Coin Conservation / Restoration. Is it cleaning?

[markflorida]

The worlds three top grading companies all offer a restoration service. PCGS call is "Restoration service', NGC call it "Conservation", ANACS call it Conservation and strongly deny its a restoration service. 

They all claim that they remove harmful contaminate from coins to protect the surface. They all state they do not clean the coins they simply remove surface particles including glue, stains, hazing, dip, corrosion and PVC residue.

Here is a before and after picture of a US 5 cent shield nickel from NGC 

I have been in the industry since I was 10 years old and after over 40 years still heed my grandfathers advice "Never clean a coin, you don't own it you are just a caretaker until it is sold onto another generation". I am not sure how I feel about this. All three companies will (Unlike Mickey Mouse graders like ICG or CGS) spot a cleaned coin, I find it hard to explain the difference between cleaning and conservation to my customers when I don't really understand it myself. Worst still, once they are conserved/restored they are then graded with zero mention of this. This does not seem right to me or am I just old fashioned?

[markflorida]

PCGS

[mrbadexample]

A rose by any other name...

It's cleaning. They call it "conservation" because cleaning sounds bad.

I'm with your grandfather. But if there is a problem which is only going to get worse (e.g. verdigris, bronze disease, zinc pest) then I think intervention is necessary. After all, if you do nothing it will eventually destroy the coin. So what choice is there?

[youliveyoulean]

It has been cleaned. There's nothing more to say.

[markflorida]

5 minutes ago, youliveyoulean said:

It has been cleaned. There's nothing more to say.

Value wise there is a lot more to say. A cleaned coin will get 40% less than an uncleaned coin. On big ticket such as £12,000 coins thats a lot less value.If we buy a coin in a slab and it does not say anything how does a buyer know if it has been restored or not? It is ruining our industry.

[Rob]

Only in the world of slabbing is 'conservation' not cleaning. When I do the washing up after a meal, do I conserve my plates and utensils? Of course not, I clean them. I remove all the crap from the surfaces using water and a detergent without scraping away the surface of the plate, and so it has been cleaned. Vive la difference.

[jelida]

My take on this is that removal of material, eg mud, grease, wax or varnish which is not integral with the structure of the coin should be considered as different from anything that affects the coin itself, ie patina, surface metal, integrated corrosion products. The former can usually be removed by judicious use of water, solvents, soft brush or cocktail stick and the actual coin will be unchanged, and more stable in the future. This could be seen as conservation, others might say surface cleaning. I consider this acceptable, sometime essential to the prevention of future corrosion.

The latter will materially alter the appearance of the coin itself by chemical action or physical abrasion, and involves removal of some integral part of the coin. This could be seen as cleaning, and is generally undesirable. That is not to say that judicious removal of active corrosion eg bronze disease is not essential, otherwise the coin will simply not be around for future generations to enjoy. The removal of local corrosion in a controlled fashion while not treating the coin as a whole could be considered conservation.

I find it unhelpful to take a dogmatic negative view with regard to conservation (as opposed to cleaning), as by definition conservation should enhance the longevity and survivability and ideally preserve as much as possible the original state of the coin. 

‘Cleaning’ in most collectors minds is conditioned by images of wire wool and brasso, silver dip or a buff with a soft cloth, and understandably carries negative vibes. Conservation is not the same. Neither will be required for most collector coins, though most will already have had the soap and water treatment in the past and we are none the wiser.

Jerry

 

 

[Rob]

I agree 100% with what you say, but have issues with the TPGs who won't call a spade a spade. If a coin is hairlined from cleaning, then call it hairlined. If a coin has been polished to death, then call it polished.  If a coin has been cleaned without damaging the surfaces then it has still been cleaned. Just be honest, that's all I'm saying. After all, they offer a cleaning service in all but name. They also seem happy enough to slab coins that have been dipped, and more than the odd repaired coin has passed the audition.

[PWA 1967]

If someone wants to mess about with a coin thats up to them.

The problem is more often than not they either deny doing it or dont mention it when selling one.

The companies you mention offer the service but dont put it on the holder which is exactly the same.

If its right to do it what is everyone hiding ?.

 

[PWA 1967]

5 hours ago, mrbadexample said:

A rose by any other name...

It's cleaning. They call it "conservation" because cleaning sounds bad.

I'm with your grandfather. But if there is a problem which is only going to get worse (e.g. verdigris, bronze disease, zinc pest) then I think intervention is necessary. After all, if you do nothing it will eventually destroy the coin. So what choice is there?

Dont buy it 

[mrbadexample]

38 minutes ago, PWA 1967 said:

Dont buy it 

Fair point.

[Peckris]

If a coin has been 'improved' by a careful act of cleaning, then I see nothing wrong with that, in fact I would applaud it. There are a mix of positive actions, such as gentle washing, extremely brief dipping to remove ugly tarnish, the application of surgical spirit to remove surface grime, acetone, or the  long term soaking in olive oil to remove corrosion, etc. They are all cleaning, but can be done with care and attention.

However, if a coin LOOKS cleaned - polished, unnaturally toned by dipping, or covered with hairlines - then that's a Bad Thing and will negatively affect the coin's value.

[PWA 1967]

I think your last comment is the one and you have nailed it.

People clean them sometimes to increase the value for unsuspecting people who cant tell.

The guy who was repairing them all in America for dealers and no doubt the grading companies doing it so people can try to sell them for more.

 

 

 

Edited March 16, 2018 by PWA 1967

[1949threepence]

On 3/14/2018 at 10:29 PM, Peckris said:

If a coin has been 'improved' by a careful act of cleaning, then I see nothing wrong with that, in fact I would applaud it. There are a mix of positive actions, such as gentle washing, extremely brief dipping to remove ugly tarnish, the application of surgical spirit to remove surface grime, acetone, or the  long term soaking in olive oil to remove corrosion, etc. They are all cleaning, but can be done with care and attention.

However, if a coin LOOKS cleaned - polished, unnaturally toned by dipping, or covered with hairlines - then that's a Bad Thing and will negatively affect the coin's value.

Indeed, although when a coin is advertised as "shows signs of old cleaning, now re-toning", you know that long past occasion will have been anything other than a careful act of cleaning. 

I'm not sure what the distinction is between "cleaning" and "conservation". Maybe the same as between "slabbed" and "encapsulated".

 

[jelida]

Essentially conservation is remedial work to stabilise, and prevent future deterioration. Cleaning is to make it look prettier, at least in the eyes of the ‘cleaner’.

Jerry

[bagerap]

I do degrease some items if they are for my own collection, but not sale stock. Here's a recent purchase, before and after a drop of lighter fluid.

 

 

[zookeeperz]

Thought I would put this here seeing as it is to do with cleaning. I am trying some less invasive methods of cleaning but I am not convinced anything has altered. Although the one thing that has stayed the same is the integrity of the surface as in it still looks uniform in appearance and not washed out like they normally do. Can you see any difference from the initial untouched coin the before treatment and the last coin which was a second stage application or repeat process after was 5 mins and after that was 10 mins. I only used lemon juice for the acidity bicarb soda as an agitant  and pure olive oil as a surface protection or lubricant. Weather all combined they had the desired effect I am not sure. I think it would be ok if the surface was just dusty as the juice isn't strong enough to penetrate the natural patina at short duration but for substantial staining and verdigris removal it's not potent enough. So a work in progress

 

[DrLarry]

I should like to wade in here.  I have found in the last 2 years all the rare overprints and number changes in just two years of collecting and I would say 100% that the reason for this is the careful removal of muck within the legend and date.  In fact I think many things still yet to be found exist under said muck and in fearing this word cleaning (for which personally I would say is chemical or physical abrasion or alteration) we are left with a host of problems which might deter us from understanding a little more about the minting history or process.  I believe for myself a coin can helps me understand social history and is a canvas/stage on which some interesting dramas tell us a little about the people and human errors. Careful use of water cotton buds and a carefully softened tooth pic can and have for me at least led to quite a few personal discoveries.  If they one day become useful discoveries is yet to be seen, but the 1861 Z over N variety would never have been found without a tooth pic so I suppose we all make our choices. But then again the value of a coin is of little interest to me I do my research then give the coins away. 

[zookeeperz]

I pushed on a stage further and left the coin submerged for 2 hours not expecting any real difference but I guess it was a small gain. It is practice to try and use locally on a said verdigris spot or area. Obviously results may and will vary dependent on the metal composition Brass being the hardiest . So whilst a small improvement on those metal based coins might not be the same for copper and bronze. If a valuable coin has a verdigris spot I don't see it as detrimental to try and remove it with the less invasive method possible and it certainly isn't with cleaning the coin to look something it isn't . It is to stop the ruin of a good coin by a progressive fungal invader. It is just at the moment all products on the market are so harsh on the metals it is almost impossible not to do more harm than good. So looking at the other end of the question how can TPG remove this parasite and label it conservation yet we try to do the same and get details grade?

 

[Peckris]

Zoo, I can't see any green (verdigris) in any of your photographs?

[zookeeperz]

On 15/05/2018 at 10:00 AM, Peckris said:

Zoo, I can't see any green (verdigris) in any of your photographs?

small splodge to the left of the T

Funnily enough I just saw the definition on PCGS site about ungradable coins which covers everything we already know but the one thing they do not class as cleaning is this

" 'Dipping' (the removal of toning with a chemical bath) is not considered cleaning under this definition."

toning is a natural process of a coin. interrupting it to me is cleaning. If they can accept that criteria then they should accept verdigris removal. One is purely aesthetically motivated whilst the latter is damage prevention and surely holds the higher moral ground?

Edited May 17, 2018 by zookeeperz