Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;SuperDave, post: 2506762, member: 1892&quot;]I&#039;m not one for often advocating grease as the culprit when devices are only partially obscured, as is the date in the OP coin. You have to assume some <b>serious</b> level of suspended grit in the grease, enough to reduce its&#039; viscosity sufficient to keep it from instantly following the laws of fluid dynamics in the instant of striking pressure and flowing to the lowest points.</p><p><br /></p><p>This case is an exception, I think, based on the gritty look of the (purported) strikethrough area on the date and to its&#039; immediate left. That is how I could see <b>really</b> gritty grease manifesting - the grit resists strike pressure more than the &quot;liquid&quot; part of the grease and indeed is tough enough to affect adjoining fields. I&#039;m not completely discounting the idea that it&#039;s PMD as opposed to grease, but in this specific case the argument for the latter is pretty strong. </p><p><br /></p><p>Now. When considering a coin which shows drastically different levels of &quot;wear&quot; between faces - this one hints at low VF obverse and near-AU reverse - you have to wonder why and how a coin can wear more on one face than the other. Answer: <b>It doesn&#039;t</b>. So you have to look a little deeper into the causes of the look. </p><p><br /></p><p>The obverse is pretty clearly a rarity for this series - an old, worn die, as noted by the rim crumbling especially visible in the northeast quadrant. We&#039;re not used to seeing this on Shield Nickels. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>Therein, however, lies a strong hint as to why the obverse and reverse differ in &quot;wear&quot;. Another hint is in what (I tentatively conclude) is the presence of grease in the die. If it&#039;s already in one place - the date - it could just as easily be in another. </p><p><br /></p><p>When we further factor the knowledge that the shield is often weakly-struck even in examples called &quot;decent&quot; strikes - have a look at some of these in the Heritage Archives - we can find some reasonably-complete explanation for the coin we see here.</p><p><br /></p><p>To my mind, this example has undoubtedly been cleaned, given the plain appearance of &quot;crud&quot; in the tighter-detailed areas inside and next to the devices. In this case, I think the cleaning culprit is plain soap and water or similar, nothing &quot;abrasive.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>So my conclusion for this one, based strictly on what I see in these specific images, would be XF Details, Cleaned.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in