Ceaning or Die polish

And therein lies the real problem. We had this same argument about the semantics related to die polishing on this forum 4 years ago. And while under Doug's definition of die polishing, he is correct that the lines don't criss cross, you have correctly pointed out that he is basically the only one in the entire hobby using such a rigid definition of what constitutes die polishing.

Furthermore, he does not recognize that his forum post count, longevity, moderator status, and dogmatic personality have the effect of intimidating inexperienced collectors into believing everything he writes as "numismatic gospel."

And people wonder why I argue with him all the time. It is to get to the bottom of situations just like this one. A newbie who read "die polish lines never criss cross" is at a disadvantage. A newbie who read this thread and the one from 4 years ago will not suffer that same disadvantage.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

No need to get your feelings hurt. It was a simple observation. Is that okay?

 

Sure. My feelings are not hurt. I'm just getting into a habit of spoon feeding the simple facts, to those here with clouded perceptions. It's a habit that stems from a reaction to certain skewed tall tales, and not from any personal inventive delusions. I hope you understand that it's not personal.

 

Sadly most are looking for quick answers and will not read both threads here, or more importantly, the one on the NGC Forums. I'm sure this thread might leave many inexperienced collectors confused. Some may refuse to consider excellent coins with even a touch of semi-conspicuous die polish which is sad to me.

 

... and if the collector is experienced enough to question one of his hypotheses...

... or took the time to read, grasp and question the nonsense among the many, many related or unrelated GDJMSP repetitive outbursts, THIS IS THE TYPE OF RESPONSE one may expect.

Bottom line, don't question the guru. Otherwise, you will encounter a lack of concrete replies, evidence or direction towards a correct approach. Only to be compounded by parrots piggybacking on the guru's gospel and a belittling response that places you alone against an army of fictitious experts and learned individuals who never seem to appear.

Welcome to CT.

I thought the other board would finally expose some of those experts that support our undisputed Moderator. Ten pages and still waiting on this drawn out issue.

I guess it's back to the status quo for us...

I, alone, against an army of "us", am only one man.

 

Thanks for all the replies. and info. Very interesting conversations... Yeah your right, I don’t give two hoots about the terminology. Maybe I should have worded differently... I just asked a simple question, and “boom goes the dynamite”.

Here is another fact about my coin. I received this coin with two others - 1946 20 frank, 50 frank & the 100 frank. They came to me sealed in plastic holders shown in the picture below. I assumed this was Mint packaging, but I'm not sure. The 20 and the 50 are Gem BU coins. The 100 not so nice, thus is why I started this thread.



All through this thread people keep referring to my coin as cleaned… That is what I am trying to determine. I understand that not all of the abrasions on this coin are from the mint, but since when are scratches, or damage from the packaging considered cleaning?

Or are you seeing something that I’m not?

 

I don't think it should be you dancing in front of the monkey on the boardwalk. Not your fault that at the first mention of Die Polishing Lines, these threads get hijacked by repetitive rants that never explain anything and are always hung up in minute detail terminology.

Cleaning or Die polish, it's important that you are able to ask this question without it being derailed. That's what this ruckus is about. On other forums, people would have let the terminology go, focused on the lines being raised and we would have gotten to your packaging, much sooner. Most of us do not look to make the term Die Polishing Lines into an uphill battle every time. How could you have asked differently, knowing this is an accepted term throughout the hobby?

No, I think your coin has various raised Die Finishing Lines on it. Hard to say for sure without checking in hand if they are raised. You can do that with proper magnification. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Check for yourself and search online resources under Die Polishing Lines, for best image results. Use your better judgement.

Sorry, I do not know if that is authentic mint packaging for those coins.

 

Even the packaging can't be guaranteed anymore. I'm sure some can either be tampered with or may not even be authentic.

 

I was never convinced that there was evidence of cleaning on the coin. In fact what I referenced in my first reply appears to be part of the design on the small obv. shield. Abrasion from the packaging should only be on the high points, right? What I saw is in the fields. I'm still going with die polish/die finishing/stoning whatever.

 

I appreciate your input guy's.

Maybe some of these other posters can expand on their conclusions that the coin has been cleaned.

 

As I mentioned before, I know this coin (and the whole series of the 20,50, and 100 Franc) very well. I have looked at and owned many over the previous 3-4 years.

On the 100F you posted, the only place I see where some form of post-mint-damage occurred is on the obverse near the shield to the right of the bust. This is not a normal location for raised or mint-produced striations / die repair / die preparation lines; further, the images are quite clear that these are damage into the surface of the coin, not raised delicate striations.



Now, that being said, the damage may not be from "cleaning" but some form of mishandling. To the best of my knowledge, all of these three different denominations were issued in quantities of 100,000 coins in special sets and were specially handled. A great number of them exist in UNC condition today, and "bag marks" don't really make sense as an explanation for these areas of damage based on their history. Many were saved more as "commemoratives" than as circulating coinage, as the reverse celebrates the 600th anniversary of the death of John the Blind (also known as John of Bohemia).

In the end, this coin may still grade problem free at a TPG, as the damage (while it appears to be sort of deep) may not be considered substantial enough to merit a "no grade."

With regard to the reverse, I don't see any signs of cleaning. The area under the front hooves of the horse is present on most of the 100 F coins, but is absent on the 2,000 that were struck without the designer's name (BONNETAIN). The clear striations below the rear of the horse are also "as minted," as the finishing work on these dies was as such.

Both the 20F and the 50F you posted, based on the obverse images only, look quite lovely and typical for the series. I'll post my examples of the 20F and 50F below for comparison, in case you want to further investigate any potential areas of die markers. Most of these coins come with either the slightest champagne toning or with no toning at all. Some (based on their storage) exhibit more marked toning like my two examples below.

I hope this helps.

-Brandon

 

Yes, that does help... Thanks Brandon

 

Thanks for the info, Brandon. Very attractive examples you have there!

 

So, do you still have the same opinion about this coin.

 

1. Die polish (or scratches, or tooling, or whatever other terminology you want to use) has a very different appearance in hand than hairlines from cleaning. As I mentioned previously, they affect the luster in very different ways. The "not crossing devices" thumbrule is just that - a thumbrule. Its one tool in the bag of tricks we have, and I don't think anyone ever intended that to be a 100% concrete proof. As Mark Feld always likes to remind me, making absolute statements can get you into trouble very quickly.

2. The TPGs are generally very good at distinguishing die polish from hairlines. If a coin is slabbed with hairlines, it is because (most of the time) they have determined the quantity to be market acceptable (for example, PR-60 to 63 proofs from the mid-19th century).

Please provide examples to back up your claims that TPGs confuse die polish and hairlines.

 

Cleaning is a type of PMD.

 

I would like to add that what are referred to as "die polish lines" by perhaps 99.9% of the numismatic community are usually caused by actions taken to touch up the die faces during production. This included abrasives on wooden sticks, cotton swabs, and spinning discs with leather faces or edges coated with fine emery. The dies were hand held, although in some cases may have been touched up while still in the presses.
The process Doug is referencing was done before the dies were first put into service, and sometimes at intervals during the die's life to improve striking or to remove more extensive surface damage. Logically, I would expect that polishing a die held in a chuck against the center of a spinning abrasive disc would result in fine parallel arcuate lines on the surface of the die, which would probably be quickly effaced during the striking of coins. I have yet to see coins with that exact look but confess that I don't have time to examine as many coins as I would like. Jason has PL coins (made from rebasined dies) that show parallel lines from the process but did not look curved to me. This would suggest that die basining was not always carried out in a precisely aligned device but that sometimes the dies were hand held. This is actually confirmed by an account in Roger Burdette's book "From Mine to Mint" of a worker basining trade dollar dies.