• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Non-flat fields

16 posts in this topic

Amanda, don't forget to "guess the coin" in the tangents forum!

 

I have been thinking about it for a while and I am no closer to forming a proper opinion. 893scratchchin-thumb.gif

 

To keep this topical, I just read an article in Numismatist describing the Ty.1 fields as 'textured.'

 

-Amanda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've notices that pre-1915 and post ~1970 proofs tend to have flat fields while those from the 50's and 60's tend to be a bit concave. This can be seen with imaging when there is a reflection opposite the lighting when the lighting angle is high.

 

Not Flat:

 

1964hdobv.JPG

 

Flat:

 

1991qdobv.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've notices that pre-1915 and post ~1970 proofs tend to have flat fields while those from the 50's and 60's tend to be a bit concave. This can be seen with imaging when there is a reflection opposite the lighting when the lighting angle is high.

 

Mark,

 

Not owning an MPL, how would you portray their fields? In other words, are they flat or concave?

 

Speaking from my collection -- I know proof IHCs are all fairly flat, as are all the Barber and Seated coinage, but I thought that the Matte Proof Lincolns which started in 1909 (and proof Buffalos in 1913, come to think of it) were more concave.

 

Just wondering...Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curved (or concave) = the general shape. (This was called the "die radius" by the mint before 1920, but that does not necessarily mean "flat.")

Textured = surface detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites