Weird spots all over 1950 proof coins

scotty4449 · August 29, 2023 7:34PM

I have these two 1950 proof coins that would be very nice except they are covered in tiny spots. You would need magnification to see them unless you have really sharp eyes. I tried acetone for a couple of days but that didn't seem to do anything. I don't generally buy proof coins so I am pretty clueless here, what is this? Thanks!

1madman · August 29, 2023 7:40PM

I’m gonna take a guess at this and say the coins were improperly cleaned in the past where they were not rinsed correctly, and there is a solvent/substance still on their surfaces.

gumby1234 · August 29, 2023 7:46PM

Looks like something corrosive was used on them. Look at Lincolns cheekbone it appears to have eaten into the coin.

scotty4449 · August 29, 2023 8:21PM

These coins came from a capitol holder set I won off a local online auction about 5 years ago. I remember not liking them much when I had them in hand, so I sold off the Franklin and Washington to recoup the cost. Below are the GreatCollections pictures. It kind of looks like they have similar spotting, I don't think I really noticed it at the time. The spots sort of look like tiny crystals or hairs.

PCGS PR65

PCGS PR66

TomB · August 29, 2023 8:50PM

I don't think they have been cleaned. Rather, I believe it was from the original cellophane packaging as it degraded over time.

FrankH · August 30, 2023 6:16AM

ahhh---CHOOOO !!!

psuman08 · August 30, 2023 6:30AM

I have the same issue with a 1941 proof nickel. I have seen it on several examples. @TomB 's explanation makes sense.

Manifest_Destiny · August 30, 2023 6:42AM

It's common on earlier proofs. I believe it's part of the striking process, like radial flow lines or something similar. Very common on 1936-42 proofs, less so on 50-64. I'm no expert in this area so maybe someone familiar with 1936-1964 proofs can comment. Here are a couple of random pics from ebay that show the same issue.

ChrisH821 · August 30, 2023 6:46AM

if you are adventurous you can try acetone or MS70 and see if it removes the spots.

@gumby1234 said:
Looks like something corrosive was used on them. Look at Lincolns cheekbone it appears to have eaten into the coin.

This sort of "wear" is common on coins that were shipped in boxed sets(1936-1954). The coins move around in the cellophane and pick up high point "scuffyness".

lilolme · August 30, 2023 8:25AM

Interesting and when I saw the cent I thought I have seen this before. Searched the Forum but could not find anything. I still think it might be there somewhere. Here is some stuff I found for reference that might help. I don't know.

For the 25c and 50c I am seeing flow lines and/or die wear and some 'toning' or hazing. Here are a couple from coinfacts. Might be better examples if more searching was done.
.

.

.
Then from error_ref.com is one page on die wear/deterioration and/or orange peel.

https://www.error-ref.com/orange-peel-texture/

For the cent this is a coinfacts example for flow lines. Notice it has a similar look to the OP around the IN GOD but not as heavy. Also a little above the date. This does not have any of those dust like marks (spots) on the surface except a couple lines above the date.
.

.

.
Typically flow lines are radial. When the die wears they can become heavier as shown and not as radial but more blob like (as shown). Die rust normally appears as small 'dots' on the coin surface.
.
The OP coin has some (radial) blob like stuff as noted around IN GOD and the date which looks like die wear / flow lines.
There is a larger non-radial below TRUST which looks different. The dust like marks 'spots' are also seen on the devices of the OP.
My initial thought on the cent was these dust like marks are from something getting on the coin...
.

.

SanctionII · August 30, 2023 8:41AM

I have seen proof coins from 1936 though the mid 1950's that have this appearance. What you see cannot be removed from the coin. This appearance (IMO) resulted from the striking of the coin. Either the planchets were not polished to a deeply mirrored appearance, or the dies were not polished to a deeply mirrored appearance, or both. Further the dies used to strike the coins may have been overused and as a result deteriorated.

As a result the fields of the struck coins (and sometimes also the devices of the coins) are impaired. Some of the coins have negative eye appeal. However some of them have positive eye appeal with frosted devices and fields that are not at all brilliant (for example the 1950 quarter, Cert # 42193322 shown above; and the 1950 cent, Cert # 44797381 shown above; plus the photo of one of my 1950 quarters attached hereto).

One thing that is interesting about the 1936 - 1970 proof and SMS coinage is the wide variety of appearances of these coins.

BillJones · August 30, 2023 11:26AM

I know that one of the problems with Proof coins in the 1930s and '40s was with the chromium that was used to coat the Proof dies. When the metal flaked off the dies, it landed on the die face which resulted in marks similar to what you see on the coins in the OP.

Here is an example of this on a 1940 dime. I used to think that was an indicator that the coin had been dipped, but it isn't.

I don't know that chromium was used on the 1950 Proof coin dies, but I can tell you that many of those sets were poorly made, for Proofs, with indifferent luster. Finding nice 1950 Proof coins is hard for a variety of reasons. They were not well made and many have been dipped, which made the matter worse.

This set, which has been in my collection for many years is a "WOW!" for a 1950 Proof set. The story was a collector ordered several sets from the mint back in 1950 and formed this set out of the best coins were sent to him.