Die polish lines?

A PCGS + has nothing to do with attractiveness. It merely denotes that (at least on the day it was awarded) the grading team thought the coin was better than an average 65 but not quite a 66.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I can more easily understand NGC's grading system with a Star and a Plus designation. With PCGS only using Plus, I thought it might have encompassed both. I have several PCGS plus grade coins, and they are blazing white and high excellent condition. This coin must have developed it's stains after grading. I took it to my LCS and they were confused about the grade too. He took it with him to a national coin show and show it to PCGS and they said they still agree with the grade. Maybe because it's almost cameo...

 

I think Doug was referring to the statement "but typically to remove clash marks, and even then it was not always done".

Is it really necessary to start bashing people because a statement is unclear or ambiguous?

Let's not forget the IKE from post #1 was a business strike. Somebody else posted a proof Franklin much later in the thread. Now folks are discussing NGC/PCGS + grades.... with all the side-tracking, statements can easily be misinterpreted.

 

To be fair, with certain individuals, when is the statement not ambiguous and not unclear? I believe that takes its toll on members and sometimes frustrations do show in their responses.

 

First, I thought the books were the evidence.

Now, it seems like the coins are the evidence.

 

Absolutely incorrect. Contradicted by Tomaska's carefully researched book as correctly cited by physicsfan and others.

"Were Proof dies ever polished before and during this period ? Absolutely, but typically only to remove clash marks, and even then it was not always done. The Bugs Bunny Franklin is an example of that.

Now you want evidence of this ? Buy a book, several of them, for that is where you are going to find it."

Also contradicted by Tomaska. Several of us have bought the book, and read it.

I really don't understand why it is so hard to admit to being factually wrong. Incorrect statements of "fact" can be misleading to new collectors, and have a way of self propagating. Reminds me of a saying we used to have about some surgeons, while I was in training: "Sometimes wrong, but never in doubt."

 

In theory yes, but in practice, PCGS will bump up a coin's market grade as a result of superior eye appeal. They even admit as much on their website. And I have seen some coins awarded a + that I believe were bumped up for toning or other factors.

 

You beat me to it. I agree with Physics.

 

The coin is not whizzed. Whizzing results in the substantial movement of metal that would destroy all of the original mint luster.

 

+1

 

The coins speak quite clearly for themselves, and the pieces do not support the claims that you are making (much like raised lines on 1936-1942 proofs that were discussed ad nauseam in another thread but that's another story). There are a substantial number of pre-1973 cameo pieces, particularly in the 1950s and 1960s. And ironically, a good number of these pieces exhibit the repolish effect that Physics and others are mentioning. I find it hard to believe that anyone could believe that all of this is coincidental. Your statements about not producing a large number of cameos is true for the 1936-1942 period, but by the early 1950s, a significant number of cameo pieces were produced (and certainly many more than for the 1936-1942 period - look at half dollars alone in which only 17 designated coins exist between PCGS and NGC for Half Dollars - compare even the rarest Franklin cameo date and you will see a huge disparity.).

 

Yes, and it is well established fact. Experts in the field agree with us.

 

@GDJMSP

Excerpted from Rick Tomaska's The Complete Guide to Franklin Half Dollars (2002) and Cameo & Brilliant Proof Coinage of the 1950 to 1970 Era:

The Minting of Proof Franklin Halves


Intended to be the ultimate expression of the coin minters’ art, the beauty and level of perfection of proof coins have always been especially appealing to coin collectors for whom they were minted.

In the author’s opinion 1950-1970 proof coinage, which includes 1950-1963 Franklins, is one of the most fascinating eras in the history of U.S. special coinage. In many ways, this era provides a bridge, a transition, from the old techniques of proof production to the modern methods utilized today. If you were to purchase the typical modern proof set minted after 1977, housed in its hard plastic holder, you would find five gem proof-65+ quality coins, virtually all of them with gorgeous, heavily-frosted cameo devices. The quality of these coins is undeniable. Their collector appeal in terms of rarity, however, is somewhat limited. In a production run of approximately three million sets yearly, there is little exclusivity in owning a 1982 cameo proof-67 Kennedy half dollar or Jefferson nickel.

The mint goes to great trouble to produce proofs of this caliber today. Advanced technology has taken over. In the early 1970s, the mint began sandblasting the proof dies to enhance the cameo effect of the coinage. Additionally, in order to help the proof dies retain this cameo effect longer, they also began chrome plating them to protect the delicate cameo surfaces. This process was gradually improved, so that by the late 1970s proof dies could retain a very heavy cameo effect for more than 1,000 planchet strikes.

Back in the 1950s and ‘60s, none of the above techniques was used. During the many months of researching this chapter, I interviewed mint personnel, both retired and active, who were involved with the proof-making process, as well as numerous numismatists who studied this subject themselves. The one salient point which is crucial to understanding and appreciating the rarity of high-quality cameos minted during the earlier 1950-1970 period, is that in many ways these proofs were manufactured much like proofs from the late 1800s. Before the advent of high technology the minting of proof coins was much more of a craft and, as with any craft, there were good craftsmen and bad. In short, the human element was far more critical during the 1950-1970 era in determining the quality of the coinage than in later years. In order to appreciate this, let’s take an indepth look at the four basic phases of proof-making: (1) die preparation, (2) planchet preparation, (3) press operation and die maintenance, and (4) packaging, to see how they were performed then and now, and what problems were often encountered during the earlier era.

DIE PREPARATION

Of the four, die preparation has witnessed some of the most dramatic changes and improvements since 1970. Comparing the technologies used to create cameo proof and special mint set dies during the 1950-1970 period to the advanced and far more expensive technologies introduced in the post-1970 period, is almost like comparing a wheel that was made during the Stone Age to one made today. One of the primary reasons for these improvements was collector demand. While cameo collecting has grown tremendously in popularity the last few years, collectors have recognized and appreciated the eye appeal of cameo proofs over their brilliant proof counterparts for many decades. When proof production was resumed in 1968 after a three-year hiatus the mint, in recognition of the collector demand for these coins, began to work at developing techniques that would allow them to strike more of the cameos and fewer of the brilliant proofs per die. The greatest strides came in the early 1970s with the introduction of sandblasting and chrome plating. Sandblasting etches the frost deeply into the devices of the die (the mirrored field of the die is protected with tape) and the subsequent chrome plating greatly increases the die’s durability. Between 1950-1970, however, this technology was not used.

The initial stages of proof die preparation have changed little over the years. All coin dies have always been made at the Philadelphia Mint and proof dies have always begun as regular production. Evidence suggests that commercial dies selected for such use were subjected to several additional processes not performed on regular production dies. The first step involved cleaning the die with a solvent to remove any oil or other contaminants. The next steps involved creating the cameo effect. At this point, proof dies made since the early 1970s would get sandblasted, have their fields polished and buffed with diamond dust compound and then be chrome plated.

During the earlier 1950-1970 era, however, the dies were instead dipped in a bath consisting of five percent nitric acid and 95% alcohol. This pickling technique created a very light, delicate frosting over the entire surface of the die. The die preparer would then check the frost in the devices for irregularities or unevenness and take a cotton swab dipped in the same acid/alcohol bath to “frost up” any weak areas. This last procedure is probably responsible for some of the more interesting cameo die varieties.

As in the post-1970 era, after the cameo effect was created the next step involved polishing and buffing the dies’ surfaces with diamond dust compound. First with a wooden mandrill and then with a felt-tipped one. Like the more recent die preparation methods, this polishing did not reach the recessed portions of the die, creating a two-tone effect with the recessed portions exhibiting a frosty cameo contrasted by the mirrored finish of the fields. The frost of the acid-dipped 1950-1970 proof die was quite delicate. One could easily brush some away with a finger or remove it with a fingernail, unlike the sandblasted and chrome plated cameo which is extremely durable.

Exactly how many cameos a die struck during the 1950-1970 era depended on many factors related to die preparation. The length of time a die remained in the acid bath would be one factor. If a die received a shorter bath than normal, the etching of the devices would not be as intense. Looking at some of the cameo Franklins of the 1950s, one sees how this factor could very well account for the rarity of many high mintage issues. Throughout the late 1950s, for instance, the cameo effect on the Franklin proof dies apparently wore at successively faster rates each year. Despite the fact that mintages generally increased during those years, 1957 cameo Franklins are rarer than 1956’s, 1958’s are rarer than 1957’s and 1959 cameo Franklins are even rarer than 1958’s.

As a result, the 1956 Franklin is hundreds of times easier to find in heavy cameo than the 1959, despite the fact that the 1956 has a mintage two-thirds that of the 1959. Each 1956 cameo Franklin die simply struck far more cameos than a 1959 cameo die. If one looks closely at an exceptional early-strike cameo 1956, the frost possesses a very granular appearance compared to a 1959, which has a much smoother appearance. This granularity could well have been due to a longer acid bath.

If the pickling time was being gradually shortened on the Franklin dies during this period, the obvious question is: Why? In my opinion, the answer has something to do with the noticeable deterioration of the master die during the late 1950’s. If one were to compare a 1950 proof Franklin to a 1959, the softening of detail would be quite obvious on the latter proof, particularly in Franklin’s hair, despite the fact that it is as fully struck as the 1950. The original master die, after having struck hundreds of coin dies over the years, was simply wearing out by the late 1950s. The mint surely recognized this. A long, acid dip would only make the situation worse. On the other hand, shortening the pickling time each succeeding year during the late 1950s would seem like a logical solution at retaining as much of whatever detail was left on these proof Franklin dies. This theory appears to be supported by the fact that in 1960 a reworked master die, with sharpened detail, was introduced to the Franklin series. 1960 was also the year that the Franklin proof dies began striking more cameos. The reworked die design would have allowed mint personnel to give these new dies a longer dip without seriously degrading the die detail.

Another major factor which affected a cameo die’s durability during the 1950-1970 era was the hardness of steel used for the die. Despite assurances from suppliers that the steel they were shipping was of the required grade, different batches of steel nevertheless tended to yield far different results. Additionally, the die makers in Philadelphia did not always properly temper the dies. Some were quite soft and wore rapidly. Their cameo effect would not last long. Other dies were too brittle and would crack or shatter under the intense pressure exerted by the hydraulic presses.

Finally, while all modern proof dies are sandblasted and chrome plated, it is quite possible that some new proof dies during the 1950-1970 era were never pickled and made cameo in the first place. The fact that there are many issues in the nickel and cent series which are extremely rare, or perhaps even nonexistent, in highly contrasted cameo condition gives credence to this possibility.

PLANCHET PREPARATION

Proof planchet preparation practices, with one notable exception, witnessed only modest changes over the years spanning from 1950 through the 1970s.

During this period both standard business strike planchets and proof planchets were struck from strips about six feet long and several inches wide. These planchets, or blanks, would then be sent for “upsetting,” a process whereby the rims of the planchets were contoured in preparation for striking.

The next step in planchet preparation was annealing, a heating process which softened the metal and made further refinement easier. In the 1950-1970 era, both commercial and proof planchets were annealed in the same manner. The planchets were fed into a large diameter tube, called a “retort,” which ran horizontally through an oven about 22 feet long. Corkscrew configured grooves, spiraling forward, ran along the inside perimeter of the retort. When a planchet would drop into the retort, it would lay flat inside a groove and advance forward as the retort was slowly rotated. This process generally took about one hour. The temperature in the oven varied anywhere from 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit (for silver planchets) to 1,600 degrees (for nickel).

At this point business planchets were ready for striking. Proof planchets were subjected to an additional special polishing and cleaning process called “burnishing,” whereby they were mixed and rotated with 3/16” metal beads in a stainless steel barrel for 24 hours. (It was the combination of the two highly-polished surfaces—the fields of the proof die and the burnished surfaces of the proof planchet—which helped produce the mirrored surfaces of the proof coin.)

Properly prepared planchets would help strike near flawless, deep mirrored, attractive cameos. Unfortunately, many proof planchets during the 1950-1970 era received less than ideal treatment. Some planchets were not annealed long enough or at high enough temperature and were too hard. A small batch of 10-20 of these planchets would quickly abrade away the delicate, acid-dipped cameo effect of a new proof die.

Without a doubt the biggest recurring problem during this earlier era were “striations” on the planchets. Striations are similar in appearance to hairlines on a proof coin. However, striations will usually run to the very edge of the rim or device of the coin, an indication that the lines were already on the planchet before it was struck. Hairlines, which are the result of mishandling of the coin after it is struck, usually occur in the central, most exposed portions of the proof coin’s mirrored fields.

While mint production techniques and quality control procedures improved in many areas through the decades of the 1950s and 1960s, planchet striations continued to be major problem. One of the major causes of this problem was finally addressed in the mid-1970s, with the introduction of a new annealing process. Since about 1975 proof planchets have been placed on a stainless steel belt that moves through the oven. The planchets are stationary on the belt as they are transported, unlike the planchets of the 1950-1970 era, which would actually slide through the retort tube, often picking up what ultimately would be striations along the way.

PRESS OPERATION & MAINTENANCE

As with die preparation, this phase of the proof-making process also witnessed major improvements over the years. The skill of the press operator during the 1950-1970 era had a major impact on the quality of proof coins that were struck. After this period, technological improvements in the operation greatly reduced the chance of human error.

During the 1950-1970 era, the press operator’s job began once the planchets were burnished. It was up to him to inspect every planchet before it went into the press. He was responsible for cleaning the planchets. Any dirt or grime left on a planchet would not only strike an impaired proof coin, it would also damage the die surface. The usual technique was to wash the planchets in a soap bath then towel dry them. For several years it appears these rinses were not completely dried from the planchet surfaces. Silver proof issues minted from 1958-1964 are notorious for exhibiting white spots on their surfaces—often referred to as “milk spots.” These remnants of whatever cleaning soap was used on the planchet are virtually impossible to remove without damaging the coin. Once the planchet was struck under the intense 200+ tons pressure of the die, the residue left on it literally became a part of the coin.

Since 1970, mint procedures have been improved to eliminate this recurring problem. In addition to a soap wash, clad planchets today are often dipped in muriatic or similar acid to remove any possible remaining residues and to give the planchets more brilliance. The planchets also go through extra inspections before and after striking. As a result, modern proofs are almost never found with milk spots or similar blemishes.

Since the press operator was in charge of the actual striking process, it was also his duty to maintain his die in the best possible condition. While oil was actually applied to planchets for striking of commercial coins in order to increase die life, it would have the opposite effect on proof and SMS dies. Any build-up of grease or dirt on the die would quickly dull the delicate mirrors, thereby decreasing die life. Normal procedure during the 1950-1970 period was to clean the die every 20-30 coins with alcohol and cotton. As with the cleaning of the planchets from 1950-1970, some operators were not as scrupulous as others in cleaning the dies. Not cleaning the die at recommended intervals was but one problem. Occasionally, a small strand of cotton fiber would remain on a die after cleaning and the next planchet would have an impression of that fiber struck into the coin. (See Franklin photo #21, on bust of Franklin.) Usually the impression left was small and not distracting. Occasionally the strand would be quite long, leaving a large, knotty impression on the coin. Since the early 1970s the mint has virtually eliminated this problem by substituting lint free felt cloths for the cotton.

However, even the most conscientious press operator during the 1950-1970 era could not but help maintain the obverse and reverse dies differently. Since the reverse die was the bottom half in the press and could be seen easily by the press operator it often received more thorough cleaning and treatment than the obverse die. The reverse die would therefore often last longer. When it came time to replace a die, rather than replacing both obverse and reverse dies at once, many press operators would apparently only replace the most worn die. As a result, many one-sided cameos were struck during the 1950-1970 period, most notably in the years 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1963.

Another factor was the amount of pressure the die was subjected to during striking. As a rule, the larger the planchet the greater the die pressure needed to insure a full strike. Today, each proof half dollar planchet is struck anywhere from two to four times under 160+ tons of pressure. Quarters require at least 125 tons of pressure, dimes 45 tons, nickels 90 tons and cents 30 tons. Because of the higher pressure, the typical half dollar proof die wears much faster than the smaller denomination dies and may only be able to strike 1,200-1,400 coins before it is discarded. On the other hand, cent dies can strike more than 5,000 coins.

Similar die pressures were used during the earlier 1950-1970 era. The half dollar dies being subject to the highest pressures, had greatly accelerated wear. The frosted cameo devices of a new proof die were the most delicate part and were the first part to wear.

REPOLISHING OF THE DIES

Another important aspect of proof die maintenance is repolishing. Proof half dollar dies of today are typically repolished (“recycled”) after striking 500-1,000 coins. The smaller denomination dies are typically recycled after striking three to five times this number. When the mint recycles a die today it is first removed from the press and inspected for signs of decomposition. If it appears worth reusing, the chrome plating of the die is removed and it goes through the same sandblasting, polishing and chrome plating procedures as a new die.

Repolishing procedures in the 1950-1970 era were primitive by comparison. Extensive repolishing of used proof dies appears to have been a relative new and untried procedure made necessary by the much higher production demands of the 1950’s compared with earlier years. Prior to 1950, proof coins had last been made in 1942, with the striking of 21,120 proof sets. When proof production was resumed in 1950, the mint was required to produce more than 51,000 sets—a very small number by today’s standards but probably a monumental task back then, given the available technology.

There were many changes in mint policy during this period which determined how and how often the dies would be repolished. It is questionable whether dies were repolished at all in 1950. Many 1950 proofs were struck from extremely worn dies. The coins struck from those dies exhibit semi-proof, non-mirrored surfaces and look more like commercial uncirculated coins (BUs) than proof coins. In terms of proof quality, these coins are among the worst examples the mint has ever offered. Judging by them, it is conceivable that some of the 1950 half dollar and quarter dies may have struck more than 5,000 coins before replacement.

As with most aspects of proof production during this period, there are no records which might explain why the mint resorted to such practices. The most plausible explanation is that the mint was simply unprepared for the demands of having to produce 51,000 sets. Repolishing may not yet have been standard practice, as the mint was not accustomed to producing such large amounts of proof coins. Since they were allotted only so many dies for production, mint personnel would have been forced to continue using the same worn dies.

Beginning in 1951, used proof dies were regularly repolished. In these earlier years, however, the repolishing was often quite crude compared to the later Franklin years. From 1951-1955, the first step involved wire brushing the recessed portions of the dies (the devices) with diamond dust compound. This was done to remove any nicks, scrapes or other signs of die wear. It also served to recreate the cameo effect. The roughness of the wire-brushed, repolished die’s devices, when transferred to the silver planchet during striking, would give the devices of the planchet a whitish cast by diffusing the reflectivity of the silver. After the devices were wire brushed, the fields would be repolished and rebuffed, also with diamond dust compound, to restore their mirror finish.

As a result of this two-step process, two types of cameos can be found from this era—those struck from “original” dies and those from wirebrushed dies. Cameos from repolished dies can be distinguished by the wire-brushed die lines on their devices, which are absent on those struck from original dies. On many repolished dies these polishing lines will extend into the fields surrounding the device. Under magnification these die lines can be distinguished from hairlines as they appear raised, while hairlines are recessed.

Many of the frostiest, most attractive cameos from this era were actually struck from the repolished dies. Some of these from 1951 through 1955 are particularly nice – such as the cameo Franklins pictured in photos #6, #7, #8, #10, #14, #17, #18, #28 and #29 in “Cameo And Brilliant Proof Coinage Of The 1950 To 1970 Era”. Some of the ugliest cameos were also struck from repolished dies! The skill of the operator repolishing the die determined whether that die would produce a beautiful or ugly coin.

The practice of overusing proof dies apparently continued through 1953. Despite repolishing, many proof Franklins from 1951-1953 are very shallow mirrored, an indication that those dies may have been repolished several times and were worn well past their useful life.

Repolishing techniques steadily improved through the early 1950’s with the use of progressively finer brushes. From the mid-1950s on a typical die would be repolished between one and three times before being discarded. With the exception of one 1956 cameo Franklin variety struck from repolished dies (see Franklin photo #37, obverse), no die varieties since 1956 have the obvious repolished appearance of the earlier coins. It seems that the wire brushing used in earlier repolishing was either dropped or modified, and that repolishing in the later years may have been primarily accomplished with the use of the wood and felt-tipped mandrills.

PACKAGING

If everything went well through the first three steps of proof production there was still the final phase of the operation, packaging. While commercial coins were simply dumped into bins, proof coins have always been individually handled. Large tweezers typically would be used for this purpose.

Next to die preparation, improvements in packaging have been most responsible for the improved quality of the proof coins that reached the collector. In 1950, proof coins were sealed in the same type of packaging as proof coins of the 1936-1942 period. Each of the five coins of the set were placed in small brittle, mylar-type envelopes. These envelopes were stapled together with one cardboard box and surrounded by tissue paper. The box was then sealed with paper tape. A two-word critique on the quality of this early packaging is, “pretty bad.”

This same basic packaging was followed through mid-1954, at which point the mint began using a soft plastic pouch to house the coins, and continued using it into 1955. Both types of envelopes presented major problems for the safe storage of its delicate contents. The early mylar-type envelopes were very fragile and after several years in storage would dry and crack open, releasing the coin from its protective cocoon. If the envelope did not crack open, the coins could still be damaged by rusting staple particles or glue stains from the glue used to seal one end of the envelope. Additionally, these envelopes were not air-tight and proofs would quickly develop an often unattractive brown toning.

The proof Franklins suffered the most from this type of packaging because of their size and weight. If a Franklin proof was gem quality going in, it usually wasn’t coming out. Virtually all proof Franklins from 1950- 1954, and many of the proof minors, evidence extensive hairlining that often was a direct result of this packaging.

The soft plastic envelopes used from mid-1954 to mid-1955, while much more durable, were not inert and caused a new problem. Silver proofs housed in these envelopes over several years would often develop a very heavy dark purple toning that many collectors find unattractive. Additionally, the heaviness of the toning diminishes any cameo contrast the coin may have. While many kinds of toning can be removed with some of the commercial coin dips available, dipping one of these proofs would simply turn the surfaces of the coin from a heavy purple to brown.

A major improvement in packaging came in mid-1955, when the mint began using the well-known “flatpack.” This packaging was used through the remainder of the Franklin series. The flatpack name derived from the fact that all five coins in the set were compartmentalized in a single mylar envelope. The cent, dime and nickel were located on the top half, left to right, and the half dollar and quarter were on the bottom half. The set was then placed in a brown paper envelope, usually with a piece of cardboard on each side to help protect it. These flatpacks have held up quite well over the years. The newer mylar has proven resistant to cracking, and the seal is generally quite good. Toning is usually minimal on proofs stored in this package, even for those housed many decades. The only real negative of the flatpack is its flexibility, as one can easily abrade the surface of the packet against the coin.

Considering all the above factors, one can begin to understand why some cameos in the 1950-1970 era are as rare as they are in their “ultimate” (or what I like to term,”ultra-heavy”) cameo condition. The technology which helped create the extraordinary cameo proof coins of today, and which helped eliminate much of the potential human error in proof-making of the post-1970 era, simply did not exist or was not yet in use before that. The entire process was still very much a craft. Minor imperfections, which may have seemed insignificant to a mint employee 30 years ago, have ended up being very significant to the collector of today with today’s exacting grading standards.

The polished, jewel-like nature of proof coins tends to magnify and expose the most minor imperfections and flaws. The fact that some of these coins have survived in a cameo condition that rivals the quality of proofs made today, with today’s far more sophisticated technology and quality control systems, is almost miraculous. But that’s what makes acquiring superb cameo coinage from the 1950-1970 era so rewarding— and fun!

http://blog.davidlawrence.com/index.php/franklin-half-dollars-ch-5-overview-of-proof-franklins/

 

This just sunk in with me. Please explain how you "repolish" the devises and how polishing the devises would produce any kind of cameo (other than a reverse cameo). Polishing the devices could only be used to eliminate the cameo affect. Are you sure they did not re-acid-etch the die and then repolish the fields? Now that process could produce the lines across Ben's face due to the variations in the planchet metallurgy.

 

You were probably posting while coinchemistry was preparing his post. Read the extended excerpt from Tomaska's book posted above.

 

Thanks @Coinchemistry 2012. Unless I am missing something, it says what I just posted. The devises are cleaned (burnished) but not polished while the fields are polished.

 

Yes, I was. And it says exactly what I was saying. The devises are not polished or repolished.

 

The acid re-etch method was not at play here and would not explain the lines that are characteristic of the so called "re-polish" proofs. And I think you are getting caught up on semantics here. As the quote above notes that an abrasive (diamond dust) and a brush were used to in the recesses to remove nicks, scrapes, and other signs of die wear (i.e. to attempt to smooth out, at least somewhat, the devices as best as was possible). As such, it is fair to call it a polishing process. It additionally produced the cameo contrasts. Now admittedly, it was crude and hence the resulting marks on the die. Nevertheless, given one of its purposes was to remove nicks and other severe marks, it is absolutely fair to call it a polishing process.