Need a second opinion on a trade proof

spyglassdesign

I am considering a trade dollar proof that has some mighty die polish lines (I am assuming since they seem to break at the devices). Pcgs called it questionable color. But I'm more concerned about the polish. I haven't found any coinfacts coins that have die polish anywhere close to this level in trade proofs.

Am I interpreting polish for what is actually possibly toning? Wouldn't pcgs call it cleaned if it was actually cleaned this badly post mint? Am I correct that the consistency, if it is die polish, would be consistent with die polish?

Thanks in advance!

TomB

I believe that rain-like pattern is striations in the toning. I don't believe it is die polish.

FlyingAl

I don't think it's die polish given how the widths of the lines are inconsistent. If it was polish, they would be the same width.

It's more than likely those lines were caused by the coin sitting on something while it toned. If this is correct, the item had the grain pattern on it. PCGS didn't like the color, so it is also possible this is an artifact of an AT toning process.

privatecoin

The die polish definitely seems enhanced by the toning.

spyglassdesign

Here is a slab Pic.

PeakRarities

Toning IMO, I haven’t seen die polish lines like that on a trade dollar, they seem to be a little too congruent and carry over the devices in the same uniform pattern.

spyglassdesign

@DeplorableDan said:
Toning IMO, I haven’t seen die polish lines like that on a trade dollar, they seem to be a little too congruent and carry over the devices in the same uniform pattern.

The only place I noticed it was over her bosom area... That's when I started thinking it might be toning ad die polish as I understand it generally will avoid the devices as the fields are the high point of the die. As @FlyingAl pointed out the widths do seem inconsistent with die polish the more I look at it.

FlyingAl

Note how the lines are immediately interrupted by what appears to be a fingerprint on the reverse above the ICA in AMERICA. This also strongly points to toning causing the lines (or the lines would likely show through the fingerprint). Of course it is possible the "die polish" wasn't in that area, but I find it unlikely given how consistent it is across the obverse and reverse.

lilolme

Would not it be nice if one could actually hold the coin and examine it.

Anyhow I enlarged an area on the two photos. In one photo it kind of looks like small bumps and lines but the other looks different.

spyglassdesign

@lilolme said:
Would not it be nice if one could actually hold the coin and examine it.

Anyhow I enlarged an area on the two photos. In one photo it kind of looks like small bumps and lines but the other looks different.

>

I would actually have to leave my house to do that 😬🤔😅🏡

NickelMike

That Trueview is amazing. Great looking coin!

ricko

Looks to me like tarnish and not die polish lines.... may have been from the medium used to impart the AT....Cheers, RickO

spyglassdesign

Well, she's on her way. I'll post new pics once she arrives!

dcarr

I think the coin may have been so heavily toned (dark) at one time that the proof finish was etched away.

Regarding the lines - note that the reverse has them in the same direction, indicating that they are planchet striations, elongated in the direction that the metal was rolled prior to punching out the blank.

Crackout

The lines are definitely going over/through the devices. I like dcarr's planchet striation explanation.

spyglassdesign

@dcarr said:
I think the coin may have been so heavily toned (dark) at one time that the proof finish was etched away.

Regarding the lines - note that the reverse has them in the same direction, indicating that they are planchet striations, elongated in the direction that the metal was rolled prior to punching out the blank.

Interesting. I did notice some on the back as well.

Would that cause the wood grain looking toning per pcgs imaging (not really noticeable in the slab Pic)?

lilolme

@dcarr said:
I think the coin may have been so heavily toned (dark) at one time that the proof finish was etched away.

Regarding the lines - note that the reverse has them in the same direction, indicating that they are planchet striations, elongated in the direction that the metal was rolled prior to punching out the blank.

When I was looking at the lines in the slab photo I thought about several different things. One of them was the roller lines. But I kind of through that out in my head. Reason, well having dealt with Morgans I had seen roller lines but not anywhere to the degree here. They usually got mostly struck out and mostly seen on device and occasionally some into fields. These lines dominate so much that I just skipped past it.

Also curious that a proof would not strike out more of the roller lines. I guess they were not to picky on what planchets they used for a Proof in this case.

Anyway the roller line theory does add up for direction.

As far as the dark toning and etching that might explain those little bumps I noted.

291fifth

Do you really want an expensive problem coin? Pass.

spyglassdesign

Here are my quick shots, phone shots to follow... My camera really doesn't do it justice. It is much more silvery than it appears but I can't get good lighting without glaring the slab.

spyglassdesign

This one has a lot more mint luster left than the original images including the true view implied. I'm pleasantly surprised.

spyglassdesign

I actually found a use for my ring light? Say what? These are far closer to in hand! Keep in mind it's still through plastic so there is some distortion and smudges and marks that are not on the coin.

DelawareDoons

I feel like I've seen this one in-hand before and I thought it was... problematic.

lilolme

What can you see in hand with some magnification and tilting it around?

This area (not the plastic scratch) looks 'problematic' as DD put it above.
.

.

spyglassdesign

@lilolme said:
What can you see in hand with some magnification and tilting it around?

This area (not the plastic scratch) looks 'problematic' as DD put it above.
.

.

It's not noticeable in hand at all until under magnification. I can get it to glint at one specific angle slightly. Or are you referring to the dot?

lilolme

Sorry I mentioned not the plastic scratch but didn't think about the dot. So not the dot.
That area between the two stars looks 'problematic'. And similar, but not as noticeable, in other areas. So can you see lines or 'stuff' and not just toning lines on the coin? I guess is the question.
I think I will punt now.

spyglassdesign

@lilolme said:
Sorry I mentioned not the plastic scratch but didn't think about the dot. So not the dot.
That area between the two stars looks 'problematic'. And similar, but not as noticeable, in other areas. So can you see lines or 'stuff' and not just toning lines on the coin? I guess is the question.
I think I will punt now.

I can see toning, with some mint luster showing through between the stars when I turn it at angles. Ie it's not completely solid toning. Almost like wood grainy toning I guess.

PerryHall

Would it be feasible for the PCGS conservation service to remove the questionable toning by dipping it so this coin can get a straight grade?

spyglassdesign

@PerryHall said:
Would it be feasible for the PCGS conservation service to remove the questionable toning by dipping it so this coin can get a straight grade?

I was wondering this too, however before I had it in a comment was made about the mint luster being gone. Now that I see it's not gone...

PerryHall

@spyglassdesign said:

@PerryHall said:
Would it be feasible for the PCGS conservation service to remove the questionable toning by dipping it so this coin can get a straight grade?

I was wondering this too, however before I had it in a comment was made about the mint luster being gone. Now that I see it's not gone...

It's my understanding that before they do anything to the coin the conservation service will evaluate the coin to determine if it can be improved and will decline to do anything if they feel that conservation won't improve it.

TomB

Luster is generally not seen on brilliant proof coinage, so I'm not certain what you are looking at on the coin.

As far as dipping it goes, this is starting to appear to be a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire. The coin is already in a Genuine holder due to possible AT, but that possible AT (if it is AT; I haven't seen the coin in-hand) might have been applied to the coin to hide already existing problems. You may win on this coin, but pieces like this tend to be a money pit.

spyglassdesign

@TomB said:
Luster is generally not seen on brilliant proof coinage, so I'm not certain what you are looking at on the coin.

As far as dipping it goes, this is starting to appear to be a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire. The coin is already in a Genuine holder due to possible AT, but that possible AT (if it is AT; I haven't seen the coin in-hand) might have been applied to the coin to hide already existing problems. You may win on this coin, but pieces like this tend to be a money pit.

Yes, I'm taking this all into account. I will definitely scour the surface thoroughly before making any decision on it today or tomorrow.

What I'm referring to as luster, maybe the wrong term... Is the reflective surface.