Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Insider, post: 7924988, member: 24314&quot;]RonSanderson, posted: &quot;I am not fighting against Insider‘s conclusion that these are scratches, but I am still confused in my own mind.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: #660033">THANK Goodness. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie8" alt=":D" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />&nbsp; Now we can go from here.&nbsp; The first thing to remember is &quot;KISS&quot; - keep it simple.&nbsp; </span></p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;I also think the bright lines looked raised, and said so. But that conclusion is in direct contradiction to their brightness, as you say.&quot;&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: #660033">Unfortunately, there is nothing I can add to refute anyone who thinks the jagged scratches into the coin are raised.&nbsp; </span></p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;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.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: #660033">This I can refute.&nbsp; You are not looking at a &quot;Gouge!&quot;&nbsp; A gouge is usually a large, deep mark into the surface.&nbsp; Gouges are obvious naked eye damage not a tiny&nbsp; hairline scratch that thinly grazes the surface at high powers of magnification.&nbsp; We have also decided that the dark residue may be dirt rather than corrosion.&nbsp; If so, it may have become smeared in an attempt to cover the scratches that did not work.&nbsp; </span></p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;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.&quot;&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: #660033">Any marks that go over the scratches like the &quot;hairline&quot; must have come later. </span></p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;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&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: #660033"><b>What an Excellent observation!</b>&nbsp; I never thought of that.&nbsp; The same thinking applies to raised die polish!</span></p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>I am durned puzzled, though, about</p><ul> <li>how the scratches are so much brighter than a gouge that crosses right through them, [<span style="color: #660033">Easy, the hairline barely broke the surface while the scratches are wider and deep.</span>] </li> <li>how the scratches have shadows if they are incuse, [<span style="color: #660033">It&#039;s all about the lighting.&nbsp; Plus, you are looking at a micrograph.&nbsp; The toned metal has been pushed up at the boarder of the scratches.]</span></li> <li>how the gouge and another, fainter, mark appear to be older than the scratches, yet cut right through them. [<span style="color: #660033">They must have occurred after the major damage.]</span></li> </ul><p>&quot;I am not asking this to be contentious. [<span style="color: #660033">Of course not, there is nothing heated going on in this thread EXCEPT from the whiners who don&#039;t like my abrasive comments.</span>]&nbsp; I am actually confused and I hope someone can pull it all together for me. That would be a valued learning experience.&quot;&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: #660033">You&#039;ve done a good job pulling it together all by yourself (&quot;gouge&quot; excepted</span> <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie7" alt=":p" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" />)</p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;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.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>KBBPLL, posted: &quot;That&#039;s the thing, isn&#039;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.</p><p><br /></p><p>Are the denticles and the die scratches in the fields near them, &quot;fresh&quot;? No? Why not? <b><span style="color: #b30000">They&#039;re the same brightness as the markings in question! </span></b>[<span style="color: #660033"><b><i>NO they are not.&nbsp; Not even close, </i></b>but it would be rude <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie93" alt=":troll:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /><img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie25" alt=":blackeye:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> to wonder about the imaging analysis experience you mentioned because of this.</span>]&nbsp; Because your brain knows that those elements are original to the coin. You then see something that&#039;s <b>clearly not original to the coin&#039;s design,</b> and associate bright lighting with &quot;recent&quot;. You decide &quot;scratches&quot;. Your brain has made up its mind.&nbsp; </p><p><br /></p><p><span style="color: #660033">That&#039;s a perfect and simple explanation. Thanks.&nbsp; My eyes look at the coin and the first thing that I see are <b><font size="6">scratches that are not part of its design</font></b>.&nbsp; THAT&#039;S WHERE I STOP THINKING, take a picture and move on to the next coin.&nbsp; Since I&#039;m a simple man of few words, I&#039;ve deleted the rest of your very detailed post on the workings of a much more intelligent mind than mine.&nbsp; Thanks for your interest/posts.&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></p><p><br /></p><p>As far as how do I know it&#039;s an 1866-S 50c Motto - you tell me!</p><p><br /></p><p><img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie11" alt=":rolleyes:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> <span style="color: #660033">You are the one who tried to ID the coin.&nbsp; I asked how <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie90" alt=":spitoutdummy:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> did you pick that date.&nbsp; </span><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 51)">I&#039;m not surprised that you <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie25" alt=":blackeye:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> turned my question back to <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie30" alt=":bucktooth:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> me rather than educate us.&nbsp; At least you replied. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie59" alt=":joyful:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> Most folks don&#039;t reply at all to my questions. That makes me <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie93" alt=":troll:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /> the bad guy for asking.</span></p><p><span style="color: #660033"><br /></span></p><p><span style="color: #660033">Crickets. <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie66" alt=":muted:" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></span>[/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