Do proof coins have die polish lines?

I hope to hit FMTM this weekend.....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Is that not a contradiction to your earlier posit that the operator was in a hurry so that caused the issue?

I have noted that your opinions change and contradict your previous posits, and metamorphize into new "fact" when the opinion you post is discounted or another opinion that is not in agreement with you

It is not a convincing position, when your reply to someone that disagrees with your opinion is ".....by all means, tell us blahblah blah". It is silly. That tactic is intended to belittle and dismiss a person, and re-direct the conversation using non-applicable comments that appear to be statements of fact.

It is easier to simply state you are right, and everything you state is fact.

However, absolutely nothing stated via Burdette/Physics confirms you are right, or agree with your opinion, or that it is fact. The simple aspect that it is an opinion negates a posit that your opinion is fact. Have you ever physically tested your opinions on a die? Have you ever fabricated s4s stainless?

It may also be helpful if you describe what emery is and how it is used and how it is embedded in, say, leather, as an example, so the persons reading the thread that may not know will gain an insight.

 

New question .
How long do you think it took, to strike 600 coins ?

 

From 1 machine ? 5 minutes, tops.

 

For business strikes, sure. Not for proofs. Proofs were individually made on a medal press, at higher strike pressures. They were also often struck twice. These were more time consuming to produce.

 

And at least later with the Barber dimes (which I'm more familiar with), they coined proofs in batches quarterly based on customer orders - March, June, Sep, Dec. I haven't see monthly coinage records for 1873 though.

Not to belabor the die polish discussion, but I just ran into this 1916 10c MS65 this morning. The random orientation of the lines seems to indicate it was done by hand, and rather sloppily.

 

As another person commented Heritage has some pictures of 1873 proofs with die polish. This is true and I had already looked at them. However, I did some more digging and found that the proofs were struck with the V-2 dies. There were two die sets known to be used that year. V-1 and V-2. However, the V-2 not only struck proofs they were also used to strike circulation grade coins. The die set V-2 is known to have heavy die polish lines seen. Now the tricky part is determining whether or not your coin is a true proof or mint state coin. I'm going with mint state based on the condition of the rims and the overall sharpness of the lettering on the obverse and reverse. This is only an opinion and my opinion could be wrong. I would only buy it as mint state and not proof. However, there isn't much of a difference in price. If you bought it as the coin in the PCGS holder you did well.

 

The Bucs lost.
the goalpost was moved, again!

Have you had the opportunity to test your theories/opinions on a die? I am serious, because it would add much to the converstaion, if you have, or if you have original research records from the U.S. Mint.

Do you have any U.S. Mint records from the time that conclude the methods used, and/or what type of emery was used, that would be different from the Burdette/Physics/firstmint research?

What tools did the operator have to polish dies with?

Just a small example: A new Morgan die was held against a slightly concave rotating zinc disc.

This was basining and gave the die a slightly convex shape. Consider the disc was not the right concave.

Polishing wheels, wire brushes, emery sticks, etc., were also all used by the operator, on dirty dies, filled in letters, etc.

A curved wooden block with zinc facing was also used.

A reason that the New Orleans $ has a 'flat" appearance and poor strike above the ear was because the disc was not concave enough.

So, were the operators attentive and exacting, or in a hurry and sloppy? Did these actions cause a pl coin? What would happen with a coin being struck as a proof, in these situations?

The hobby has RWB and Capt.Henway and firstmint, and danruether, et al, to thank for the dissemination of fact concerning proof and/or pl/dmpl methods/reasons, and mint operator practices.

All of this information, their comments, and many others can be found on PCGS.

It just so happens the same subject, btw, was discussed in 2009, there.