Cabinet Friction,stacking Or Wear

No. Those are contact luster grazes. They're not wear. They're how the coin started out. They're as good as the coin was when it left the Mint. Is that starting point arbitrary? Sure it is. But we have to start somewhere, and that's where we start.

So let me see if I get this. Damage is damage but wear isn't wear. When you want to call the coin with AU wear MS for the market the wear isn't wear but friction. I think I'm beginning to get the idea. You're not concerned about the state of preservation of the coin, but about the state of the market for the coin. I suppose I can relate to that. I'm concerned about the state of the market for my coins, too.[/QUOTE]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

A weak strike isn't going to press into the planchet hard enough to bring out the detail in the lower areas, but is going to bring out the detail, or better detail, in the higher areas. Yet, when a coin wears, the opposite occurs, the higher areas wear before the lower areas.

 

Um, not to be argumentative, but that is 100% incorrect. Weak strike and wear affect precisely the same high spots on each coin, and wear is more likely than strike to affect the "lower" (closer to the plane of the field) areas. The "lower" areas are the first to strike up completely; they're full before the highest points have even started filling.

With a weakly-struck Morgan, for instance, you all but ignore the hair above the ear, the breast, the talons and the lower leaves because you know strike affects them even though they're also the first place to show wear. You determine wear on those from the cheek, upper edges of the wings and other next-tier devices.

 

I think SuperDave made this more understandable for me. So let's keep all three (die, planchet, appearance of struck coin) separate:

See if this makes sense as we are all trying to explain the same thing. When a weakly struck coin is produced (from whatever the reason) the die touches the planchet. There is not enough (what
ever - you both know the reasons) for planchet metal to fill the ENTIRE die recess. [quote: press into the planchet to bring out the detail in the lower areas OF THE DIE (high detail of the coin) but is going to bring out the detail in the higher areas...OF THE DIE (that produces the coin's field. Now, when a coin wears, the flatly struck area and perhaps the coins rim (depending how flat the strike) will become impaired by the friction FIRST.

Did I get it right SuperDave?

 

Well, let's think about the striking process for a moment.

An original planchet is slightly thicker than the "field-to-field" thickness of the final coin, so there's spare metal to fill the devices which stand off of the fields. When the coin is struck, this metal starts filling the nearest places first, of course. Depending on the pressure and gap between dies settings, the very deepest parts of the die sometimes don't successfully fill. It is the goal of the Mint to cut that as close as possible because die life is then extended, which is why so many issues can be found with weak strikes on occasion. This could be for as simple a cause as the guy running the shift turned the pressure down so his shift would go easier.

But either way, the "lower" devices - those closest to the plane of the fields - fill completely before metal even reaches the "highest" points (deepest in the die). This is why weak strikes are perfect indicators of where to find the very deepest parts of the die.

Those are also the places where your fingers, or anything causing friction on a coin, usually touch first. But not always - you don't always hold a coin by the center - and your fingers/friction don't just touch those parts. Depends on what touched the coin and what the coin was doing when it got touched - a graze by something smaller than the coin doesn't have to hit the high points exclusively, or at all. Long before the highest points start showing genuine loss of detail from wear, other parts of the coin will have the luster/original finish worn off (even if no detail is lost yet). You can see those places, in-hand, and it's why you don't need to really care about loss of detail from a weak strike. It's very, very difficult to illustrate (and see) with digital imaging, which is why threads like this contain so much discussion, but not hard at all to see in-hand once you know what you're looking for.

I can tell the difference between weak strike and wear in hand, usually, because the actual surface finish differs even if the microscopic detail doesn't.

 

That's right. I had it exactly backwards. The progression will be the same as expected in wear. This is the tell, though. In a weak strike the incompleteness on the high points will be uniform, while in wear it won't. Does that make sense? Wear doesn't "wear" as uniformly?

 

Yes. Precisely. Using Morgans as an example, the talons should flatten/lose detail about equally, and you can tell wear from strike with talons instantly because they'll lose detail but stay rounded when worn, while a weak strike flattens them. Same is true to a lesser extent with the hair above the ear, both easy tells for an experienced grader. Wear tends to work kind of like acid in that it tends to remove an even layer; the sides of a talon will show wear before the top flattens.

 

Most weakly struck coins I've seen do have luster on the weak area, it's just dull and doesn't have much, if any, cartwheel effect like the rest of the coin. When it's wear, there will be no luster of any kind. That's how I've always been able to tell the difference.

 

Gotta factor worn dies' loss of luster into the equation, as well. So you're also evaluating what the coin has to say about the condition of the dies. Morgan dies could lose the ability to impart much luster early in their life - ask any 1921.

 

You have expressed the problem exactly. Those that know-can. It is hopeless for the rest (until they can be taught the difference).

 

I will not quibble here (not all flat areas rough...LOL). What I wish you guys will all agree on (I think you do) is what Doug has written EXCEPT:

The change of color on a flat strike IS A DIFFERENT COLOR BECAUSE IT IS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF MINT LUSTER that reflects light differently!!! Our metal coins reflect light.

 

Only if the coin has lost its original, microscopic surface. That's what you said . This is for emphasis

 

OMG! This is exactly what I am looking for. Short 'n Sweet understanding of the subject!

 

Your technical explanation may make sense on paper, but I'm going to stick with the reality of what my eyes know from looking at tens of thousands of coins in hand.

 

It should be hard to refute any of you if you will agree with this: VIRTUALLY all coins have some form of luster; even a 1921 Morgan. The luster is different on all coins depending what happened to them. The best luster that Numismatists like is usually on original coins; however, it is different on coin types, mints, denominations, and even similar coins that are weakly struck vs Fresh dies vs worn dies.

As we have all said: When you know what the luster on an original surface looks like, you need to decide what changed it -wear, strike, a buffing wheel, acid, etc.

Just preaching to the choir

 

I just want to clarify something. What we call "weak strike" may not always be exactly that. You have coins where some of the recessed parts of the die get filled with gunk. So the coins struck have areas devoid of detail, thus "weak", but those areas still make contact when the coin is struck and thus there is metal flow. Modern minting methods are pretty standardized, I don't think that the weakness we see on coins so commonly is always a matter of insufficient striking pressure.

 

I DO understand your usage of luster Because of that, you don't consider any part of a coin has luster "Mint Luster" unless it touched the dies.

That Said: Doug, I'm going to work on you until you'll come around to understand that you are in total disagreement with the old (1970's - 1990's) employees at the US Dept. of the Treasury Mint Lab (no longer in existence under that name); the engravers, shop foremen at the Mint and every grading instructor, TPG that I have ever spoken with while learning about coin production/grading.