Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;treylxapi47, post: 1801599, member: 41863&quot;]Thanks for your time responding Doug, I genuinely appreciate it. I didnt really know if it was proper etiquette or not to source any more than what I did the first time when I quoted the book, but since you asked for more clarification I am going to include the last two paragraphs of this section so you have a better context. Im sure Bowers wouldnt mind as this is all in an effort to learn more about numismatics.</p><p><br /></p><p>Here is what his book says:</p><p><br /></p><blockquote><p>&quot;Generally, in the 19th and early 20th centuries the production and distribution of Proofs was under the control of the Medal Department at the Mint, and different accounting procedures were in place. Often, Proofs werent included in the totals given in the regularly issued <i>Annual Report of the Director of the Mint</i>. In some instances Proofs were restruck, but no record was kept of these. Examples of the latter are provided by the Liberty Seated dollars of 1851 and 1853. Apparently, no Proof dollars were originally struck in either of these two years. Later in the decade there was a collector demand for such Proofs, and the Mint struck dollars of these dates either from old dies on hand or from new dies made up for the occasion.</p><p><br /></p><p>Proofs from the early years through and including 1901 generally have frosted portraits and other areas of relief, set against mirror fields. In recent decades some have called these <i>cameo Proofs </i>or <i>deep cameo Proofs</i>. However with few exceptions, all Proof coins of a given year and denomination are the same-either cameo or not. Most are. Beginning in 1902, the first year of full production at the third Philadelphia Mint building, someone in the Medal Department decide to polish the portraits and certain other parts of the dies, in addition to the field<b>.</b> Accordingly Proofs of 1902 and most of 1903 have &#039;shiny&#039; portraits, as do some of the next several years&quot;</p><p><br /></p></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>I think another thing that had been bugging me was that there was a particular series of proofs that i read about that were again also made by polishing the portrait/devices and that was the Mercury dime Proofs from 1936-1942, at least he seems to believe they were all polished. </p><p><br /></p><p>So this brings me over to my next question. How in the heck did they polish those devices without messing them up? Its not like theyre smooth like the fields are and easy to polish, i would assume they would need some sort of acid or fine sand, maybe blasting the diamond paste into them or something. </p><blockquote><p><br /></p></blockquote><p>[/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