A real puzzle? Is this a struck thru thread or a scratch?

Dang fellows. The man is a professional grader. I want to see what the man is trying to teach us here. I’m sure there is a method to his madness. Let the thing play out before you tar and feather him.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

These are scratches. You can tell because if it was a strike through, the dirt patch surrounding it would be on top of it. These have cut through the area of dirt, so they must be newer than that deposit. It was probably an attempt at improper cleaning with a small tool that damaged that section.

 

Thank you. You could teach a bunch of whiners a thing or ten.

Here goes with the reveal and thanks all of you for posting your opinions.

Unfortunately, I don't remember the actual coin or the country it came from. FORTUNATELY, that is not important in the least bit to know what you are looking at in the micrograph of a small part of a coin!

Look at the image and describe what we see.

I JUST FIGURED OUT what it is. Rotate my image one flip clockwise and it is the rock at 7 OC on a Seated Liberty coin. Anyway, I see a fairly high grade (raised die break through the rock that is not worn off) darkly toned coin with bright, haphazard scratches INTO the coin. The bright color = fairly fresh as they have not toned. Scrapes in the field near them are still toned. The back and forth marks with unusual stops and starts indicates scratches rather than thread. Now why would some ham-fisted idiot scratch up a coin? Does someone wish to point out the reason?

 

I guess not. Note the dark area on the rock that one poster called dirt. It looks like a dirt patch but it is corrosion and the coin was scratched in an attempt to remove it. This is called a "Spot Removal" on a Detail Label.

 

I said dirt encrustation because it appears to be gold. If you're saying this is a silver coin, then my answer would have been different. Seeing the entire coin is relevant, not for seeing the coin itself, but knowing the composition and general age of the coin gives context that in the real world you would always know when evaluating something like this.

 

Jaelus, posted: "I said dirt encrustation because it appears to be gold. If you're saying this is a silver coin, then my answer would have been different."

OK, I lied. It is a gold coin with a goldish color. Now what would you change in your answer to make it DIFFERENT?

"Seeing the entire coin is relevant, not for seeing the coin itself, but knowing the composition and general age of the coin gives context that in the real world you would always know when evaluating something like this."

I smell smoke.
As far as I know, scratches look basically the same on any coin no matter what the composition or age is. Now, to drag something obvious into the weeds... yes, the color of a scratch can change for several reasons. Would you care to name a few of them for the members? I'll read your comments in the morning.

Now back to my question...It's a gold coin. What would you change in your CORRECT ANSWER if the coin were not silver but gold?

 

@Insider, Sometimes a view of the entire coin gives you more clues of what have been done to it. One either fights with you or ignores you. Either way, you will never change so ignoring you is better when one has had enough.

I respect you knowledge, but not your demeanor on these boards. Given my age, I have probably had more years of experience, but you have probably seen more coins since it has been your profession for many years. Your put-downs don’t enhance you ability to teach. A little humility would go a long way.

 

Yup, this guy is grating on my nerves with his know-it-all attitude. He should chill.

 

WTH does anyone learn from this idiot?

 

I said I would change my answer if you're saying it is not gold. If you're saying it is gold my answer is of course the same.

I believe I had the correct answer and explanation that it was a spot removal with a small tool. Depending on the coin though, for an issue that small on an early US coin, I wouldn't be surprised to see it given a pass and net graded. I've seen similar spot removal attempts on bust coinage in straight NGC and PCGS holders.

 

Except that the corrosion goes over the "scratches" in numerous places and there is an old scratch towards the bottom that clearly goes through these "scratches". If it was die scratches (I remain unconvinced that it isn't), then if we had the denomination, date, and mint, we could look for other examples. Are you saying that you keep these microscopic images and don't even know what country they're from? It's impossible to research, so we're left with whatever you claim it is. Which I guess is the point of all of these.

 

You know... @Insider certainly has his own "personality" and I see how some of his posts can sometimes be irritating, but he probably posses more knowledge than anyone else on this forum.

I can say without a doubt, I have learned more from reading his threads (and many I didn't post in) than anyone on this site. Do I wish sometimes he did things in a way that makes it a little easier for me to follow...sure, but I still gain so much knowledge that it is worth it to me to "deal" with some of those quirks (it's not even close).

What I struggle to understand is why so many people complain about the photos he posts or how he responds...if you don't like it than just don't reply to the threads.

 

As much as I'd like to see entire coin photos (for no other reason than I like to look at photos of coins)...I understand that is not the point of this thread nor is it really relavent.

But, people complain about it in nearly every thread you start. Is it safe to say that many of the coins you post photos of (partial photos of) come from an archive you have and that are long out of your possession? Meaning, there is no way to post a full photo even if you were inclined to do so?

 

1) Not a strike thru;
2) scratches:

why:
1) the color [beneath the marks] is different from the surface, if it had been done at the time of the strike it would have the same color, and would have toned to the same degree.

2) ah, heck: the above is reason enough.

 

It looks a lot like the results from once when I tried to remove dirt and corrosion with too sharp a tool. I was being a tool, but not a sharp one. It’s too complex and tiny to be struck-thru IMHO. So, I’m going with damages from scratching.

 

PMD scratches. Because you can see that they start out lighter at the edges and are deeper towards the middle. You wouldn’t see this gradient on a struck-thru coin - at least not consistently.

 

I find it sad and disappointing that so much Coin Talk becomes argumentative, insulting, and rude.

 

You sound like you're jealous rather than smarter than the average bear.

Edit: Forgot to add

 

Since my knowledge is limited compared to others commenting and posting in this thread my comments probably only scratch the surface. Anyhow, I see two types of features in the coin. I see light scratches as evident in the duller lines. The brighter brillo looking area is brighter and appears raised. So I don't think that those are scratches.