I'm having a hard time telling in online photos if copper cents have been cleaned. Are there any telltale signs? On site said that black halos or residue on the surfaces are an indicator, but I can't ever seem to tell. Silver is much easier for me. Any suggestions? Here are two that I can't tell. Thanks for any pointers!
It depends on the degree of cleaning, especially with circulated ( even if very lightly) coins as minor scratches is expected with wear, and environmental darkening can happen over time if it is in protected areas. A circulated coin with drastic difference in coloration (with copper coins more so than with silver) is usually a questionable effect. But it is hard to explain or put into words, but experience will help a lot. In the 2 above, I suspect some cleaning on the 14D but not on the 09S in the portions I see. IMO, Jim
I agree 100 % the 09 is a woodie and the 14 has tell tale signs of being messed with. But a cleaned coin shouldn't be the death sentence....as in time you'll learn that sometimes in this hobby one must accept a coin thats detailed for now ...as you may not see another cleaned or not. Perfect example 1847 half dime....or a 1853 half dime no arrows where more than half of its mintage was melted down before the coins left the mint.
with any coin, copper or silver, when I see the darker toning around the devices sharply demarcated from the fields, like the top coin, that makes me think "cleaned." Harshly cleaned copper-- and you see this a lot on large cents-- will show reddish or pinkish areas where naked metal has been exposed. Then people try to retone or recolor them, and that often looks blotchy. I would suggest studying details coins in the Heritage Archives to get an idea of the different "looks." (FWIW, I would not even consider buying a raw 14-D or 09-s-vdb Lincoln. Too many fakes and problem coins out there. [says the guy who buys raw Trade Dollars on eBay!]) edit: The 09 looks cleaned to me, I see the same vertical marks in the right field that Doug does.
It can be very difficult at times to tell if a coin has been harshly/improperly cleaned when all you have to go by is pictures. That's because pictures, any pictures, can be way beyond deceiving. If you change the angle just a tiny bit or change the angle of the lighting just a tiny bit you can often see things that appear to be day and night different. It is less difficult when judging a coin in hand, but even then it can still be hard to tell if a coin has been harshly/improperly cleaned. Especially if it was an old harsh/improper cleaning and the coin has toned or re-toned. As stated by others, being able to detect harsh/improper cleaning is one of those things that one can only learn with extensive experience. Oh there are times when it's downright easy. But there are far, far more when it's beyond difficult. As for these two coins, I'm gonna have to go the opposite way here. The 1914 looks fine to me and 1909 looks to have been harshly/improperly cleaned, particularly the right hand fields. You can see traces of it elsewhere on the coin but in that area they stand out. And the lines, scrapes, scratches - whatever you wanna call them - appear to be too evenly spaced, all running the same direction, and covering too much area for them to have occurred in the course of normal circulation. My opinion of course, but that's what was asked for.
Backing up a bit -- what is your purpose in acquiring such coins? Do you intend to send them in for grading, or to archive/display them in an album, such as a Dansco album? In my opinion, both coins look great for display in a medium quality album collection. If you intend to send them in for grading (good luck on the current cost and time delays for grading with NGC or PCGS), are you going to display your collection in slabs, which takes a lot of room given the number of year/mint for Lincoln cents? If you intend to just grade/slab the key and semi-key date coins (such as the 1914-D and 1909-S) and album display the remainder, then I can understand the motive in valuing/acquiring coins that will grade with PCGS or NGC.
They both look like they have been wiped with a soft cloth. Been there done that until I realized it was a no-no. Great question, thanks.
Yeah, it’s highly opinionated. Better I think to concentrate on understanding and articulating what you’re seeing. Are you seeing luster compromised? Take off for that. You can’t tell? Read about it and learn how to tell, it’s not complicated. Do you like hairline scratches? I don’t too much, either. Deduct commensurate with how much those bother you. Keep your eye on the coin, and take it off the label. Don’t ever let a label throw you off an analysis of a coin with your own eyes. Read and get good at describing what you’re seeing. That’s the only way you know what you got, not by some label someone chooses to slap on it.
With copper being a softer coin metal, age of a cleaning also plays a big part. If the coin was cleaned 50 years ago and in circulation the whole time, it would remove most of the indicators, so I doubt even a TPG would pick up on it, but those are just my thoughts. There is little exception to just having lots of experience, so . . . with time, you will pick up the skills necessary. Good luck.
My opinion : Both coins look cleaned, the 1914 more so than the 1909. My tells are the "halos" (darker areas) around the dates and devices, and the "blotchiness" of the fields (they look wiped). Be that as it may, I would still purchase either or both of the coins, if the reverses were no worse than the obverses, and if the prices were right (meaning low enough).
Just saying......if it's that difficult to determine if these have been cleaned, maybe it doesn't matter that they've been cleaned? Someone must have done a good job cleaning them?
More than few folks think this, and at times it's even true. But the effects you're talking about are rather commonly produced as a result or normal circulation. Read this thread to see numerous examples. And way more than a few are cleanly graded. https://www.cointalk.com/threads/what-is-a-circcam-you-ask-look-and-see-and-post-yours.288335/
Hello, though I know that you are far more qualified and experienced to speak than I am, I still would keep my opinion of these two coins. As you say, what I believe is "....at times it's even true." You go on to say "...the effects you're talking about are rather commonly produced as a result or (of) normal circulation." ( 'of' is my addition. I mistype all the time, which is why I proofread everything I type, but still miss things). So, 'rather commonly", but not exclusively, correct? I've read that thread before, and I just reread much of it, but it doesn't change my opinion. One reason is that circulation wear, alone, would not, in my opinion, wear away the toning so close to the devices, or so much in the fields. (Please refer to the thread you linked. Most of those are not "worn" like the 2 subject coins, especially the 1914.) Look closely at the area below 1914 and to the right of the D. Do you really think that someone's fingers got in there and caused that wear? Maybe. However, it looks much more like a Q-Tip at work to me. Would fingertips under "normal circulation wear" have caused the streakiness and the blotchiness in the fields, especially on the 1909? Maybe. I'm not experienced enough, nor qualified enough, to state for a certainty anything about the two coins. The good thing about that is that I can't be held responsible for anything. lol At any rate, though you remain far more qualified and experienced than I am, I will continue to keep my opinion. After all, it's only an opinion, as was asked far. Thanks
Absolutely correct. As for the thread I referenced, I referenced it because you can see many coins with similar patterns where the toning is worn away, leaving lighter colors on the higher points and and in the open fields where there is nothing to prevent/protect the toning. You can also see the darker colors in in the lower points of the devices. It get worn away on top but is left behind in the low points of the devices, the protected areas That same similar pattern occurs with ordinary dirt and grime as well - it remains in the more protect areas but is worn away, cleaned off, in the more exposed areas by normal circulation. My primary point here is that just because you see that pattern on a coin you should not assume that the coin has been harshly/improperly cleaned because very, very similar patterns can and do occur in the course of normal circulation. And as I also mentioned, determining which is which based on pictures is beyond difficult, because of the very nature of pictures. To accurately determine which is which requires a close in hand inspection.
Just going to say if you aren't sure don't buy it. No reason at all to fork over the kind of money those coins would take for something uncertified. do it for peace of mind if for no other reason than to spend the money and find it was represented wrongly in the pictures 8 months from now if it ever comes back from grading at the rate these TPGs are moving, to then find out you bought a problem coin that won't straight grade. If you want to buy them ungraded, at least go see them in person and check it out in hand rather than buy them based on a website listing.... unless it's already graded. those look kind of flat, but not totally lifeless. it's possible they aren't cleaned and just terrible lighting to judge it by. either one has been a collector coin for more than 100 years. Yeah there are lower grade coins out there, but like all of those two dates should have been cared for to some degree. the 1909S looks ok as far as that's concerned, the 1914D kind of looks.... not wrong, but like a wheat cent pulled from circulation, like ones I'd find roll hunting. I think there are prettier 14Ds, graded, for similar money.
With high value coins like the 14-D, you have to be very careful as many have been graded and coins outside of a graded holder are immediately suspect simply from a probabilistic standpoint.
Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I'm looking for decent raw coins and found these. I wasn't able to inspect them since it was online only, but I didn't pay too much. I'm more confident with silver, and copper has often stumped me, which is why I asked the questions here. Once I get them, I'll probably send them off to ANACS for two reasons... one is that their turnaround has been really good lately. I know that many will say to go with a tier 1 TPG, especially if I ever want to re-sell them, but mine will be keepers. Second, I like the fact that ANACS will give them a numerical grade, even if they grade details, and that often helps me refine my own grading skills. I'll see what happens when they arrive here and then once I get them graded, I'll report back here. Fingers crossed.
