Do proof coins have die polish lines?

The point being, why would dies get polished after only 600 uses...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

A clash is the usual suspect.

 

It may have occurred long before reaching 600, and many reasons....clash, annealing, adjustments, etc.

Proof is sort of an anomaly, in a way; it is a process as opposed to a must achieve goal.

The Physics book and Burdette books are excellent sources of info.

 

How many dies could have been used for 600 coins ?

 

That is a good question. How many failed, and after how many strikes? This particular date has a known number, and if I recall, 2.
There are a couple of members here that would know. I am not at my library, or I would be most happy to answer right now.
There is a half dime forum that also has the info, and I also think it is info on the Heritage site.

 

CircCam, posted: "I would send to PCGS for crossover and note your thoughts. Perhaps it would give them some satisfaction to find that it is a PL business strike in an NGC proof holder, worst case scenario it stays in the NGC holder but I’d say the upside of a pop. 1 PL is worth the attempt."

NGC has a guarantee. If there is a price difference, they may owe you some money. However, they may claim label error.
Don't crack it out. Send it to PCGS w/ instructions to crack out and grade ONLY IF A PROOF.

GoldFinger1969, post: "For those of us who are not experts, can we define what EXACTLY is "die polish" ?

Very busy.
Look it up for yourself so you remember. If you still don't figure it out, ask again. I'm sure someone will reply.

Is it a "look" that dies take on once they are polished to strike with the proof look ?

NO!

 

Die Polish (raised) in field of MS coin.

 

It sure looks like a business strike to me (I'm only looking at a set of static images, though). The weakness of the strike, the die polish, and the apparent rounded edge all scream MS to me. It doesn't have the look of a proof coin.

There is a very good chance that this was struck from proof dies - as a business strike. This was very common in that era. Dies were very expensive to make, so they'd strike the proofs they need and then re-use the die for business strikes.

Well, the dies would have also been polished before being used the first time. They had to polish them to get the original bright mirror. Usually, they would then smooth out the polish lines for that mirrored surface everyone loves. After that, if there was a die clash then common practice was to buff it out.

"Die polish" is exactly what it sounds like. The dies were polished, usually with an emery board. Remember, the die is the inverse of the coin, so the fields are the high points of the die. When the polishing tool was used, it would leave hairlines on the surface of the die (hairlines on a coin from cleaning the coin are sunk into the coin). Now, the die is placed on service and all those hairlines on the die leave a raised set of lines on the coin.

One of the key ways to tell if a coin has die polish or surface hairlines from cleaning - cleaning hairlines will go "over" the devices, die polish will go "under the devices. A letter on a die is sunk into the die, so the polishing tool won't touch it, only the fields. A letter on a coin is raised, so the cleaning brush will leave hairlines on the letter as well as the fields.

Die polish could appear on any kind of coin, business strike or proof, silver or gold. It was standard practice at the mint to polish the dies if there were problems (such as a clash, or rust).

This is wrong. Proof dies were completely normal dies that were polished and used in a special press to make proofs. There was nothing special about the dies. In some cases, dies which had been used already were polished and struck proofs, and then returned to business strikes. This is uncommon after the Bust era (1836).

You are absolutely correct - the first few dozen off a freshly polished die, or a proof die that was retired, could be proof-like.

 

Great answers, PF, you cleared it up alot for me !!

 

This thread has been covering a lot of topics centered around the OP's coin and question but I would like to try to address @GoldFinger1969 's questions as it relates to 19th century coins:

First of all, die polish was used to both create new dies and to refurbish old dies, for both business strikes and proofs. The preparation of planchets and dies for proofs, including polishing, was more intensive and exacting than it was for business strikes.

Having said that, it is important to understand that it is impossible to make a single general statement about 19th century proof dies. For some dates and issues, proof dies were sometimes used for business strikes and, more rarely, vice versa. You have to know the details of the individual coin to make any determination.

My resources on LS half dimes (the books by Al Blythe and Kevin Flynn) have this to say:

- there were 15 dies used to strike the 1873 no arrows half dimes (unclear if this included proof dies or not).

- there were 600 half dimes minted as part of the "Silver Sets" prior to the April 1, 1873 abolition of the half dime and LS Dollar.

- Per Blythe: "Many of the 600 proofs were melted along with some business strikes in July 1873. There is no estimate of the survivors."

- Per Flynn (Not specifying proofs or business strikes): "I have seen specimens where the entire obverse die has very pronounced die polish lines."

- Per Will W. Neil in The Numismatist ca, 1927: "No. 2...struck with broken or badly scratched obverse die. Many faint hairline scratches encircle Liberty and heavier ones, which appear as faint breaks, connect D of UNITED and Liberty's head to rim."

- Per Valentine: "Var. 2 Rev. Right end of ribbon is just clear. Proof" Op's coin matches this description. but Obverse more closely matches Var. 1 which is a business strike, I think.

So, is there any conclusion from this? Not a firm conclusion but IMHO, the look of the coin, the lack of wire rims, the heavy die lines, plus what little attribution data I could find lead me to believe that this is a business strike. The fact that the heavy die lines persist along with a PL appearance of the fields makes me think that this obverse strike was one of the first off a newly polished V1 business strike obverse die and that the reverse die is one of the re-purposed proof dies.

Obviously I cannot prove this contention and I would love seeing some additional hard data or informed opinion.

 

So, in this instance that the coin most likely has the markers present for a proof die, besides what we see as evidence that it is most likely an early use of a proof die used to strike MS coins. Do you also have the opinion that NGC and PCGS have there designation wrong. especially on the DCAM and some CAM examples.
The polish lines are seen on most if not all coins designated DCAM on Coinfacts, even some CAM examples.

 

I don't have a blanket agreement with this opinion.

 

I, again, don't have a blanket agreement with this opinion.

 

Is it the blurry blotch....or is the very fine, thin lines ??

 

Thanks for the great response Publius (and all of you veteran experts).

One thing that us non-experts have to get used to....most of us grew up with Proof coins from the 1970's and later when they were super-shiny and mirror-like. Proofs I have bought in the last 20 years or so are so polished that the fields are dark, milky BLACK.

When I look at Proofs from pre-1970 and especially a century or more ago......they look totally different. In fact, the Mint changed the look of the early Saint-Gaudens after 1908 because they weren't selling so they went from Sandblast (close to a matte proof) to Satin. Collectors wanted mirror-like or close to that and for some reason the Mint said they couldn't do that (not sure if it was a die or polish or time thing, but it's quoted in Bowers book via Burdette's original sourcing).

Even the Proof Saints and other coins back then don't look as mirror-like and "proofy" as today's coins. Better quality gold and higher gold content might be part of the reason, but I suspect it is just a quantum improvement in the striking and polishing methods used today.

 

Goldfinger, physics-fan3.14, already posted: "When the polishing tool was used, it would leave hairlines on the surface of the die (hairlines on a coin from cleaning the coin are sunk into the coin). Now, the die is placed on service and all those hairlines on the die leave a raised set of lines on the coin.

So, is the evidence of a polished die the blurry patch or the thin lines?

 

Thanks Insider....there's so much good info in this thread I can get confused when a question got definitively answered as I advance forward.

 

QUESTION:

Vintage dies were made from hubs. Please describe what the mark on a finished coin will look like when circular polish lines occur on a hub?

PLEASE LET THE LESS KNOWLEDGEABLE MEMBERS HAVE A CHANCE TO THINK THIS OUT. I know many of you know the answer.