Help me understand why one is 64 and one is 66

Yeah, that's really the heart of the matter. I am too unsure about this coin, and it cost me a lot of treasure.

 

Yes the TPGs love luster. And yes a polished die, actually the term used should be a re-polished die, does produce more luster. But, there is a very important caveat that goes with statement - they produce more luster than what exactly ?

If you don't really understand that statement, and I mean really understand it, that statement can be very misleading ! And it will have you believing things that are simply not true.

First of all let me explain what I mean by a re-polished die. I say re-polished because all dies are polished when they are first made. A re-polished die is one is that has been used to the point that metal flow has produced wear lines in the die that disrupt and lessen the luster on the coins that die produces. And then that die is taken out of use, sent back to the shop, and is re-polished for additional use.

Now when you see a coin that has very obvious die polish lines on it, that coin came from a die that was NOT re-polished correctly. Polishing a die is something that occurs in steps, not just in a single process. And if you shortcut the process and don't do all the steps then you will end up with a die that produces coins that look just like the one in this thread.

Die polishing is done by impregnating a large zinc plate with various different grits of diamond dust paste, with the starting grit being course and each successive grit being finer and finer. The die is then held by machine against this spinning zinc plate and polished. When this is done correctly and all of the steps are followed, meaning that you continue to polish the die until you get to the finest grit of paste, then you will not be able to see die polish lines on the coins produced by that die.

But when it is done incorrectly and they stop the polishing process before the finest grits are used, then that die will produce coins that have very obvious die polish lines. That much should be pretty easy to understand.

Now here's the part where a lot of folks get confused and don't understand. It is a given that fresh, brand new dies produce coins with the best luster, the best strike, the best of everything. And as those dies are used metal flow from the coins being struck wear against those dies. And the more wear there is, the less luster there is on the coins. That is also a given, otherwise why would they stop using dies and re-polish them. But why it is a given is what you need to understand.

Coins that have the best luster are those that were produced from dies that have the best polish, the highest degree of polish if you will. And the reason those coins have the best luster is because the polish lines on the die are so fine, so low, so uniform, and so close together that they can barely be seen by the naked eye. Fineness and uniformity of die polish produces the best luster. Luster is nothing but the reflection and refraction of light from the surface of a coin. That's why Proofs have a mirror like finish and business strikes don't, because the die polishing is taken to the final step where the polishing paste is its absolute finest. Proofs have that mirror like finish because the die polish lines, on the die, are so fine, so low, so uniform, and so close together, that they reflect an almost perfect image. Proofs have the highest degree of luster that there is on coins.

But back to the business strikes now. Dies that have been well used produce coins with less luster than the coins that were produced by those dies when they were new. That is because the metal flowing across the surface of the dies when coins are struck eats into the surface of the die and creates rougher and more coarse lines, with some being bigger and higher than others are. This lack of uniformity causes a disruption, a disturbance in the light being reflected from the coin, it causes the coin to have less luster.

So now, we come to a well worn die and it is producing coins that have less luster than is desired. So that die is removed from production and sent back for re-polishing. But as I said above, if steps are skipped then that die will have highly visible die polish lines. And if it does then that means there will be a lack of uniformity and a luster that is less than desired.

Yes, the coins produced from that improperly re-polished die will have more luster than the coins did that were being when the die was taken out of service. But they will have less luster than coins produced from fresh, new dies.

So do you see what I mean when I say - they will produce more luster than what exactly ?

Coins with highly visible die polish lines come from dies that were not re-polished correctly - they skipped a step or two. And those coins have less luster because those big die polish lines break up the uniformity. But they have more luster than coins from dies that are all worn out - but only those.

When you fully understand it, highly visible die polish lines on a coin are not a good thing. And they should be shied away from, not admired.

 

Of course it's a matter of opinion, what you like is what you like. But it is a matter of fact that, as Mike said, it is an inferior coin because it is flawed. Sorry, but there is just no getting around that. But anybody that likes flawed coins, more power to them, nuttin wrong with it.

And, for those still learning they deserve to know that die polish lines are flaws and not admirable attributes on a coin, and have it explained to them why that is. Then at least they can make an educated choice when they see one instead of making a misinformed choice.

 

All good info, most of it new to me. And as I have said, I am starting to realize I don't like the look of die-polish lines, even though I have explicitly said in the past that I did. This coin is really my first in-hand coin with these lines, and actually, they don't show nearly as much in hand as the TrueView suggest. But, there is a lot of chatter and milky like "splatter" in-hand, and this I really don't like.

 

I am so sad this is about a coin I own, but so proud I started a thread with discussion worth it's salt.

 

Ohhh, great example and very relevant to me personally, thanks for sharing!

 

Okay, now for some of my OWN pics, comments welcome on that these pics show vs the TrueView. The slab is VERY new, so whatever mess your seeing is on the coin, not the slab.

1880-S, Obv slab: (notice the "splatter" I really don't like all over the left field)



1880-S, Rev slab:



1880-S, Obv closeup:



1880-S, Rev closeup:



fire away!

 

Doug,

based on my new pictures, are your feelings still the same?

 

I've explained it before in longer more detailed posts on the subject. It's really a simple matter of mathematics. Picture two circles with circle #1 being the die and other circle #2 being the zinc plate. A dollar die, circle #1, is less than 1 1/2 inches in diameter, the zinc plate, circle #2, is approx. 12 inches in diameter. The degree of arc that occurs when those two circles are interposed upon one another, in other words when the die touches the plate, is such that the polish lines formed on the die are not truly a straight line but they do appear to be to the eye because the arc of the plate is so much bigger than the arc of the die.

The setup is as I described. The zinc plate is horizontal and spinning. The die is held stationary in a device that operates similar to that of a drill press that pushes the die down against the zinc plate. And that is how the polishing is done. The source of this information came from an original article published in the Numismatist back in 1915. And it described the above method of die polishing as the current method as well the method that had been in use for many years, since before Morgan dollars existed.

That said, were there other methods used at other times ? No doubt there were, before and possibly after. But that does not discount the method I have described being used at the time I described.

 

Yes, my opinion has not changed.