Hairlines before they were called hairlines

breakdown

I am reading and enjoying Q David Bowers’ Centennial History of the ANA. It is a year by year recounting of the contents of the Numismatist that started in 1888.

In February 1892, in one of the first descriptions of coin grading in the Numismatist, the author Joseph Hooper stated that collectors should avoid “brushing” proof coins because it will produce “hay marks” on the coin. QDB explains that hay marks would later be termed hairlines.

Cleaning - a bane of proof coins - has been understood as a problem for a long time.

Shane6596

Interesting. I will have to add it to my rainy day reading. I have been flipping through quite a few coin books lately.

keyman64

Here's a term that isn't used very often today to describe toned proofs... Dealers would call them "Impaired Proofs" and could frequently not sell them.

AlanSki

Cabinet friction is a term rarely used anymore.

ricko

@keyman64... Good point about tarnished proofs... That was back when tarnish was recognized for what it is - environmental damage. Then, somehow, the color chasers became prominent and paid (and are paying) incredible premiums for such damage. Still do not understand throwing money at damaged coins... but evidently, it is a profitable pursuit. Cheers, RickO

MFeld

@keyman64 said:
Here's a term that isn't used very often today to describe toned proofs... Dealers would call them "Impaired Proofs" and could frequently not sell them.

How long ago are you talking about? I started buying coins in the mid-60's and don't remember that.
I think of "impaired Proof" as indicating that the coin has been circulated or otherwise mishandled, and having nothing to do with toning.

keyman64

@MFeld said:

@keyman64 said:
Here's a term that isn't used very often today to describe toned proofs... Dealers would call them "Impaired Proofs" and could frequently not sell them.

How long ago are you talking about? I started buying coins in the mid-60's and don't remember that.
I think of "impaired Proof" as indicating that the coin has been circulated or otherwise mishandled, and having nothing to do with toning.

In the 1980s, as a kid between the ages of 10-15 or so and visiting a local coin shop in Tampa, FL, the really old-timers running the shop called them that when looking at proof sets from the 1950s and 1960s. I can only speak to my experience and I guess I don't know if the term was widely used.