Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;cncman, post: 560838, member: 17256&quot;]The center ring of the shield is non existant on the top in the HA piece, but in the OP&#039;s coin it is complete. Therefore, more detail in the OP&#039;s coin for the shield. (although it does look odd there, a football shaped area that does not show the same toning as the rest of the coin)The center ring and shield are always a better indicator of subtle wear than the rivets which don&#039;t usually show wear unless very worn. So counting the number of rivets to claim it as wear in these examples is not accurate. Besides if you look at the rivets on both coins they are almost the same on both, the bottom one at the 6 O&#039;clock position is strong, the next 2 clockwise are weak and a couple weak at the top, that is characteristic of the dies, not wear.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;There is no sign of wear that I can see where you would expect it to be in the OPs coin, on the breast, the center of the shield and the thigh. (though the toning can hide some of the signs like a break in luster). In order for there to be wear where you are pointing it out, rivets, gown, etc there would be considerable wear on those high points BEFORE you would see wear in those areas. Which is why when you see flatness in many areas you look at the high points to see if there are signs of wear. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Did you look at the elbow where it meets the drapery in the two pieces? In the heritage example the elbow acutally merges with the drapery. There is almost no detail there, no seperation, in the OP&#039;s piece the difference is clear. I can&#039;t copy the enlarged image from the HA piece but here is a copy of the section from the OPs piece, compare that to the HA auction and tell me which one has more detail. Clearly the OPs coin has more detail than the HA there. Since that area doesn&#039;t merge except on heavily worn coins we know that the HA coin exhibits a weaker strike at least in that area, but there are several more areas. Clearly the OPs piece has more detail in that spot. Neither coin has what could be considered a strong strike through most of the coin except the heads which show a lot of detail. That is what you asked for, another example that showed a FH but had a lot of other weakness in the coin. You also see this a lot on the SLQs from the 30&#039;s as they did not produce new dies since the coin was going to be phased out, but you have some of the highest FH % of any dates, near the % of 1917 TI, in the 30&#039;s, as much as 20% or even more.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;I know it sounds odd and it took me a long time to recognize it too, I saw several MS coins that looked to me like AU or even XF until I understood more about the different dates and what was normal for them. Then I learned the difference between flatness and wear. I have personally seen several slabbed SLQs that have had FH and weakness the same as these two coins.[/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