Common Misconceptions of 1936-1942 Proofs - Die Polish

FlyingAl

In light of a recent thread and many comments, here is a beginner's guide to this topic. An in depth, very technical thread regarding the reasoning behind why this happened can be found here : https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/1075216/discussion-regarding-the-cause-of-over-polishing-on-1936-1942-proofs-particularly-1936#latest

Introduction

Proof die polishing 1936-42, more specifically over polishing, seems to be a very common misconception among collectors. Rather than suspect that the dies were the cause, they loop it into a weak strike, which is a fair assumption, but it's untrue. The proof die step of polishing a die to a mirror surface inevitably caused design detail to be polished away. This gives the appearance of a weak strike, but the high points of the coins remain struck. Since the high points are the last to fill the die during striking, and therefore are only present on the finished coins when the strike is complete and full, this rules out a weak strike.

Summary of Why Proof Dies were Over Polished

The mint in 1937-42 (1936 is another ball game) was having issues with getting the correct polishing depth for it's proof dies. Engraver John Sinnock had been experimenting with die relief in the 1930s, and as such the engraving department could not manage to find a consistent depth for it's proof die polishing step, which led to the over polish of individual dies.

Oftentimes, this led to many of the proof dies 1936-42 being over polished, and although this improves during the years, it still was prevalent in many of the 1942 dies. Such coins can be identified with the low point detail on each coin being nearly missing, while the high points retain the full detail. This is due to the polishing laps not reaching the high relief points on the dies. Remember the highest point on a die is the field, and that was what was the first to be removed during polishing along with the detail closest to the field. Let's take a look at a 1940 example.

This coin shows a full strike as the details at the highest point of the design (Washington's hair and eagle's breast feathers) are fully struck. However, the lower points of the design (hair ribbon, eagle's tail feathers) are nearly gone. This was due to over polish. The engraving department could have been on the second or third repolish for this coin's dies, and each subsequent polish removed more and more metal, and therefore low point detail.

On the contrary, here is a selection of well detailed coins:

(Obverse only, the reverse is better than average, but it has some leaf detail missing)

These coins show details that are full or close to it, and the dies were not accidentally over polished. These are above average examples for the date and denomination. Many of these are rare in their respective years, and yet their values do not show it. These coins can be found for the same price as an example with weak detail, and sometimes for cheaper prices. Cameo coins are the exception to this rule, though if they were not designated CAM, the coins with deep mirrors and frosted devices rarely command significant premiums from what I've seen.

Over Polishing and Grade

Although I have not worked for a TPG or know anyone personally who has, I can infer that the graders do not take into account the amount of detail remaining on these proofs when they are grading them, instead defaulting to surface preservation. Perhaps @MFeld can confirm this, as he once graded for NGC. Since over polishing of dies cannot be looped into strike characteristics, there is no reason in the standards to dock points for this technically as struck defect. Whether or not this should be changed is up for debate. I am not criticizing the TPGs for this, rather just saying what the standard is.

Image Confirmation of Grade Statement

If you doubt my statement that over polish is not taken into account when grading, here is a selection of CoinFacts coins with their grade above. All of these are fully struck from what I can see in the images, but were struck from over polished dies:

PR67

PR67+

PR68+

PR67+
https://images.pcgs.com/CoinFacts/40452859_199381420_2200.jpg

PR68

Hope this helps clear up some confusion!

lilolme

@FlyingAl
One suggestion and that I noticed in the other thread is the term weak strike. It has two different meanings. One is the dictionary meaning which you appear to be using above. The other is the numismatic meaning. This could be demonstrated by PCGS major categories for strike of Full, Good, Average, Weak, Poor. There is a big difference in a numismatic weak strike to full strike. So it can be possibly confusing if people start using the term with different interpretations.

On that nickel I still am wondering what the vertical lines are at the base (6 o/c) and on multiple coins but not completely consistent? I have a couple guesses but as I previously stated this is not a series I have ever dealt with and don't recall seeing them like these. Oh and that jaw... never mind.

Hope you have fun with this one. Nice write up.

FlyingAl

@lilolme The difference is that any form of striking weakness for a proof is automatically weak to poor. Since nearly all proofs are perfectly struck, any weakness at all is an exception, and a major one.

As to the nickel, I assume this is some sort of master hub defect as it is seen on multiple years. It’s raised, which would make me think master hub rather than die. Somehow the master hub got scratched is what I think happened, but this is all theoretical.

Aotearoa

Awesome. Thanks.

lilolme

@FlyingAl
Thanks for the reply. At least my question on the lines was not obvious stuff.
On the Proof strike pcgs does define strike with some intervals beside full and automatically weak to poor. Maybe they will help.
69 -70 Full (showing all detail intended)
68 Full (showing virtually all detail intended)
67 Full to exceptionally sharp
66 Sharp and almost always exceptionally sharp
65 Well struck and in most cases very sharp
64 There can be some weakness in strike. This is the highest Proof grade where some distracting weakness of strike in the major devices is allowable.
63 Average to Full
62 Extremely weak to Full
Again thanks and nice write up.

MFeld

I won’t say “never”, but I believe it would be an extremely rare occurrence in which missing design detail on a 1936-1942 Proof coin would result in a lower grade. And I can only imagine such exceptions applying to examples that would otherwise grade 68 or higher.

ricko

Interesting ... Thanks for the explanatory detail about the die polishing. Cheers, RickO

Maywood

A lot of this post is opinions

From another thread, you stated the above which sums things up very well.

FlyingAl

@lilome,
Thanks, this helps show the standards. So a coin that could in theory grade 68 with any strike weakness at all automatically gets a 4 point deduction. I assume this because the rest of the standards above are when the strike is full enough it isn’t noticeable.

Such a huge deduction is noticeable, whereas for circulation strikes it would be a one or sometimes two point deduction. I have to assume this is because it’s rare to find a proof with any strike weakness that is distracting. Of course, as it gets more distracting, more deduction. Thanks again!

Maywood

64 There can be some weakness in strike. This is the highest Proof grade where some distracting weakness of strike in the major devices is allowable.

I read this to mean that at grades above PR64 any "strike weakness" is viewed as negative. Since PCGS acknowledges "weakness" it renders all the discussion to the contrary as simple conjecture.

MFeld

@Maywood said:
64 There can be some weakness in strike. This is the highest Proof grade where some distracting weakness of strike in the major devices is allowable.

I read this to mean that at grades above PR64 any "strike weakness" is viewed as negative. Since PCGS acknowledges "weakness" it renders all the discussion to the contrary as simple conjecture.

Discussion to the contrary is not “simple conjecture”. The multitude of such proof coins that PCGS has, in fact, graded higher than 64 - many of them, much higher - says otherwise.

Maywood

Please post images of some coins from that multitude and we can discuss their strike weakness along with the other attributes which comprise their grade. It is entirely plausible that such strike anomalies were overshadowed by other factors or so negligible so as not to drag down the grade very much in the opinion of the graders.

This whole thing started because a submitter was disappointed, largely in part because their grade assessment was predicated on a coin's flashy appearance and the hope for a very high grade, multiple times. When it was noted that there was some high-point weakness, well, we wound up here, discussing all coins. We probably would have been better served sticking to the subject coin and its deficiencies, but I digress. Take away what helps and leave the rest.

MFeld

@Maywood said:
Please post images of some coins from that multitude and we can discuss their strike weakness along with the other attributes which comprise their grade. It is entirely plausible that such strike anomalies were overshadowed by other factors or so negligible so as not to drag down the grade very much in the opinion of the graders.

This whole thing started because a submitter was disappointed, largely in part because their grade assessment was predicated on a coin's flashy appearance and the hope for a very high grade, multiple times. When it was noted that there was some high-point weakness, well, we wound up here, discussing all coins. We probably would have been better served sticking to the subject coin and its deficiencies, but I digress. Take away what helps and leave the rest.

Sorry, but I don’t care to look for images to post. In cases where the strike anomalies were present, if, based on what you posted previously, PR64 should have been the highest assigned grade allowed, other (positive) factors shouldn’t have made a difference.

With respect to the coin posted by the OP, it’s quite possible that strike had nothing to do with his disappointing grade result. Proof coins can’t usually be graded accurately from images.

Maywood

PR64 should have been the highest assigned grade allowed

Mark, we're both smart guys. I think we understand by the PCGS wording that "allowed" refers to the thinking which then considers that weakness in the grading assessment. It certainly doesn't mean that any Proof coin with strike weakness is limited to PR64, that would be absurd.

MFeld

@Maywood said:
PR64 should have been the highest assigned grade allowed

Mark, we're both smart guys. I think we understand by the PCGS wording that "allowed" refers to the thinking which then considers that weakness in the grading assessment. It certainly doesn't mean that any Proof coin with strike weakness is limited to PR64, that would be absurd.

I agree. And as I posted previously, in my experience, strike weakness on these coins probably affects the grade only in extremely rare cases. Others may have different observations and opinions.

FlyingAl

Mark, I was not the OP of the other post, I just saw how many people brought up strike weakness where I was seeing none. It seemed to me that many people were mistaking the results of an over polished die for a weak strike. This seems to still be happening.

Of course, if a weaker than full (full/completely struck being average) strike was present on a proofs, the grade should be deducted accordingly. However, true strike weakness is exceeding rare on these proofs. Most presumed strike weakness is due to over polishing of the dies, and therefore very few are actually deducted for strike weakness. I still need to find a convincing example of strike weakness on one of these proofs.

However, as shown in multiple images and as I presume you said, this is not a cause for a lower grade. The key here is differentiating between what is true strike weakness and design detail eroded away by over polishing the dies. The two are caused by very different things and should result in very different grades, although they can present a similar look.

lilolme

@FlyingAl said:
@lilome,
Thanks, this helps show the standards. So a coin that could in theory grade 68 with any strike weakness at all automatically gets a 4 point deduction. I assume this because the rest of the standards above are when the strike is full enough it isn’t noticeable.

Such a huge deduction is noticeable, whereas for circulation strikes it would be a one or sometimes two point deduction. I have to assume this is because it’s rare to find a proof with any strike weakness that is distracting. Of course, as it gets more distracting, more deduction. Thanks again!

I posted the strike descriptions per grade as I thought they supported your OP. That is, you showed many examples where the strike was clearly less then what is noted for the descriptions at much lower grades. Also on the higher grades it made note of 'showing or showing virtually all detail intended' and again I thought this supported your opinion that since the die detail is polished away that the intended detail is diminished to what is on the die. Again an opinion and don't know actual fact.

As far as the proof 64 statement of:
There can be some weakness in strike. This is the highest Proof grade where some distracting weakness of strike in the major devices is allowable.

I think these statements should Not be taken as absolutes and also need to interpret them. So what I am saying about an absolute is they are giving guidelines to use in a global sense in evaluating proof strike. In grading whether it be contact marks, luster, strike or eye appeal it is extremely difficult to put into words, much less a few words, and capture all the scenarios of actual grading. Therefore I use the descriptions as a guideline and realize that there could be situations to which the do not apply - not an absolute.

The interpretation part - It states 'some distracting weakness of strike'. How to interpret this? One person might say I can see it therefore it counts. Another person with even less detail showing might say it is not distracting to me, it is not catching my eye and still like the coin and therefore I don't consider it distracting weakness.

Also it states - 'in major devices'. How to interpret this? I believe there could be near consensus on some devices as being major and similarly on some devices as not being major. But I bet there are going to be some that are a flip. Some say yes and other no on 'major'.

And that is all an opinion.