Would you feel the need to describe the surface of this coin if selling, and if so how would you?

JohnnyCache

I'm asking what others think.
This is not a trick question.
If selling, is what's going on here with this coin noteworthy enough to mention?
Would your answer be different if the buyer potentially would not be able to see the coin in hand before they purchase? and if it's a final sale?

For what it's worth, I would most definitely mention it, but I believe in full disclosure. The buyer may not care, or be bothered by it in the least, but I would feel compelled to note it just the same. This is not my coin. I am not selling it. It's strictly for educational purposes, my own.

syl

Since it's only in the fields and not on any of the designs, they are just rough die polishing marks. Maybe it was to remove rust or something that adhered to the die.

WCC

I have not sold a raw coin (on eBay) in a long time but when I did, I would mention if I thought the coin had been cleaned. However, I did not mention every defect the coin had, nor do I consider myself obligated to do so.

ajaan

PVC? A not so closeup of the coin would be better to tell IMO. Under enough magnification 99% of coins are going to show problems.

coinkat

The pictures are tough... some of the lines look raised which is die polish but I am not sure about all of them (at least from the images). This is why I use a higher powered glass so I have a better comfort level when it comes to issues such a die polish as opposed to a cleaning. Should die polish lines be disclosed? In general, I would say no. However if there are lines that create doubt, seems some notation as to either pie polish or if not die polish... something should be disclosed if the hair lining is due to an old cleaning. In this instance, it could be a combination of the two, so it should be noted IMHO.

JohnnyCache

I appreciate the replies so far. I will say that these lines are not die polishing lines but appear to be from an old wipe of the coin. In hand the coin is / can be considered attractive but tilted and you start to make out the wipe. Under a simple 5x pocket magnifier and they jump out at you. The pictures here were just with my camera phone so no real special magnification, it's just that I cropped them. Now I did that because this coin is up for sale and I don't wish to cause any problems related to a potential sale.

The thing is, for me, is that I feel a wipe, of the level presented here, should be mentioned. Even just saying "some wispy marks can be seen under glass" or something similar would satisfy that requirement in my opinion. Whatever the narrative one chooses, it could be presented in a way that wouldn't be derogatory for the coin but would present the coin honestly with the buyer.

syl

I don't see any of those lines on/in any part of the design, lettering or digits. To me, that says it can't be from cleaning and is something on the surface of the die itself, not the coin.

TwoKopeiki

Those who know me know i hate hairlines and would much rather have a 58 with pristine surfaces than a 62. When it comes to hairlines or cleaning, i do note it on all of my auctions.

JohnnyCache

@syl said:
I don't see any of those lines on/in any part of the design, lettering or digits. To me, that says it can't be from cleaning and is something on the surface of the die itself, not the coin.

I can only say that I viewed this coin in my hand and I am aware of the differences between die lines vs a wipe.
That said, I wouldn't feel the need to mention die lines.