Post your Lincolns!

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Stahp. You're killin' me here.

Both true; I tend to filter that stuff subconsciously these days.

 

There is little or no luster. Obviously been cleaned. Probably a little darker chocolate brown. Overall it's still a great find.

 

The luster is most apparent on the reverse. In the photos it shows up more as a gleaming on the devices.

The obverse has a more muted luster. I asked the seller and they said "it has no signs of cleaning, and no signs of wear, but lacks cartwheel luster." But in hand I can see subdued luster after all in the 1:00 area especially.

The seller also supplied this closeup of die lines near the date.

Now here's the question I have been building up to. Could fragile raised lines like this still exist if the surface had been messed with?

 

Die lines, unlike cracks, do not present themselves as raised material. They are very fine and can't be felt....maybe with a machine they could be detected. The lack of luster SCREAMS cleaning and the lines look to prove that.

 

Maybe I used the wrong terminology. As I understand it...

Polish marks on the die would be caused by an abrasive material removing minute amounts of metal from the surface of the die, causing small grooves. These grooves may span small devices as the abrasive polishing would bridge across the gaps (such as the incised numerals in a date). The would also seem to end at features such as Lincoln's nose and the edges of wheat ears.

Upon striking the inverse image would be created - small raised lines on the surface of the coin, that do not affect the devices because the polishing did not reach into those cavities.

I still haven't seen the lines shown in the picture. The magnification and lighting have to be particular to reveal them.

I will try some pictures, or at least report on the accuracy of the color, since I am away from the coin at the moment.

 

Here's an example of die polish lines. These are pretty dramatic. As you state....the lines are on the fields but do not cross the devices.
I do not see that on your penny.

 

I think the seller's photos were OK with the color. Here is a yellow post-it, so you can color-correct the image if you like. But you can also see how it compares to a regular brown cent, too.


Next up, an attempt to show some of the luster, such as it is. You can see some of its general glow around the edges; of course that's protected from most mistreatment anyway.

By the way, I'm not here to defend this coin, but to understand it. The seller took it to another dealer, who removed some PVC deposition and concurred that, in-hand, it did not look cleaned. So I am trying to learn a few things. Chief among them,

• are we too quick to jump to "cleaned" for every low-luster coin
• are there minting processes that naturally produce coins with less luster
• can a coin with die polish marks ever have been cleaned, or does cleaning always destroy polish marks

 

Yikes! Great example.

Won't there be a continuum of examples, from barely noticeable to profound, depending on how fresh the die is, how many times those scratches have been pummeled by die impact, and how deep they were in the first place?

In that regard, would a scratch like these usually correspond to a fresh or freshly touched up die? Conversely, when you have a strong strike from fresh dies, would you be more likely to see polish marks too?

Lots to learn from you guys!

 

Precisely.

Furthermore, despite my plain appreciation of it, I feel there's a strong argument in favor of your coin having circulated slightly. In that case, all bets are off as to whether any lines (the ones on your coin are very faint, unikely to be die polishing artifacts) are of Mint origin. On the other hand, they're also unlikely to be indicative of cleaning.

 

1924 was a good year for toners.

 

So was 1934.

 

Almost a Woodie....

 

And another "almost";

 

Didn't you hear? Thursday is Fat Finger day!

 

That is everyday for me!

 

Nothing fabulous but not too bad for just sifting thru a jar full.