Grading - Striations vs. Hairlines

FlyingAl

I thought I'd do a quick post on this topic, since it's one of the finer nuances of grading Proofs but can make a major difference in grade.

It is of note that some graders distinguish between striations and hairlines, and others do not or tend to net grade a Proof with major striations. It simply depends on who is grading the coin that particular day.

To begin, some definitions:

Striations - lines acquired on a planchet during the planchet making process that are not fully struck out by the dies. These are pre-strike marks and are not considered damage to the coin.

Hairlines - lines acquired post-strike due to improper handling. These marks are a form of damage to the coin.

As stated above, striations are pre-strike and should not generally count against a coin's grade. As such, being able to identify the two is critically important. Here's how I've learned to do it:

Striations- will run up to and under devices without disturbance to path. Generally these are perfectly straight lines.

Hairlines - will run near to devices, but never up to and under. Often curved in path.

Now the tricky part - the images.

Striations examples:

.
.
Unfortunately, this one is mixed in with some hairlines as well, so pay close attention to the arrows. You'll notice the major lines goes under the bust (or moreso disappears) and then reappears on the other side. I'll include a different angle where it's easier to see that it's one full line.

.
.
Striation #2:

.
.
Notice how this line on the bust goes under the eye wrinkles, and then appears back on the other side. The same thing can be see at the top of the hair.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
Hairlines:

.
.
Everything you see in this left field appears to be a hairline. Notice how all of the lines end before they get near a device, and they generally exist all on their own. If it doesn't go up to or under a device, it's a safe conclusion it's a hairline.

It is of note that these images don't really capture the full picture, and taking a few of your Proofs in hand and looking for these things is important. Also, sometimes it's a guessing game, and you can't really know for sure. I'm not perfect, nor are the graders perfect. There's one or two lines in the images above that I think could be either a hairline or a striation, but I figured the information here is worth more than getting one line attribution wrong. Try and use the tips here to identify the differences on your coins. Good luck!

Typekat

Great images and explanation.

In my experience, die polish lines are an even more common, and very similar, source of confusion in grading. Much of what you say about planchet striations going up to and under the devices also applies to die polish lines. Similarly, neither should affect the technical grade of the coin.

JW77

If I saw these coins without first reading the post I would of assumed the striations were scratches.

oldabeintx

The crossing lines in the left field are very straight and obviously different angles, and lonely - guess striations or random mishandling? Wouldn’t seem to result from wiping.

oldabeintx

It has seemed to me that hairlines on proofs are tolerated, albeit affecting the grade. Whereas MS coins are details graded as cleaned with hairlines. Is this the case?

Copperindian

Good dissertation!

logger7

I was surprised to see die polish even on a 1986 US silver eagle, business strike which was verified with the shop owner recently who had it in an album for sale. I was surprised.

rmpsrpms

Are these "striations" incuse or raised? So much pressure and metal working happens in the field that all planchet marks are eliminated, but those might be die scratch marks, and if they are raised that would prove where they came from. The profile gets much less pressure, but proofs are still mostly brought up fully due to the two strikes.

lablover

I believe you missed the hairline around the ears.

4Redisin

@FlyingAl

I think this quote could be better said like this: "Striations will run up to and [through] devices without disturbance to path. Generally, these are perfectly straight lines."

I'm certain that's what you were saying. Lots of times they are wider than the typical scratch and the interior surface of a striation will look different. I think these marks lower the eye appeal of a coin and while not damage, I think they should lower a grade. What do the professional graders at PCGS do?
Anybody, anybody...Bueler?

As for those striations we call "Adjustment Marks" I may have another opinion as I never thought about it until I read your post.

7Jaguars

Whilst I like the subject, many times it is not crystal clear on a particular coin, as you alluded to. I am not sure from pictures that the first example shows "die striations" as certainly there can be field hairlines that don't quite continue up to the device(s) and pick up at a distance from device. I agree with the second based on the photo that this is a mixed case.
Not sure of the third, and agree with the last.
And not that it matters but suspect most would use terms such as "die polish" or "die preparation",etc. rather than "die striations" as that to many would suggest more phenomena such as adjustment marks or flan imperfection.
A really good example of a related topic is the King's cheek prominence on the British Wreath Crown where what looks to some to be wear (and it is a high point on the device relief) are many times planchet issues or roughness that is not struck out during minting. I will try to show a picture later today if there is interest.

Barberian

Just to clarify, these are adjustment marks.

(heads start to explode)

OK! OK! They are not adjustment marks, just "orderly" and acceptable post mint damage, but they make you wonder how they got there and why they are so straight.

Edited to add: Those are planchet roller marks?! Those impressions are that deep into the lettering? They should be deeper there, but THAT deep?

habaraca

Planchet roller marks

Barberian

Those are pretty deep marks. I thought that those on the 76-S were too severe to be planchet marks. Have I cleared the "post-mint damage" bar?

zer0man

Avoid both. Problem solved.

You

@FlyingAl said:
I thought I'd do a quick post on this topic, since it's one of the finer nuances of grading Proofs but can make a major difference in grade.

It is of note that some graders distinguish between striations and hairlines, and others do not or tend to net grade a Proof with major striations. It simply depends on who is grading the coin that particular day.

To begin, some definitions:

Striations - lines acquired on a planchet during the planchet making process that are not fully struck out by the dies. These are pre-strike marks and are not considered damage to the coin.

Hairlines - lines acquired post-strike due to improper handling. These marks are a form of damage to the coin.

As stated above, striations are pre-strike and should not generally count against a coin's grade. As such, being able to identify the two is critically important. Here's how I've learned to do it:

Striations- will run up to and under devices without disturbance to path. Generally these are perfectly straight lines.

Hairlines - will run near to devices, but never up to and under. Often curved in path.

Now the tricky part - the images.

Striations examples:

.
.
Unfortunately, this one is mixed in with some hairlines as well, so pay close attention to the arrows. You'll notice the major lines goes under the bust (or moreso disappears) and then reappears on the other side. I'll include a different angle where it's easier to see that it's one full line.

.
.
Striation #2:

.
.
Notice how this line on the bust goes under the eye wrinkles, and then appears back on the other side. The same thing can be see at the top of the hair.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
Hairlines:

.
.
Everything you see in this left field appears to be a hairline. Notice how all of the lines end before they get near a device, and they generally exist all on their own. If it doesn't go up to or under a device, it's a safe conclusion it's a hairline.

It is of note that these images don't really capture the full picture, and taking a few of your Proofs in hand and looking for these things is important. Also, sometimes it's a guessing game, and you can't really know for sure. I'm not perfect, nor are the graders perfect. There's one or two lines in the images above that I think could be either a hairline or a striation, but I figured the information here is worth more than getting one line attribution wrong. Try and use the tips here to identify the differences on your coins. Good luck!

This is flat out incorrect. None of those lines in the fields are planchet striations. They are all hairlines. In fact, there is no reason why there would be planchet striations that look like that in the fields, since the fields are the highest point of the die and involve the most metal movement on the coin. They would be struck out. Let alone it being on a proof - there MIGHT be die polish on a proof, but there usually isn't, and there shouldn't be planchet striations. And just visually those are hairlines based on how they shine and definitely not die polish or anything else. Hairlines can be straight lines as well.

You

@habaraca said:
Planchet roller marks

Now these are as struck.

You

@Barberian said:
Just to clarify, these are adjustment marks.

(heads start to explode)

OK! OK! They are not adjustment marks, just "orderly" and acceptable post mint damage, but they make you wonder how they got there and why they are so straight.

Edited to add: Those are planchet roller marks?! Those impressions are that deep into the lettering? They should be deeper there, but THAT deep?

Yes, these are roller marks, and there wouldn't be adjustment marks on US coinage in this period.

You

@FlyingAl said:

It is of note that some graders distinguish between striations and hairlines, and others do not or tend to net grade a Proof with major striations. It simply depends on who is grading the coin that particular day.

Also, this is complete nonsense. There are no graders at any major TPG who do not distinguish between planchet striations and hairlines. That's Day 1 stuff.

There is a definite chance I have you confused with someone else, but I think I have noticed a pattern in your posts of confidently stating that the TPGs do XYZ as a standard practice, but with no actual evidence beyond your anecdotal (and potentially flawed, as we see here) experience and observations.

FlyingAl

@You said:

@FlyingAl said:

It is of note that some graders distinguish between striations and hairlines, and others do not or tend to net grade a Proof with major striations. It simply depends on who is grading the coin that particular day.

Also, this is complete nonsense. There are no graders at any major TPG who do not distinguish between planchet striations and hairlines. That's Day 1 stuff.

There is a definite chance I have you confused with someone else, but I think I have noticed a pattern in your posts of confidently stating that the TPGs do XYZ as a standard practice, but with no actual evidence beyond your anecdotal (and potentially flawed, as we see here) experience and observations.

I got a PR66 1942 cent that would knock your socks off….

Thing is covered in striations.

You

@FlyingAl said:

@You said:

@FlyingAl said:

It is of note that some graders distinguish between striations and hairlines, and others do not or tend to net grade a Proof with major striations. It simply depends on who is grading the coin that particular day.

Also, this is complete nonsense. There are no graders at any major TPG who do not distinguish between planchet striations and hairlines. That's Day 1 stuff.

There is a definite chance I have you confused with someone else, but I think I have noticed a pattern in your posts of confidently stating that the TPGs do XYZ as a standard practice, but with no actual evidence beyond your anecdotal (and potentially flawed, as we see here) experience and observations.

I got a PR66 1942 cent that would knock your socks off….

Thing is covered in striations.

Let’s see it.

Barberian

@You said:

@Barberian said:
Just to clarify, these are adjustment marks.

(heads start to explode)

OK! OK! They are not adjustment marks, just "orderly" and acceptable post mint damage, but they make you wonder how they got there and why they are so straight.

Edited to add: Those are planchet roller marks?! Those impressions are that deep into the lettering? They should be deeper there, but THAT deep?

Yes, these are roller marks, and there wouldn't be adjustment marks on US coinage in this period.

I knew these were not adjustment marks, hence the winky, I just didn't realize these are roller marks. That they actually cut into the surface of the planchet. Thanks for the info and correction.

FlyingAl

@You said:

@FlyingAl said:

@You said:

@FlyingAl said:

It is of note that some graders distinguish between striations and hairlines, and others do not or tend to net grade a Proof with major striations. It simply depends on who is grading the coin that particular day.

Also, this is complete nonsense. There are no graders at any major TPG who do not distinguish between planchet striations and hairlines. That's Day 1 stuff.

There is a definite chance I have you confused with someone else, but I think I have noticed a pattern in your posts of confidently stating that the TPGs do XYZ as a standard practice, but with no actual evidence beyond your anecdotal (and potentially flawed, as we see here) experience and observations.

I got a PR66 1942 cent that would knock your socks off….

Thing is covered in striations.

Let’s see it.

Here you go. They're all over the place even in a still shot. This is a PR66RD.

Here's a 1940 nickel with them all over the obverse (they run mostly vertically) and I have a video of this one too. This is a PR65CAM CAC.


https://www.mycollect.com/posts/156354

Cougar1978

I pass on both hairlines, striatum’s on proofs, etc lol.

You

@FlyingAl said:

@You said:

@FlyingAl said:

@You said:

@FlyingAl said:

It is of note that some graders distinguish between striations and hairlines, and others do not or tend to net grade a Proof with major striations. It simply depends on who is grading the coin that particular day.

Also, this is complete nonsense. There are no graders at any major TPG who do not distinguish between planchet striations and hairlines. That's Day 1 stuff.

There is a definite chance I have you confused with someone else, but I think I have noticed a pattern in your posts of confidently stating that the TPGs do XYZ as a standard practice, but with no actual evidence beyond your anecdotal (and potentially flawed, as we see here) experience and observations.

I got a PR66 1942 cent that would knock your socks off….

Thing is covered in striations.

Let’s see it.

Here you go. They're all over the place even in a still shot. This is a PR66RD.

Those are die lines, not planchet striations. Completely different - they’re on the dies and not the planchet. And notice how they don’t shine in the same way.

Here's a 1940 nickel with them all over the obverse (they run mostly vertically) and I have a video of this one too. This is a PR65CAM CAC.


https://www.mycollect.com/posts/156354

Die polish again.

FlyingAl

@You said:

@FlyingAl said:

@You said:

@FlyingAl said:

@You said:

@FlyingAl said:

It is of note that some graders distinguish between striations and hairlines, and others do not or tend to net grade a Proof with major striations. It simply depends on who is grading the coin that particular day.

Also, this is complete nonsense. There are no graders at any major TPG who do not distinguish between planchet striations and hairlines. That's Day 1 stuff.

There is a definite chance I have you confused with someone else, but I think I have noticed a pattern in your posts of confidently stating that the TPGs do XYZ as a standard practice, but with no actual evidence beyond your anecdotal (and potentially flawed, as we see here) experience and observations.

I got a PR66 1942 cent that would knock your socks off….

Thing is covered in striations.

Let’s see it.

Here you go. They're all over the place even in a still shot. This is a PR66RD.

Those are die lines, not planchet striations. Completely different - they’re on the dies and not the planchet. And notice how they don’t shine in the same way.

Here's a 1940 nickel with them all over the obverse (they run mostly vertically) and I have a video of this one too. This is a PR65CAM CAC.


https://www.mycollect.com/posts/156354

Die polish again.

Disagree.

jacrispies

@You said:

Those are die lines, not planchet striations. Completely different - they’re on the dies and not the planchet. And notice how they don’t shine in the same way.

Die polish again.

I disagree as well. The Lincoln cent are certainly planchet striations because they are parallel on the obverse and reverse. If it was simply on the dies, to have perfectly parallel lines on two different dies is highly improbable, borderline impossible. They follow the natural grain of the rolled out metal. Look at any woody lincoln cent, and you'll see they are parallel like the OP example. I've never seen die lines matching on the obverse and reverse dies on any classic US issue of any denomination.

You

@jacrispies said:

@You said:

Those are die lines, not planchet striations. Completely different - they’re on the dies and not the planchet. And notice how they don’t shine in the same way.

Die polish again.

I disagree as well. The Lincoln cent are certainly planchet striations because they are parallel on the obverse and reverse. If it was simply on the dies, to have perfectly parallel lines on two different dies is highly improbable, borderline impossible. They follow the natural grain of the rolled out metal. Look at any woody lincoln cent, and you'll see they are parallel like the OP example. I've never seen die lines matching on the obverse and reverse dies on any classic US issue of any denomination.

That’s not true at all. They are not planchet striations, and there’s no way that there would be planchet striations in the fields on a modern proof. Think about that for a second. The fields are the lowest part of the coin and the part most subject to flattening from the dies. The only way any planchet striations (aka incuse lines in the planchet) are going to appear in the fields is if they are extremely deep, otherwise they would be struck out. On a modern proof, that’s not going to happen.

The “parallel lines” argument is also ridiculous. There are parallel die lines and parallel hairlines on many coins. Are you telling me you cannot wipe a die or a coin in a parallel direction? In fact, most instances of die polish are probably parallel.

You

@jacrispies said:

@You said:

Those are die lines, not planchet striations. Completely different - they’re on the dies and not the planchet. And notice how they don’t shine in the same way.

Die polish again.

I disagree as well. The Lincoln cent are certainly planchet striations because they are parallel on the obverse and reverse. If it was simply on the dies, to have perfectly parallel lines on two different dies is highly improbable, borderline impossible. They follow the natural grain of the rolled out metal. Look at any woody lincoln cent, and you'll see they are parallel like the OP example. I've never seen die lines matching on the obverse and reverse dies on any classic US issue of any denomination.

A woody is NOT the same as planchet striations. A woody is caused by metal impurities. The impurities are rolled flat in the planchet rolling machine (the same machine that can give roller marks) and stretched out, usually unidirectionally. Usually (but not always) they will be parallel. But that’s irrelevant. They cannot be struck out like any incuse striations on the planchet. And you can absolutely have parallel die polish or hairlines.

You

In fact, that woody has several areas of impurities that aren’t even parallel.

You

If this is planchet striations and not die polish, then why don’t the lines go up onto the legend? If they are in the planchet there should be extremely deep incuse lines on the legends, since those are lower points on the die and less impacted by them.

Come on now.

FlyingAl

Edit - likely incorrect info.

You

@FlyingAl said:

@You said:

If this is planchet striations and not die polish, then why don’t the lines go up onto the legend? If they are in the planchet there should be extremely deep incuse lines on the legends, since those are lower points on the die and less impacted by them.

Come on now.

I've been thinking on this one and I think I jumped the gun with the nickel - these probably are die polish for the reasons you mentioned. Regardless, you seem to fail to realize that die polish and striations don't count (or shouldn't) against a coin's grade, and if you identify die polish and striations you'll still end in the same place. The necessary differentiation needs to be those lines which affect grade and which do not.

On the other hand, the cent shows exactly what you wanted to see - those lines continue well into the devices.

Of course they don’t count - you were the one who implied that sometimes they are treated the same by the TPGs.

The lines on your cent are still die lines - they just go onto the devices. Die polish can do that, especially on flat areas of the design. Notice how they do not really jump up onto the lettering. But they are not striations, otherwise those lines on the devices would be deep gashes, if they were able to reach the fields.

Think about roller marks on Morgans. Those are deep incuse lines in the planchet. Yet typically they only make it to the very highest point of the coin - the cheek and hair. They do not generally make it to the fields. Adjustment marks are even deeper and thus can make it to the fields, but they become far weaker in the fields. The lines on the proof cent do not change in depth from devices to fields because they are on the dies (not that they have any depth, because they’re raised and not incuse).

FlyingAl

@You said:
Of course they don’t count - you were the one who implied that sometimes they are treated the same by the TPGs.

The lines on your cent are still die lines - they just go onto the devices. Die polish can do that, especially on flat areas of the design. Notice how they do not really jump up onto the lettering. But they are not striations, otherwise those lines on the devices would be deep gashes, if they were able to reach the fields.

Think about roller marks on Morgans. Those are deep incuse lines in the planchet. Yet typically they only make it to the very highest point of the coin - the cheek and hair. They do not generally make it to the fields. Adjustment marks are even deeper and thus can make it to the fields, but they become far weaker in the fields. The lines on the proof cent do not change in depth from devices to fields because they are on the dies.

I never said that they were treated differently.

Should the lines be what you say they are - die polish - you should be able to produce hundreds of examples that match the lines on my coin exactly. Of course, this is because every mark that is on a die must appear on EVERY coin struck from that die. I'll be fair though, and only ask for you to produce ten. If you cannot produce the examples, we can know for a fact the lines are not from a die, but rather originate on the planchet itself.

FlyingAl

Additionally, here are numerous examples of 1940 Proof nickels that come from the same obverse die as my posted example. They are most easily identified by the shared marker at the bottom of the bust. Despite many being from different photographic angles, none of them show any evidence of heavy marks in the fields, or any mark in the fields that matches my coin. If this was die polish, at least one of these coins would have matched mine (just as every coin posted shows the die polish at the bottom right of the bust. FWIW, this is every single example of the 1940 REV 40 Proof nickel I could find that was a die match for the obverse. It appears every 1940 REV 38 Proof is also from the same obverse die, but before a repolish.

https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-jefferson-nickels/1940-5c-pr67-pcgs-pcgs-population-161-5-ngc-census-101-5-mintage-14-158-pcgs-4177-/a/131742-25512.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515

https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-jefferson-nickels/1940-5c-pr68-ngc-pcgs-4177-/a/1302-3651.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515#

https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-jefferson-nickels/1940-5c-reverse-of-1940-pr67-pcgs-cac-pcgs-population-185-7-ngc-census-41-0-cdn-260-whsle-bid-for-ngc-pcgs-pr67-mintage-14-158/a/132407-23393.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515#

https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-jefferson-nickels/1940-5c-pr67-pcgs-pcgs-population-172-6-and-36-0-ngc-census-42-0-and-0-0-cdn-240-whsle-bid-for-ngc-pcgs-pr67-mintage-14-158/a/132041-21167.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515#

https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-jefferson-nickels/1940-5c-reverse-of-1940-pr67-cameo-ngc-cac-ngc-census-43-0-pcgs-population-164-5-pcgs-4177-/a/131817-27275.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515#

https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-jefferson-nickels/1940-5c-pr67-pcgs-pcgs-population-171-6-ngc-census-42-0-cdn-240-whsle-bid-for-problem-free-ngc-pcgs-pr67-mintage-14-158/a/131918-21259.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515#

https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-jefferson-nickels/1940-5c-reverse-of-1940-pr67-ngc-ngc-census-41-0-pcgs-population-190-7-cdn-260-whsle-bid-for-ngc-pcgs-pr67-mintage-14-158/a/132402-23205.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515#

https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-jefferson-nickels/1940-5c-pr66-pcgs-pcgs-population-612-121-ngc-census-370-101-mintage-14-158-numismedia-wsl-price-for-problem-free-ngc-pcgs-coin-in/a/131543-27052.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515#

More images:

You

@FlyingAl said:

@You said:
Of course they don’t count - you were the one who implied that sometimes they are treated the same by the TPGs.

The lines on your cent are still die lines - they just go onto the devices. Die polish can do that, especially on flat areas of the design. Notice how they do not really jump up onto the lettering. But they are not striations, otherwise those lines on the devices would be deep gashes, if they were able to reach the fields.

Think about roller marks on Morgans. Those are deep incuse lines in the planchet. Yet typically they only make it to the very highest point of the coin - the cheek and hair. They do not generally make it to the fields. Adjustment marks are even deeper and thus can make it to the fields, but they become far weaker in the fields. The lines on the proof cent do not change in depth from devices to fields because they are on the dies.

I never said that they were treated differently.

Should the lines be what you say they are - die polish - you should be able to produce hundreds of examples that match the lines on my coin exactly. Of course, this is because every mark that is on a die must appear on EVERY coin struck from that die. I'll be fair though, and only ask for you to produce ten. If you cannot produce the examples, we can know for a fact the lines are not from a die, but rather originate on the planchet itself.

I’ve already proved to you that they are not on the planchet.

And that’s not true. Dies are often polished repeatedly, so die lines can change entirely over the lifetime of the die. Even if the die isn’t polished more than once, the polish lines will erode away with time as coins are struck. So no, you would have to find coins in the same approximate die state, not just from the same dies. If you really understood how this stuff works, you would know that.

There aren’t even a dozen examples of that graded CAM, so finding ten examples in the same relative die state is a silly ask. All of the (3) Trueviewed CAM examples I can find in PCGS Coinfacts are either different dies or different die states, since there are different die polish lines on Jefferson’s portrait (these are easily visible). Beyond that, I would have to find coins with high-enough resolution photographs that are taken at the right angle away from the light to make the die lines visible.

I have a much easier solution. @MFeld , are these die polish lines or incuse lines in the planchet?

FlyingAl

@You said:

@FlyingAl said:

@You said:
Of course they don’t count - you were the one who implied that sometimes they are treated the same by the TPGs.

The lines on your cent are still die lines - they just go onto the devices. Die polish can do that, especially on flat areas of the design. Notice how they do not really jump up onto the lettering. But they are not striations, otherwise those lines on the devices would be deep gashes, if they were able to reach the fields.

Think about roller marks on Morgans. Those are deep incuse lines in the planchet. Yet typically they only make it to the very highest point of the coin - the cheek and hair. They do not generally make it to the fields. Adjustment marks are even deeper and thus can make it to the fields, but they become far weaker in the fields. The lines on the proof cent do not change in depth from devices to fields because they are on the dies.

I never said that they were treated differently.

Should the lines be what you say they are - die polish - you should be able to produce hundreds of examples that match the lines on my coin exactly. Of course, this is because every mark that is on a die must appear on EVERY coin struck from that die. I'll be fair though, and only ask for you to produce ten. If you cannot produce the examples, we can know for a fact the lines are not from a die, but rather originate on the planchet itself.

I’ve already proved to you that they are not on the planchet.

And that’s not true. Dies are often polished repeatedly, so die lines can change entirely over the lifetime of the die. Even if the die isn’t polished more than once, the polish lines will erode away with time as coins are struck. So no, you would have to find coins in the same approximate die state, not just from the same dies. If you really understood how this stuff works, you would know that.

There aren’t even a dozen examples of that graded CAM, so finding ten examples in the same relative die state is a silly ask. All of the (3) Trueviewed CAM examples I can find in PCGS Coinfacts are either different dies or different die states, since there are different die polish lines on Jefferson’s portrait (these are easily visible). Beyond that, I would have to find coins with high-enough resolution photographs that are taken at the right angle away from the light to make the die lines visible.

I have a much easier solution. @MFeld , are these die polish lines or incuse lines in the planchet?

If you cannot produce one single example that matches the coin imaged, you cannot claim they are on the dies. I've provided 20+ that don't have them.

FlyingAl

Or for that matter, you can do the same with the cent.

You

@FlyingAl said:

@You said:

@FlyingAl said:

@You said:
Of course they don’t count - you were the one who implied that sometimes they are treated the same by the TPGs.

The lines on your cent are still die lines - they just go onto the devices. Die polish can do that, especially on flat areas of the design. Notice how they do not really jump up onto the lettering. But they are not striations, otherwise those lines on the devices would be deep gashes, if they were able to reach the fields.

Think about roller marks on Morgans. Those are deep incuse lines in the planchet. Yet typically they only make it to the very highest point of the coin - the cheek and hair. They do not generally make it to the fields. Adjustment marks are even deeper and thus can make it to the fields, but they become far weaker in the fields. The lines on the proof cent do not change in depth from devices to fields because they are on the dies.

I never said that they were treated differently.

Should the lines be what you say they are - die polish - you should be able to produce hundreds of examples that match the lines on my coin exactly. Of course, this is because every mark that is on a die must appear on EVERY coin struck from that die. I'll be fair though, and only ask for you to produce ten. If you cannot produce the examples, we can know for a fact the lines are not from a die, but rather originate on the planchet itself.

I’ve already proved to you that they are not on the planchet.

And that’s not true. Dies are often polished repeatedly, so die lines can change entirely over the lifetime of the die. Even if the die isn’t polished more than once, the polish lines will erode away with time as coins are struck. So no, you would have to find coins in the same approximate die state, not just from the same dies. If you really understood how this stuff works, you would know that.

There aren’t even a dozen examples of that graded CAM, so finding ten examples in the same relative die state is a silly ask. All of the (3) Trueviewed CAM examples I can find in PCGS Coinfacts are either different dies or different die states, since there are different die polish lines on Jefferson’s portrait (these are easily visible). Beyond that, I would have to find coins with high-enough resolution photographs that are taken at the right angle away from the light to make the die lines visible.

I have a much easier solution. @MFeld , are these die polish lines or incuse lines in the planchet?

If you cannot produce one single example that matches the coin imaged, you cannot claim they are on the dies. I've provided 20+ that don't have them.

No you haven’t. You’ve found 20 examples in different die states. And no, it doesn’t mean anything if I can’t find one. You know as well as I that CAM examples are rare. They are on the dies because they are on the dies. This should be visually obvious to anyone who has seen enough die polish lines, and logically obvious to anyone who understands that incuse planchet striations should not be appearing in the fields on proofs, let alone on the fields and disappearing once it hits the lettering. These are visually obvious as RAISED lines.

You

Anyway, we will wait for Mark’s response.

FlyingAl

@You said:

@FlyingAl said:

@You said:

@FlyingAl said:

@You said:
Of course they don’t count - you were the one who implied that sometimes they are treated the same by the TPGs.

The lines on your cent are still die lines - they just go onto the devices. Die polish can do that, especially on flat areas of the design. Notice how they do not really jump up onto the lettering. But they are not striations, otherwise those lines on the devices would be deep gashes, if they were able to reach the fields.

Think about roller marks on Morgans. Those are deep incuse lines in the planchet. Yet typically they only make it to the very highest point of the coin - the cheek and hair. They do not generally make it to the fields. Adjustment marks are even deeper and thus can make it to the fields, but they become far weaker in the fields. The lines on the proof cent do not change in depth from devices to fields because they are on the dies.

I never said that they were treated differently.

Should the lines be what you say they are - die polish - you should be able to produce hundreds of examples that match the lines on my coin exactly. Of course, this is because every mark that is on a die must appear on EVERY coin struck from that die. I'll be fair though, and only ask for you to produce ten. If you cannot produce the examples, we can know for a fact the lines are not from a die, but rather originate on the planchet itself.

I’ve already proved to you that they are not on the planchet.

And that’s not true. Dies are often polished repeatedly, so die lines can change entirely over the lifetime of the die. Even if the die isn’t polished more than once, the polish lines will erode away with time as coins are struck. So no, you would have to find coins in the same approximate die state, not just from the same dies. If you really understood how this stuff works, you would know that.

There aren’t even a dozen examples of that graded CAM, so finding ten examples in the same relative die state is a silly ask. All of the (3) Trueviewed CAM examples I can find in PCGS Coinfacts are either different dies or different die states, since there are different die polish lines on Jefferson’s portrait (these are easily visible). Beyond that, I would have to find coins with high-enough resolution photographs that are taken at the right angle away from the light to make the die lines visible.

I have a much easier solution. @MFeld , are these die polish lines or incuse lines in the planchet?

If you cannot produce one single example that matches the coin imaged, you cannot claim they are on the dies. I've provided 20+ that don't have them.

No you haven’t. You’ve found 20 examples in different die states. And no, it doesn’t mean anything if I can’t find one. You know as well as I that CAM examples are rare. They are on the dies because they are on the dies. This should be visually obvious to anyone who has seen enough die polish lines, and logically obvious to anyone who understands that incuse planchet striations should not be appearing in the fields on proofs, let alone on the fields and disappearing once it hits the lettering. These are visually obvious as RAISED lines.

You do realize that more than one CAM coin comes from a die pair right? I don't have my die records in front of me, but I'm pretty sure the lowest usage of a die pair for any given day was over 300 coins struck (300 coins before a repolish that would remove the lines in the fields, if they were ever on the die).

I love this coin in particular because it shows incredible frost:
https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-jefferson-nickels/1940-5c-pr68-ngc-pcgs-4177-/a/1302-3651.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515#

Same die state as the CAM. No lines in the fields. There are three or four more like it in the links I sent.

You

@FlyingAl said:

@You said:

@FlyingAl said:

@You said:

@FlyingAl said:

@You said:
Of course they don’t count - you were the one who implied that sometimes they are treated the same by the TPGs.

The lines on your cent are still die lines - they just go onto the devices. Die polish can do that, especially on flat areas of the design. Notice how they do not really jump up onto the lettering. But they are not striations, otherwise those lines on the devices would be deep gashes, if they were able to reach the fields.

Think about roller marks on Morgans. Those are deep incuse lines in the planchet. Yet typically they only make it to the very highest point of the coin - the cheek and hair. They do not generally make it to the fields. Adjustment marks are even deeper and thus can make it to the fields, but they become far weaker in the fields. The lines on the proof cent do not change in depth from devices to fields because they are on the dies.

I never said that they were treated differently.

Should the lines be what you say they are - die polish - you should be able to produce hundreds of examples that match the lines on my coin exactly. Of course, this is because every mark that is on a die must appear on EVERY coin struck from that die. I'll be fair though, and only ask for you to produce ten. If you cannot produce the examples, we can know for a fact the lines are not from a die, but rather originate on the planchet itself.

I’ve already proved to you that they are not on the planchet.

And that’s not true. Dies are often polished repeatedly, so die lines can change entirely over the lifetime of the die. Even if the die isn’t polished more than once, the polish lines will erode away with time as coins are struck. So no, you would have to find coins in the same approximate die state, not just from the same dies. If you really understood how this stuff works, you would know that.

There aren’t even a dozen examples of that graded CAM, so finding ten examples in the same relative die state is a silly ask. All of the (3) Trueviewed CAM examples I can find in PCGS Coinfacts are either different dies or different die states, since there are different die polish lines on Jefferson’s portrait (these are easily visible). Beyond that, I would have to find coins with high-enough resolution photographs that are taken at the right angle away from the light to make the die lines visible.

I have a much easier solution. @MFeld , are these die polish lines or incuse lines in the planchet?

If you cannot produce one single example that matches the coin imaged, you cannot claim they are on the dies. I've provided 20+ that don't have them.

No you haven’t. You’ve found 20 examples in different die states. And no, it doesn’t mean anything if I can’t find one. You know as well as I that CAM examples are rare. They are on the dies because they are on the dies. This should be visually obvious to anyone who has seen enough die polish lines, and logically obvious to anyone who understands that incuse planchet striations should not be appearing in the fields on proofs, let alone on the fields and disappearing once it hits the lettering. These are visually obvious as RAISED lines.

You do realize that more than one CAM coin comes from a die pair right? I don't have my die records in front of me, but I'm pretty sure the lowest usage of a die pair for any given day was over 300 coins struck (300 coins before a repolish that would remove the lines in the fields, if they were ever on the die).

I love this coin in particular because it shows incredible frost:
https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-jefferson-nickels/1940-5c-pr68-ngc-pcgs-4177-/a/1302-3651.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515#

Same die state as the CAM. No lines in the fields. There are three or four more like it in the links I sent.

The slab shots are not high enough res to see any lines, and may be slightly off-angle to the light. The high-res photos are blown out. Anyway, why don’t you explain to me why if those lines in the fields are incuse on the planchet, they are interrupted by the lettering instead of becoming deep incuse gashes on the lettering? You still haven’t explained that.

FlyingAl

@You said:

@FlyingAl said:

@You said:

@FlyingAl said:

@You said:

@FlyingAl said:

@You said:
Of course they don’t count - you were the one who implied that sometimes they are treated the same by the TPGs.

The lines on your cent are still die lines - they just go onto the devices. Die polish can do that, especially on flat areas of the design. Notice how they do not really jump up onto the lettering. But they are not striations, otherwise those lines on the devices would be deep gashes, if they were able to reach the fields.

Think about roller marks on Morgans. Those are deep incuse lines in the planchet. Yet typically they only make it to the very highest point of the coin - the cheek and hair. They do not generally make it to the fields. Adjustment marks are even deeper and thus can make it to the fields, but they become far weaker in the fields. The lines on the proof cent do not change in depth from devices to fields because they are on the dies.

I never said that they were treated differently.

Should the lines be what you say they are - die polish - you should be able to produce hundreds of examples that match the lines on my coin exactly. Of course, this is because every mark that is on a die must appear on EVERY coin struck from that die. I'll be fair though, and only ask for you to produce ten. If you cannot produce the examples, we can know for a fact the lines are not from a die, but rather originate on the planchet itself.

I’ve already proved to you that they are not on the planchet.

And that’s not true. Dies are often polished repeatedly, so die lines can change entirely over the lifetime of the die. Even if the die isn’t polished more than once, the polish lines will erode away with time as coins are struck. So no, you would have to find coins in the same approximate die state, not just from the same dies. If you really understood how this stuff works, you would know that.

There aren’t even a dozen examples of that graded CAM, so finding ten examples in the same relative die state is a silly ask. All of the (3) Trueviewed CAM examples I can find in PCGS Coinfacts are either different dies or different die states, since there are different die polish lines on Jefferson’s portrait (these are easily visible). Beyond that, I would have to find coins with high-enough resolution photographs that are taken at the right angle away from the light to make the die lines visible.

I have a much easier solution. @MFeld , are these die polish lines or incuse lines in the planchet?

If you cannot produce one single example that matches the coin imaged, you cannot claim they are on the dies. I've provided 20+ that don't have them.

No you haven’t. You’ve found 20 examples in different die states. And no, it doesn’t mean anything if I can’t find one. You know as well as I that CAM examples are rare. They are on the dies because they are on the dies. This should be visually obvious to anyone who has seen enough die polish lines, and logically obvious to anyone who understands that incuse planchet striations should not be appearing in the fields on proofs, let alone on the fields and disappearing once it hits the lettering. These are visually obvious as RAISED lines.

You do realize that more than one CAM coin comes from a die pair right? I don't have my die records in front of me, but I'm pretty sure the lowest usage of a die pair for any given day was over 300 coins struck (300 coins before a repolish that would remove the lines in the fields, if they were ever on the die).

I love this coin in particular because it shows incredible frost:
https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-jefferson-nickels/1940-5c-pr68-ngc-pcgs-4177-/a/1302-3651.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515#

Same die state as the CAM. No lines in the fields. There are three or four more like it in the links I sent.

The slab shots are not high enough res to see any lines, and may be slightly off-angle to the light. The high-res photos are blown out. Anyway, why don’t you explain to me why if those lines in the fields are incuse on the planchet, they are interrupted by the lettering instead of becoming deep incuse gashes on the lettering? You still haven’t explained that.

Because metal movement in the letters would distort the line to the point you can’t see it. Metal movement in the field would simply make it less obvious (squished in a sense) but since the fields are mirrored you can see the lines.

You

@FlyingAl said:

@You said:

@FlyingAl said:

@You said:

@FlyingAl said:

@You said:

@FlyingAl said:

@You said:
Of course they don’t count - you were the one who implied that sometimes they are treated the same by the TPGs.

The lines on your cent are still die lines - they just go onto the devices. Die polish can do that, especially on flat areas of the design. Notice how they do not really jump up onto the lettering. But they are not striations, otherwise those lines on the devices would be deep gashes, if they were able to reach the fields.

Think about roller marks on Morgans. Those are deep incuse lines in the planchet. Yet typically they only make it to the very highest point of the coin - the cheek and hair. They do not generally make it to the fields. Adjustment marks are even deeper and thus can make it to the fields, but they become far weaker in the fields. The lines on the proof cent do not change in depth from devices to fields because they are on the dies.

I never said that they were treated differently.

Should the lines be what you say they are - die polish - you should be able to produce hundreds of examples that match the lines on my coin exactly. Of course, this is because every mark that is on a die must appear on EVERY coin struck from that die. I'll be fair though, and only ask for you to produce ten. If you cannot produce the examples, we can know for a fact the lines are not from a die, but rather originate on the planchet itself.

I’ve already proved to you that they are not on the planchet.

And that’s not true. Dies are often polished repeatedly, so die lines can change entirely over the lifetime of the die. Even if the die isn’t polished more than once, the polish lines will erode away with time as coins are struck. So no, you would have to find coins in the same approximate die state, not just from the same dies. If you really understood how this stuff works, you would know that.

There aren’t even a dozen examples of that graded CAM, so finding ten examples in the same relative die state is a silly ask. All of the (3) Trueviewed CAM examples I can find in PCGS Coinfacts are either different dies or different die states, since there are different die polish lines on Jefferson’s portrait (these are easily visible). Beyond that, I would have to find coins with high-enough resolution photographs that are taken at the right angle away from the light to make the die lines visible.

I have a much easier solution. @MFeld , are these die polish lines or incuse lines in the planchet?

If you cannot produce one single example that matches the coin imaged, you cannot claim they are on the dies. I've provided 20+ that don't have them.

No you haven’t. You’ve found 20 examples in different die states. And no, it doesn’t mean anything if I can’t find one. You know as well as I that CAM examples are rare. They are on the dies because they are on the dies. This should be visually obvious to anyone who has seen enough die polish lines, and logically obvious to anyone who understands that incuse planchet striations should not be appearing in the fields on proofs, let alone on the fields and disappearing once it hits the lettering. These are visually obvious as RAISED lines.

You do realize that more than one CAM coin comes from a die pair right? I don't have my die records in front of me, but I'm pretty sure the lowest usage of a die pair for any given day was over 300 coins struck (300 coins before a repolish that would remove the lines in the fields, if they were ever on the die).

I love this coin in particular because it shows incredible frost:
https://coins.ha.com/itm/proof-jefferson-nickels/1940-5c-pr68-ngc-pcgs-4177-/a/1302-3651.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515#

Same die state as the CAM. No lines in the fields. There are three or four more like it in the links I sent.

The slab shots are not high enough res to see any lines, and may be slightly off-angle to the light. The high-res photos are blown out. Anyway, why don’t you explain to me why if those lines in the fields are incuse on the planchet, they are interrupted by the lettering instead of becoming deep incuse gashes on the lettering? You still haven’t explained that.

Because metal movement in the letters would distort the line to the point you can’t see it. Metal movement in the field would simply make it less obvious, but since the fields are mirrored you can see the lines.

Wrong. There is less metal movement in the letters, and more in the fields. The fields are being pushed down much farther than the metal in the lettering. This is why you see adjustment marks and roller marks on the high points, and not in the fields. If they can make it all the way down into the fields that means those incuse gashes were extremely deep, and they will absolutely be visible on the high points. They should be stronger on the high points than the fields.

MFeld

@You said:

@FlyingAl said:

@You said:
Of course they don’t count - you were the one who implied that sometimes they are treated the same by the TPGs.

The lines on your cent are still die lines - they just go onto the devices. Die polish can do that, especially on flat areas of the design. Notice how they do not really jump up onto the lettering. But they are not striations, otherwise those lines on the devices would be deep gashes, if they were able to reach the fields.

Think about roller marks on Morgans. Those are deep incuse lines in the planchet. Yet typically they only make it to the very highest point of the coin - the cheek and hair. They do not generally make it to the fields. Adjustment marks are even deeper and thus can make it to the fields, but they become far weaker in the fields. The lines on the proof cent do not change in depth from devices to fields because they are on the dies.

I never said that they were treated differently.

Should the lines be what you say they are - die polish - you should be able to produce hundreds of examples that match the lines on my coin exactly. Of course, this is because every mark that is on a die must appear on EVERY coin struck from that die. I'll be fair though, and only ask for you to produce ten. If you cannot produce the examples, we can know for a fact the lines are not from a die, but rather originate on the planchet itself.

I’ve already proved to you that they are not on the planchet.

And that’s not true. Dies are often polished repeatedly, so die lines can change entirely over the lifetime of the die. Even if the die isn’t polished more than once, the polish lines will erode away with time as coins are struck. So no, you would have to find coins in the same approximate die state, not just from the same dies. If you really understood how this stuff works, you would know that.

There aren’t even a dozen examples of that graded CAM, so finding ten examples in the same relative die state is a silly ask. All of the (3) Trueviewed CAM examples I can find in PCGS Coinfacts are either different dies or different die states, since there are different die polish lines on Jefferson’s portrait (these are easily visible). Beyond that, I would have to find coins with high-enough resolution photographs that are taken at the right angle away from the light to make the die lines visible.

I have a much easier solution. @MFeld , are these die polish lines or incuse lines in the planchet?

I don’t think my opinion will, by any means, amount to a “solution”- easier or otherwise. 😉
But, while I’d prefer to see the coin in hand first, based on the images, my guess is that the lines are in the planchet.

Edited to add: After reading a subsequent post from @Rexford and viewing the pictures again, I believe I was incorrect in my above post.

You

Example:

You

@MFeld said:

@You said:

@FlyingAl said:

@You said:
Of course they don’t count - you were the one who implied that sometimes they are treated the same by the TPGs.

The lines on your cent are still die lines - they just go onto the devices. Die polish can do that, especially on flat areas of the design. Notice how they do not really jump up onto the lettering. But they are not striations, otherwise those lines on the devices would be deep gashes, if they were able to reach the fields.

Think about roller marks on Morgans. Those are deep incuse lines in the planchet. Yet typically they only make it to the very highest point of the coin - the cheek and hair. They do not generally make it to the fields. Adjustment marks are even deeper and thus can make it to the fields, but they become far weaker in the fields. The lines on the proof cent do not change in depth from devices to fields because they are on the dies.

I never said that they were treated differently.

Should the lines be what you say they are - die polish - you should be able to produce hundreds of examples that match the lines on my coin exactly. Of course, this is because every mark that is on a die must appear on EVERY coin struck from that die. I'll be fair though, and only ask for you to produce ten. If you cannot produce the examples, we can know for a fact the lines are not from a die, but rather originate on the planchet itself.

I’ve already proved to you that they are not on the planchet.

And that’s not true. Dies are often polished repeatedly, so die lines can change entirely over the lifetime of the die. Even if the die isn’t polished more than once, the polish lines will erode away with time as coins are struck. So no, you would have to find coins in the same approximate die state, not just from the same dies. If you really understood how this stuff works, you would know that.

There aren’t even a dozen examples of that graded CAM, so finding ten examples in the same relative die state is a silly ask. All of the (3) Trueviewed CAM examples I can find in PCGS Coinfacts are either different dies or different die states, since there are different die polish lines on Jefferson’s portrait (these are easily visible). Beyond that, I would have to find coins with high-enough resolution photographs that are taken at the right angle away from the light to make the die lines visible.

I have a much easier solution. @MFeld , are these die polish lines or incuse lines in the planchet?

I don’t think my opinion will, by any means, amount to a “solution”- easier or otherwise. 😉
But, while I’d prefer to see the coin in hand first, based on the images, my guess is that the lines are in the planchet.

Oh come on Mark, you know better.

You

And you shouldn’t need to see that in hand. Same question to you then, Mark. If they are in the planchet, why aren’t they on the lettering?

MFeld

@You said:

@MFeld said:

@You said:

@FlyingAl said:

@You said:
Of course they don’t count - you were the one who implied that sometimes they are treated the same by the TPGs.

The lines on your cent are still die lines - they just go onto the devices. Die polish can do that, especially on flat areas of the design. Notice how they do not really jump up onto the lettering. But they are not striations, otherwise those lines on the devices would be deep gashes, if they were able to reach the fields.

Think about roller marks on Morgans. Those are deep incuse lines in the planchet. Yet typically they only make it to the very highest point of the coin - the cheek and hair. They do not generally make it to the fields. Adjustment marks are even deeper and thus can make it to the fields, but they become far weaker in the fields. The lines on the proof cent do not change in depth from devices to fields because they are on the dies.

I never said that they were treated differently.

Should the lines be what you say they are - die polish - you should be able to produce hundreds of examples that match the lines on my coin exactly. Of course, this is because every mark that is on a die must appear on EVERY coin struck from that die. I'll be fair though, and only ask for you to produce ten. If you cannot produce the examples, we can know for a fact the lines are not from a die, but rather originate on the planchet itself.

I’ve already proved to you that they are not on the planchet.

And that’s not true. Dies are often polished repeatedly, so die lines can change entirely over the lifetime of the die. Even if the die isn’t polished more than once, the polish lines will erode away with time as coins are struck. So no, you would have to find coins in the same approximate die state, not just from the same dies. If you really understood how this stuff works, you would know that.

There aren’t even a dozen examples of that graded CAM, so finding ten examples in the same relative die state is a silly ask. All of the (3) Trueviewed CAM examples I can find in PCGS Coinfacts are either different dies or different die states, since there are different die polish lines on Jefferson’s portrait (these are easily visible). Beyond that, I would have to find coins with high-enough resolution photographs that are taken at the right angle away from the light to make the die lines visible.

I have a much easier solution. @MFeld , are these die polish lines or incuse lines in the planchet?

I don’t think my opinion will, by any means, amount to a “solution”- easier or otherwise. 😉
But, while I’d prefer to see the coin in hand first, based on the images, my guess is that the lines are in the planchet.

Oh come on Mark, you know better.

I guess I don’t.
When I replied, I didn’t even know who thought what but I do now.

You

Does anyone on this forum actually know how to grade?🤦‍♂️

MFeld

@You said:
Does anyone on this forum actually know how to grade?🤦‍♂️

I heard a rumor that someone named “You” does. Is that you?