Is hairline chatter related to metal flow?

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

And i believe 19lyds said....

 

What I "see" in the video, is a rotating drum with thousands of coins stacked on top of each other in a softened state, making contact with each other, at the end of the annealing process just before they enter the quench tank.

What I do not see is a converyor belt with coins laying flat upon it and not touching each other as they pass through an annealing oven. I see a piece of equipment labeled "Furnace #5" which is in close proximity to a stair case that does not appear to have the length required to pass thousands of blanks through it laying flat on a conveyor belt which in my minds eye would be hundreds of feet long.



As for thinking about it in conjunction with the first link that was presented which states "(use temperature between 300-600 degree Celsius for 30 minute)", I just cannot see a flat conveyor that would be that long. For limited production proof coins, perhaps, but I just do not see it with blanks that were produced in the hundreds of thousands for circulation. Maybe its a control station? I don't know.

I forgot to add, I don;t think that Doug is wrong but I do believe that there are different processes for circulation coins vs proof coins with proof coins receiving special handling which just may include flat annealing.

 

There really is no point in arguing about this anymore i pulled this quote right from the mints virtual tour.......

They are shaken around which causes small hits and what look like hairlines and as the quote suggests they are put through all of this because of the annealing process. Thus making the annealing process in some shape or form the reason they are present on coins from the period...

 

But it says, "they enter the washing machine". If a blank were to be annealed or not, they will get washed. Way too many industrial chemicals can get onto this metal, so they ALWAYS get washed before striking. I used to work at an auto parts manufacturer, and some parts got annealed, washed, then struck, but others just washed then struck. Either way the metal has to have chemical cleaning to ensure a proper strike.

As to the real crux of the question, whether the marks are there before or after the striking, I don't really know. If they are prevalent to a much higher extent after 1964 than before, then I think lack of metal flow could be responsible for then being on gem graded US coins.

Boy, I am glad my area of the hobby just ignores this crud and grades based upon what is on the surface, regardless of reason. Bottom line, should collectors CARE? If a coin you are about to buy has a bunch of surface marks, do you really care WHY? I don't, I just care about what the coin looks like and if I like it. That is why I never bought "weak strike", "worn die", "thin flan", or any other excuses US collectors/dealers make up for cruddy coins when I collected US coins.

 

But unlike an auto part a coin must be annealed before striking because the metal is too hard for the dies to transfer the design.

 

Many coins around the world are struck every day without annealing. Does the US mint anneal cents? I would doubt it.

Its a common misconception that coin blanks HAVE to be annealed. Modern presses can handle any metal without annealing. Annealing is only done to preserve die life when striking very hard metals.

 

My aim behind the question was to understand exactly why coins in the same grade can appear so different from one decade to another, and even from one year to another. I didn't mean to instigate World War Three.

But in fact, my question has been substantially answered. Regardless of the exact mechanics of annealing, I now understand that chatter on the planchet exists before the strike, and a strong strike removes that chatter, whereas a weak strike can leave quite a bit of it on the fields, particularly at the rim. I had earlier supposed that the chatter was caused by the strike itself, by some complicated physics of metal flow.

A coin with that kind of chatter isn't necessarily "cruddy" - I've collected some of the early Kennedy ni-cu clad business strikes, and the higher-grade coins have beautiful luster, very few hits, and occasionally gorgeous toning. One just has to accept the chatter at the rims as intrinsic to the issues, and not as something that detracts from the grade.

 

I believe you are 100% right concerning US grading standards. My point, though, is shouldn't it? As a collector, ignoring current grading, isn't a coin with clean surfaces BETTER than a coin without? If so, WHY do you accept the two would be the same grade?

Again, not saying you are wrong in the least, I am just asking you to take a step back and ask, "Does that make SENSE to you? A coin that is demonstrably WORST is the same grade?"

 

I think we all can agree on that. I certainly dont go out of my way to find them like this but sometimes its not as easy to find a clad coin without this going on....

 

Well, I'm not chasing grades for one thing. (OK, maybe just a little bit.) But my real intention is to understand the nuances involved in what one should expect from a particular issue as opposed to another. I think it's perfectly legitimate to say a certain coin grades 67 even though it exhibits a certain amount of chatter, when one takes into account the minting processes of the time. It grades 67 among its class. I think it's likewise legitimate to give a different coin in another class the same grade, considering the minting processes of it's era, despite the fact that the coins look very different.

I don't think it's accurate to consider any one series some sort of homogenous entity, especially in the case of Kennedy Halves, which span almost 50 years of mintage technology and include three different alloys.

 

My question is: Two coins, identical in EVERY WAY, (same date, same mint, same toning, etc), one has this "chatter", one has completely clear field. Which do you buy for the EXACT same price?

Based on that answer, then is it "normal" they should have IDENTICAL grades?

That is my problem with the excuses they put into US grading standards. One is clearly, unmistakably inferior, so how in the world can they be the same grade?

 

Identical in every way would mean same date and mint mark, as you say. I would buy the one without chatter of course. But I assume that if they were identical in every way otherwise, they would be graded differently on account of the chatter.

 

So are proofs annealed?

 

But they AREN'T, this is considered "part of manufacturing" so the grade is not lowered by it, just like weak strike, worn dies, etc.

Just a pet peeve of mine that Doug tells me to get over, it just REALLY peeves me off and is a reason I mainly ignore US coins now.

 

A lot of guys have told me to take TPG grades with a grain of salt - that on any given day they could go one point one way or another, sometimes more. The grade on a slab is only one variable in the equation of collecting for me, and sometimes a lower grade works to my benefit more than a higher one.

I recently acquired a 79-D with great color: neon-blue and honey covering the entire coin, and an abundance of luster. It came with the typical rim chatter discussed in this thread, but it's such a marvelous piece that the chatter is almost a non-issue. If the coin wasn't toned, I probably would have looked right over it as just another example of chattery 70's coinage. In this case though, the lower grade of 65 actually worked in my favor because I could afford the piece - in fact, it was well within my budget, and I'm delighted to own it.

The empirical aspects of collecting are important, and that's why in my estimation, this has been such a good thread. But in the final analysis, they have to be balanced with aesthetics. When I was young, I used to collect bright shiny objects, like a cat, with no regard to knowledge or science. Today I need a more sophisticated approach, that examines all the nuances. There's a middle path in there somewhere that I'd like to walk.

 

Collect what you love man. Don't let any internet idiot convince you otherwise.

I was not talking about that, just venting over a bad decision US collectors made in the 1840's and have stuck with. I know Doug, I am tilting at windmills, but its still fun to vent.

 

What decision was made in the 1840's?

 

It's not World War Three John!

More like a spirited discussion where information is being exchanged. I'm trying to get a hold of a former Mint Employee to find out what he knows about the annealing process at the Denver Mint.