Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;treylxapi47, post: 1801463, member: 41863&quot;]Ok Doug I am going to quote verbatim what I read and hopefully you can see why I asked if you would be able to see hairlines on the devices (I actually assumed devices also referenced the bust or portrait, is this correct?)</p><p><br /></p><p>On page 375, the very last paragraph before the section on Matte, Sand Blast, and Satin Proofs, reads as follows:</p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;Beginning in 1902, the first year of full production at the third Philadelphia Mint building, someone in the Medal Department decide to <u><b>polish the portraits and certain other parts of the dies, in addition to the field.</b></u> Accordingly Proofs of 1902 and most of 1903 have &quot;shiny&quot; portraits, as do some of the next several years&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>The part i underlined and bold type-faced is probably the single most important reason on why I asked the questions that I did. I just didnt see how if you polished the portrait that you wouldnt be able to see the hairlines. And if you were able to polish so finely before the coin was minted, would you not be able to replicate that process after the coin was minted and be able to hide any defects. </p><p><br /></p><p>I now understand that on Business strikes, you CANNOT polish a coin back to perfection due to the luster and hot metal flow that obviously cannot be recreated after minting. I am, however, still trying to figure out how you can polish&nbsp; the devices so finely that hairline arent readily visible across those coins that exhibit &#039;shiny&#039; portraits instead of cameo ones.</p><p><br /></p><p>Also there is the very real possibility that Bowers&#039; may have made a mistake in his wording or thinking.[/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