I Don't Understand Satin

Would someone please try this and let us know???

Would someone please try this and let us know???

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Respectfully, Ben I think that you're making a logical leap. Yes, many of the top coins were at one time in a Mint Set. In fact for a while, the Mint treated the Mint Set coins better than the regular circulation strikes (even though they came from the same dies), but here's the leap:

If Mint Set coins are "better coins" then if a coin came from a Mint Set you can assume that it's a better coin.

BUT

If the coin is a "better coin", it is NOT safe to assume that it came from a Mint Set because not all of the "better coins" came from Mint Sets.

There is NO discernible difference between the finish (or sheen) on Mint Set coins prior to 2005.

 

I'm not even going there - whether they are "better" or not is not the issue at all. What I said (I think) was I could tell the difference by that particular sheen on mint set coins in Lincoln's, and I know that I can.

Heck many times even my more knowledgeble customers around here will be looking for say a 1986-D cause it's a little harder and more expensive to find in nice BU and will see the coins I have and even say "no, I don't want a mint set coin, just a regular one".

In fact I would lay down $200 dollar bet and let anyone hand me 10 coins and I promise you that I would only miss at most only one 1 coin as to whether it's a mint set Lincoln or not and do it in 3 minutes!

You'all don't even know how many Lincoln Cents I've looked at - if you think for a second I don't know the difference you'll just have to be wrong about that.

Some are nicer some are not - I've said on here many times that I like BU coins without the satin finish better cause they are struck better to me.
Some mint set Lincoln's are nice many are dogs but they all have that sheen after about 1970.

Have you tried what I suggested yet?? I wish you would.

 

Thad, thad where are you???

Badthad please help me out here???
I could show you in 1 minute if possible. I would not say this and keep sticking to it if it were not so.
That plus I will say, on the same bet, $200 or $1000 any and all mint set Lincoln's verses regular BU coins 9 times out of 10 I'll pick which ones they are as far back even since the early sixties.

Now what are the odds that I would just get the only mint set coins that are obvieous to me in regards to that special extra brightness of luster?

Either we are not talking about the same thing or I have looked at more Lincoln memorials than any one else alive, which may be possible since most are not as crazy as I am.
Thad could help I think here - anyone???

 

I have to agree with Ben on the Lincolns. I too can usually spot a mint set coin from a biz strike. I'm probably not as good as Ben, but I can usually tell. For me it's the combination of the luster AND the strike that gives it away. You have to remember that 90+% of the Memorial biz strikes are made on worn dies. The mint set coins are almost always very sharp.

 

Doug what you are saying is the written facts as we know them in most books even my books as I just went and confirmed it. Your correct answer is not real world though from what I (and I'm sure others) can see. The only reasons I can come up with is that the mint is fudging a bit by saying they (mint set coins) are from normally struck coins for a given year, they are not. Now why this has happend I have no idea and I admit I would never make such a claim if I was not certain, something don't add up - I'm trying to tell you I can see the differents and see it anytime, anywhere.

Plus you were right about the 1990 year in general - the date in Denver was 1986 thru 2001 that a new German press was employed to strike only mint set and commemoritive's. I'll do some research for other dedacated presses soon for same.

I must insist that this whole thing is one of 2 things:

1. The mint does indeed handle mint sets coins different either in the selected planchets, striking, tonage or some other method that is not, or has not been disclosed to us or readily explained, or they never felt like this was needed, I don't know right now.
2. The coins in mint sets somehow get that "special sheen or glitter" as I have tried to explaine by being in contact with the cellophane alone or envelopes.
Now you know it's most likely the secound point don't you?

But what I'm telling you is it can't be "the complete story". I see these and they are different. I went and looked through my coins and I can spot a mint set coin each and every time. I have 2 double row boxes of gem memorials, 1959 to date. In each year/mint I have between 5 and 10 examples of each. None are labeled just plain white 2x2's. In this mix are sometimes 1 or 2, (maybe all five or ten) maybe none, that are from mint sets. To me anyway it's as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. I will even up my ability to include all denomenations now and in all mint set coins verses buiness strike coins for all years 1960 to date not just 9 out 10 times but 9.5 out of 10 each and everytime.

Doug why would I claim such a thing, even say such a thing if I was not certain of my position and ability? I have nothing to gain here.

My insistance in this matter is a ultimately not going to bare fruit if no other very experienced people chime in on this. I know what I see. To me it's sort of unbelievable that only thad knows what I know and can pretty much agree with me, and see what I see.

I only wish you could see what I see and teach you what I know but I guess it's not possible. You got to remember I have looked at tens of thousands of bu rolls, many bags and broken up several thousand mint sets. I live and breath this stuff. When I look at a coin I see what all my experience has taught me.

I can tell Denver from Philly coins since the early 1990's I don't know the reason but Denver coins from mint sets are higher quality overall. It holds true for regular buiness strike from Denver also. I thought this and all of my comments before were common knowledge but I find they are not. I'm sort of shocked really - the differents is so obvious, this is crazy.
I don't know the reason but I know what I know. It's not written and it does not make sence but if I were at your house or you at mine I could convice you of every single thing I've said in 5 minutes.

The mint has historically told us partial truth and left out many things. Take single sguees hubbing and how no doubled dies could have happened.
Take Frank Gasparos' comments regarding doubling at the mint - "The Authoritive Reference" Wexler - they were so far out as to laughed at by anyone with a brain. I respect the man and his contibutions very much but his comments were ridiculas at best and a lie for the most part. The mint has told us hundreds of time they did when they didn't, or they didn't when they did.

It's got to be "that something is missing here" and missing bad and I could prove it to anyone, anytime, anywhere.

I wish that some other Lincoln Memorial specialists would comment because this thread as reached it's useful life.

I would be glad to send you an example of each type coin, a coin from a mint set and a MS-66 coin from a roll and on the phone I could show you in one minute "to tell the difference", just pm if interested.

Mint set singles and regular buisness strike coins are not the same, no matter what is written or understood, they are not the same,

 

I'm a little surprised and pleased that you say this. I really thought you hated the mint set coins for some reason. I know you like your cents clean and mint set cents can be hard to find clean. The '79-D leaps to mind.

 

One of the reasons the mint stated for chromium plating the dies which resulted in the satin finish is that the plating greatly reduces die wear allowing more strikes to be from "new" dies. They might have misjudged their market a little on this issue; I believe most people do like mint set coins because they are well made but most would prefer them to be just like the coins made for circulation. Now that there is a positive way to tell them from circulation strikes collectors have to find both. This is kind of like the old days when I was the only one racing around trying to find decent coins but now everyone needs to but few are.

 

There bis a "closeness' to the grain on mint set cents (other coins a little too). These do look different than the bulk of cents made for circulation. But I think you get this same closeness on some of the well made coins that don't come in mint sets. As long as you don't claim to be always able to tell, I sure can't argue with you.

As far as "knowing" a coin is from a mint set or not this is possible only in some instances. For instance most varieties don't appear in mint sets so one of them can't be from a mint set. Other varieties like the RR '88-P half was only in the mint set so these necessarily came from a set. It's probably pretty safe to say that every single PL gem made since 1965 came from a mint set but this isn't a certainty. PL's were issued to circulation and it's not impossible that one recieved a full strike. There's no reason a whole bag with hundreds of them couldn't surface. It won't, but no reason it couldn't. The coins simply wouldn't have even been noticed. They'd just enter circulation like almost every other coin for the last 45 years.

 

This is from the initial press release.

It certainly would be unusual for a mint release to be wrong or misleading would it not? :kewl:

 

[FONT=&quot]Hi everyone[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The following are two definitions from the glossary of the US Mint
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The term "uncirculated" may have three different meanings when applied to a coin.[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]First, it can refer to the particular manufacturing process by which a coin is made.[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]Second, it can be used as a grade when referring to a coin's degree of preservation and quality of the strike.[/FONT]
· [FONT=&quot]Or third, "uncirculated" can point to the fact that a coin has not been used in everyday commerce. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]At the United States Mint, we use the term uncirculated when referring to the special coining process used to make the coin, which gives it a satin finish. Uncirculated coins are manufactured using the same process as circulating coins, but with quality enhancements such as slightly higher coining force, early strikes from dies, special cleaning after stamping, and special packaging. Uncirculated coins may vary to some degree because of blemishes, toning, or slight imperfections.[/FONT]
Uncirculated . Uncirculated coins are struck like circulating coins, but with higher force, newer dies, special cleaning after stamping, and Mylar® packaging. Uncirculated coins may vary to some degree because of blemishes, toning, or slight imperfections as described below.


My question is, would it bother you to learn that both satin finish and circulating coins were struck from the same dies?


Regards, Leo

 

Business strike coins and satin finish coins are not produced from the same dies. If you go back to 2004 and 2005 and read all of the press releases about the development of the satin finish, you will learn that the satin finish was produced by bombarding the face of the dies with a combination of sand and glass beads. The dies for business strikes do not undergo this application. As a matter of fact, when a die with the satin finish begins to deteriorate, it is polished and used for business strikes.

Chris

 

Hello Chris
Can you explain why all the end coins of my 2005 and 2006 40+ rolls have some degree of satin finish look to them? Back in 1965 to 1967 SMS, it was suggested that the circulation coins were struck from used SMS dies. Why shouldn't we expect that today with the used SF dies?

Leo

 

Hi, Leo!

Like Doug said, the satin finish dies produced for the Uncirculated Mint Sets deteriorated faster than a normal die, but the die was still deemed to have a useful life for business strikes. I first noted this in the last half of 2005 in the bags of half dollar and quarter dollar business strikes I ordered from the Mint. Many of the coins were "splotchy" from heavy polishing marks. Without any official confirmation from the Mint regarding this practice, it was the only logical conclusion to make at the time.

Chris

 

I'd have to say (as do the TPG'ers), the satins are a distinct variety and as such, have a place in my collection. Counter to some opinions, the mint states that the satins are struck with more pressure than business strikes, in order to emphasize the detail. I'd have to agree, although later die states may show less detail, most I've looked at show greater detail than business strikes, including a proof-like wire rim. Now, whether or not one likes satins, they do exist and are a low mintage variety that many collectors value. IMO, if you choose not to collect them, you're "missing the boat".