GTG: Guess the Grade! US Trade Dollar

In my first response, I included a link to the thread on the NGC Forums where Roger Burdette provides possibilities. Since he is an expert, I thought it would be best to go straight to the source. I made reference to that thread and specifically Burdette's posts. I don't call that dancing around the question as my response was in fact responsive to the underlying issue and the original question posed to me.

With regards to the thread on the NGC site, Burdette noted that the Mint used emery sticks and cotton swabs for retouching that could absolutely create raised lines on coins. When the issue of nomenclature appeared and whether the resulting lines could truly be called "die polishing lines" rather than some other die maintenance process, Burdette remarked that officially and historically"[t]he Mint used 'polishing' to refer only to deliberate production of mirror-like surfaces."

This is meaningful information. One, the application of a rouge or other abrasive using a swab or other similar instrument/process could absolutely create the effect that we are seeing. If something that soft (when used with a rouge) could create the incuse lines in the original die, there is no reason why the other suggestion in this thread was not viable. Second, the issue of whether the lines can fairly and accurately be characterized as die polishing lines appeared. According to Burdette, above, the issue is whether it would result in the deliberate production of mirror-like surfaces. To that end we know that the proof coinage of this era was highly polished and that the devices often lack detail consistent with over polishing of the dies. We also know that the mintages are small (save perhaps for the 1942), which would suggest a shorter die life than if it was used for business strikes (meaning less die maintenance than a die used for longer periods of time). I believe that all of this suggests polishing as the source of the lines, and aptly call them die polish lines. I do not believe that these are die scratches to remove debris or sand given the number (how much debris do you think is gong to be on the die? Moreover, this can be seen on multiple years.). I also think the swirling pattern is consistent with polishing rather than retooling or someone removing a speck of sand or debris from the die using other processes, especially given that fine details from the devices are often weak or missing consistent with buffing or polishing motion. In any event, I think my nomenclature is accurate, and I stand by my other posts.

So, we have Burdette's expert history of official mint practices, we have knowledge and trends concerning the specified series, and we also have a working definition of die polish lines that I believe is satisfied. I do not think die scratches are likely for other reasons discussed above.

Now with regards to the other poster, I am critical for several reasons. First, his initial question to me falsely presupposed that only one method was ever used to polish dies; however, the comments referenced in Burdette's thread and from Mine to Mint suggests otherwise. For him, the question became could one specific device have produced the lines rather than the much broader question of whether die polish lines could be imparted on the devices of a coin. Second, when discussing die polish lines on devices, he asks to demonstrate polishing in Lincoln's ear hole. Even if it weren't possible to polish Lincoln's ear hole, it doesn't follow that other parts of the devices could not be polished. So his question was based on a logical fallacy. And there was no die polish in Lincoln's ear hole, so it was really out of nowhere. Regardless, I stand by my comments.

I also wish Dan Carr posted here. Perhaps he would have extra dies that could be used in experiments to test the other poster's comments empirically about die hardness.

In any event, I am done with this thread. Believe whatever you want to believe. I would take the word of Burdette and other established experts over anyone on this board any day. This is my last post with regards to this topic within this thread.

See my response to Idhair above. Now, show me citations that the device mentioned in your first post is the only one used to polish dies please (that seems to be the implicit thrust of your argument).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I fail to see why that is not just what I have been saying although I will add that none of the above actions would produce scratches remotely similar to either the OP's coin or those on Campbell's coin. Neither emery nor rouge is 1/10th the size of those scratches. Nor would it be possible for an emery stick, a cotton swab, nor the polishing wheel to produce those circles on Campbell's coin even if the rouge or emery were rough enough to produce scratches that size. For instance jeweler's rouge has a grit of 3 µ or usually less.