RWB

As the ridges increase in length and height, they also begin to slough off minute steel particles that embed in the die surface and act like tiny abrasives to further damage the die. (In 1913 this was identified as a problem in getting good die life from Fraser's nickel design. The fields were rough as was the bison's form, and flecks of steel crated by pressure in the rough areas caused early abrasion and deterioration of the dies. See Renaissance of American Coinage 1909-1915 for details and a quote from C. Barber about this.)

The radial ridges are part of metal flow in the die that are transferred to coins on striking. It's a matter of scale. Once the microscopic ridges grow too large the deterioration rate increases, and a die can quickly become useless.

Maybe Mint packaging machines are working really, really hard and even through their lunch -- hence, the crumbs.

Do your own homework and learn. Check the NGC site for walk-through and other prices at shows.

"Die states" are usually determined by degradation of detail. Excessive metal flow and crystal distortion in the die are causes. There is no clear line between "outstanding luster" and "die deterioration."

As Mr. Lange noted, manual die retouching was quite common on 1936-42 and 1950-1956 proofs. Quarters, especially the reverse, and cents on the obverse coat and tie, were especially vulnerable.

Polishing the dies also made the tail feathers less prominent....

No...this is a set of message boards for collector communication which is hosted by NGC. Go back to the home page and start exploring the NGC content and official company information.

Incredibly unlikely. If someone suggested this to you, they likely know very little about how hubs and dies are made, and used.

Check NGC's website -- the authoritative source.

Thousands of older people habitually tossed these aside when issued and whenever encountered in circulation. Those Bi-Cen Quarter Jars are now being tossed back into circulation by heirs. An Aunt had 5 one-gallon glass jars of these.

Sublime, isn't it !

Yep. The relief was intentionally very low, and quite typical of John Sinnock's work. He clearly did not have the skill of making low relief look higher that George Morgan possessed.

But...but ...they all have a "CAC" approval on them -- so they must be valuable. I understand from a local historian that when the Negro Leagues played games in the old Griffith Stadium in Washington DC, the toilets were locked. When the American League teams played, the toilets were unlocked. [Well....it seemed appropriate given the "privy mark" comments.]

The highest relief portions require the greatest movement of metal. Tail feathers at low relief. Now, think it through again....;)

As I've said to the point of distraction: Without fixed standards, the concept of "grading" coins is specious. Five competent people are more likely to scatter grades than agree. Opinion plays too great a role for there to be statistical reliability or repeatability. I now return you to the confusion.

Still --- a very nice 1923-D

Very nice example and nearly full detail - missing a bit on the L-hand and central wing. AWW monogram is clear and sharp.

William Woodin "negotiated" a deal with mint director Andrew to return to sandblast proof gold in 1911. (He begged for some dated 1910, but Andrew refused.) ANA members voted for this change during the 1910 convention. Gold proof collectors did not like the sandblast proofs of 1908, but they liked the satin proofs of 1909-10 even more. This was also the time period when Woodin and Andrew negotiated the transfer of thousands of pattern pieces to Woodin in exchange for returning the 2 $50 half union patterns that A.L.Snowden had bought in 1877 to prevent their being melted at director Linderman's orders. The last date for sandblast proofs was 1915. No proof gold coins were made thereafter until the modern NCLT imitations.

Without the "W" it would be a $5,000 to $6,000 coin. With the defacement, possibly $2,500 at the most. (This is one of those unusual situations where professional smoothing of the field and re-authentication might be desirable. It depends on the cost of high quality surface work compared to any increase in potential value. The authentication company would give it a details grade with a "repaired" notation, and you, as seller would be expected to fully inform any buyer of the repair including photos.)

Thank You!

The DE book, much like some of my others, uses a more expansive approach the date/mint materials that is common. Nice that the "side bars" are appreciated.

I merely attempted to make what was already known clear and concise within the context of DE and related coins. This is one of several subjects where the US Mint could provide comprehensive and accurate information, but fails to to so.

I think Mark is one the right track. However, several places assign provenance to John Sinnock's possessions, but cite no sources. There were several coin collectors among US Mint officers. The one with the most inclusive collection of internal experimental and sandblast proof pieces was Frederick H. Chaffin. He died in June 1936. His coins, which were kept in his personal locker at the Philadelphia Mint, were sold to a coin dealer in NYC. Among the coins were proof peace dollars, sandblast commemorative halves and possibly other pieces made for internal US Mint use. (See Renaissance of American Coinage 1916-1921 for further information.)

Every die has its own deformation micro-structure. This derives from the original alloy, uniformity of elements, and especially the details of hardening and tempering applied to dies. Luster is also affected by the surface character and hardness of planchets -- This is why some pieces from the same year have very attractive luster and others seem subdued. Lastly, dipping and cleaning alters the original coin surface by adding minute irregularities which dull reflections. Sandblast proof coins are especially degraded by dipping because the grit left an array of chipped and angular facets on the coin, and these are visually altered more readily than normal luster. An extreme version of luster is called "starburst." The only differences are of scale. [PS: The previous post has a funny typo in the 4th paragraph. The word "typo" should be "type."]