some unknown "grader" reassures them.

Buy the coin, not the plastic.

As far as modifications go in coin collecting in the USA, just look at one and only one series, Draped Bust Silver Dollars, about 98% of all that I have seen are cleaned, whizzed, plugged, tooled or in some way shape or form messed with. But still these coins get graded and slabbed, many of which in my opinion are cleaned, but not noted as so on the slab.

Ones like this are very very difficult to find:

Is that a love bite on her neck?

Well Ian, the vast majority of the time you and I see eye to eye on most things, on this one we don't. I guess it's because I have just seen too many examples of coins purchased in Europe by collectors here in the US from a dealer who most believe to be highly reputable, and nowhere in the description was there anything about the coin being cleaned. But when the coin arived, it was a cleaned coin. I am not saying this is always the case, but it happens often enough.

I will agree with you that the vast majority of collectors in Britain are not in favor of slabbing coins. But slabbed coins are turning up more and more in other countries and the auctions held there - and they are being purchased. I am not trying in any way to say that this is pervasive, but it is happening more frequently.



No, my tongue was not in cheek. You see, I don't think that Europe is any different in that way than the US. And it is quite obvious that all too many collectors cannot recognize a cleaned coin. For that matter, many dealers can't either. Or at least they pretend they can't for they sure sell a great many cleaned coins without telling the buyer it is cleaned.

Now, I am not saying that this applies to all collectors either in Europe or the US. Certainly there are plenty of them who are quite knowledgeable and can recognize a cleaned coin with ease. But I believe there are more of them who can't. All you have to do is look at their collections, mention that this coin or that coin has been cleaned and watch their reactions.

I do of course agree that for the most part the TPGs do a lousy job when to comes to grading world coinage.




On this we are in agreement. But then that was not the question.

Different point entirely. A question. Irrespective of where you live in the world, if you find a long established experienced and `reputable' dealer selling you a cleaned coin without referencing it as having been cleaned, why would you assume that they `didn't know'? You would know. I would know. Many others would readily `know'. So why give the long established `reputable' dealer involved any leeway on the issue?

I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't. I'm also pretty sure that i'd be rather upset (read: `totally furious') if i'd paid good money for a coin that hadn't been tampered with and received a cleaned one. I speak from experiencing just that. About ten years ago I bought a Queen Anne crown from a well known `reputable' UK dealer. the coin was described as `problem free good Fine'. When it arrived it was white and shiny..... Now for a coin that was near to 300 years old and had not one iota of patina on it....well I ask, is this a `problem' or is it `problem free'? I contacted the dealer involved and got a pretty poor explanation for the `error' they had made. He did however quickly offer a reduction in the price (which I did not take). I since learned that this was the standard operating procedure for this `reputable' dealer. He regularly sold coins through his `list' in the full knowledge that most buyers would not bother to argue the toss...or would accept a discounted price if they did. His reasoning was even if 10% of his customers sent the itmems back he was still well up on his dealings. Of course nowadays even rookie collectors are more `connected' and increasingly have access to a wide array of advice / forums and images via the internet that until recently could only be found in expensive and sometimes vague catalogues. They are no longer quite so reliant on dealers `dictat' as to grade or condition.

I would assert that the difference between a rookie failing to mention that they are selling cleaned coins and an experienced dealer failing to do the same is:- the former does so through ignorance, the latter does so with due deliberation and intent.

If we are in disagreement it is with the assertion that a) there is an increased acceptance of slabbed coins over here and that any such increased acceptance (real or assumed) is due in the main to peoples ignorance as to whether coins are cleaned or not.



Sure. I have a few myself. I buy the coin, not the holder it comes in, and if you were to check UK auctions you will find that slabbed coins generally under perform in terms of realized prices. This might come as a shock but you can usually buy them cheaper than a `raw' equivalent. So if anyone wants to put a bargain coin my way i'll buy it irrespective of slabbing / slabbing company. That does not mean that I would submit any of my coins to slabbing...and THERE is the knub of the matter. There have been a number of attempts to get collectors here to SLAB their coins. All have failed miserably. Maybe times will indeed change but until UK collectors actually start to get their own coins slabbed (as opposed to buying up coins that have already been slabbed by US collectors and dumped on the market at bargain prices) I really can't see any evidence of increased acceptance of `slabbing' as a concept or practice in these parts.




This is again at the core of the debate. from my observations it is more a matter of ethics than it is of `ignorance'. A seasoned dealer who doesn't know whether a coin is cleaned or not?.... I would suggest whether they are US or European that they know all right.



This brings me back to what I was saying about `reliance'. I know one hobbyist (I hesitate to say `collector' because he was more of an `accumulator' than a deliberate `collector') who was seriously duped by a `reputable' dealer over a period in excess of 20 years! He asked me over one day to see his (large) collection of Brit crowns. He had bought them from the same dealer and had relied totally upon his judgement. Every single coin without exception had been polished. Not merely `lightly cleaned' or what i've seen some dealers fraudulently refer to as `cabinet friction with a few hair lines'. I'm talking about out and out shiny bright silver polishing. Ah well, at least HE liked them, but the dealer involved had commanded hundreds of pounds from this poor chap on each occasion of purchase. That to my mind is more criminal than the person who had cleaned the coin in the first place. Thankfully, not all dealers fall into the same category.

The internet has helped lessen the opportunity for such brazen betrayals of trust, but of course the practice continues to this day. As you rightly point out, many collectors have yet to discover the extent of their misplaced trust.



I didn't think that we would disagree on that score, but what I said also related to the subject of cleaning.

For example, what is the difference between a coin that has been cleaned and a coin that has been `conserved'? I believe that NGC has a sister company which `conserves' coins and then passes them over to NGC for grading and slabbing (?). Basically, you can have your coin cleaned and slabbed by the same people so I guess because it is being done by the same totally objective experts who have no commercial interests involved (tongue in cheek) that it's alright.

Ian

A lot of the European coins I have are so badly tarnished or stained that a little cleaning is necessary before I can identify them. I doubt it hurts thei value since they don't have any value if you can't tell what they are.

Gemstocks

I'm pretty sure you already know what I think - conserving is just another name for cleaning. There is a small bit of difference though, when a coin is "conserved", you usually can't tell that it was. When a coin is "cleaned", there is usually no room for doubt. Semantics I know, but the results are not.

Tarnishing/toning on a piece should not affect one's ability to attribute it. Nor should staining.

There are people buying coins straight from the mint and sending them to be graded and slabbed It was worth a giggle. Though these people are most likely doing this to justify a higher price...another way to yank and extra bit of money from someone who DOES care about a slab and a number. Not quite as funny...

I have to agree with you.

The only time I have actually `had' to clean coins in order to identify them was a bundle of ancients I obtained. They quite literally arrived encrusted together in a clump of clay /earth. They had to be carefully prised apart and then cleaned up (initially soaked in olive oil for a good spell and the earth removed from the coins detail / devices by using a wooden toothpick).

The coin collecting community is subject to `fashions / fads / trends'. Sometimes cleaning is a necessity. Sometimes it is fashionable, like `dipping' in recent years.

I'll split a hair here, but that is tantamount to saying that if your eye can't tell, then it hasn't been `cleaned'. Now, the untrained eye of a rookie collector might not notice a cleaned coin when a seasoned veteran would.

What standard do we therefore use as to what constitutes acceptable `cleaning'?

On a related issue, i've seen the work of a gentleman in the US who professionally plugs holed coins and repairs `damaged' coins. I could guarantee that the vast majority of seasoned collectors / dealers would not notice...even with inspection. Conserved?

I think that is the standard, if a seasoned veteran, experienced collector, expert - whatever you want to call it - can't tell; then what does it matter ?




Good Lord of course not !! I'd call that restored


Before I could believe that I couldn't tell, I'd have to see it first. You telling me that you can't tell Ian ?? I find that hard to imagine.

What matters is that the people being trusted to `slab' know!! What matters is that they don't appear to pass on that knowledge by way of labeling the coin and as a consequence the potential buyer is potentially being (IMHO) duped. Put it this way, if you had the choice between two coins of the same type, same grade, same eye appeal, but one had been `conserved' the other hadn't....which one would you spend your hard earned cash on?



I'd have answered exactly the same as you Doug. We're like two peas in the same pod at times.

The little I do know concerning cleaned / repaired / fake coins has been `bought' through hard and sometimes very bitter experience (including a fairly expensive purchase from a so called `reputable' US dealer). While I would like to say that i'll never get fooled again....there is always the possibility. The `work' I was talking about certainly had that potential. Not now though.

Enlarging upon that, I have a rather beautifully toned and technically uncirculated Vickie double florin. I've had it for years now. Every now and again i bring it out to look at it. A few months ago while doing just that, for some reason or another I decided to have a real close up look at the edge. You can imagine my surprise (actually horror) when I saw that it had a very tiny perfectly round hole drilled into the milling. I looked right round the rim and found a second identical hole 180 degrees apart. These holes had originally held two pins which in turn would have held the coin in a swivel type mount. So...my coin was `once mounted'. A `damaged' coin, and I hadn't even noticed until recently. Do I care? Pride wise...yes, but coin wise...not really. The coin is as beautiful as ever....but the next potential owner might not like it having two holes in it! Should I mention it if I ever decide to sell? Well, my conscience would force me to, but consider this: If my Vickie double florin was in a slab would anyone ever know that it has two tiny holes in it? Would it matter? I have absolutely no doubt that these holes could be `repaired' and that the coin would subsequently pass any third party graders normal inspection process.

As to having been taken in the past....well, I'm comforted in the knowledge that i'm not the first, and I know that there are many fakes out there that have sat in the collection of `experts' for years. I know there are modern fakes that fooled the experts too (including a rather nice Spanish trail commemorative half dollar I happened to come across). Does it matter if you can't tell the difference? Well...that's a matter of opinion too I guess, but I can tell you for sure that it would matter to me. More so if I found out AFTER i'd parted with my cash.

Buyers tend to blinker themselves. Seeing what they want to see rather than what might be there to be seen. Thus, when coming across coins on the `hit list' in the poorly lit `coin fair' halls; being tempted with decent prices for relatively scarce items; buying from sellers we haven't seen before (and might never see again)...well we have a right dangerous cocktail. These settings are exactly how many `cleaned / conserved', damaged and fake coins manage to find new owners. Experience and training do provide a check to buyers lust / blindness but it's never a 100% safeguard....even for the seasoned vet (collector or dealer).

A very interesting conversation with some very good opinions put forth i think.

I do often think about the point Ian raised, "what constitutes as cleaning and where is the boundary between acceptable.unacceptable?" (to paraphrase). Herein lies the problem within any discussions on this, it's a very individual thing. What one person considers merely 'dipped' another like myself considers 'cleaned', depending how one defines cleaned of course.

I also like the point Ian raised about Third Party Grading not always mentionning the fact and yet this is considered by some to be acceptable whilst dealers failing to mention it is not?



To turn the argument completely on its head


Collectors onsider cleaning to be bad because it's considered bad by the hobby at large (at least the US/Brit side, it varies elsewhere), but that's the modern perspective.

Why is it bad? (Not just because the coin catalogue and the dealers say so). So okay I may argue it's bad because i've been raised in the system to think that way, but is there actually a genuine reason why toning is generally left on rather than removed? What makes an uncleaned coin any more 'natural' than a cleaned one when all said and done. It all comes down to what you mean by natural, if natural meant 'looking the same colour it left the mint', then we'd all be cleaning them!

All of my ancients are cleaned.



I like them. But if my 1799 silver dollar, which had not spent a couple of millenia in the ground were cleaned I would not like it.



I will keep my diatribe short and to the point and leave the pictures to do the thousand word nonsense for me.

My prediction is that the anti-cleaning fad will fall into disfavor eventually and it will probably take the slabbing fad with it. Recently, I saw an old issue of the redbook in which Yeoman related the baking soda technique for cleaning coins.

Harsh cleaning is indeed damaging to a coin's surfaces, but such mild remedies as ammonia soaking to remove mild toning , vaseline rubs for gooey or verdigrised circulated bronzes, or wet baking soda packs for acid tinted silvers, and other enhancements which are reversed by the passage of time will probably never go out of favor with a segment of the coin collecting community, no matter how many self-impressed "experts" lecture collectors about the evils of cleaning.

One of my fellow orophiles here told me that someone claimed to be able to tell if a gold coin had been rinsed in acetone. I'm still chuckling over that, a year after I heard it.

I'll be honest. If you hadn't mentioned it I would have said that there is no way that dollar of your has been in the ground for any length of time. It doesn't look to me like it has been in the ground at all. That having been said, I can only talk in terms of the effects our Brit soil and climate has on silver coins and it is not particularly `friendly'. The ground that your coin was in must have been silver friendly as there is no trace of any corrosion whatsoever. You know the story of my Mary Ryal and the effects that a few centuries of being in the ground had on that. It's butt ugly as a result.

Read what he said again Ian -

" But if my 1799 silver dollar, which had not spent a couple of millenia in the ground were cleaned I would not like it. "


I underlined the word you missed, I know that because I missed it too the first time I read it

I'm beginning to think it's a pity we don't all clean our coins actually, i meant think of how great it would be if cleaning just wasn't an issue. If 98% of coins on offer were cleaned and everyone collected cleaned coins it'd be pretty great actually. But i collect cleaned coins anyhow so i have my bias.

Ah the vaguaries of language! Mea maxima culpa!

Indeed if i had read it right in the first place I should have realised that it is far too young to have spent a couple of millenia anywhere, whether above or below ground.

Ian and myself, writing of a different flavour, have to thus carefully peruse each others missives duly so.

Now! Can you be ABSOLUTELY sure that the CIA hasn't developed time travel and 'planted' a few in the iron age?

Oh sure, everybody knows they planted them in the bronze age

I would actually prefer that the anti-cleaning fad continues and grows because then cleaned coins will become that much cheaper and I may even be able to afford some scarce pieces.


The average uninformed collector here in Finland seldom has qualms about cleaning coins, and nor do on-the-side dealers mention coins that have been cleaned. Fortunately at "higher" levels coins are often listed as cleaned, even old cleaning. And I would say in general that while cleaned coins are not preferred here, they are not condemned as raped whores either.

Personally I do not prefer cleaned coins and avoid them when I can, but at the same time I do not abhor them. It is part of their history (though maybe an unpleasant one), and sometimes (heavan forbid) they even look better. I see it the same way as when I admire older historical architecture in different cities, many of them have been repainted, copper roofing replaced, or even roadside cobblestones dug up to make the roads somewhat even again. The charm is still there for me, even though there has been some reprocessing.

In practice I do not clean my coins (unless they have been hit by the green or then have something obvious to remove), nor will I buy cleaned-to-the-extreme coins (polished, brushed, etc.) unless it is a very scarce piece. At that point I am more happy to have a cleaned piece than no piece. (Hey, I can always upgrade. )

If it such a good job that no one can tell even the experts, I see no problem. I dont remember where it was said but someone gave this scenario and someone said in essence that the coin should still be devalued even if experts couldnt tell it was cleaned. I just dont understand this thinking and can only conclude they have taken the perfectly logical arguements against cleaning to a drastic extreme.

I would say that no cleaning is best but in some cases, there is no way around it...its either have an undesirable ugly filthy coin...or a nicer looking cleaned coin that is worth less to some...I would go with the later in that case, especially if the coin is dirty and crusty but still has good detail.

IMO its a case by case basis. I also come from area of collecting were cleaning is simply required 'dirty old ancients' and have cleaned so many coins that dipping a dirty modern coin in distilled water to clear off some build-up just doesnt seem so bad.

Like has been said before though, fads come and go and at this time cleaning is frowned upon but I have to say if a very rare and wonderful coin came up and it had been cleaned a bit...I bet most would still desire it. As they should...a great coin is a great coin.

Its all in how you do it, in moderation (even with ancients one must be carefull and moderate) and know when to and know when the coin is just fine....

Yes, I buy a lot of cleaned coins, whether by mistake or by design, to take advantage of a low price. A few old dealers have told me that most high grade coins over 100 years old have most likely been cleaned at least once. A few really old timers who deal coins will tell you that the practice of viewing any cleaning as damage is a recent development in the hobby. Of course, to really old timers, something that happened 50 years ago is "recent".

I only clean coins when they have something on them that is likely to damage the surfaces. Usually, my cleanings amount to little more than a washing or soaking, and I will tell a prospective buyer what I've done to the coin if it's a coin I'm selling.

Exactly. As long as the coin is decent and you know it was cleaned, there's no harm done to your collection.

You hit the nail on the head there Ed, exactly my point. The "don't clean brigade" is a relatively new fad (one i was brought up with). But in the 1940s/50s cleaning was (so i'm led to believe) very common.

I can only presume it was accepted as standard practice until the 1960s/1970s or so (depending where you are) when someone came up with the idea not to clean.

It was a bit before that. My grandfather who was born in 1903 is the one who taught me to never clean a coin - that's what he was taught too.

It would be interesting to trace this in literature over time. The Numismatist or the old Red Books would probably provide some insight into when cleaning became taboo and perhaps even why. That could be an interesting little research project. Although in Europe it seems like it has never gotten as taboo as in the US. Maybe the popular perception shifted mainly since third party grading started in the 1980's some wise grandfather's excluded.

Q. David Bowers has commented on it many times in his writings. If memory serves, he has stated that it was quite common in the 1800's and before, but that opinions on cleaning began to change in the late 1800's.

It would be easy enough to ask him though - qdavid@anrcoins.com

This reminds me of poor J. Sanford Saltus. On the eve of becoming the first American president of the British Numismatics Society, in 1922, he decided to clean a few coins in his London hotel room. He was using potassium cyanide and mistook the cyanide solution for his refreshing glass of ginger ale.

Doesn't that sound like one of those creepy cautionary tales for children? "You want to clean your coins, Jimmy? Well, let me tell you a bedtime story..."

Anyway, it sounds like cleaning was still an accepted practice in the early '20s.

The following is from the Coin World Alamanc 1st Editon 1975:

"Uncirculated coins should be wiped with a piece of tryy cloth or a handkerchief." The article is otherwise cautios about cleaning and negative on treating which seems to refer to chemically altering a coin.

This is from the 7th edition 2000:

"The coin should be immersed into a good solvent that will dissolve grease and oil and carry away dust". This is in reference of pre treating a coin for proper storage as in the 1st edition but without any friction this time.

***WARNING, I'm not 100% against cleaned coins***

I work with "artistic" jewelry and use many different chemicals to clean, and to tone metals. To me, as well as with any metal, the only time cleaning truly reduces the eye appeal of the coin is if it leaves pits, or scratches and hairlines.

Speaking on lower grade materials only (Vg and below) for a moment, I've personally restored (yes cleaned) several large cents, removed scratches in silver (anacs calls this whizzing I think), and retoned low grade coins after being cleaned (dipped) of gunk. It all boils down to it being effective, and bringing eye appeal back to a "junk" coin, and also who actually admits to doing it. I see no reasons not to clean or retone ugly worn coins, it makes them asthetically pleasing, so why not do it, in many cases it even increases the value and desirability to other collectors.

For anything F+ I don't know how to clean them properly without lower the grade, or eye appeal. I know many out there can, and do, and if I can't and even the TPG companies (experts hahah, right) can't tell (or dont care) why should it matter? If it looks good, do it, if it doesn't, don't.

Yes, I work with vintage sterling jewelry too. I just made a discovery last week that has to do with artificialtoning. I had a large lot of dirty sterling chains and put them into the pickle pot which was filled with a solution of ammonia and detergent and heated to about 130 degrees. This is a quick precleaning dip I use to loosen the grime on dirty jewelry before putting it in the ultrasound tank. This is also the step between the vibratory tumbler with red rouge charged walnut hull and the ultrasound, and it saves time in the ultrasound tank. Anyway, instead of a 10 second dip, this lot of chains was mistakenly left soaking in the hot solution for several hours.

When I removed the basket from the pot, all the chain had toned to a gorgeous range of blues starting at medium indigo and ranging into dark, metallic navy blue. I'm going to try the treatment on a few low grade dipped silver coins to see how well the retoning works on .900 fine. I'm sure that the toning proceeded through shades of gray before arriving at the various shades of blue.

I think that layer of color you've aquired may actually be a micro thin layer of copper leeched onto the silvers surface (we copper plate brass that way), or the impurities actually leeching out of the metal itself.

There is a much easier method to getting bright blue coins, we use it when we want to make something look "antique", such as the one ring I wear. Anyway its a chemical, (PM me 28 is you want to know about it, more than likely you already do though ) which I won't mention on here just in case someone would try to sell these colored coins as the real thing. (In the right hands NOBODY, not even a TPG company can tell the difference) How do you color toned coin collectors feel about that one?

I do tone and clean as I said above, but morally I cannot sell them as legit coins, honesty will never bite you in the butt, dishonesty surely will!

You can also play with color rings by "painting" the chemical onto the coin, just tone one side if you want, heck even write your initials on it! Basically any color that can happen in nature, can happen with this chemical in a matter of seconds.

I can get some pics up on Monday if anyone is interested of some of the examples I've spoke of.

And not to get TOO off topic here, do europeans give a hoot about toning normally?

Lots of misunderstanding here as it looks for me. This is all because of mix-up of different meaning/usage of word "cleaning".

Cleaned coin we call:

1. Coin with damaged/hairlined fields/details due to usage of improper (mechanical) methods of cleaning. For example friction of a coin with crystals of baking soda (or salt) will damage its surfaces.

2. Coin that was overdipped in some chemicals and upper layers of metal were dissolved by that solution. Coin is lifeless and unnatural. Damaged, but by usage of chemicals rather than by usage of mechanical methods.

3. Coins from earth (hoards) with heavy incrustation and/or heavy corrosion (mostly antique) restored by chemicals, electrolyzes methods or mechanically to pleasant look.

4. Quality modern coins where grease, oils, PVC, fingerprints were promptly removed. This coin actually looks better and can be stored for years. Some people call this "conservation".

While 1 and 2 most people believe are bad and most advise not to buy coins with damaged/hairlined surfaces, the other two are good and recommended by most.

WCO

Depends on the tone really. If it looks 'subtle' and 'natural' (i use '' there because of course a subtle AT would get the same response) generally it goes down well. Although in some European countries cleaned coins are the order of the day. A dealer friend of mine in Germany has commented many times that alot of the material offered in Germany is cleaned. I dunno if there's any taboo on it there, Christian would be in a better place to comment on that.

With regards to places like the UK though, subtle toning is well recieved. Rainbow and more colourful and extreme forms of toning generally don't get very far though. I always saw toning as being a bit like gold jewellry, good in moderation, too much looks tacky, cheap and probably fake.

Well said.

You're probably right. Being a little underschooled about metallurgy, I simply assumed that the grunge from the old chains had dissolved in the soapy ammonia solution and had cooked up into a wicked mix of sulphides which colored the cleaned surfaces.

Since the last post, I tried treating an 1842 1/2 franc silver which was cleaned as most French coins I've found have usually been. The solution was fresh and had no effect on the coin's surfaces in several hours, so maybe the blue toning did come from sulphides on the old tarnished chains.

I know what chemical compound you're referring to, or at least one of them I use for coloring silver. Maybe I'll try using some dirty solution after the next batch of old silver jewelry I pre-clean. I'll let you know what happens.

I was taught never to clean coins as it doesn't improve the coin and it may damage it.
But the average collector appreciates a cleanned coins. I don't understand how ppl can appreciate a 200 yr coin without a bit of dirt and/or toning.