Burnished SAE

doesn't burnished refer to the treatment of the blanks pre-strike by the Mint?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I disagree. The vast majority of the mint's buyers are collectors and using terminology that is taboo in the hobby would certainly turn more buyers away than the new buyers the "familiar" wording would attract.

That is my understanding. The blanks are polished prior to being struck which gives them a different surface quality.

 

How often do you tell your patients that you are "just going to burnish that molar a little bit" and how often do they understand what you mean? Be honest!

Chris

 

I don't...but in my line of work the word 'polish' doesn't have negative connotations. There are words in my field that do...and thus I don't use them in my advertising. The mint is doing the same thing.

 

but isn't that just it???

Doesn't the striking obliterate any surface quality imparted during burnishing?

How does one tell the difference?

 

That's what I was wondering. I have never owned a burnished ASE...but as I understand it the difference is obvious but not huge. Maybe it's enough. I wonder if @dcarr could give us an insight...if anyone here is going to know it's gonna be him.

 

I don't think it's obvious... at least not to me. I defy anyone to open a 2011 25th Anniversary SAE set and without looking at the reverses, pick out the unmintmarked coin from the set. It's not as easy as one might think.

 

The burnished ASE has a sort of smokey effect to it. Completly different than a polished look & diffrent than a proof. If you ever see one you'll definately know the difference on sight alone.
I'm away from my collection & don't have the files accesable to download a photo. Even with my crappy pic set up not sure it really would capture enough to see it. I can't capture toned coins that truely show the colors. Maybe Santa will give me an upgrade.
Surely google or even wikipedia would have photos that would show the difference. Maybe even a site like Govmint.com (? unsure of spelling).

 

Actually...I have one of those sets (I forgot there was one in there). I'm going to try that.

 

I'm willing to bet that almost all dentists refrain from using the word "burnished" because most of their clients wouldn't have the slightest idea what they mean. It's the old KISS system at it's best.

One more point, the finish on the burnished Eagle is strikingly similar to the finish on the Satin Mint Set. I wonder why the Mint didn't use "Burnished Mint Set" instead. Maybe it's because it doesn't sound as good. So, claiming that the Mint uses the word "burnished" instead of "polished" makes less and less sense to me.

Chris

 

Why doesn't it make sense? The word "polished" has a very negative connotation in numismatics. That's why they don't use it. Why call your product something that is going to turn away many of the potential buyers. Satin would have been fine...but they choose to use burnished.

It's the same reason why I don't advertise that I give "lots of shots" on my website. That would not attract clients. I don't use the word burnish in my practice because it doesn't serve a purpose. You're right...the patients don't know what it means. But, I can use other words to describe what I am doing that aren't offensive. "Polished" is offensive in numismatics.

 

Actually, with experience, it is very easy. Just ask one of the modern graders at a TPGS. So in my opinion any informed collector can do it too. I can, and I'm sure with a little practice you will agree it is easy.

 

Were you able to pick it out?

How did the experiment play out?

 

Not quite true, proofs after 2000 also have W mintmarks.

 

So, I tried it. When I opened the set, I made sure that there was no way I could tell which was which based on markings (as all the coins are sitting in their original box with the obverse visible).

As I looked at the set...this is how it was organized from left to right: UNC, UNC, Reverse Proof, Proof, UNC. First, I looked at the two UNC coins on the left...being side by side I thought it would be good to compare them. Looking at them side by side, I noticed an obvious difference in the finish. The coin to the far left looked a little more "brilliant" than the coin to its right. I figured one of these was the burnished and the other was a normal UNC. I thought about it for a moment (not knowing which was which at first glance). After some thought, I assumed the coin with the more polished planchet would...if anything...have a more brilliant finish. So, I decided that that coin must be the burnished coin. I flipped both of them over and the coin on the far left (with the more brilliant finish) had a W mint mark...so I was correct.

Although side by side it was obvious that the coins were different, at least to me it's not a huge difference in finish. Not being a huge expert in this set, I think I would personally have a difficult time telling the coins apart if they were not side by side.

 

Now that makes a lot more sense to me. The dies being prepared differently make the main difference.

Let me ask you this...would there be much of a visual difference in the coin if the same dies were used but the planchets were not burnished? Or, would it simply be a quality control issue? My guess is the finish of the coin would look basically the same as a coin with a burnished planchet...but there would be a larger number of imperfections and defects. Am I understanding this right?

 

I can't speak for most, but I know I have a full set of eagles in a Dansco album, I put a blank page in the back and put the burnished in that page. The burnished may also turn out to be better investments long term because of their lower mintage.

 

That's what I was thinking...just wanted it confirmed. Thanks Doug!