Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Coinchemistry 2012, post: 2043400, member: 28107&quot;]Die polish lines are incuse areas (dare I call them scratches) on the die that appear as raised lines on the resulting coinage.&nbsp; 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).&nbsp; When polishing metal, lines will result even if they are very fine, they will be there.&nbsp; The key here, as Burdette notes, is that the lines are introduced in attempts to polish the die.&nbsp; This is what the Mint officially considers &quot;polishing&quot; and it follows that the resulting lines are &quot;die polish lines.&quot; I am not sure why you find this confusing as it seems obvious.</p><p><br /></p><p>With regards to your other comments, I think I have been quite clear.&nbsp; I referred you to the more detailed answers to your questions.&nbsp; I am not going to hijack the OP&#039;s thread. Nevertheless, I vehemently disagree that the marks we are seeing on Randy Campbell&#039;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?&nbsp; I don&#039;t know about you, but I don&#039;t believe in numismatic miracles.&nbsp; And how can I say that it is die polish?&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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&#039;t see how it can be called anything other than die polish.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Perhaps you should reread my post.&nbsp; If you actually did read it, you are not comprehending what I told you.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; I <u><b>own</b></u> cameo coins from this period including a top pop Liberty Head Nickel.&nbsp; But, the Mint did not intentionally produce cameo finishes on the coinage from 1936-1942.&nbsp; The commonly cited reason is that the Mint wasn&#039;t interested in doing so and it struggled enough to restore the brilliant proof coinage of the pre-Matte proof era.&nbsp; The people who produced the older coins (such as the Morgan or Barber coinage, for instance) had retired or died.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; This also explains the true rarity of cameos from this piece.[/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