Re: Proof Indian Coins 1911-1915 Sandblast Finish

[Smilie Puss]

Just got off the phone with NGC regarding a proof 1912 $2 1/2 Indian. They are saying the surface has been 'altered' but cannot identify the process. NGC said that the altering occured after it was released from the mint. I replied it was my view that the coin might have a different grainularity but this process was a 'hand job' (no sexual pun intended) usually preformed after striking. NGC said no I was wrong. The sandblast finish was on the dies striking the planchet. I responded that I thought that the sandblasting was done after striking.

 

Who would like to provide an answer to the sandblasted dies or sandblasting after striking question. Hint. OGtoCG&CD, PCGS 2nd Ed. p.59 "Proof Luster"

 

Photo's posted below:

[michael]

with these coins the matte surfaces where put on after striking

 

usually if you got a canary yellow piece something has been done to it

 

more than likely an overdipping job that affect the sparkely surfaces

 

since i cant see the coin in hand sight seen i cant say for sure

 

also there are many matte proof quarter eagle indians that should have never been certified but currently ngc is really clamping down

[MarkFeld]

I believe that you are correct - whom did you speak to at NGC?

 

Here are a couple of old quotes I found written by Roger Burdette (RWB):

 

"If a satin proof was sandblasted at the mint, it became a “sandblast proof” (called “matte proof” in many post-WW-II auctions, but always called sandblast during their own time and through the 1930s). The sandblasting was done by hand so every proof is slightly different. This was the only post-striking process ever applied to proof coins."

 

"Every sandblast proof coin is unique. Each piece was individually sandblasted at the Philadelphia Mint so the surfaces are never exactly the same from one piece to another. Over time, some collectors tried to "improve" specimens and the results are somewhat "strange" when compared to an original."

 

 

 

[Bugmann1974]

Looks like someone needs to Change the Wikipedia entry. (I am not suprised)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_coinage

[Smilie Puss]

Mark:

 

I have a 1912 Proof $2 1/2 Indian and a 1906 $20 Proof in for grading at NGC and I talked to Rick Mongomery. He stated that my coin had 'altered surfaces' and something was done but he can't tell me how it was done to alter the surface. In regards to the IQE I said that it looked different but that the sandblasting was variable because it was done after striking.

Rick said that I was wrong because he said that the sandblasting was done to the dies before striking.

 

So after we rang off and I went to the OGtoCG&CD, PCGS, 2nd Ed. p.58 where it says

 

"Proof Luster"

"For 1908 and 1911-15........(sandblasting was completed after striking)"

 

I just sent this into NGC(Rick Montgomery) on the Post.

 

As to the DE PR its the same old story its been altered but Rick could not tell me the methof alteration. He said it looked too watery and was not like other proofs from this period. And so what comes around goes around. No grade!

 

Thank you for the additional info. but I don't think I can convince them regardless when the sandblast finish was made. When minds are fixed in concrete there isn't much one can do to persuade with logic and reason. Who in their right mind would want to improve a proof finish in the first place? Its crazy unless you are trying to cover some defect. I have a picture of the coin and I am about to post it to photobucket. You be the judge although it would be better in hand. I am really getting a belly full of this 'Altered Surface" no grade label. It sucks (no sexual pun intended)!

 

 

1912 IQE PR Obv

 

 

1912 IQE PR Rev

 

 

1906 DE PR Obv

 

 

1906 DE PR Rev

 

 

[Smilie Puss]

BG

 

I added a correction if PCGS's OGtoGC&CD is a valid reference to Matte proof in Wikipedia.org/Proof_coinage.

[Smilie Puss]

 

Here are a couple of old quotes I found written by Roger Burdette (RWB):

 

"If a satin proof was sandblasted at the mint, it became a “sandblast proof” (called “matte proof” in many post-WW-II auctions, but always called sandblast during their own time and through the 1930s). The sandblasting was done by hand so every proof is slightly different. This was the only post-striking process ever applied to proof coins."

 

"Every sandblast proof coin is unique. Each piece was individually sandblasted at the Philadelphia Mint so the surfaces are never exactly the same from one piece to another. Over time, some collectors tried to "improve" specimens and the results are somewhat "strange" when compared to an original."

 

 

 

How reliable is his source?

 

Jim

[Mark T]

Where did you pick up those Proof coins ??

[MarkFeld]

 

Here are a couple of old quotes I found written by Roger Burdette (RWB):

 

"If a satin proof was sandblasted at the mint, it became a “sandblast proof” (called “matte proof” in many post-WW-II auctions, but always called sandblast during their own time and through the 1930s). The sandblasting was done by hand so every proof is slightly different. This was the only post-striking process ever applied to proof coins."

 

"Every sandblast proof coin is unique. Each piece was individually sandblasted at the Philadelphia Mint so the surfaces are never exactly the same from one piece to another. Over time, some collectors tried to "improve" specimens and the results are somewhat "strange" when compared to an original

 

 

How reliable is his source?

 

Jim

To my knowledge he has researched Mint archives extensively and makes a habit of speaking/writing based on that research.

 

I can' tell anything about the two coins you posted, but will take exception with one comment you made as a reason to think the $2.50 hasn't been messed with - " Who in their right mind would want to improve a proof finish in the first place? Its crazy unless you are trying to cover some defect" People do things to coins for all sorts of reasons and they aren't always in "their right mind". The fact that they shouldn't do it doesn't always prevent it.

 

[RWB]

Regarding sources: The comments quoted are part of more extensive information on proof coins published in the three Renaissance of American Coinage books. You will find source citations in the hundreds of footnotes.

 

Regarding alteration: One for the reasons given by the Philadelphia Mint superintendent in 1916 for discontinuing collector proofs was the likelihood of people sandblasting coins in their home workshops. Sandblast proofs were produced in a 2-step process: step 1 strike the coin on a medal press from new dies – this was called a “bright” proof by the mint and is now called a “satin proof” to better describe the smooth surface. Step 2 was to individually sandblast each coin. This was done at the mint by one of the engraving department staff. This produced the “matte” or sandblast surface.

 

A persistent problem with sandblast gold and Peace dollar proofs is that the sandblasting can be done by anyone with a small air compressor and limited ethics. Authenticators look for nicks and other damage to a coin and try to determine if the damage occurred before or after sandblasting. If the damage occurred before sandblasting, it is likely the coin was altered outside the mint. Then one would start comparing detail and sharpness with known proofs, to reach a final determination. Evenness or consistency in sandblasting cannot be used reliably because the process was entirely manual. (Compare sharpness to a 1908 sandblast proof – there are quite a few floating about.)

 

Until the 1940s there was no financial advantage to sandblast or brilliant proofs. However, some people altered normal coins just to say they had something different. Since about 1970 gold proofs have become very much desired and the incentive for modifying a normal coin increased.

 

As far as Wiki-anything – all I can say is ignorance and mediocrity are the standard.

 

 

[James_OldeTowne]

I can only add that I've always understood these proofs to have been created with post-mint sandblasting, and the very few that I have personally seen were astounding in their beauty. And I agree that the problem has always been spuriously "created" imitations.

[michael]

the best proofs i have ever seen with these satin sandblast matte gold proofs are the ten indians that have totally original color and never been messed with

 

of course the best are the roman finish proofs from 1909-10 as these are usually semi brilliant prooflike matte proofs

[WoodenJefferson]

sure did learn something today

[Smilie Puss]

Mark T

 

One was off Stack's auction and the other was Heritage auction.

 

Both were holdered in an NCS slab marked 'Altered Surface' PR Details.

 

Cracked out and examined by optical miscropscopy and by Differential Image Characterization DIC equipment for evidence of aleration.

 

No difinitive evidence of cause or method used either physical or chemical could be assigned to explain alteration of the proof coins surface.

 

Coins exhibited to coin expert numismatist at a major coin show and some agreed with altered finding others did not. No consenses found as to coins condition/grade except that both are proofs.

 

Coins resubmitted to NGC for grading and again determined to be altered.

 

NGC contacted me and I requested the cause and/or method for alteration. NGC responded no definitive method could be given for alteration other than the coins look different than other proofs certified. I suggested that the coins be sent to another coin expert like JPMartin for evaluation but they said it would not make any difference since they had altready evaluated them to be altered. End of story!

 

This brings us to the present post.

 

You be the judge, albeit not in hand.

[James_OldeTowne]

This brings us to the present post.

 

You be the judge, albeit not in hand.

Going strictly by the images, I am not too excited by the Indian.

[Smilie Puss]

RWB

 

Appreciate your imput. I am encouraged and yet consensus is lacking. The argument of sandblasting the dies or sandblasting after striking seems to favor latter rather than the former. Yes?

 

Now I asked NGC if the coin was a proof and they said it was a proof. So then this might rule out a sandblasted MS coin. However, if it were an MS coin it would have had extraordinary detail to be modified to look like a proof.

 

The coin is exceptional regardless if it is in a holder or not. Would you agree?

 

This may be the only thing that is important.

[Smilie Puss]

WJ

 

"Learning is finding out what you already know,

Doing is demonstrating that you know it,

Teaching is reminding others that they know it just as well as you do,

We are all Learners, Doers, and Teachers."

 

R.Bach "Illusions"

[michael]

This brings us to the present post.

 

You be the judge, albeit not in hand.

Going strictly by the images, I am not too excited by the Indian.

 

(thumbs u

 

looks like the coin was re-worked at worst case scenerio and overdipped in acid/really heavily stripped

 

usually at least with ten indians they have their overall "look" and color for each year and they can basically be told most of the time what year they are by just looking at the reverse if they are original with their original color and surfaces

 

usually with matte proof you never see hairlines and the problem usually is with tiny nicks and ticks over the surfaces; problem is most are dipped and/or stripped resulting in a raward of a higher grade at the services

 

so they are re-surfaced with lazers and this usually makes the ticks go away hence they grade 1-3 points higher resulting in huge increases in value

 

 

[Smilie Puss]

Michael:

 

What acid and at what concentration? Do you know anything about the insolubility and stability of the nobel metals? Unless this were emersed in aqua regia which I doubt it was used no acid is going to touch gold. 99.999999% of the orginal detail remains. In fact, in my view,the detail is extarodinary.

 

As to the granularity or color is concerned if the sandblast finish was made after striking the variability of doing this to each and every coin would be evident.

 

Have you ever seen the evidence of laser ablation on a gold coin? No I think your off base and more in seeding doubt rather than providing evidence to support surface alteration. Thank you for your opinion but I think it is more subjective rather than objective.

[michael]

ok if you say so

 

i did not mean to offend you

 

 

[RWB]

Re: sandblast proofs. They are called “sandblast” proofs because that is how they are made. Every piece of documentation plus first-hand accounts confirm this. (There are descriptions of the process by people who observed it.)

 

Working dies were sandblasted to produce matte proof Lincolns and buffalos, but no other coins.

 

As for your coin, NGC’s comments suggest they noticed some sort of alteration – possibly localized touchup to minimize the nicks and bumps on both sides. On a sandblast proof, these will commonly appear a bright spots because they break the uniformly textured original surface.

 

[WoodenJefferson]

Mark T

 

One was off Stack's auction and the other was Heritage auction.

 

Both were holdered in an NCS slab marked 'Altered Surface' PR Details.

 

Cracked out and examined by optical miscropscopy and by Differential Image Characterization DIC equipment for evidence of aleration.

 

No difinitive evidence of cause or method used either physical or chemical could be assigned to explain alteration of the proof coins surface.

 

Coins resubmitted to NGC for grading and again determined to be altered.

 

 

Problem is, grading coins is NOT a scientific experiment, nor can most aberrations about the nuances of coins be scientifically explained to everyone’s satisfaction. There is no way you can figure the human response element into your scientific analysis. The level of knowledge, expertise and ongoing dynamic changes in this hobby precludes any sort of constructive analysis, sometimes you just know what you are looking at is not, well, the original product.

 

Attempting to pull the wool over NCG eyes is also NOT very scientific either....if you ask me, they picked that coin out of a line-up twice now, that should be enough evidence for anyone, novice or expert, to say that there's a probability that the coins surface was somehow altered.

 

At this point, the alteration method is moot. It would be nice to know how, when, where…but a laboratory environment is not going to reveal those answers.

 

Case is closed at NGC…send them to PCGS and let them fool around with it for awhile.

 

[MikeInFL]

The eagle doesn't have the appearance of a matte proof -- like others have suggested it looks "worked" to my eye (and from the photos). Subjectively yours...Mike

[Smilie Puss]

Mark T

 

Problem is, grading coins is NOT a scientific experiment, nor can most aberrations about the nuances of coins be scientifically explained to everyone’s satisfaction. There is no way you can figure the human response element into your scientific analysis. The level of knowledge, expertise and ongoing dynamic changes in this hobby precludes any sort of constructive analysis, sometimes you just know what you are looking at is not, well, the original product.

 

Attempting to pull the wool over NCG eyes is also NOT very scientific either....

 

Never thought grading was a scientific experiment but to try and understand why things are the way they are may require someone asking questions. Perhaps if the right questions were asked about our economic mess we wouldn't have lost 60-80% of our 401K savings. Or people loosing their homes because of a market generated housing bubble.

 

My interest here is not to deceive anyone but to provide insight or understanding through science since this is where I come from in training and experience. Only by understanding history do we sometimes avoid making the same stupid mistakes. The grading services are limited and fallable in knowledge and why not ask question or be able to challenge their opinions? You and I are the ones footing the bill to keep these folks afloat.

 

By posting on this message board I run the risk of ridicule and rejection of ideas I might have on something I care about. As they say 'no pain no gain'.

 

Now you can be part of the problem or part of the solution. You are always free to choose which side you feel most comfortable. That's generally the way the ego works by not rocking the boat or so I am told.

 

I put up the images and you responded. You have given your opinion of what you think of the scientific method. Perhaps its like porn 'you know it when you see it' without a 'scientific' explanation or comprehensive definition.

 

Is that it?

[Smilie Puss]

michael:

 

None taken

[physics-fan3.14]

My interest here is not to deceive anyone but to provide insight or understanding through science since this is where I come from in training and experience.

 

By posting on this message board I run the risk of ridicule and rejection of ideas I might have on something I care about. As they say 'no pain no gain'.

 

Now you can be part of the problem or part of the solution. You are always free to choose which side you feel most comfortable. That's generally the way the ego works by not rocking the boat or so I am told.

 

I put up the images and you responded. You have given your opinion of what you think of the scientific method. Perhaps its like porn 'you know it when you see it' without a 'scientific' explanation or comprehensive definition.

 

Is that it?

 

2 completely unrelated things:

1. What's your degree/background/field of work/etc? We've got a few scientists on here (myself included, with a degree in rocket science), and its always cool to hear what other people do.

 

2. You've had some answers from some *extremely* knowledgeable and experienced numismatists. I don't want to leave anyone out, but: RWB has written numerous award winning books and spent quite literally hundreds, if not thousands, of hours researching the time period which we are discussing. michael has been collecting high end, beautiful coins like these just about since the federal mint was built. And Mark Feld is actually a former NGC grader.

 

You can pretty much take what they say to the bank. You'll be hard pressed to find more knowledge and experience than you've got concentrated here. Of course, they haven't examined it in hand, but the graders at NGC have twice now.

 

Perhaps the ego and the rocking the boat is on your end? There is a chance that you might be wrong on this. I'm just saying - you too need to keep an open mind and accept the fact that you may be wrong.

[Smilie Puss]

physics-fan3.14

 

Yes. If I am convinced of the alteration process I will be the first to admit I was wrong.

 

I just like knowing if something has been altered what is it that is evident so that you or I can avoid this coin in the future.

 

"Rocking the boat". You bet! Perhaps its all part of the human condition.

 

Have I pushed one of your response buttons? Appearently I have. Nothing personal I hope.

[physics-fan3.14]

No, nothing personal at all. I don't think I would take anything on an internet chat board personally (and of course, you shouldn't either). I just wanted to make sure we are clear on what's going on here, and to make sure you knew exactly the caliber of advice and info you were getting. What I'm saying is that with the number and quality of the sources telling you there is some alteration, how much more will it take to convince you? I'm sure you can find someone to agree with you, but Al Gore can also. That doesn't make either of you right.

[RWB]

“Rocking the boat” can be a very good thing, and there‘s nothing wrong about being skeptical, particularly when something seems to have been incompletely explained.

 

I would not presume anything about either coin based on photos. However, it would be helpful if the authentication service would be more specific about the anomalies it identified. At the least, this would tell the owner more about the problems with his coins. It might also help the owner avoid misunderstandings in future transactions involving those coins.

 

(Thanks to some of the readers for their kind remarks about my research, too!)

 

[WoodenJefferson]

 

 

RWB in reality, what you suggest just does not happen. This has been the bane of coin collectors for years and years...it's a never ending conveyor belt of altered coins being submitted in the attempt to get them certified.

 

Most are unsuspectingly submitted while others are submitted in an attempt to get them to fly under the grading services radar. When a number of "questionable" submissions from one individual or group reaches a pinnacle, they are simply denied from future submissions. Some will seek other avenues for submission, others will just quit the unscrupulous manipulation of enhancing for spurious reasons.

 

There are many services that we use daily where we pay for advice/services where we do not demand an explanation or proof before we agree to those services. Sure, at times, especially medically, when a “second opinion” is warranted, but in most cases we just go along with the diagnosis.

 

In the end, it is everybody who pays to have that borderline or suspect alteration end up as a "no grade" submission. For now, this is the standard, a generic description for a catch all designation. Sure makes their job easier. You may not agree, but you need to have an modicum of trust that the opinion presented is the best possible answer.

 

Not taking sides, just a reality check.