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

At first I looked at the image and thought the "scratches" looked raised. But after more discussion I realized that the brightness of the "scratches" had to be done recently. Otherwise one would expect them to be tarnished like the other ones.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

One other thing I want to say. Unfortunately, the tone of this thread has turned personal to some. I respect the comments and opinions of all of you and try not to read into the tone of the comments (I admit I fail at times). We all have our own way of communicating and hopefully that won't get in the way of learning a thing or two. Back in the day, before I retired, I regret some of the interactions I had with a few researchers in my profession. They had a way of getting under my skin which was unfortunate. Looking back, I wish I would have had more of an open mind on some things we disagreed with; I was probably wrong more times than I was right.

 

I am not fighting against @Insider ‘s conclusion that these are scratches, but I am still confused in my own mind.

I also think the bright lines looked raised, and said so. But that conclusion is in direct contradiction to their brightness, as you say.

Some of the bright lines are also crossed by other smears. And this section is crossed by a gouge that looks the way I expect - there is evidence of metal displacement. I put a red line under the gouge I am talking about.



It seems easier to obliterate a raised line than an incuse scratch, to me. But either way this gouge is newer than the bright lines. I have trouble fitting this into a single consistent theory.

Another point I raised was that the scratches could be on the die. But I don’t see how that could work out. I suggested a worker was trying to fix something with a sharp tool and strayed into the fields - repeatedly. But, looking at the sharp boundary next to the device, you have to be using a raised device as a guide. You just cannot be that consistent working freehand next to a void in the die.



So this is the evidence that makes me finally lean towards scratches on the coin, and further, that it was probably done to remove the corrosion that is still visible in that area.

I am durned puzzled, though, about

• how the scratches are so much brighter than a gouge that crosses right through them,
• how the scratches have shadows if they are incuse, and
• how the gouge and another, fainter, mark appear to be older than the scratches, yet cut right through them.

I am not asking this to be contentious. I am actually confused and I hope someone can pull it all together for me. That would be a valued learning experience.

Finally, I have also rotated the photo to move the light source to the top right. It just feels more natural to me.

For reference, look at the lighting on the die crack. It runs almost directly at the light source. But you can see that it picks up some light on the right, and has shadows on the left, showing that it is raised above the surface and casting a shadow to the left.

 

That's the thing, isn't it? I spent the latter part of my career processing and analyzing aerial imagery. Sometimes you have to train yourself to ignore what one part of your brain is telling you and look at the evidence.

Are the denticles and the die scratches in the fields near them, "fresh"? No? Why not? They're the same brightness as the markings in question! Because your brain knows that those elements are original to the coin. You then see something that's clearly not original to the coin's design, and associate bright lighting with "recent". You decide "scratches". Your brain has made up its mind.

Your brain doesn't like unresolved visual imagery. Now that you've made up your mind, evidence to the contrary is invisible. In this case, the observable fact that the corrosion crosses over the markings in many places, and a dark, "old" scratch, goes straight through them. Is this corrosion newer than the "fresh" markings? It has to be. But you ignore that, because it has to be scratches, and you've decided. The other element is the perception of incuse versus raised. You've decided they're scratches, and you then can easily perceive them as such. It's like old black and white images of moon craters - if you view them upside down, they look like mesas and not craters. Here we have an image where strong, low angle light is clearly coming from the top, and most if not all of the markings are bright at the top and shadowed below. There are other small nicks on the coin that are obviously incuse, and they are dark at the top and bright below, as they should be.

In fact, when I zoom in on the image and flip it upside-down, I can perceive the markings as incuse. I can flip my perception to "scratches", because for some reason we presume things are illuminated from above. But if I allow my brain to include the design elements in my upside-down view, the lighting is from below and the markings quickly flip back to raised.

That's just how I perceive this image, and there's nothing else to go on. If they are in fact incuse, it's a very deceptive image. And then I'd think a knot of thread struck through is a more feasible explanation, since the other explanation is that somebody freshly scratched off corrosion that then corroded right back over the scratches.

Here's a properly oriented version of the image. I've devoted way too much time to this but it's fun.

As far as how do I know it's an 1866-S 50c Motto - you tell me!

 

RonSanderson, posted: "I am not fighting against Insider‘s conclusion that these are scratches, but I am still confused in my own mind."

THANK Goodness. Now we can go from here. The first thing to remember is "KISS" - keep it simple.

"I also think the bright lines looked raised, and said so. But that conclusion is in direct contradiction to their brightness, as you say."

Unfortunately, there is nothing I can add to refute anyone who thinks the jagged scratches into the coin are raised.

"Some of the bright lines are also crossed by other smears. And this section is crossed by a gouge that looks the way I expect - there is evidence of metal displacement. I put a red line under the gouge I am talking about."

This I can refute. You are not looking at a "Gouge!" A gouge is usually a large, deep mark into the surface. Gouges are obvious naked eye damage not a tiny hairline scratch that thinly grazes the surface at high powers of magnification. We have also decided that the dark residue may be dirt rather than corrosion. If so, it may have become smeared in an attempt to cover the scratches that did not work.

"It seems easier to obliterate a raised line than an incuse scratch, to me. But either way this gouge is newer than the bright lines. I have trouble fitting this into a single consistent theory."

Any marks that go over the scratches like the "hairline" must have come later.

"Another point I raised was that the scratches could be on the die. But I don’t see how that could work out. I suggested a worker was trying to fix something with a sharp tool and strayed into the fields - repeatedly. But, looking at the sharp boundary next to the device, you have to be using a raised device as a guide. You just cannot be that consistent working freehand next to a void in the die"

What an Excellent observation! I never thought of that. The same thinking applies to raised die polish!

So this is the evidence that makes me finally lean towards scratches on the coin, and further, that it was probably done to remove the corrosion that is still visible in that area.

I am durned puzzled, though, about

• how the scratches are so much brighter than a gouge that crosses right through them, [Easy, the hairline barely broke the surface while the scratches are wider and deep.]
• how the scratches have shadows if they are incuse, [It's all about the lighting. Plus, you are looking at a micrograph. The toned metal has been pushed up at the boarder of the scratches.]
• how the gouge and another, fainter, mark appear to be older than the scratches, yet cut right through them. [They must have occurred after the major damage.]

"I am not asking this to be contentious. [Of course not, there is nothing heated going on in this thread EXCEPT from the whiners who don't like my abrasive comments.] I am actually confused and I hope someone can pull it all together for me. That would be a valued learning experience."

You've done a good job pulling it together all by yourself ("gouge" excepted )

"For reference, look at the lighting on the die crack. It runs almost directly at the light source. But you can see that it picks up some light on the right, and has shadows on the left, showing that it is raised above the surface and casting a shadow to the left."

KBBPLL, posted: "That's the thing, isn't it? I spent the latter part of my career processing and analyzing aerial imagery. Sometimes you have to train yourself to ignore what one part of your brain is telling you and look at the evidence.

Are the denticles and the die scratches in the fields near them, "fresh"? No? Why not? They're the same brightness as the markings in question! [NO they are not. Not even close, but it would be rude to wonder about the imaging analysis experience you mentioned because of this.] Because your brain knows that those elements are original to the coin. You then see something that's clearly not original to the coin's design, and associate bright lighting with "recent". You decide "scratches". Your brain has made up its mind.

That's a perfect and simple explanation. Thanks. My eyes look at the coin and the first thing that I see are scratches that are not part of its design. THAT'S WHERE I STOP THINKING, take a picture and move on to the next coin. Since I'm a simple man of few words, I've deleted the rest of your very detailed post on the workings of a much more intelligent mind than mine. Thanks for your interest/posts.

As far as how do I know it's an 1866-S 50c Motto - you tell me!

You are the one who tried to ID the coin. I asked how did you pick that date. I'm not surprised that you turned my question back to me rather than educate us. At least you replied. Most folks don't reply at all to my questions. That makes me the bad guy for asking.

Crickets.

 

Wait, I can't remember when "we" decided that. So it's dirt covering the corrosion that covers the scratches? Oops, it's newer dirt covering the new scratches used to try to erase the old corrosion, which apparently we can't see anymore because the dirt is covering them? See what I mean about how your brain works once you've decided something?

Start with, how did I determine the denomination? You can't learn anything if I just feed you the answers. [wink]

 

Yes but when I looked at the image - I was expecting the answer to the puzzle to be something truly unique. Therefore what turned out to be a scratch or two; my mind, due to the appearance of being raised, transformed them into an actual white thread retained by the coin due to a strike through. When I see a scratch, I expect to see damage that is linear and straight like. On this coin the scratch meanders all around doodling unbroken hither and there.

 

I look at it as someone using a tool to scrape off something. That would possibly explain the doodling.

 

I am not disputing the real answer to the puzzle - just explaining and giving the reasons for my incorrect solution to the puzzle.

 

KBBPLL, posted: "Wait, I can't remember when "we" decided that. So it's dirt covering the corrosion that covers the scratches? Oops, it's newer dirt covering the new scratches used to try to erase the old corrosion, which apparently we can't see anymore because the dirt is covering them? See what I mean about how your brain works once you've decided something?

This is how my brain or anyone with an open mind who is not ducking out of their opinion works:

The coin is silver. Silver is an active metal. There was lots of end stage environmental damage on its surface. Therefore, follow this malarkey NOT going on in my mind:


My brain doesn't like unresolved visual imagery. Now that I've made up my mind, evidence to the contrary is invisible. In this case, the observable fact that the corrosion crosses over the markings in many places, and a dark, "old" scratch, goes straight through them. Is this corrosion newer than the "fresh" markings? It has to be. But I ignore that, because it has to be corrosion, and I've decided. The other element is the perception of an incuse versus raised deposit. I've decided it's raised and I can easily perceive them as such. It's like old black and white images of moon craters - if you view them upside down, they look like mesas and not craters. Here we have an image where strong, low angle light is clearly coming from the top, and most if not all of the markings are bright at the top and shadowed below. There are other small nicks on the coin that are obviously incuse, and they are dark at the top and bright below, as they should be.

Now after all of that, I've decided that there is a raised dark corrosion deposit on the coin combined with scratches. Then, many of the other WE's suggested that rather than corrosion it may just be dark DIRT. I'll give them that as the coin is no longer here. Anyone else posting here who did not understand my reference to "we?"

 

As to this refusal to answer a simple question possibly because he can be proven wrong :

KBBPLL, posted: "Start with, how did I determine the denomination [and DATE & MINT]? You can't learn anything if I just feed you the answers."

That's Very true, BUT YOU ALREADY POSTED THAT YOU THINK THE COIN IS A 1866-S Motto 50c. I asked how you know so I can either refute your opinion or learn from you. Personally, I hope you are correct. That part of the die is subject to breaks. There is an 1866-S No Motto coin with a similar break in a slightly different position.

 

So, between all the bickering about non-full coin photos and what kind of coin it is...I missed if it was ever decided if this was scratches or a struck through. I see people talking about characteristics of scratches...but was the original question ever answered?

 

Yes.

GDJMSP, posted: "I think it was about 2 pages ago when he said the marks were scratches."

 

I see it now, post #23. Thanks.

 

Sorry to post again, but I missed something.

I thought the bright lines were the entire scratches. They aren’t. The scratches are actually wider than I thought, as shown here.


That affects my conclusions.

The light source is from the top right in this rotated photo. The light hits the inside of the scratches on the side away from the light source. The side of the scratch nearer the light is in shadow, but is also just a little brighter than the fields.

I no longer think they are raised.

The line that crosses the bright lines (it’s between the pair of lines at the left) now is obviously the same width as the other incuse lines. It seems likely it happened at the same event, with the underneath scratches made first and the darker one a moment later. I think it just looks darker because of the angle of the light source.

 

Newer scratches .IMHO

 

That was my conclusion as well about those different colored "cross" lines. Just light reflecting differently, giving the illusion of being older and less oxidized PSD (Post Strike Damage).