What are these lines caused by

[messydesk]

The only modern term that is out of place is the VAM "scribbles" which implies (to me, at least) random, pointless actions.

Not really. The term is more descriptive of what you see than it is a description of intent. These show up on parts of 1921 reverse dies that had been overpolished, and would seem to be an attempt to make it look like there's detail there. The scribbles themselves often look random and pointless, but there are also some that are a bit more orderly. There's nothing to show that there was an actual intent to thoughtfully (although not always skillfully) re-engrave detail as had been done often in 1878.

[RWB]

Yep...I understand the descriptive part....and if that term did not so strongly bias the reality for me, I'd probably agree.

[cpm9ball]

The only modern term that is out of place is the VAM "scribbles" which implies (to me, at least) random, pointless actions.

Not really. The term is more descriptive of what you see than it is a description of intent. These show up on parts of 1921 reverse dies that had been overpolished, and would seem to be an attempt to make it look like there's detail there. The scribbles themselves often look random and pointless, but there are also some that are a bit more orderly. There's nothing to show that there was an actual intent to thoughtfully (although not always skillfully) re-engrave detail as had been done often in 1878.

 

No offense intended, John, but I liken scribbles to First Strikes and Early Releases.

 

To each his own.

 

Chris

[coinman_23885]

What is his real name? Or is it improper to ask that of a forumite?

 

As far as I am concerned, this is Cheers.

 

More importantly what are his qualifications?

[messydesk]

Hand-engraving spans a pretty large gamut for Morgans. The 8TF reverses were done with care to make added wing feathers look like they belonged. Then San Francisco got their hands on dies and started doing all sorts of stuff. Some feathers were added seamlessly, some a bit crudely, some rather hamfistedly (78-S VAM 18), and some seemingly in the context of someone saying, "I wonder what would happen if we tried this" (78-S VAM 36, 49). It's sort of a pity we don't see much of this type of manual die editing again until 1921, but then that would be a sign that the mint was OK with continuing to produce a design for which they couldn't properly make a die.

[brg5658]

What is his real name? Or is it improper to ask that of a forumite?

 

As far as I am concerned, this is Cheers.

 

More importantly what are his qualifications?

 

He is a self-proclaimed expert who is a moderator and has 40,000+ posts on CoinTalk. That's about the extent of his "qualifications" that I can see. He hasn't collected coins for almost a decade, but claims to have read almost everything there is on the topic of numismatics. Based on his many and frequent posts that have glaring patently false information, I'm not sure I believe much of that.

 

Some fun past topics include his claim that scanners can show luster of coins just as well as photos. That large bag marks on Morgan dollars are often caused by shovels used by mint workers. The list goes on and on...his diarrhea of posts leaves no shortage of ammunition for his "greatest hits" list...

[CaptHenway]

Don't forget the 1938 Proof Jefferson nickels with added serifs hand engraved on multiple dies.

[coinman_23885]

The problem comes from terminology sloppiness. Most people tend to call any work done to the die that leaves raised lines "polishing". True polishing would be done with a rotating lap which would only leave very fine lines that would not crisscross lines. But the mint also uses abrasives in a localized manner like a stick or file and these heavy lines that DO crisscross. I believe the mints term for this is stoning the die. After all you really shouldn't call those heavy lines scratched into the die in random directions "polishing", but people do. And that leads to the arguments over whether or not "die polishing" lines can crisscross or not. Die polishing no, die stoning yes.

 

Do you have any citations? And please note that I am not challenging your credibility at all, it just seems like a trivial distinction. Is it possible that the terms are not mutually exclusive and that die stoning is just considered a form of die polishing? It is much like the whole "all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares" thing?

[coinman_23885]

Regarding lines on devices:

 

In the large majority of cases, they were quite faint. And when I have seen them on the devices, I don't recall them also being present in areas leading up to the devices.

 

Concentric lines do show up in the recesses of the wings of the eagle on the Morgan dollar reverse quite often, while the fields are typically without these lines.

 

Alos, I was attributing a pile of Peace dollars last night and ran across 1927-S VAM 1H, which has polishing lines above and on Liberty's hair.

 

This is also present in many of the Lincoln proofs from the 1936-42 era.

 

 

And the lines produced on the proofs from this era, and particularly the example you posted, weren't meant to repair the die so much as to produce a brilliant finish on the coins. As such, I don't see how anyone could see those as anything but die polish, but as the Lincoln shows, not all die polish lines are parallel or at least that don't appear so to my eyes.

[robec1347]

I think the main conclusion many collectors want to know is are these lines caused by cleaning or die xxxxxxxxxx (fill in the blank for what ever terminology you want to use).

 

The average collector doesn't care if you call it die polish, die finishing, die scratch or die stoning. These are all lumped into one category, right or wrong. For us, it just makes it easier to call it cleaning or die polishing.

 

Of course Doug also insists that die polish lines (or what ever you want to refer to them as) appearing on any coin is damage and as such should not be graded.

[greysoldier]

I like your main conclusion about all those little die "thingies" ~ well said !

 

[coinman1794]

I have been doing extensive study of Franklin half dollar clashing, and Mint workers' attempts to remove the clashing through polishing, so I have seen my share of die polishing.

 

These lines are unquestionably die polishing lines. Heavy die polishing lines are extremely common on coins of the 1930s-1960s, when the Mint seemingly did not care what their finished coins looked like. Even Proofs show polishing lines and tooling work on the dies.

 

 

[coinman_23885]

Of course Doug also insists that die polish lines (or what ever you want to refer to them as) appearing on any coin is damage and as such should not be graded.

 

Which is absolutely ridiculous. If you magnify any coin enough, you will see metal flow lines. Why should die polish lines be treated more negatively? Not all of them are always as conspicuous as some of the coins posted in that thread and don't always negatively affect eye appeal.

[physics-fan3.14]

This thread has been very interesting.

 

I don't really have anything more to add, except to say thanks to those of you who contributed.

[messydesk]

Of course Doug also insists that die polish lines (or what ever you want to refer to them as) appearing on any coin is damage and as such should not be graded.

Then I guess this isn't a 63.

 

[robec1347]

Nope, that would be in the Genuine hopper.

[WoodenJefferson]

Shovel marks...code 00

[coinman_23885]

Shovel marks...code 00

 

I would have thought it would have been 77 or 11; the numerals sort of resemble shovels of sorts.

[lehigh96]

 

The conclusions of everyone above seem sound and reasonable.

 

Sans that guy who was linked that has all those initials.

 

Who is that moderaator over there?

 

The same one who told Lehigh96, a Jefferson nickel expert, that the tics on Jefferson's cheeks come from the coal type shovels used at the mint.

 

Lehigh96 was eventually banned from posting there anymore after supporting his argument against this preposterous comment.

 

You take it from there.

 

Okay, just to clear some things up:

 

1) Doug was the one who came up with the ridiculous shovel scoop theory: Guess the Grade--1974 Jefferson Nickel PCGS

 

2) I was banned from the Cointalk forum based on my actions in a thread about artificial toning. Anyone interested can read the story here: Protect Toned Coins by Destroying the Toned Coin Market Spoiler alert-that thread is full of drama! My banning was eventually changed from a lifetime ban to a 30 day ban by the owner of the site.

 

3) Doug had absolutely nothing to do with my banning on Cointalk and we actively debate topics on Cointalk regularly.

 

4) I really have nothing to add to this thread or the current thread on Cointalk since I already had this exact same argument with Doug back in 2010: Grade this new Walker pickup

 

 

[cpm9ball]

Of course Doug also insists that die polish lines (or what ever you want to refer to them as) appearing on any coin is damage and as such should not be graded.

Then I guess this isn't a 63.

 

Are you blind, John? It's an '03.

 

Chris

[MarkFeld]

Of course Doug also insists that die polish lines (or what ever you want to refer to them as) appearing on any coin is damage and as such should not be graded.

Then I guess this isn't a 63.

 

Are you blind, John? It's an '03.

 

Chris

 

Are you blind, Chris? It's a 1903.

[cpm9ball]

Of course Doug also insists that die polish lines (or what ever you want to refer to them as) appearing on any coin is damage and as such should not be graded.

Then I guess this isn't a 63.

 

Are you blind, John? It's an '03.

 

Chris

 

Are you blind, Chris? It's a 1903.

 

Geez, Mark! Where have you been? Everybody knows that Morgans weren't produced in 1803 or 2003.

 

Chris

[robec1347]

Of course Doug also insists that die polish lines (or what ever you want to refer to them as) appearing on any coin is damage and as such should not be graded.

Then I guess this isn't a 63.

Lost in all this is saying what a cool gif John made. I love it, although it's giving me periods of dizziness.

[WoodenJefferson]

 

The conclusions of everyone above seem sound and reasonable.

 

Sans that guy who was linked that has all those initials.

 

Who is that moderaator over there?

 

The same one who told Lehigh96, a Jefferson nickel expert, that the tics on Jefferson's cheeks come from the coal type shovels used at the mint.

 

Lehigh96 was eventually banned from posting there anymore after supporting his argument against this preposterous comment.

 

You take it from there.

 

Okay, just to clear some things up:

 

1) Doug was the one who came up with the ridiculous shovel scoop theory: Guess the Grade--1974 Jefferson Nickel PCGS

 

2) I was banned from the Cointalk forum based on my actions in a thread about artificial toning. Anyone interested can read the story here: Protect Toned Coins by Destroying the Toned Coin Market Spoiler alert-that thread is full of drama! My banning was eventually changed from a lifetime ban to a 30 day ban by the owner of the site.

 

3) Doug had absolutely nothing to do with my banning on Cointalk and we actively debate topics on Cointalk regularly.

 

4) I really have nothing to add to this thread or the current thread on Cointalk since I already had this exact same argument with Doug back in 2010: Grade this new Walker pickup

 

 

Thank you for the time and effort you went to digging up all these links to all those discussions that 'should have' educated the general populace on those boards but instead got you banned and then reduction to a suspension. I shy away from there because getting confrontational to prove a point with their active posting moderators is suicidal.

 

I would like to see you post more here...period!

[RWB]

" Everybody knows that Morgans weren't produced in 1803 or 2003."

 

Sure they were -- or will be.... Just ask any Chinese fake seller for a quote and they'll make you some, or stay domestic and call the "Colorado Counterfeiter."

 

 

BTW - extensive reality examination has shown that those lines and scribbles are NOT from die polishing, abrasion or repair. They are caused by micro-metal termites eating their way through the coin. Some copper plated cents actually show the termites' nests -- things we incorrectly called "bubbles." This is all super nuclear Texas-sized secret...so don't tell anyone or even the cat...of even the cat's poop box!

[WoodenJefferson]

" Everybody knows that Morgans weren't produced in 1803 or 2003."

 

Sure they were -- or will be.... Just ask any Chinese fake seller for a quote and they'll make you some, or stay domestic and call the "Colorado Counterfeiter."

 

 

BTW - extensive reality examination has shown that those lines and scribbles are NOT from die polishing, abrasion or repair. They are caused by micro-metal termites eating their way through the coin. Some copper plated cents actually show the termites' nests -- things we incorrectly called "bubbles." This is all super nuclear Texas-sized secret...so don't tell anyone or even the cat...of even the cat's poop box!

 

I knew it, they are ancestors of the Langoliers...crafty little things that turn into devouring monsters of doom!

[RWB]

",,they are ancestors of the Langoliers..."

 

Yep. They also morph into the pacman things that eat the past as in that awful Stephen King (?) movie...

[cpm9ball]

",,they are ancestors of the Langoliers..."

 

Yep. They also morph into the pacman things that eat the past as in that awful Stephen King (?) movie...

 

It's amazing how this thread has morphed into the mention of Stephen King and the Langoliers.

 

Chris

[RWB]

Yeah -- I would've thought the "1917 Matte proof" thread would have morphed -- but that was fiction to begin with....

[physics-fan3.14]

Sir Messy - you have yet again proven your photographic superiority with that amazing GIF. Dang, that is good.