Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Coinchemistry 2012, post: 2054495, member: 28107&quot;]The acid re-etch method was not at play here and would not explain the lines that are characteristic of the so called &quot;re-polish&quot; proofs.&nbsp; And I think you are getting caught up on semantics here.&nbsp; As the quote above notes that an abrasive (diamond dust) and a brush were used to in the recesses to remove nicks, scrapes, and other signs of die wear (i.e. to attempt to smooth out, at least somewhat, the devices as best as was possible).&nbsp; As such, it is fair to call it a polishing process.&nbsp; It additionally produced the cameo contrasts. Now admittedly, it was crude and hence the resulting marks on the die.&nbsp; Nevertheless, given one of its purposes was to remove nicks and other severe marks, it is absolutely fair to call it a polishing process.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>[/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