Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 1801573, member: 112&quot;]Technically the word devices refers only to the portrait or other major component of the design. Legends, dates, and mottoes are referred to as such. But it is not uncommon for the sake of convenience in conversation to use devices to refer to all of it together.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Doubtful, but I am curious as to why he worded it the way he did, specifically the phrase &quot;someone in the medal department&quot;. I say that because usually people in the medal department have nothing to do with the coin department, they only work on medals. But then at the same time I have never heard of Proof medals - so maybe in this case they did. Perhaps your reading a bit more prior to those comments would add some clarification as to whether or not he is specifically talking about medal dies or coin dies when he says that.</p><p><br /></p><p>But, assuming he is talking about coin dies, that&#039;s what I get for using the word never, should have said almost never. Even if he is speaking of Proof coin dies, his comments make it pretty clear that what was done - polishing the devices of the die - was an exception to the rule and not usually done.</p><p><br /></p><p>Prior to 1902 all Proofs were pretty much just like those we are most used to seeing - mirrored fields &amp; frosted devices. And, and as the book you are reading points out, it was not long after 1902 that the mint began experimenting with different kinds of Proofs, the matte and satin Proofs that we are familiar with. And in 1936 the mint returned to the mirrored fields and frosted devices type Proofs.</p><p><br /></p><p>As to how you cannot see hairlines on polished die devices, the reason would be the same you cannot see them on the fields of a Proof coin. You just have to use a fine enough polish compound so that they are too small to see.</p><p><br /></p><p>I also think it is important for you to understand that prior to 1973 Proof coins that actually had the cameo effect were the exception, not the rule. I am not referring here to the way they were made or intended to be, but instead I am referring to the actual coins themselves. As I described above, the only Proof coins that actually had the cameo effect were those struck with new or fairly new dies. For as more coins were struck the frost was worn off by metal flow the devices and the resulting coins had brilliant devices. But they were not brilliant because the devices were polished. The mint just didn&#039;t care enough to spend the additional money to re-frost the dies, or use new ones. They just kept on using the ones they had. It was a case of - these are good enough.[/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