Help: Strike or Wear?

Discussion in 'Coin Chat' started by kanga, Oct 21, 2009.

Page 2 of 2
  1. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Somehow I knew that :secret:
     
    GDJMSP, Oct 22, 2009
    #21 + Quote Reply
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. Breakdown

    Breakdown Member

    Doug

    I read your detailed analysis with great interest. I have to confess I am still trying to find the areas of wear in Tom's hair that you refer to. Any chance you could superimpose arrows, like Desertgem does? I know, I'm not asking for much.;) Regardless, great post and thread.
     
    Breakdown, Oct 22, 2009
    #22 + Quote Reply
  4. chip

    chip Novice collector

    I am posting this before I read the other replies, I think that there is a combination of the two, some wear on a weak strike, I am also thinking that there might be something else, like a struck through grease?
     
    chip, Oct 22, 2009
    #23 + Quote Reply
  5. Ripley

    Ripley Senior Member

    In the final analysis, its only a nickle. Traci :eek:
     
    Ripley, Oct 22, 2009
    #24 + Quote Reply
  6. Billy Kingsley

    Billy Kingsley .

    Doug, I had not taken that into account. It makes sence to me!

    I also noticed that even on the well worn examples the relief is still higher then a brand new (or at least was new when the design was last used) coin and that surely must make the biggest difference, I would bet.
     
    Billy Kingsley, Oct 23, 2009
    #25 + Quote Reply
  7. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    The areas I was looking at have been enlarged, brightened, and circled or marked with arrows. The fine sratches and pock-like marks are fairly easy to see. And it's pretty easy to see the areas where the luster has been worn off the coin, at least to me.

    Make note though, that it is the fine scratches and pockmarks that confirm it is wear and not a weak strike for me, as I think they should for everybody. For on a toned coin like this it would difficult to say that it was not a weak strike causing the flatness and color differences. But to have the marks, color changes and the flatness - all in the same places. That indicates to me only 1 thing - wear.

    edit - make sure you click, and then double click on the enlarged pics to see them full size.
     

    Attached Files:

    GDJMSP, Oct 23, 2009
    #26 + Quote Reply
  8. Breakdown

    Breakdown Member

    Thanks, Doug -- very helpful. I saw the pockmarks and scratches before but now I have a better idea about the rest of your analysis. As you say,the condition of the rims, particularly on the reverse from about 3 to 8 o'clock, seems pretty strong evidence in your favor and I am curious why Mark doesn't think that is strong enough evidence of wear.
     
    Breakdown, Oct 23, 2009
    #27 + Quote Reply
  9. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    He can speak for himself, but I suspect that Mark is always hesitant to present an opinion without seeing any coin in hand. Nuttin wrong with that.

    But for the purposes of discussion on a forum like this you aren't going to get to see the coin in hand 99% of the time. So I have no qualms about going with the evidence that is before me.

    Yes, pictures can be quite misleading, and often are. But pictures can also tell the frank truth. You always stand the chance of being wrong when presenting any analysis based on pictures. But I'm not afraid of speaking my mind and then finding out I am wrong later. Experience has shown me that I am right far more often that I am wrong. Being wrong doesn't bother me. I'd rather make a decision than do nothing. And hopefully teach someone by doing so.
     
    GDJMSP, Oct 23, 2009
    #28 + Quote Reply
Page 2 of 2
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page