Wreath crown advice please

[VickySilver 775]

YAY!!!

[mrbadexample 985]

1 hour ago, VickySilver said:

YAY!!!

The crown does look a bit good, doesn't it?

[VickySilver 775]

Just the photo, but from it looks a lot like a PCGS66 if no hairlines....

[Paulus 1,942]

Good purchase there MBE

[Colin G. 147]

Well that snowballed rather quickly 

 

Enjoy.....it does look like a nice set

[mrbadexample 985]

50 minutes ago, Colin G. said:

Well that snowballed rather quickly 

 

Enjoy.....it does look like a nice set

Thanks Colin. It's missing the coppers though!

[VickySilver 775]

Uhh, that would quad the price! Easily....

[mrbadexample 985]

Well it arrived this morning. I can't say I'm entirely happy - everything seems to have been cleaned.

Hopefully this link will work to a few photos:

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0BxBRenK8v0n-SEVjZGhLRGZDRkk&usp=sharing

So my next questions: would that be acceptable to you? Is is something I should expect? Having never spent over £100 (honestly!) on a numismatic item, I feel a bit out of my depth here.

[Nordle11 564]

Don't worry about everyone else Jon, at the end of the day if it's not acceptable to you and you're not happy with it, return it. Especially as it's not just a couple of quid.

You'll forever be wanting to upgrade it because you know it's been cleaned, so why not just return it and keep hunting for one you're going to be proud to have in your collection?

[Colin G. 147]

Are you sure its cleaned, if you are referring to those hairlines, they appear to only be in the fields which would indicate they are die polishing marks. Otherwise the lines would continue across the raised areas.

Edit - Just had a look at all the photos..I see what you mean  Oops

Edited February 24, 2016 by Colin G.
Got it wrong!!!

[Colin G. 147]

Some of those do just look like die polish lines but the ones on the crown and especially the florin look a bit more worrying, wait for some of the others to chip in, have a good look at the hairlines under magnification if they are die polish lines they are theoretically raised on the coins surface so the way the light reflects could also help you determine this. I have an 1839 proof farthing that appears to have hairlines, but they are clearly die polish marks under magnification.

 

As Noodle says at the end of the day you have to be happy with your purchase

[IanB 175]

Is there any chance of having some comparison photos of hairlines and die polish lines? I have been put off from buying silver coins because of just this. It would be nice to know the difference.

 

Thank you

 

Ian

[Nordle11 564]

Your best chance of knowing is having a coin in hand and a good magnifier/microscope to see if the lines are in relief or incuse.

[Colin G. 147]

The picture in set above 1927 HC2.jpg is a good example of die polish lines, you can see the hairlines in the fields, but the hairlines on the whole do not continue across the raised lettering or the raised parts of the forehead...which would be some very precise cleaning. Therefore logic would indicate that these lines were marks made by polishing the die and therefore the marks would have only been on the fields, because on the die at the time of polishing the raised areas we see on the coin would have actually been incuse.

Hopefully that makes sense

[VickySilver 775]

I concur that the majority of the "hairlines" are die polish, even some on the DEVICES, and that many in the field are multi-directional. The coins have likely been dipped with light retoning but nothing out of the ordinary. What I do not see good evidence of is actual hairlines.

 

It is unusual (maybe I have just not seen too many as close up as blowups of your photos) that the apparent hairlines go up on to the devices, but that is clearly the case. I don't see anything personally worrisome but at the end of the day you should be happy with your not inconsiderable purchase.

[DaveG38 385]

For me, the 'hairlines' on WC1 are present both in the field and on the truncation and suggest polishing. Not sure about the others though. At the end of the day, you have to be satisfied and if you are not, then send them back.

[IanB 175]

Colin 

That does make a lot of sense thank you. I can see in the picture where the lines run down to and stop at the junction where the field meets the hair. As you say that would be

precise cleaning. However there are some lines that seem to go across the field as well as the face. I guess I need to see a few more example in real life to learn the difference.

One thing I do know about a polished shiny surface is that it does not take a lot to mark them and I would imagine there are very few silver coins that do not have some lines or marks, i guess thats where experience comes into play in deciding what is cleaning and what is not. In the mean time I think I will stay clear of anything shiny.

 

Ian

[mrbadexample 985]

I think the worst are on F1, the florin, and WC2, the wreath crown. You say that the hairlines should be raised if it's die-polishing (which I confess, I am absolutely unfamiliar with) but I can't see that the lines are raised either under the loupe or the USB 'scope.

[Colin G. 147]

When proof coins are struck the dies are normally polished to ensure that a nice mirror finish results once the coin is struck. Remember those areas of the design in relief(raised) would be incuse (sunk) on a die. This is what often produces a "cameo" appearance, because the polishing affects the fields (flat areas of the coin) but the sunken parts are often not polished so when a coin is struck, the hairlines appear to stop in areas where the coin is in relief. This also explains why what would be a scratch on the die is inverted when the coin is struck and appears as a raised hairline. Forgive me if you understand the terminology, I just thought it may be easier for people to understand who may not be familiar.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Colin G.

[mrbadexample 985]

I've added another 5 photos of the wreath crown. See what you think.

[VickySilver 775]

Very nice pictures, indeed. What I was trying to say in my earlier post is that some of the [IMO] polishing lines extend up into the lower relief portions of the devices such as on image 2. Also, it has probably erroneously been reported in various sources that polish lines should not be multidirectional - I think this not to be true and is seen particularly in the field of the image 12; those on the images 9 and 13 are not clear as I can not seem to make out whether these lines are raised or not. Image 11 also leaves me uncertain, but 10 seems to show die polish lines into the devicesThe ear prominences that are a bit rough are not wear but incompletely struck metal.

 

There do appear to be some possible hairlines but none I can tell absolutely; I am still of the opinion as I see the photos that the vast majority are still die polish. It is interesting that some of these die polish lines remind me a bit of haymarking planchet adjustment marks made prior to striking on 17th and 18th C. issues.

[mrbadexample 985]

Ok, a few more questions if I may - this is a bit of a steep learning curve for me, and I don't want to be unfair to the seller if what I'm seeing is (at least mostly) die polishing. Unfortunately, I have no proof coins of a similar age to compare them to - the oldest I have is a 1950 penny received from Pete this morning. When I look at that through the USB 'scope I do see some hairlines. However, they are much fainter and fewer in number. I've attached a picture for comparison. Is the difference due to the different metals? Is the difference due to improved production techniques in 1950 over 1927? Does anyone have a silver proof of similar age that they could take a close up picture of for comparison? 

[IanB 175]

If I can say something as a complete beginner on this subject and please shot me down if you want to but if you need a USB

microscope to see these lines then are they something that could possibly not be a problem? Technology maybe creating a problem that just does not exist. Just my opinion.

[mrbadexample 985]

1 hour ago, IanB said:

If I can say something as a complete beginner on this subject and please shot me down if you want to but if you need a USB

microscope to see these lines then are they something that could possibly not be a problem? Technology maybe creating a problem that just does not exist. Just my opinion.

It's an entirely valid point Ian. I have the technology to look much closer than ever before, and under the USB 'scope some of my collection looks like it should be in the bin.  However, I can clearly see the marks on these coins using a 40x hand-held loupe, and on the wreath crown with the naked eye.

[IanB 175]

If your going to throw that horrible 1950 penny away  Can you throw it in my bin please 

Seriously though I would be interested to know at what point magnification becomes a negative when trying to grade or give an opinion on the condition of a a coin?

I can understand using a microscope or high powered lenses when trying to spot minute differences, but in general when looking at a coin that is 50 - 100 yrs old or older and has probably been owned by more than one person who would have probably handled it on many occasions there has to be an expectation of normal wear and tear. Does the use of high magnification actually prevent us from buying coins that in reality are perfectly acceptable?

Anyway just a question, and I hope I have not hijacked your post and sent it down a different direction but I was just curious.

Going back to your coin, I think you have already made your mind up on this one, but I will have it if you are throwing it away with the penny