Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 1879886, member: 112&quot;]Well therein lays part of the problem, people look at pictures and read something, having no idea what is being talked about or what they are looking at, and they completely, and I mean completely, misinterpret and or misunderstand what they are looking at and what they are reading.</p><p><br /></p><p>The coin in the link you you posted does not have die polish lines on it. The lines on the coin you see in those pictures were caused by die wear. Yeah, that&#039;s another kind of lines that can be found on coins that I forgot to include in my explanation above. Those kind of lines are created on the die by repeated metal flow. And the more the die is used the more of those lines you will see, and the bigger and deeper the lines on the die will get. If you look at your link you should notice that they describe that coin as being late die state - one with a lot of die wear on it.</p><p><br /></p><p>As for the quote, read it again a bit more carefully. And read more than just that single paragraph, like the whole chapter. You are misinterpreting and misunderstanding what you are reading. What they are talking about with that wire brush is an experimental, (key word being experimental not standard practice), method to try and restore frost to the devices, and only on the devices,&nbsp; on a worn die. They used the word polish because there really isn&#039;t another word to use to describe what they were trying to do. What they were trying to do was to rough up the surface of the devices, and thus restore frost effect. They were not trying to &quot;polish the die&quot;, meaning polish the fields, in the conventional sense. Yeah they say the fields were then polished to bring up the mirror surfaces, but you are assuming, incorrectly, that the wire brush was used on the fields as well. I can assure you nothing could be further from the truth.</p><p><br /></p><p>First of all they even tell you in that short quote that using the brush in that experiment left behind scratches on the devices rather than recreating the frosted effect they were trying to achieve. And you don&#039;t get mirror surfaces if you are leaving behind scratches now do you ? Yeah, they did very poor of explaining the process, thus leaving you the reader confused and misinterpreting what they were saying. But like I mentioned above, when you read a book, if you don&#039;t already have a very good understanding of the subject being discussed, then you can&#039;t tell good info from bad info. Or you will misunderstand and misinterpret what is being said leaving you to draw the wrong conclusions from what you are reading.</p><p><br /></p><p>But there&#039;s another issue with that quote as well. They are talking about Buffalo nickels, right ? Well have you ever seen a Buffalo nickel with frosted devices ? Or have you ever seen a Buffalo nickel with mirror fields ? The answer to both of those questions is no. So again, their choice of wording makes it easy to confuse the reader.</p><p><br /></p><p>Early Buffalo nickels had rough fields, it was only later that the surface of the fields were smoothed out. None of the Buffalo nickels, not even the Proofs, had frosted devices. The early Proof Buffs were all matte Proofs, the late Proof Buffs were Satin Proofs. Neither of those has frosted devices, and neither has mirror fields. But there were two versions of the &#039;36 and &#039;37 Buff Proofs, the satin and brilliant. The brilliant for those 2 years is the more common. But even with those you&#039;re going to be hard pressed to find any with frosted devices, but you can find some with mirrored fields.</p><p><br /></p><p>So when you read that paragraph you quoted, if you don&#039;t already know everything I&#039;ve explained here, it&#039;s real easy to misunderstand and misinterpret what that quote says.</p><p><br /></p><p>And it&#039;s not that things are too much of a bother. But it does get tiring doing this much typing of the same thing over and over every time somebody wants an explanation because they don&#039;t understand something. That&#039;s why I encourage people to expend their own effort instead of mine and do a simple search that will show them everything I have said here.</p><p><br /></p><p>I am more than willing to share information I have learned over the years, that&#039;s why I am here. And I am happy to discuss anything you want to discuss. But yeah, doing it 50 times does get old. Especially when every time I try to explain something for somebody they want to argue about it and say that can&#039;t be because.</p><p><br /></p><p>The information I share is accurate. I take great pains to try and make sure it is accurate. Not for my benefit, I don&#039;t do any of this for me. I do it all for everybody else&#039;s benefit. But I am not perfect, far from it, and yeah I&#039;ve made my share of mistakes. And if somebody can prove me wrong about something then I am the first one to step up and say - ooops I was wrong, thanks for the correction.[/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