Ceaning or Die polish

I have at least half a dozen coins which prove you wrong. But, I'll just post these two, in addition to the Grant posted above:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Nice examples.

 

Because they are raised from the fields and devices. Both of these coins are slabbed by NGC as MS-65 PL.

Please tell me what makes you think they aren't?

 

@physics-fan3.14 Do you have any closer pictures? I'm having a hard time seeing if the lines are raised or not.

 

Per usual, there is nothing I can say that will convince you to change your mind. Thus, I'm not going to waste my time.

 

Here are some die polish lines that do criss cross.

 

Great picture it looks like a pile of jumbled pick up sticks I don't see any break down below the fields

 

Because I am familiar with the appearance of die polish. The prooflike coins of the mid 20th century are characterized by strong die polish - this repolishing appearance led to the creation of the prooflike fields. These surfaces are unlike the majority of business strike coins, and these are the coins I specialize in.

Die polish and hairlines affect luster in very different ways. Because die polish is an effect on the die, the luster will be uninterrupted and will still cartwheel. Because hairlines from polishing are post-mint, they will interrupt the flowlines of the luster. The luster of a cleaned coin will appear to travel in the direction of the hairlines (and will have an unnatural sheen). There is a significant difference between the appearance of mint-made die polish, and the post mint hairlines due to cleaning. I am educated and experienced enough to tell the difference. The TPGs are also far more educated and experienced than both of us.

Second, die polish is definitely raised from the surface, and hairlines are incused in the surfaces of the coin. Your assertion that there would be corresponding high and low lines would make sense - if there was no metal removal. For a gouge, there will be metal movement but generally no metal removal (and hence there will be a valley and corresponing high point). When a coin is polished with a steel brush, there is some metal removed, leaving just incused lines. Likewise, when a die is polished, there was some definite metal removal, and hence only incused lines (which appear as raised lines on a coin). The amount of metal removed can be seen by looking at heavily polished coins where the details appear to disappear into the fields (for example, the missing bridge of Washington's nose in the example above.)

While die polish may often generally be parallel, making an absolute statement that it always appears this way is wrong. And while die polish may often only appear in the fields and skip the devices, saying that it is never seen on the devices is wrong. Making absolute statements that something is *always* a certain way is indefensible.

Also, what "logic" and "documentation" have you provided? Please now explain why you are convinced that these are not die polish.

 

No. Hairlines would adversely affect the luster. Die polish lines will not. In fact, the latter will scatter light and often produce prooflike surfaces like those seen on Jason's coins.

 

We are still waiting to hear these "good, logical, and documented reasons" for your thinking. Numerous posters have already posted a number of counterexamples which show clearly that you are wrong regarding your assertion that die polish lines can never cross and that die polish lines never appear on devices. I believe I have had the same disagreement regarding the latter with you in the past.

 

This thread prompted me to look at some of my Mercs, several of which have a lot of die polish.
this 45-s micro s has polish lines on the back of "mercury's" neck. This is analogous to the coins posted by Jason. When dies developed damaged areas, as they inevitably did, the mint workers would polish them on rotating wheels coated with fine emery powder. It does not surprise me that abrasion would find its way into the shallow areas of the main central device (like the neck).

 

Give yourselves a rest. It's like playing a broken record. Call your lines "Die Finishing Lines" (as per the coinweek article) to avoid this repetitive argument. Search "Die Finishing Lines" and "Die Polish Lines" on CT and realize that at this point, you may be arguing with early-onset dementia. Good luck, hope I was able to save many of you some time and effort with these links...

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/die-breakdown-what-causes-the-marks-you-see-on-coins.218567/

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/die-polish-lines.153421/

 

Polishing is not the only way that dies gain lines. There are several ways. Are you folks calling them all die polish lines? Dies are polished while off the press but can be cleaned in several ways while still on the press.

 

Die basining is (or was) carried out with the die aligned precisely with a spinning metal disc coated with abrasive. "Touching up" working dies was often done by hand using a spinning disc, fixed on a mandrel, whose face or edge was coated with abrasive material. Often this disc had a leather face (or edge) oiled and coated with the abrasive. See Roger Burdette's carefully researched book, "From Mine to Mint."
The materials may have changed a bit in the 40's or 50's.

 

Interestingly, this topic has also spread to the NGC Forums. Of the members who disagree with the argument concerning die polish lines never crossing and/or never appearing on devices include:
1. One former NGC grader, a cameo CAC reviewer, and numismatist at one of the largest coin auction houses in the world;
2. An original old ANA grader and noted numismatic author;
3. An ICG grader (and former old ANACS grader?), recipient of a number of ANA awards, and noted Coin World contributer;
4. A well noted research numismatist who has published on a variety of topics including, but not limited to, topics related to die production and striking at the U.S. Mint.
5. A number of advanced collectors/dealers.

I don't think all of them are wrong. I don't see any dissent at all.

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=8236947&fpart=1

 

On the NGC forums, Roger Burdette posted the following:

"The fellow mentioning my book - FM2M - forgot about the use of emery sticks and cotton swabs for repair and retouching....they could produce the tiny scratches as observed. In repairing a die, the goal was to get it back into service - not to have a committee meeting about which repair technique to use.

Most of the linear abrasion was done by the coining room foreman or die setter in the coining room. More complicated or spot work was done by the die sinkers or an assistant engraver.

The conclusions of everyone above seem sound and reasonable."

To clarify, the images Mr. Burdette is referring to are Mr. Campbell's of the Lincoln cent posted with die polish lines that cross.

 

I appreciate Roger's expanding on my comments.