Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;SuperDave, post: 2556672, member: 1892&quot;]<i>You</i> will probably have to be the best judge of this, iPen, with this as the determining factor: <b>Hairlines which reach but do not overlap onto a device are <i>not</i> postmint</b>. It may be that you&#039;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 &quot;angle&quot; 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&#039;t &quot;bend&quot; into a device like a brush would. They simply <b>can&#039;t</b> reach into a device on a die.</p><p><br /></p><p>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. </p><p><br /></p><p>Now, let&#039;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?</p><p><br /></p><p>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.[/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