Here's my 1947 Mexico 5 Pesos coin. I bought it because it had a nice semi-cameo appearance and it definitely has a nice beaming cartwheel luster all the way around on both sides of the coin. However, there are these parallel scratches running across, most visibly on the reverse of the coin. At first glance, I thought they were hairline scratches, but upon closer inspection with a loupe, I'm wondering if they're die scratches instead. Specifically, on the reverse, there's a thick line that runs between the cactus and the snake on the fields, and past the snakes head heading NW. In other words, the snake head device seems to be on top of the scratch, as if it's a die scratch. I'm wondering if that's what's going on with a lot of these other parallel line scratches. There's also a second long line running from the "T" in "ESTADOS" to "beneath" the cactus devices, shown in the first pic. Am I seeing that correctly? Or, are they hairline scratches - to put it another way, would, say, NGC grade it as problem-free? Thanks in advance!
I see both but mostly hairlines from light brushing. Mint die polish on an original surface is generally not as flashy bright.
@iPen It looks like die polishing to me. Note that the lines do not cross any of the devices. I think Insider has been smoking too much of that Mexican "tumbleweed". Chris
You will probably have to be the best judge of this, iPen, with this as the determining factor: Hairlines which reach but do not overlap onto a device are not postmint. It may be that you'll have to play with observation angles and lighting because on many occasions these lines (cleaning or die polishing, either) are only visible from one angle, and a device is on a different "angle" than the surrounding field. But die polishing, by definition, cannot reach into devices and postmint brushing, by definition, cannot avoid them. Dies are polished with stones or other hard materials which won't "bend" into a device like a brush would. They simply can't reach into a device on a die. In this case, the lines on the reverse do resemble postmint brushing more than deliberate die polishing, but those on the obverse look like polishing to remove/ameliorate the die cracks noted. Now, let's look at it from another angle. What, exactly, would the coin have been deliberately brushed to remove? Where is there any evidence, anywhere, that something worth removing once existed on the coin? And if they removed it that completely, why is the whole surface not covered in these hairlines? Based solely on the evidence shown in these images, I believe all of this to be die polishing, with a small chance that the reverse was caused by non-deliberate incidental contact with something hard enough to hairline it - a stiff linen tablecloth will do that - but in that case concentrated inspection will reveal lines extending onto the devices.
I agree, but I'd take it one step further. In my opinion there are a few die scratches, a few die polish lines, but mostly post strike hairlines/scratches that could have been caused by nothing more than rough handling, but were possibly caused by harsh cleaning. And yes, some of them do cross the devices, others do not. In my opinion they definitely should not ! But in this day and age who knows. I've certainly seen them give clean grades to coins worse off than this one.
In my experience starched, stiff, linen will not do this UNLESS perhaps you place the coin flat on a hard surface and scrub it back and forth in that one spot using pressure. Many coins are brushed to make them shiny. Brushing on a coin like this was possibly due to haze. Bright sells! I agree with Doug. Both die polish and hairlines.
