A scratch on the die would show as raised metal. You were discounting a scratch on the die for that reason. In so doing, you were not discounting a scratch on the coin. We were saying it's a scratch on the coin. Do you now understand?
Let me have a stab at it. If you scratch a coin, you displace some metal. That metal shows up as raised metal to the side of the scratch...OK?
But you're missing the issue. I maintained when he said "scratch" he was referring to a scratch on the die, while we were initially saying it was a scratch on the coin. You're right, though, it doesn't look like a scratch on the coin, now, as the sides of the scratch would be expected to be raised. Are you following all this?
That would be cool if you could train them to infiltrate Ft. Knox, and every few days return to go to the bathroom. Chris
April fool! OK, here goes...Correct Answer: Struck Thru and judging where this coin was produced it is thread. Looking at the magnified image (15X) my eye is drawn to the "scratches" (marks/lines) AND the granular surface with poor relief. The marks appear to be into the coin's surface. They run across the field and leaf design. There are actually three types of scratch-like marks in this image. The major one (struck thru) is the characteristic to be named in this contest. Between the "I" & "T" is a tiny squiggle (struck thru) also into the surface and if you look really closely you may see a few thin, bright, hairlines running diagonally across the photo. The long "lines" and the small squiggle are not "fresh." They have the same basic color as the coin's field. Notice that they also do not have sharp edges (rounded). Larger scratches (not thin ones or hairlines) on a BU coin may start with sharp edges but these are commonly worn down. These two characteristics tell you that something was between the die and planchet when the coin was struck. The curved shape is the clue to lint or thread. These lines could not be from scratches on the die as in that case the marks would be raised on the coin. Extra credit: Coin is a counterfeit Morgan dollar.
OH NO! I posted a long answer under this Post right away ...LOL! OK @Treashunt, Joke's on me. I started to explain that after reading your post#36 - I thought my post #34 did not print out after all the time I spent writing it Lucky I scrolled up this thread or I would have answered again
In case you didn't know, Jackie Gleason played his own trick shots in the movie, but all of Paul Newman's trick shots were performed by Willie Mosconi (who played the racker). A lot of people don't know this but Jackie Gleason was a pretty good amateur player in his own right. In my opinion, he was better than Minnesota Fats. As a matter of fact, Minnesota Fats was a purely fictitious character. Rudolph Wanderone was known as Brooklyn Fats, but when Walter Tevis' book "The Hustler" was released, he changed his name to Minnesoat Fats. When the movie made its debut in the Washington, DC area in 1963 (I think) I had the privilege of playing 4 straight pool exhibition matches with Mosconi. I won one of the matches, but at 16, it was quite an honor just to be in the same pool hall with the 15-time world champion. Chris
It's one of my favorite movies since I was a kid. I knew Jackie Gleason knew what he was doing. That was Willie Mosconi playing the racker? Wow, I didn't know. I'll bet he did that trick shot when they hustled the bar in the beginning of the movie. For you to actually play him must have really been inspiring. What made you go off to 9-ball?