Die polish lines?

The truth is, I tried not engaging in this gray issue, once again. When the other similar topic appeared, I clearly made an attempt to avoid this same old song and dance...

Until the black and white are clear, I understand that many people, on many forums, refer to such lines as die polish lines. I don't care what specifically caused them, but, I am not willing to keep ignoring false claims or suggestions of coins being whizzed or having displaced metal from scratches when they are not and do not. In the name of those who wish to learn, how do you teach, when the suggestions are wrong and facts are not clear and undefined? I keep coming across these issues, and, since 40 to 50 years is a long time, it's definitely long enough to take the debate in various directions, not one, forever, that may have been written in stone since the days of Moses.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Really, they polished them with raised lines and in that many directions? Give me a break.

Lucky you, I'm jealous of the inner peace you must possess.

Thanks for the link, I found all your posts and your opinion to be a very worthwhile contribution.

 

These 1959 Lincoln's show a nice cross section of die polish lines - raised and going every which way.

 

If you look closely, or not so closely but whatever, the lines on the obverse and reverse sides of the coin run in the same direction indicating that the damage occurred on the blanking strip itself.

Pressure applied by the rollers may or may not be even across the strip and as such, these lines may not appear across the entire coins surface.

I would buy into the descaling theory except for the fact that the lines appear on obverse and reverse of the coins I have seen. What are the odds of that occurring and then what are the odds that the bonding process was secure enough to not allow the coin to completely separate during the blanking, the cleaning, the annealing, and the minting?

 

"D) The die finishing lines on this coin are extensive, peculiar and fascinating. Indeed, they are deep, varying in dimensions, and very entertaining. A glass with at least ten times magnification is needed to thoroughly enjoy them, though many are apparent at three times magnification.


When metal brushes and other tools impart lines in the dies, or sandpaper-like patches, raised lines and bumps appear on the coin that is struck with such dies. There are areas on the coin that indicate that portions of the dies were unusually treated such that patches of small, raised shapes resulted.


On this coin, there are an astonishingly large number of die finishing lines, of varying lengths, densities and angles. In some areas, the die finishing lines are somewhat parallel and are spread apart. In other areas, they are close together or even lumped. Many die finishing lines on this coin crisscross. Some die striations are much higher than others (thus in greater relief); some are wider; some are shorter.

Yes, there are many die finishing lines on a large number of Proof Three Cent Silvers and on an even larger number of business strikes. Indeed, die finishing lines are often found on Three Cent Silvers. The groups, patterns, shapes, and variations of die finishing lines and other die treatment evident on this coin, however, are dramatically different, especially when the overall fabric of the coin is contemplated.
I cannot fully explain the fabric of the Eliasberg 1851 Three Cent Silver. There are factors that cannot be articulated.


The individual or group that polished and otherwise treated the dies used to make this coin seemed to have had a great deal of fun. Areas on the dies corresponding to portions of the coin were given different treatments, including differences of degree and differences ‘in kind.’ The result is very cool."
http://www.coinweek.com/featured-ne...ics-the-most-valuable-three-cent-silver-coin/

 

Yes, and you understand everything, despite the frequent questioning of your opinion on the topic. Just lump everything under whizzed or scratched. That's a skill to be admired after 40 or 50 years of study.

http://www.cointalk.com/threads/1960-d-d-error-and-guess-the-grade-by-segs.243649/

Polishing, buffing and abrading can easily sum up one procedure. Since the result is perceived as a polished die and many PL coins with raised lines are struck, maybe they should all continue to be called "Die Polishing Lines". I have no problem with that.

I'm worried, that one day, someone will place a plate of spaghetti in front of you and you will contest that it is spaghetti, because the noodles in a package are parallel, while the ones on your plate appear to be crisscrossing, some are longer, some shorter, some thicker, some thinner, some firmer, some softer, some disappear under the sauce and meatballs, some overlap the sauce and meatballs, etc.

I don't understand why this is so difficult for you to let go.

 

The individual or group that polished and otherwise treated the dies used to make this coin seemed to have had a great deal of fun.

So, you're going to continue your campaign of hair splitting between "polished and otherwise treated" even though in most cases we are discussing the same procedure? Good luck to you. I respect the individuals that provide links, evidence, photos and contest your specific definition of die polishing lines that no one really looks for and no one really documents.

 

I picked up a Franklin Half, looks mint, typical finishing lines around the devices, etc. I also found a few lines on the head of Franklin. I was scouring the interwebz for something similar and came across this mess, wow...



Description reads...

http://www.tipsicocoin.com/browse_item.html?category_id=3217&item_id=662

 

Well, yet again you are wrong.

First - Bugs Bunny Franklins are business strikes, not proofs.

Second, the *original* cameo effect on a die of this era was produced by nitric acid pickling, as you mention. However, this effect tended to wear off rather quickly (which is why DCAMs are very scarce, and CAMs are rather uncommon). The mint, realizing that cameo coinage was far more desirable, would repolish the devices to produce a cameo effect. These coins are known, funnily enough, as "repolished cameo" coins. This process began in 1951, and early results were rather crude. Later years got better.

I highly encourage you to buy the book, as you have encouraged others. The one you are looking for is "Cameo and Brilliant Proof Coinage of the 1950 to 1970 Era" by Rick Tomaska. There is an extensive description of the process on pages 20 to 22, including how and why it was done, and he calls out a number of specific die pairs which were subjected to the repolishing.

 

Physcis Fan is absolutely correct here. The repolished cameos created some very impressive coins and they are easily identified by the heavy polish lines on the devices of these coins. In fact the repolish was usually so good that the early strikings had sometimes a better cameo affect than the original cameo.

As Jason stated, I would recommend picking up the book. Val Webb was the first to write a book on the subject but there are no illustrations, so if you are looking for illustrations the Tomaska book is the one for you.

 

@physics-fan3.14 and @coindudeonebay thank you for the quality responses and reassurance. Nice to pick up something new, even though I do not usually gravitate toward proof coins.

I swear, some of the stuff you read here on CT makes you really wish we had some solid advocates in the "BLINDLY BUY BOOKS BEFORE COINS" club.

Thank you for not omitting such an important and quality detail, when making your point. I really do appreciate that approach. It speaks volumes.

 

I have a 1953 Franklin proof that has a slight cameo effect and has the "hairlines" all over the bust. The coin was graded by PCGS as PR65+. So not only did it get a clean grade, but a "plus" grade. PCGS must agree they are die polish lines also. It also has ugly rust - colored smudges and other finger smudges. It is by far my ugliest proof and my only plus grade proof. It was a time when I bought the slab and not the coin, just so I could complete my proof set....

 

I'd love to see how ugly.

 

...waiting with bated breath for Doug's apology for being wrong....again...

It's like @physics-fan3.14 has to follow him around and pull a Paul Harvey...."And that's the REST of the story".

Thank you Jason for the specific references and for describing the process...

 

Ok, I will say it's not the ugliest since there are some terrible ones out there. But this one in no way deserves a plus grade IMO. Will have to dig it out and take a pic.

 

Let's add a little Ike conspiracy to the discussion...
IMHO
The straight lines on both sides of the OP's coin are definitely mechanical.
No rotating descaling disc, wire brushes or other caused these perfectly straight lines.
1971 was the first year Ike's were struck and many strange stories exist about how and where they were first rushed into production.
My theory is that this may have been made from one of the many experimental planchets the mint used for their initial striking in Denver on the older silver dollar coining machines in the basement.
I would suggest someone research the die pairing used to strike this coin.
The reverse looks strange, especially the lack of detail around then lunar craters.
Have you asked any of the Ike Group for their opinion?