Uhhh - your point ? Or perhaps I should say, are you listening to me ? I don't know how to make it any clearer guys. I posted pictures of 5 coins - coin #1 (that I posted) is the OP's coin. The other 4 are pictures from Heritage, coins of the same variety that SuperDave said the OP's coin was. If you look at the area at about 4 o'clock of the rev, on the 4 coins from Heritage that area is basically the same on all 4 of those coins. And it is NOT post strike damage, it is from the die the coins were struck with. But that same area at 4 o'clock on coin #1 (the OP's coin) is quite different than it is on the 4 Heritage coins. Here's a cropped pic of the area I am talking about on the OP's coin (coin #1 in my post). In this picture you can see where the metal has actually been gouged post strike. It is post strike damage on this coin. Here's a cropped pic of one of the Heritage coins. This not post strike damage. Now can you guys not see the difference between those two coins ?
You ever seen a cud that looked like that ? Or more specific - seen a cud with sharp edges ? I sure as heck never have.
here's the thing for me, at least... the technology used to strike these coins is so vastly different from any we are accustomed to, that I am less likely to jump to a determination because I think that the older technology might affect the strike in a way that I don't expect, (i.e. - raised lines).
It's pretty simple Dave, sharp edges like that cannot be produced when a coin is struck. They can only be produced by post strike damage.
not to be overly thick, but what about this scenario, Doug... as a die shattered, would it not produce sharp edges? I mean... these dies were used way beyond what would be considered normal die life
I'm not going to argue this with someone who's been involved in numismatics for far longer than I. Doug, you're just going to have to have your opinion; I won't attempt to change it. For those of you who don't just take what other people say as Gospel, go to Heritage. You'll find enough B-1's to see how the die progression works. You'll also find the OP coin, in a PCGS 63 slab with provenance from the Cardinal Collection, from which liquidation also came the MS68 1792 Half Disme and the SP66 Carter 1794 Dollar. You know, the first coin ever sold for $10 Million. The coin here was part of that collection. Typical Heritage images of excruciating resolution; you can see for yourself. It was crossed to NGC for more grade. That'll be fodder for the current Forum conversation about the NGC-PCGS spat, I think. So, this coin straight-graded from both TPG's. Don't believe anything I or anyone else has posted here; go look for yourself. Heritage has 86 1799 B-1's imaged - likely many repeat coins - but there's all the data you need to decide for yourself what's PMD and what's die progression.
I agree with you there is certainly visible wear and this coin is not MS as a result. I was assuming the marks at 4 o'clock was some kind of planet flaw or die issue. The marks looks raised to me...not dug into the coin (then again I'm looking on my phone). That said I think it's a beautiful coin.
I still don't see why this matters. Wear should be wear no matter what caused it. If the coin has had enough "friction" to result in luster breaks what differences does it make if it came from circulation or from storage in a cabinet.
