Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Insider, post: 2444946, member: 24314&quot;]I&#039;ve been having a discussion about the merits of florescent light when used to determine the condition (as far as friction/loss of luster) of a coin&#039;s surface.</p><p><br /></p><p>First, let me say that as for lighting: incandescent shows just about everything.&nbsp; It is a MUST for seeing hairlines, bagmarks, etc. on coins.&nbsp; Furthermore, incandescent light is both used and recommended by <span style="color: #b30000">all</span> the professionals I know both inside and outside of the TPGS.&nbsp; The reason is simple, it lets you see surface defects; <span style="color: #b30000">however</span>, the glare from this type of light &quot;masks&quot; the change of color on the high points where the lost of luster (for whatever the reason) occurs first.</p><p><br /></p><p>I have inserted two micrographs (15X) of a BU silver Roosevelt dime.&nbsp; One was taken using a 100 watt incandescent light.&nbsp; The other was taken using a 2 bulb (15 watt each) jeweler&#039;s florescent lamp.&nbsp; I learned these were used by technicians at the U.S. Mint&#039;s Office of Technology in the 1970&#039;s.</p><p><br /></p><p>One image shows a fully lustrous head.&nbsp; The other shows a change of color on the high points of the hair.&nbsp; These are places where the original surface luster has been smashed (shiny) due to &quot;stacking&quot; pressure in a roll.&nbsp; This area of friction ALSO has luster (reflection of light) it just looks differently from the luster which remained totally original. </p><p><br /></p><p>I use BOTH light sources as they are for different things.&nbsp; Also, florescent light is the ONLY type of light one should use for authentication - PERIOD.[/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