GTG: Guess the Grade! US Trade Dollar

This is categorically false and even a former CAC/NGC grader agreed with me (and others) that die polish lines can cross the devices (i.e. the "details").

The lines do not look raised to me and look like cleaning hairlines, but I would need to see the coin in hand to make a definitive determination. Regardless, I don't like the coin as it looks dipped out. I hate dipped circulated coins.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Interesting. Can you please explain how a large flat wheel can get into the crevices on a die.

 

I'm not going to rehash the entire debate again here, but among other misconceptions concerning die polish lines including whether they can traverse the devices, see this thread https://www.cointalk.com/threads/ceaning-or-die-polish.256575/page-2. A more informative version appears on the NGC forums and contains contributions from at least three authors of well respected coin books or coin periodicals and at least three who either are or were associated with a top 3 third party grading service, http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=8239230&fpart=1 (the good part starts after the first 2-3 pages or so). I also recommend reading Roger Burdette's From Mine to Mint. Insofar as the referenced poster (the former NGC grader and cameo CAC grader), he remarked that it was common particularly in the Barber series in the shallow part of the devices.

And as far as my personal experience, one of the areas that I collect heavily is proof coinage from 1936-1942, which often display die polish lines. One of the chief complaints when proof coinage of this era was released was concerning the appearance of some satin proof coins. Collectors at the time preferred brilliant coinage associated with the pre-matte proof era. The Mint began to heavily polish all of the dies to restore brilliant proof coinage. As such, it is very common for the dies to have been overpolished and the resulting coins will have heavy die polish lines often on the devices. Moreover, the dies were polished so heavily that often minor design element details were obliterated in the process. This would seemingly only be caused conceivably by die polish as more substantive repairs or other processes that some attempt to distinguish from die polish lines would have had more profound effects on the resulting coinage. Moreover, the lines are raised and fine, suggesting that they are die polish. And again, remember that the dies were heavily polished with the intent to effect a brilliant finish on the resulting coinage, so there is a clear reason for these lines being so common on coinage of this area (and these are NOT cleaning hairlines - statistically what are the odds that a sizeable portion of the total mintage was cleaned and happened to have the exact same pattern of lines?). I don't know how anyone could logically call them anything other than die polishing lines. Now, you mention a large polishing wheel. Proof coinage of this era and PL coinage suggest that this isn't the sole method. RWB's post ATS starts to go there, but doesn't develop it as far it could.

 

But neither of those pictures are of die polishing lines. They are of die scratches typically done at the press to removes dirt etc. from the die. Yes, they can enter the devises. Die polishing is done with a large flat polishing wheel. They would be completely parallel, but typically you cannot see them. For instance, cameo proofs are made by sandblasting (or otherwise roughing) the entire die surface - the devises and all - and then polishing the fields.

Again, I will repeat;

BTW, just what do you think they used to "polish" these dies you are referring to? If it is the wheels they have at the mint, please explain how anything gets into the devises. If other, please explain how it makes the fields mirror flat.

 

You are not looking at the proof coin that Robec posted later in one of the threads that is characteristic of coins from this era. Perhaps it was posted on the NGC thread and not the one here. The coin displays raised lines that cover all of Mr. Lincoln's bust. I might buy your die scratch argument if the lines didn't cover all of the devices with a clear pattern (i.e. it was to remove a specific area that contained debris). Second, your argument ignores that the dies were polished more heavily (including the devices) to effect the brilliant finish that was sought. Third, the Mint did not attempt to introduce cameo contrasts on coinage of this era (and the limited pieces that do exist are scarce or outright rare). The devices during this period were NOT sandblasted or roughed to produce a cameo finish (which could produce lines such as those seen in so called "repolished" proofs from the 1950s and in later periods), so nothing associated with those processes could explain the lines produced here. Fourth, the finer details of the design are often removed consistent with over-polishing of the die. So in effect, we have lines consistent with processes that were introduced in order to produce a brilliant mirror finish on the coins. If the lines were introduced in attempts to produce a mirror-like finish (which the practices and evidence suggest that this was the case), then I don't see how these could logically be called anything other than die polish lines. But don't take my word for it alone. Per expert numismatist, historian, and author of among other numismatic treatises From Mine to Mint, Roger W. Burdette, the U.S. Mint used the term "polishing" to refer "to [the] deliberate production of mirror-likes surfaces." (see NGC thread, supra).


This photo belongs to Randy Campbell. I hope he doesn't mind me borrowing it.

Roger mentions a number of things that have been used historically in die preparation and polishing. Again, I would refer you to the NGC thread and his book. As for the coin posted above, I don't know what instrument specifically was used to polish the coin above, but it is clear that coins from this era were struck from highly polished dies and the coins show loss of details on the devices consistent with over-polishing on the devices. In light of that, I find the conclusion (especially with the coin pictured and the resulting pattern of lines) inescapable that we are observing evidence of die polishing (i.e. "die polish lines").

Die polishing has little to do with the relief of the coin, so I am not sure what your point is here. In any event, are you suggesting that there couldn't exist more than one process for preparing a die?

 

Your (Campbell's) picture is of a planchet in origin.
What you have failed to answer is just what devices can possibly get into the crevices to "polish" the die? If it scratches the die, just how can it polish them?

Oh, and the mint's processes have produced cameo coins for centuries. i.e. http://coins.ha.com/itm/morgan-doll...893-1-pr65-deep-cameo-pcgs-cac/a/1212-3700.s;

 

As to the op coin it looks like scrubbing of the die to remove foreign material. And yes they can go into the devices just not often. The biggest giveaway that can only be told with a loupe or magnification is all die lines will be slightly RAISED as metal was removed from the die. Cleaning lines will be hollowed as metal was removed from the coin.

 

Let's remember that we are looking at a Business Strike coin from the late 19th century. I trust the Anacs folks to be able to tell die polish from post-mint polish. The die was re-basined, perhaps to improve striking or to remove damage/debris. This resulted in PL surfaces. That the lines criss cross and run in different directions tells me that the die was hand held while they were created. Burdette documents this in From Mine to Mint, referencing Trade Dollar dies interestingly enough.

Remember that Proof dies were prepared differently and were polished in the engraving department, not in the production area. (see From Mine to Mint)

 

Die polish lines are incuse areas (dare I call them scratches) on the die that appear as raised lines on the resulting coinage. These lines scatter light and produce mirror-like surfaces that are observed (hence the polished look on the die and often the reflective fields on the resulting coinage). When polishing metal, lines will result even if they are very fine, they will be there. The key here, as Burdette notes, is that the lines are introduced in attempts to polish the die. This is what the Mint officially considers "polishing" and it follows that the resulting lines are "die polish lines." I am not sure why you find this confusing as it seems obvious.

With regards to your other comments, I think I have been quite clear. I referred you to the more detailed answers to your questions. I am not going to hijack the OP's thread. Nevertheless, I vehemently disagree that the marks we are seeing on Randy Campbell's coins are due to the planchet itself. Statistically, it is far too odd that the marks would just happen to be coincidentally limited to devices (i.e. the swirling pattern we see on Mr. Lincoln). Moreover, we see this same phenomenon often in proof coinage of this era. What are the odds that all of the planchet lines would be obliterated every time and the remaining marks would all be localized in the same region? I don't know about you, but I don't believe in numismatic miracles. And how can I say that it is die polish? Because it is evident that the Mint polished the devices during this era and for this reason, fine details are often missing from the proof coinage of this era. Because the marks are characteristic of die polish lines and I can establish that the devices were polished based on the practices and resulting coinage of the period, I don't see how it can be called anything other than die polish.

Perhaps you should reread my post. If you actually did read it, you are not comprehending what I told you. I acknowledged the existence of pre-matte proof cameos in my post which would include coins struck in the 1800s and early 1900s for U.S. coins. I own cameo coins from this period including a top pop Liberty Head Nickel. But, the Mint did not intentionally produce cameo finishes on the coinage from 1936-1942. The commonly cited reason is that the Mint wasn't interested in doing so and it struggled enough to restore the brilliant proof coinage of the pre-Matte proof era. The people who produced the older coins (such as the Morgan or Barber coinage, for instance) had retired or died. Since the techniques you cited to intentionally introduce cameo contrasts were not used during this era, then these techniques can not be the source of the lines we are seeing. This also explains the true rarity of cameos from this piece.

 

Nope! The key here is "polish in the crevices". Yes, you can take a knife and scratch into most crevices. Funny, but that does not make a polished surface. So you take something finer to polish and it requires speed. Now these if bristles (or whatever you choose to call them) are fine enough to get into the minute crevice, they are so soft they will not polish the crevices because they fly over the depths. If they are stiff enough to get into the crevice, they make big scratches and require excessive force so the surface becomes massively distorted and scratched. There is nothing that will both polish and not scratch or if you know of it, patent it and become rich.

 

This is distinguishable on a number of levels, and it should be obvious that the two are not comparable. The marks produced by polishing are very fine (as you even admit!) and very shallow, and a pattern of very small lines clustered together can scatter light and cause optical effects that produce the mirrored appearance that our eye detects. It is nothing like the rough texture and deep pitting caused by a knife blade.

Or rouge/polish. I'm not stating or implying that this is the cause, but one could absolutely hand polish the die with a polishing cloth and rouge and produce very small lines that would be detectable with enough magnification. It doesn't necessarily require the heavy machinery that you seem to think it does.

Who said anything about bristles? You make so many assumptions, all of which are baseless. So far your argument is that the Mint has used one particular method, and you think this one method is dispositive of all die polishing. I am saying that the coinage suggests otherwise. It does not follow logically that if method X has been used to produce Y, then X and only X is used.

I specifically said this. Again, I am going to make the assumption that you have NOT read all of my posts in their entirety or the referenced threads. Perhaps that is because you made up your mind from the beginning and want to believe certain things. Believe whatever you want, but the evidence (i.e. resulting coinage) suggests that your view is not completely accurate.

In any event, I am done with this thread. I will simply caution readers not to believe everything that you read on the internet. The fact that XYZ poster states something and has a large number of posts does not make it fact. And this is not to single out any particular poster(s). Consult with reputable sources and make your own determinations!

 

You keep avoiding the question. If you attempted to push a cloth into the crevices to polish them, you would be Charles Atlas before you were done. You don't polish hardened metal dies like you do silver. And, as soft as you seen to think a cloth is, I will bet it still could not reach into Lincoln's ear on the die. Don't believe me? Take a polishing cloth and try to polish Lincolns ear hole on the coin. Good luck. Oh, and remember that die is 100 times as hard.

BTW, a mirrored surface REFLECTS light. It does not scatter light.

 

I answered your question. Your question was predicated upon the assumption that only a large rotary wheel was used. I stated that I disagreed with that and posted a link where other methods and related process were discussed. So regardless of whether a large rotary wheel could reach into the devices, it does not follow that die polish lines never enter the devices if other alternative and/or additional methods were used. And that is why I referenced Burdette's book and the other thread. And the point of contention of this thread was whether die polish lines could ever cross into the devices, not a specific method.

Touch up re-polishing of the die after every several strikes doesn't require as much effort as you seem to think it does. You wouldn't be doing the whole thing de novo necessarily.

I am aware.

Strawman arguments are always fun.

On coins, die polish lines create the PL tendencies (i.e. mirror like quality) on the coins. This is because the raised die polish lines SCATTER light.

Perhaps you have never heard of diffuse reflection, caused by the scattering of light.

http://www.rpi.edu/dept/phys/ScIT/InformationTransfer/reflrefr/rr_content/reflection_20.html

 

Still avoiding the question. Wheels don't work obviously. Polishing cloths don't work. So what does?

Straw man? Not really. The copper coin is much softer than the die and much easier to polish and I will still bet you cannot polish that ear hole. Prove me wrong!

Luster is caused by tiny lines, not a mirror.

See http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/everyday-innovations/mirror2.htm

 

Just thinking out loud, wondering about those curved lines on the bust of Lincoln (above). They almost seem to be in concentric circles, or maybe a spiral, centered about on the angle of Lincoln's jaw. I wonder if this might be a remnant of the master hub creation process, when a fast rotating cutting tool transferred the coin design from a galvano to a cylinder of soft steel that slowly rotated. The tool slowly moved in a spiral as it cut the design into the steel to make the hub.

 

Asked and answered.

Yes, it is a strawman argument. I don't care if I can polish his ear hole or not. Realistically, details like this often become lost upon excessive polishing, and regardless it doesn't refute the notion that you cannot polish the devices. All of Mr. Lincoln is consider to be part of the devices.

Coin fields are not truly mirrors, but mirror-like. Regardless, you are ignoring diffuse reflection, which even your own link acknowledges. It doesn't produce the optical clarity of a traditional mirror (like you would shave with), but it doesn't change my argument or the veracity of what I have said. You haven't refuted anything I have stated.

 

That is an interesting thought (and certainly the most viable alternative I have heard), but if it was from a master hub creation process, wouldn't it be apparent on virtually the entire mintage, particularly when we are looking at small mintages for many of the years referenced?

 

No you did not answer it. You danced all around the question. What did they use?

 

Sorry, but I have not seen it. Rouge and a polishing cloth will absolutely not work. And my question has no bearing on being predicated upon the assumption that only a large rotary wheel was used. It is predicated on your comment that die polish line can enter the devises and you show a picture with lines on the tip of Abe's ear to "prove" your point. All I am asking is just how this could possible be done in any type of polishing effort.

Oh, but your argument that is does not count only tells me that your cannot back up your argument that it happens. If so, please explain how. That is my entire point. Nothing capable of polishing can do anything significant in the details and nothing capable of generating scratches like in the op's coin can polish.

 

How well the transfer process worked was very dependent on how the operator adjusted a number of settings on the transfer lathe, and the size of the stylus for instance. If under time pressure (which seemed a constant at the mint) the results might not be optimal. (Burdette discusses this in his book). Your question is a good one and deserves a lot of thought. For instance: were proof dies impressed using a different process from workaday dies? I don't know. A heck of a lot of things that were done at the mint, I think, were passed down by word of mouth and demonstration, in a master-apprentice sort of way, as a lot of these guys were artisans.