Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;charley, post: 6550320, member: 5372&quot;]The Bucs lost. </p><p>the goalpost was moved, again!</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>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?</p><p><br /></p><p>What tools did the operator have to polish dies with?</p><p><br /></p><p>Just a small example: A new Morgan die was held against a slightly concave rotating zinc disc.</p><p><br /></p><p>This was basining and gave the die&nbsp; a slightly convex shape. Consider the disc was not the right concave.</p><p><br /></p><p>Polishing wheels, wire brushes, emery sticks, etc., were also all used by the operator, on dirty dies, filled in letters, etc.</p><p><br /></p><p>A curved wooden block with zinc facing was also used.</p><p><br /></p><p>A reason that the New Orleans $ has a &#039;flat&quot; appearance and poor strike above the ear was because the disc was not concave enough.</p><p><br /></p><p>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?</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>All of this information, their comments, and many others can be found on PCGS.</p><p><br /></p><p>It just so happens the&nbsp; same subject, btw, was discussed in 2009, there.[/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