Die polish or hairlines?

bidask

neildrobertson

There might be some polish there, but the coin is definitely scratched. I wouldn't even necessarily call it hairlines.

bidask

@neildrobertson said:
There might be some polish there, but the coin is definitely scratched. I wouldn't even necessarily call it hairlines.P J

Your thoughts on the lines upper left obverse fields ?

Yes there is a scratch above P J

neildrobertson

There are scratches above and seemingly on the 20 as well.

It's hard to read a photo with that resolution to tell if the lines are raised or recessed.

If it's polish, every line should go right up to each of the rays with no gaps. I see examples where it looks like the lines stop before it his the ray, which makes me think hairlines.

The lines should also not extend onto the rays and I see a couple spots where that could be the case.

However, I see some spots where the hairlines seem to be in the small gaps between the ray lines without being on the rays itself. That would indicate polish because it's unlikely someone cleaning/wiping/scratching the coin would have that sort of precision.

scubafuel

I would expect it to be mostly/all die polish at the rays. U you oh should be able to tilt the coin under a loupe and confirm that the lines are raised.

7Jaguars

Interestingly, it is sometimes it is quite difficult to separate the two. I am of the opinion that the vast majority of the lines are on the planchet and they do in fact mostly end at the rays. Also, if the planchet damage is severe enough, it will not all necessarily be struck out at minting and therefore the deepest planchet markings will sometimes cross devices even through the striking process.

Rexford

I agree that they appear to be incuse lines that were in the planchet prior to strike as stated above.

JohnnyCache

I feel the two could be intermixed, with the red being a scratch / hairline, while the blue being die polish lines. However I agree, tough to be sure from the picture.

7Jaguars

Please see my comment above re: the area you have circled above, as evidently not all planchet damage can be struck out and some will remain on occasion through devices. Please note how the planchet lines are struck out near to the base of edge of the ray and than are present but very faint through the ray.
A semi-famous one that puzzled me for years was the obverse of Wreath crowns at George's cheek where the apparent marks are in all likelihood from the planchet. The TPGs are frequently unable to pick this up on specimen patterns where one side is struck with designs/devices and the other either blank or with the "MODEL" moniker....

Rexford

@7Jaguars said:
Please see my comment above re: the area you have circled above, as evidently not all planchet damage can be struck out and some will remain on occasion through devices. Please note how the planchet lines are struck out near to the base of edge of the ray and than are present but very faint through the ray.
A semi-famous one that puzzled me for years was the obverse of Wreath crowns at George's cheek where the apparent marks are in all likelihood from the planchet. The TPGs are frequently unable to pick this up on specimen patterns where one side is struck with designs/devices and the other either blank or with the "MODEL" moniker....

The TPGs are fully capable of distinguishing planchet issues or die polish from post-strike damage or hairlines, despite your repeated insistence to the opposite. That is perhaps the most basic requisite to grade coins effectively. Planchet issues can be grade-limiting, however.

7Jaguars

I will not drop names, but suffice it to say very well respected experts who have written the catalog literally agree with this assertion. I will further not name names but I have had regrades up FIVE points in the mint state grades. So no, they do not always get it and quite disagree and especially as regards patterns and matte proofs of "off" years.

coinkat

I think it would be somewhat helpful to see the reverse... adjustment marks seem plausible. You should consider investing in a higher powered glass something in x16 range to use to navigate these types of issues. Microscopes are not as expensive as they once where which is also a reasonable option especially in view of the varieties that exist for this series.

Rexford

@7Jaguars said:
I will not drop names, but suffice it to say very well respected experts who have written the catalog literally agree with this assertion. I will further not name names but I have had regrades up FIVE points in the mint state grades. So no, they do not always get it and quite disagree and especially as regards patterns and matte proofs of "off" years.

A difference in grades does not necessitate a lack of understanding. It’s telling that you mention matte proofs in particular, which may have actual hairlines that are post-strike but technically part of the minting process, as the coins are essentially cleaned by the mint. The approach to dealing with coins with as-made issues like this from a grading standpoint may vary and evolve over time.

I find your judgement of the reasoning behind differences in grade to be untrustworthy as you yourself have stated difficulty in telling the difference between hairlines and dielines in this post and have gotten the distinction entirely wrong in previous posts. And forgive me, but “well-respected experts who have written the catalog” means nothing; there are many people who have written catalogs and reference books who have no real understanding of surface quality. It’s an entirely different area of expertise. I would suggest attending Class #14 of the ANA summer seminar this year, which is taught by actual experts in the field (I am dropping names here). In fact, I would recommend this class to pretty much anyone who wants to improve their grading abilities and general understanding in this area.
https://6180285.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/6180285/Summer Seminar 2023/2023 Summer Seminar Catalog.pdf?utm_referrer=https://www.money.org/

7Jaguars

I would suggest that you are in judgement on an issue and person for which you are most certainly unfamiliar and leave it at that. I notice you are reticent in posting any such controversial coins and sit safely back to criticize without foundation. Perhaps you translating "Mea culpa" as it applies to you would be a start.
And you yourself obviously need observational training whilst demonstrated a close-minded approach also suggesting your need to improve your own judgements of people, or maybe halt altogether - interesting how agreeing that some coins are a difficult call makes for critique on your part. I have not touted myself up but have more than a little background shall we say, and note I have had to correct mistakes in grading or assessments in venues for which they are allowed (with this not being the forum for such discussions).

As a side note: although usually using a 5x loupe I also use a stereo dissecting scope of 30x as well as different lighting and times of day for natural light.

John Conduitt

Given grading is meant to be about lustre and wear, the TPGs shouldn’t be trying to net grade planchet issues. Or even scratches.

sellitstore

Forget TPG policies. That's off topic.

I concur with the first response, offered by Neil. The coin is scratched. The scratches extend from the fields into the rays in several places and the shadowing makes them appear to be gouges, at least some of them.

Hairlines are much finer scratches and, if raised, that would be the heaviest die polish that I've ever seen. Yes, it can be difficult to distinguish between raised and recessed in photos but some of these look like deep recessed scratches.

7Jaguars

I think the question for me at least was not DIE POLISH but rather PLANCHET ISSUES. As I totally agree the lines/scratches are incused and not in relief but IMHO represent incomplete strike through the planchet defects - a point I tried to make earlier.