Hmmm…what’s going on w. this PL/DMPL Morgan?

Yes,yes yes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I should have read the thread before posting. You are 100% correct. Forgive me for the repetition.

 

Forgot to add the EAGLE'S neck.

 

Quoted for truth. The whole point of Proofs (and PL/DMPL's) is that their fields are more perfectly flat than the microscopic irregularities required for "luster." Being so flat, they can better tolerate the even stripping of layers of molecules.

I don't think it's a "dip gone wrong," I think it's an incomplete dip pushed as far as the owner dared, maybe to recover from the noticeable color from a previous dip having toned too quickly. Yes, you should expect the process to reduce "cameo" but there are some pretty_frosty 1884-CC's out there. This may have originally been one of them; the fields certainly hint at it. Not discounting the possibility that the color happened completely since the dip (although odd that it became so dark over such a small area), or that the coin has been dipped at all.

 

We call it "residue flow" occasionally to describe it. A chemical "run" tends to follow a path. In this instance, it followed the relief line of the chin, rather than "climbing up" over the relief

 

Here's the thing: When a coin tones "naturally," it tends to tone somewhat evenly in a geographical sense. It'll avoid devices in many cases, but proceed equally over the surface where it propagates, not caring about device intersections. Like album toning proceeding evenly from the perimeter inward.

I've noted dipped coins (which we know to be prone to quick toning if you're not careful for the first few weeks of storage) can sometimes form toning first around device edges and proceed outward from there. That's why it's a red flag for potential dipping to me. Exceptions, of course, exist.

But the coin starts toning near devices, and gets thicker/darker in those areas first as well. When you then re-dip the coin, those areas closest to the devices will be the last to lose their toning, requiring more time than peripheral areas, and that's what I think I see here.

 

That is a good observation that I never even thought about. Exceptions must be miniscule. I shall steal it for my own use...and thanks. Color me shameless :0.

 

Looks like a poster child for a dip not rinsed properly,sorry!

 

That patch of white to the left of the eagle's neck is the result of a polished die. It's very common to see it.

Chris

 

Obverse abrasively cleaned ("wiped") leaving field hairlines, coin has been dipped and improperly rinsed. Obverse toning is dippable, reverse spots will leave scars if they come out at all. Nothing wrong with the non-mirrored bit left of the eagle's neck. This is a coin I'd try to make go away. Too bad, since it was probably a 62PL at one time.

 

You may be right; however IMO it does not look like this. Die polish does enter the field but on this particular coin it looks like A?S

 

What do you mean, "It does enter the field."? The fields are the highest points on the dies, and when the die is polished, that is where contact is made.

Chris

 

I use "luster grazes" to describe the coin-to-coin grazes MS coins experience, and this is a MS coin. Still, you're right, the surface is PL, or beyond. Look at the eagle's breast. Those are coin-to-coin we'll call them now "surface grazes" that just a few seconds in a coin dip would have taken out. Was this coin dipped in a coin dip and then put in a bag with other coins? Those surface grazes are evidence this coin wasn't dipped in a coin dip, is how I'm still seeing it.