Help me understand this Trade Dollar

I'm wanting to understand the fields of this coin. I call it chatter but is that the proper term? What creates this look? I would think the strike would remove it or is it gained after the strike?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Nice looking coin but the fields look lightly cleaned to me with dark toning starting to set in.

 

GOOD ONE! IMO, "Chatter" is a PERFECT word for this characteristic type of "impact damage". As a matter of fact, its been used in every coin grading seminar I've been at.

Somewhere around here I have coin like this that was technically graded: "Uncirculated, excessive bagmarks."

 

IMO, what you are calling "dark toning" is due to the lighting. The only toning on the coin is near the rims.

 

It has that steel gray toning look to me.

 

I don't think this coin has been cleaned. The marks appear random in the way that suggests "chatter," not directional or repetitive in a way that would suggest the intention of cleaning.

 

@ldhair

Larry, I've always understood that the term "chatter" referred to excessive bag marks.........scratches, nicks, dings, abrasions, etc.

Chris

 

@cpm9ball Not that it matters, but take out the red and you'll get my "like." Because, scratches are scratches and etc. is: ?

 

I use the official trade term "skritchy."

 

....and nicks are nicks......and dings are dings......and red is red!......and etc. is etc.!

Chris

 

Can we put this to music?... and scratches are scratches...

 

Well, we've got some of the lyrics. How about putting them to the tune of Lahaina by Loggins & Messina? But, don't forget to keep the centipede!

Chris

 

Upon close examination a lot of the scratches are entirely in the fields. But not all. To me this looks like they took a coarse wire brush to the dies at the mint. To get some debris or metal off them. Then lightly polished or lapped them. You can really see where some of it is mint made under the right side of the eagle and under his head. There's parallel scratches that break at the devices and continue on the other side. I think about 75% of what you're seeing was on the dies. Larry are the lines slightly raised or hollowed? Then the coin got standard rough handling. I think with the semi proof like look of the coin some if not quite a bit was mint made. Then the coin got handled and bounced around in bags. To me this looks like a low ms. Like 61

 

To me this looks like they took a coarse wire brush to the dies at the mint. To get some debris or metal off them. Then lightly polished or lapped them. I disagree completely with this statement.

I think about 75% of what you're seeing was on the dies. I disagree completely with this statement also. Although there is very fine die polish lines on this coin, 95% of the "chatter marks" on this coin are due to POST MINT impact. As the dealer wrote in Post #10, very often coins are all marked up on purpose to hide something this is not one of those cases.

Forgot, this is all just IMO.

 

But I see them on the devices. I also notice that most of the scratches end or are greatly minimized before the devices.

 

Excellent explanation, it really looks like this is the case here. Thanks.

 

my opinion, it's a myriad of tiny contact marks on semi prooflike surfaces which tends to accentuate the marks under photo lighting. Bill's observations are interesting and a close exam under high mag could be enlightening!

 

I don't disagree that there's contact marks and quite a few. But I do feel part of it is mint made

 

I don't see any mint made contact marks on this coin but I shall look again for one.