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.
I feel like I need to jump in too. The OP is just factually incorrect, to the point that the thread should maybe just be closed.
Planchet roller marks or striations that form from excessive stress or weakness in the alloy look different.
Don't know why but found this a little interesting so I did a little 'homework' .
But first I want to ask (and I am asking and not trying to make a point) - In this era (1940's) how much work went into the planchets for proofs as far as polishing and quality control of them?
Note: proofs are not my thing and therefore the question.
I will try to word the stuff below as impartially as I can.
My thought is I am not sure these lines are all produced by one 'thing' but maybe.
For the 'homework':
I took FlyingAls images on the 1942 cent and downloaded them.
First image below I put a blue line on it from the R in liberty upward and following one of the lines. Then duplicated the blue line and placed it in various spots on the coin. It shows how well some lines on the coin follow similarly and how others do not.
.
Next I took jacrispies response about the obverse and reverse lines following in the same direction and attempted to show this. Had to first get the obverse and reverse images together in one and then I did my best to manually flip the blue line about a horizontal axis. Then placed those flipped blue lines on the reverse. It shows how well some of the lines line up with the obverse as jacrispies stated. It also shows a similar thing to the obverse where some lines on the reverse do not follow along the same direction.
.
On this next image I increased the exposure to brighten up the photos and lines and then enlarged the image to hopefully see the lines better but not sure how successful this is. Below that for reference is the complete obverse with the increased exposure.
.
.
.
@lilolme said:
Don't know why but found this a little interesting so I did a little 'homework' .
But first I want to ask (and I am asking and not trying to make a point) - In this era (1940's) how much work went into the planchets for proofs as far as polishing and quality control of them?
Note: proofs are not my thing and therefore the question.
I will try to word the stuff below as impartially as I can.
My thought is I am not sure these lines are all produced by one 'thing' but maybe.
I don't know 1940s cents particularly well. I will say for 20th century coins more generally that by the early 1900s, the quality of proofs was fairly high. Sources of lines on your proofs from the mint are rare. Die polish is, by far, the most common source of mint-made lines I've seen on 20th century proofs. The nature of die polish really comes down to the person doing the die preparation and how they were doing it. When I sand and polish things myself, my hand motions are rarely exactly replicated, so there's variation in the angles. If you are using a machine, it'll be more consistent. As a result, die polish is not necessarily parallel, but it often is. Die polish often goes in more than one direction, as can hairlines. Die polish absolutely can exist on the high points of the coin and not just the fields, but it usually doesn't.
I am not always perfect at distinguishing die polish and hairlines from photos. But I can generally get further by looking at overall patterns and locations of the lines rather than trying to distinguish between raised lines or incuse lines.
Notice how even under 100 tons, there are still elements of the tin foil that have not been pressed out. Cents were struck at 40 tons, or well under half of this pressure. Lines in the planchet do not necessarily get pressed out, even if they're in the fields, not to mention copper is significantly harder than tin and planchets are already compact.
Let's take a look at this coin, which shows both obvious die polish in the devices and lines in the fields.
The die polish lines are more irregular, bolder, raised, and contained to the devices. The other lines in the field do not follow this pattern. They are incuse and thin. If a line was to exist in this planchet, it would be expected to flow up into the devices if it was not pressed out in the case of areas of high relief. We see this pattern.
Again, if you're so sure that these lines are die polish, produce any two Proof examples of any coin or denomination in the years 36-42 that show these thin, incuse lines in exactly the same spot. I for one certainly haven't seen it.
Notice how even under 100 tons, there are still elements of the tin foil that have not been pressed out. Cents were struck at 40 tons, or well under half of this pressure. Lines in the planchet do not necessarily get pressed out, even if they're in the fields, not to mention copper is significantly harder than tin and planchets are already compact.
Let's take a look at this coin, which shows both obvious die polish in the devices and lines in the fields.
On this coin, those lines in the fields are probably hairlines. They may be die lines, but that’s a difficult photo to read. They are not incuse lines in the planchet.
The die polish lines are more irregular, bolder, raised, and contained to the devices. The other lines in the field do not follow this pattern. They are incuse and thin. If a line was to exist in this planchet, it would be expected to flow up into the devices if it was not pressed out in the case of areas of high relief. We see this pattern.
Clearly you still don’t understand how this works - how metal flow works, what areas of the coin are being greater or less impacted by the dies, any of it. Go look at that gold coin I posted. Look how deep those adjustment marks are. Look how they either do not enter the fields or are extremely weak in the fields. Look at ANY coin with adjustment marks or roller marks or unstruck planchet. Where are those characteristics strongest? There is greater metal flow in the fields than the devices because the fields are being compressed further. Case closed.
Again, if you're so sure that these lines are die polish, produce any two Proof examples of any coin or denomination in the years 36-42 that show these thin, incuse lines in exactly the same spot. I for one certainly haven't seen it.
I don’t need to produce anything, I’m not going to take the time to do your homework for you, and the absence of other examples is meaningless. They are die lines because they are die lines. They are clearly raised. They are not in the planchet. It is physically impossible for them to be in the planchet.
Bottom line is, you couldn’t even tell that the lines in the field on the original 50C in the OP are hairlines. You also stated that every example from the same die pair should have the same die lines. Why would you be trustworthy with anything else? And, you went back on your conclusions about the nickel temporarily, then recommitted to the bit. You also don’t understand how die flow works. There is more die flow in the fields. There is also more die flow in general in the peripheries of the coin. How come those “planchet lines” aren’t fading away as you move closer to the rim? You’re backing yourself in a corner and trying to fight your way out with scientific-sounding nonsense about tons and metal flow, but you’ve already lost.
Notice how even under 100 tons, there are still elements of the tin foil that have not been pressed out. Cents were struck at 40 tons, or well under half of this pressure. Lines in the planchet do not necessarily get pressed out, even if they're in the fields, not to mention copper is significantly harder than tin and planchets are already compact.
Let's take a look at this coin, which shows both obvious die polish in the devices and lines in the fields.
On this coin, those lines in the fields are probably hairlines. They may be die lines, but that’s a difficult photo to read. They are not incuse lines in the planchet.
The die polish lines are more irregular, bolder, raised, and contained to the devices. The other lines in the field do not follow this pattern. They are incuse and thin. If a line was to exist in this planchet, it would be expected to flow up into the devices if it was not pressed out in the case of areas of high relief. We see this pattern.
Clearly you still don’t understand how this works - how metal flow works, what areas of the coin are being greater or less impacted by the dies, any of it. Go look at that gold coin I posted. Look how deep those adjustment marks are. Look how they either do not enter the fields or are extremely weak in the fields. Look at ANY coin with adjustment marks or roller marks or unstruck planchet. Where are those characteristics strongest? There is greater metal flow in the fields than the devices because the fields are being compressed further. Case closed.
Again, if you're so sure that these lines are die polish, produce any two Proof examples of any coin or denomination in the years 36-42 that show these thin, incuse lines in exactly the same spot. I for one certainly haven't seen it.
I don’t need to produce anything, I’m not going to take the time to do your homework for you, and the absence of other examples is meaningless. They are die lines because they are die lines. They are clearly raised. They are not in the planchet. It is physically impossible for them to be in the planchet.
Bottom line is, you couldn’t even tell that the lines in the field on the original 50C in the OP are hairlines. You also stated that every example from the same die pair should have the same die lines. Why would you be trustworthy with anything else? And, you went back on your conclusions about the nickel temporarily, then recommitted to the bit. You also don’t understand how die flow works. There is more die flow in the fields. There is also more die flow in general in the peripheries of the coin. How come those “planchet lines” aren’t fading away as you move closer to the rim? You’re backing yourself in a corner and trying to fight your way out with scientific-sounding nonsense about tons and metal flow, but you’ve already lost.
I didn’t call in my own expert, and then said my expert didn’t know how to grade when they said I was wrong.
I can identify that lines that go through devices aren’t hairlines, as is obviously shown in this cent. The lines go through Lincoln’s hair for gods sake.
I did go back on my assumption of the nickel because I remembered a similar example I had seen in a video years ago. Today, I found the video and confirmed the coin was from 1939. This ruled out why I personally went back on my original attribution, and I have since gone back to my original statement (which I should have stuck with all along).
The lines in the field of the OP 50c are not all hairlines. Anyone “who knows how to grade” could apparently see that.
You’ve produced no evidence but insults and experts who have contradicted you. You can’t do my homework for me, because you can’t do your own homework to start.
I’ve been in a lot of corners before. Doesn’t scare me anymore.
Also, you’re not making any sense. You’re just throwing stuff at a wall and hoping something sticks.
What a waste of time. People like you remind me why I shouldn’t post here anymore.
Notice how even under 100 tons, there are still elements of the tin foil that have not been pressed out. Cents were struck at 40 tons, or well under half of this pressure. Lines in the planchet do not necessarily get pressed out, even if they're in the fields, not to mention copper is significantly harder than tin and planchets are already compact.
Let's take a look at this coin, which shows both obvious die polish in the devices and lines in the fields.
On this coin, those lines in the fields are probably hairlines. They may be die lines, but that’s a difficult photo to read. They are not incuse lines in the planchet.
The die polish lines are more irregular, bolder, raised, and contained to the devices. The other lines in the field do not follow this pattern. They are incuse and thin. If a line was to exist in this planchet, it would be expected to flow up into the devices if it was not pressed out in the case of areas of high relief. We see this pattern.
Clearly you still don’t understand how this works - how metal flow works, what areas of the coin are being greater or less impacted by the dies, any of it. Go look at that gold coin I posted. Look how deep those adjustment marks are. Look how they either do not enter the fields or are extremely weak in the fields. Look at ANY coin with adjustment marks or roller marks or unstruck planchet. Where are those characteristics strongest? There is greater metal flow in the fields than the devices because the fields are being compressed further. Case closed.
Again, if you're so sure that these lines are die polish, produce any two Proof examples of any coin or denomination in the years 36-42 that show these thin, incuse lines in exactly the same spot. I for one certainly haven't seen it.
I don’t need to produce anything, I’m not going to take the time to do your homework for you, and the absence of other examples is meaningless. They are die lines because they are die lines. They are clearly raised. They are not in the planchet. It is physically impossible for them to be in the planchet.
Bottom line is, you couldn’t even tell that the lines in the field on the original 50C in the OP are hairlines. You also stated that every example from the same die pair should have the same die lines. Why would you be trustworthy with anything else? And, you went back on your conclusions about the nickel temporarily, then recommitted to the bit. You also don’t understand how die flow works. There is more die flow in the fields. There is also more die flow in general in the peripheries of the coin. How come those “planchet lines” aren’t fading away as you move closer to the rim? You’re backing yourself in a corner and trying to fight your way out with scientific-sounding nonsense about tons and metal flow, but you’ve already lost.
I didn’t call in my own expert, and then said my expert didn’t know how to grade when they said I was wrong.
I called Mark in with the hopes that as someone respected by this forum you would believe him over me. Unfortunately, he was wrong. That’s all. He’s not “my expert”.
I can identify that lines that go through devices aren’t hairlines, as is obviously shown in this cent. The lines go through Lincoln’s hair for gods sake.
Hairlines DO go onto devices, they just don’t generally seamlessly climb from field to device without a break. That photo is not high enough res to be sure of that. But sure, maybe it’s a die line, as I said. It’s not a planchet striation.
I did go back on my assumption of the nickel because I remembered a similar example I had seen in a video years ago. Today, I found the video and confirmed the coin was from 1939. This ruled out why I personally went back on my original attribution, and I have since gone back to my original statement (which I should have stuck with all along).
The lines in the field of the OP 50c are not all hairlines. Anyone “who knows how to grade” could apparently see that.
Lol, no they aren’t. You just continue to be wrong.
You’ve produced no evidence but insults and experts who have contradicted you. You can’t do my homework for me, because you can’t do your own homework to start.
I’ve been in a lot of corners before. Doesn’t scare me anymore.
Also, you’re not making any sense. You’re just throwing stuff at a wall and hoping something sticks.
Maybe I’m not making sense to you only because you don’t actually know enough to understand my points. Otherwise the gold coin I posted would be enough for you to admit your errors.
What a waste of time. People like you remind me why I shouldn’t post here anymore.
Ok, don’t. You’re just misleading people in this forum.
I’ve been watching this thread for a while, and for the sake of ending the toxicity from @You and settling things before this thread gets closed down, I’m going to jump in and say that unpleasant as he is, he’s right about this.
The lines on the Kennedy do come off as normal hairlines. The lines on the Jefferson are die polish. They’re raised, they run right up to devices without climbing onto them, and they come off the edges of the devices in some areas in a tapered shape called “trails” - caused by the polishing tool digging into the rim of the incuse device. https://www.traildies.com/the-theory-of-trail-formation/.
I’m a former grader. Can we stop with the back-and-forth now?
@Rexford said:
I’ve been watching this thread for a while, and for the sake of ending the toxicity from @You and settling things before this thread gets closed down, I’m going to jump in and say that unpleasant as he is, he’s right about this.
The lines on the Kennedy do come off as normal hairlines. The lines on the Jefferson are die polish. They’re raised, they run right up to devices without climbing onto them, and they come off the edges of the devices in some areas in a tapered shape called “trails” - caused by the polishing tool digging into the rim of the incuse device. https://www.traildies.com/the-theory-of-trail-formation/.
I’m a former grader. Can we stop with the back-and-forth now?
Reading your post and looking at the pictures again, I believe that you’re correct. Said another way, I believe I was incorrect.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
What a great read. This is how we all learn. I agree with all of @you observations - but I enjoyed reading all points of view rather wrong or right.
I’ve seen a few coins and actually look at a lot of coins under a microscope. You’d be amazed what your eyes can see and understand the puzzles to the minting process.
Seth - aka the world’s greatest wheat cent sorter.
@Rexford said:
I’ve been watching this thread for a while, and for the sake of ending the toxicity from @You and settling things before this thread gets closed down, I’m going to jump in and say that unpleasant as he is, he’s right about this.
The lines on the Kennedy do come off as normal hairlines. The lines on the Jefferson are die polish. They’re raised, they run right up to devices without climbing onto them, and they come off the edges of the devices in some areas in a tapered shape called “trails” - caused by the polishing tool digging into the rim of the incuse device. https://www.traildies.com/the-theory-of-trail-formation/.
I’m a former grader. Can we stop with the back-and-forth now?
Fair enough. I would also like to see this thread come to an end.
@SethChandler said:
What a great read. This is how we all learn. I agree with all of @you observations - but I enjoyed reading all points of view rather wrong or right.
I’ve seen a few coins and actually look at a lot of coins under a microscope. You’d be amazed what your eyes can see and understand the puzzles to the minting process.
Seth - aka the world’s greatest wheat cent sorter.
@Catbert said:
Being among the ignorant on this topic, I appreciate the debate but did not enjoy the rudeness of @You . One can argue without being personal.
100% agreed. Although being confrontational and unpleasant seems to be his modus operandi.
Just another obviously very bright and even more obviously very unpleasant person in numismatics.
@FlyingAl said:
What a waste of time. People like you remind me why I shouldn’t post here anymore.
His rudeness aside, people like "You" are why you SHOULD post here. To me this is a wonderful board to post on because my ideas will be judged and torn apart by competent numismatists if they're wrong.
We're all learning. I learned something from this thread - I never realized that roller marks could cut rather deeply into the metal. Please don't be reluctant to post your thinking on coins because you'll be cheating yourself out of the opportunity to learn from the interactions with others here.
@oldabeintx said:
If we ignore (please) the examples shown, are there ANY instances when planchet (not die) striations are evident in the fields of US coins?
Sure, it definitely happens with roller marks and adjustment marks - but @you was correct that they will be heavier on the devices. They will also look different - not hairline thin lines like those, but thicker. Someone can probably find an example of a Morgan with roller marks that made it to the fields. Aside from roller marks there shouldn’t really be incuse lines on the planchet on modern coins though.
@oldabeintx said:
If we ignore (please) the examples shown, are there ANY instances when planchet (not die) striations are evident in the fields of US coins?
Sure, it definitely happens with roller marks and adjustment marks - but @you was correct that they will be heavier on the devices. They will also look different - not hairline thin lines like those, but thicker. Someone can probably find an example of a Morgan with roller marks that made it to the fields. Aside from roller marks there shouldn’t really be incuse lines on the planchet on modern coins though.
Regarding this request, from the above quote-
"Someone can probably find an example of a Morgan with roller marks that made it to the fields."
This isn't a Morgan dollar, but it is an 1838 RE half dollar that I own with roller marks going primarily over the devices, but also trailing into the fields. You can right click and open the image in a new tab and it will expand greatly.
@oldabeintx said:
If we ignore (please) the examples shown, are there ANY instances when planchet (not die) striations are evident in the fields of US coins?
Here’s an example I found. Aside from being on the devices and being thicker (and incuse), they’re generally going to be very very parallel and spaced close together in groups.
@oldabeintx said:
If we ignore (please) the examples shown, are there ANY instances when planchet (not die) striations are evident in the fields of US coins?
Sure, it definitely happens with roller marks and adjustment marks - but @you was correct that they will be heavier on the devices. They will also look different - not hairline thin lines like those, but thicker. Someone can probably find an example of a Morgan with roller marks that made it to the fields. Aside from roller marks there shouldn’t really be incuse lines on the planchet on modern coins though.
Regarding this request, from the above quote-
"Someone can probably find an example of a Morgan with roller marks that made it to the fields."
This isn't a Morgan dollar, but it is an 1838 RE half dollar that I own with roller marks going primarily over the devices, but also trailing into the fields. You can right click and open the image in a new tab and it will expand greatly.
Also not a Morgan but here is a coin of mine. These are fairly common (comparatively) on trade dollars.
@oldabeintx said:
If we ignore (please) the examples shown, are there ANY instances when planchet (not die) striations are evident in the fields of US coins?
Sure, it definitely happens with roller marks and adjustment marks - but @you was correct that they will be heavier on the devices. They will also look different - not hairline thin lines like those, but thicker. Someone can probably find an example of a Morgan with roller marks that made it to the fields. Aside from roller marks there shouldn’t really be incuse lines on the planchet on modern coins though.
When I read your above post, I immediately thought of 1902-S Morgan Dollars as possible candidates.
Does this one work for you as an example?:
Another point regarding all three of the above examples: if you look at the area of the devices where the lines go heavily over the devices (the N on the coin I posted, the claws and lower eagle on the 1838, the D in UNITED on the Trade Dollar) you will notice the strike is weaker there. This is a fairly consistent characteristic. In a large part this is because a weaker strike means that the lines will survive better, and in part (particularly on that N) probably because the metal has a difficult time filling the gaps between the lines. I wouldn’t really expect roller marks to show in the fields on a proof because the strike should be sufficiently strong to eliminate them.
@oldabeintx said:
If we ignore (please) the examples shown, are there ANY instances when planchet (not die) striations are evident in the fields of US coins?
Sure, it definitely happens with roller marks and adjustment marks - but @you was correct that they will be heavier on the devices. They will also look different - not hairline thin lines like those, but thicker. Someone can probably find an example of a Morgan with roller marks that made it to the fields. Aside from roller marks there shouldn’t really be incuse lines on the planchet on modern coins though.
Yep, that’s a great example. There are some roller marks surviving in the fields but noticeably weaker than on the high points (cheek, back of cap, S U in pluribuS Unum).
Closeup of my Seated half with incuse roller lines visible on the devices and faint in the fields. There must be a lot of pressure on those rollers to cut the lettering like that. Do these rollers have or develop sharp, blade-like prominences on them?
Understand the roller marks and adjustment marks. Since roller marks occur when the sheets are rolled, are there other preparation problems that might leave a similar result? (Not including the planchet flaws we see in early coins.). I could envision damage from careless handling if a manual step or more are involved, but cannot see striations resulting. I’ve read that proof planchets are polished, could heavy-handed or careless polishing leave striations deep enough that they would be preserved during the striking process? (Which appears to
be the original question debated, correct?) Apologies for ignorance re the minting process and the redundancy. Great thread.
@oldabeintx said:
If we ignore (please) the examples shown, are there ANY instances when planchet (not die) striations are evident in the fields of US coins?
Sure, it definitely happens with roller marks and adjustment marks - but @you was correct that they will be heavier on the devices. They will also look different - not hairline thin lines like those, but thicker. Someone can probably find an example of a Morgan with roller marks that made it to the fields. Aside from roller marks there shouldn’t really be incuse lines on the planchet on modern coins though.
Yep, that’s a great example. There are some roller marks surviving in the fields but noticeably weaker than on the high points (cheek, back of cap, S U in pluribuS Unum).
I'm glad that one served its purpose. I had to look at pictures of more examples with roller marks than I'd anticipated, in order to find one with the marks apparent in the fields, too. Thanks for helping to turn this thread into a positive experience.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Here is the full reverse photo of the CBH lines habaraca posted earlier
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
@oldabeintx said:
Understand the roller marks and adjustment marks. Since roller marks occur when the sheets are rolled, are there other preparation problems that might leave a similar result? (Not including the planchet flaws we see in early coins.). I could envision damage from careless handling if a manual step or more are involved, but cannot see striations resulting. I’ve read that proof planchets are polished, could heavy-handed or careless polishing leave striations deep enough that they would be preserved during the striking process? (Which appears to
be the original question debated, correct?) Apologies for ignorance re the minting process and the redundancy. Great thread.
.
Once again outside my realm but I kind of thought there should be other possible steps that could impact the planchet since the sheets need to go through a process to make blanks. So here is some stuff I found but I can not attest to how much impact could come from these steps.
First is the US mint page for coin production with written steps and some videos (short and limited with no verbal descriptions).
So the sheets go through various rollers when stamping out the blanks and here are some screenshots from the video.
The one at the bottom is from another video showing the blanks going through some dirty roller.
With more searching could probably find more and better stuff.
This is not the production of the sheets at the manufacturing plant that draws down the sheet to the proper thickness where I think the typical roller marks are from but again I don't know the actual numbers.
.
.
As far as polishing planchets for proofs - from the above mint website:
Special proof and uncirculated planchets go through a cleaning process called burnishing. They are placed in a drum with cleaning agents and small metal pellets to smooth and polish the surface. An employee then rinses the planchets and hand-dries them with towels.
@oldabeintx said:
From the description of the polishing process it doesn’t seem probable that striations would remain on proofs from this process. So what’s left?
I have proofs with die polish. Ideally the proof die preparation process is high quality enough that any lines in the die are removed. Although that's wishful thinking and I've seen examples where proofs have polish. I think present day proofs are much better prepared than in the past.
@oldabeintx said:
From the description of the polishing process it doesn’t seem probable that striations would remain on proofs from this process. So what’s left?
I have proofs with die polish. Ideally the proof die preparation process is high quality enough that any lines in the die are removed. Although that's wishful thinking and I've seen examples where proofs have polish. I think present day proofs are much better prepared than in the past.
Agree and why I asked in my initial post to this thread about 1940's:
"But first I want to ask (and I am asking and not trying to make a point) - In this era (1940's) how much work went into the planchets for proofs as far as polishing and quality control of them?
Note: proofs are not my thing and therefore the question.".
I would add that the information I added above is for the time of the video (which might be several years old) or whenever the mint last updated their web page. So how proof blanks / planchets were polished in the 1940's may be different than what is stated on today's mint website. Also the coining machine process may have been different. The 1940's process might be in my book FMTM or on a website like NNP but I don't have the interest to look it up (and thus why I asked the previous question).
Asked Grok what these very fine lines are and here’s the reply:
“The very fine lines visible on the penny in the image are called "die lines" or "die scratches." These lines occur during the minting process when imperfections or scratches on the die (the tool used to strike the coin) transfer onto the coin's surface. In the case of this 1942 Lincoln cent, the golden color suggests it might be a brass or bronze composition, typical of wartime pennies, and the die lines are a common feature in coins from that era, especially if the die was used extensively or damaged. If you'd like more detailed information or verification, I can offer to search the web for additional insights.“
All I can say is that I would have a difficut time distinguishing the difference between post mint damage and a processing flaw as described here. Glad this isn't my day job. James
Asked Grok what these very fine lines are and here’s the reply:
“The very fine lines visible on the penny in the image are called "die lines" or "die scratches." These lines occur during the minting process when imperfections or scratches on the die (the tool used to strike the coin) transfer onto the coin's surface. In the case of this 1942 Lincoln cent, the golden color suggests it might be a brass or bronze composition, typical of wartime pennies, and the die lines are a common feature in coins from that era, especially if the die was used extensively or damaged. If you'd like more detailed information or verification, I can offer to search the web for additional insights.“
www.grok.com ai model grok 3
Grok V3 is a game changer, I’ve been playing with it the past couple days and I’m astonished at progress achieved from the Grok Beta. I’m thinking that in about 5 years, human customer service agents might be completely extinct. A human sounding AI program is still much preferable than many of the automated prompts being used currently, that make me scream lol.
Asked Grok what these very fine lines are and here’s the reply:
“The very fine lines visible on the penny in the image are called "die lines" or "die scratches." These lines occur during the minting process when imperfections or scratches on the die (the tool used to strike the coin) transfer onto the coin's surface. In the case of this 1942 Lincoln cent, the golden color suggests it might be a brass or bronze composition, typical of wartime pennies, and the die lines are a common feature in coins from that era, especially if the die was used extensively or damaged. If you'd like more detailed information or verification, I can offer to search the web for additional insights.“
www.grok.com ai model grok 3
I never heard the word "die lines" used by anyone who is knowledgeable about coins and hope it does not catch on! Gronk must be one of these IA apps that are filled with nonsense written for the masses.
Here is what I've taken from this discussion and learned on my own. I would appreciate it if someone will correct me. PS Thank goodness that @Rexford posted.
Striations are thin parallel lines INTO a planchet that can appear anywhere on a struck coin (over and under the relief parts or on the field) that were too deep to be struck out. Therefore, they are never raised on a coin. A single one is a "Stria." More than one are called "Striae."
Comments
I’ll abstain from the question, but does anyone else? This thread is challenging my faith in the hobby.
I feel like I need to jump in too. The OP is just factually incorrect, to the point that the thread should maybe just be closed.
Planchet roller marks or striations that form from excessive stress or weakness in the alloy look different.
IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
"Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me
Don't know why but found this a little interesting so I did a little 'homework'
.
But first I want to ask (and I am asking and not trying to make a point) - In this era (1940's) how much work went into the planchets for proofs as far as polishing and quality control of them?
Note: proofs are not my thing and therefore the question.
I will try to word the stuff below as impartially as I can.
My thought is I am not sure these lines are all produced by one 'thing' but maybe.
For the 'homework':
I took FlyingAls images on the 1942 cent and downloaded them.
First image below I put a blue line on it from the R in liberty upward and following one of the lines. Then duplicated the blue line and placed it in various spots on the coin. It shows how well some lines on the coin follow similarly and how others do not.
.
Next I took jacrispies response about the obverse and reverse lines following in the same direction and attempted to show this. Had to first get the obverse and reverse images together in one and then I did my best to manually flip the blue line about a horizontal axis. Then placed those flipped blue lines on the reverse. It shows how well some of the lines line up with the obverse as jacrispies stated. It also shows a similar thing to the obverse where some lines on the reverse do not follow along the same direction.
.
On this next image I increased the exposure to brighten up the photos and lines and then enlarged the image to hopefully see the lines better but not sure how successful this is. Below that for reference is the complete obverse with the increased exposure.
.
.
.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=wwmUMvhy-lY - Pink Me And Bobby McGee
.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=D0FPxuQv2ns - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Maybe I'm Amazed
RLJ 1958 - 2023
I don't know 1940s cents particularly well. I will say for 20th century coins more generally that by the early 1900s, the quality of proofs was fairly high. Sources of lines on your proofs from the mint are rare. Die polish is, by far, the most common source of mint-made lines I've seen on 20th century proofs. The nature of die polish really comes down to the person doing the die preparation and how they were doing it. When I sand and polish things myself, my hand motions are rarely exactly replicated, so there's variation in the angles. If you are using a machine, it'll be more consistent. As a result, die polish is not necessarily parallel, but it often is. Die polish often goes in more than one direction, as can hairlines. Die polish absolutely can exist on the high points of the coin and not just the fields, but it usually doesn't.
I am not always perfect at distinguishing die polish and hairlines from photos. But I can generally get further by looking at overall patterns and locations of the lines rather than trying to distinguish between raised lines or incuse lines.
IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
"Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me
Don't call in your own expert, and then disagree with their opinion.
Think of it like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcFmyiVK3c4
Notice how even under 100 tons, there are still elements of the tin foil that have not been pressed out. Cents were struck at 40 tons, or well under half of this pressure. Lines in the planchet do not necessarily get pressed out, even if they're in the fields, not to mention copper is significantly harder than tin and planchets are already compact.
Let's take a look at this coin, which shows both obvious die polish in the devices and lines in the fields.
The die polish lines are more irregular, bolder, raised, and contained to the devices. The other lines in the field do not follow this pattern. They are incuse and thin. If a line was to exist in this planchet, it would be expected to flow up into the devices if it was not pressed out in the case of areas of high relief. We see this pattern.
Again, if you're so sure that these lines are die polish, produce any two Proof examples of any coin or denomination in the years 36-42 that show these thin, incuse lines in exactly the same spot. I for one certainly haven't seen it.
Coin Photographer.
Well, apparently I am more of an expert than he is, which is sad to see.
On this coin, those lines in the fields are probably hairlines. They may be die lines, but that’s a difficult photo to read. They are not incuse lines in the planchet.
Clearly you still don’t understand how this works - how metal flow works, what areas of the coin are being greater or less impacted by the dies, any of it. Go look at that gold coin I posted. Look how deep those adjustment marks are. Look how they either do not enter the fields or are extremely weak in the fields. Look at ANY coin with adjustment marks or roller marks or unstruck planchet. Where are those characteristics strongest? There is greater metal flow in the fields than the devices because the fields are being compressed further. Case closed.
I don’t need to produce anything, I’m not going to take the time to do your homework for you, and the absence of other examples is meaningless. They are die lines because they are die lines. They are clearly raised. They are not in the planchet. It is physically impossible for them to be in the planchet.
Bottom line is, you couldn’t even tell that the lines in the field on the original 50C in the OP are hairlines. You also stated that every example from the same die pair should have the same die lines. Why would you be trustworthy with anything else? And, you went back on your conclusions about the nickel temporarily, then recommitted to the bit. You also don’t understand how die flow works. There is more die flow in the fields. There is also more die flow in general in the peripheries of the coin. How come those “planchet lines” aren’t fading away as you move closer to the rim? You’re backing yourself in a corner and trying to fight your way out with scientific-sounding nonsense about tons and metal flow, but you’ve already lost.
Posting this again since you ignored it the first time.
I didn’t call in my own expert, and then said my expert didn’t know how to grade when they said I was wrong.
I can identify that lines that go through devices aren’t hairlines, as is obviously shown in this cent. The lines go through Lincoln’s hair for gods sake.
I did go back on my assumption of the nickel because I remembered a similar example I had seen in a video years ago. Today, I found the video and confirmed the coin was from 1939. This ruled out why I personally went back on my original attribution, and I have since gone back to my original statement (which I should have stuck with all along).
The lines in the field of the OP 50c are not all hairlines. Anyone “who knows how to grade” could apparently see that.
You’ve produced no evidence but insults and experts who have contradicted you. You can’t do my homework for me, because you can’t do your own homework to start.
I’ve been in a lot of corners before. Doesn’t scare me anymore.
Also, you’re not making any sense. You’re just throwing stuff at a wall and hoping something sticks.
What a waste of time. People like you remind me why I shouldn’t post here anymore.
Coin Photographer.
I called Mark in with the hopes that as someone respected by this forum you would believe him over me. Unfortunately, he was wrong. That’s all. He’s not “my expert”.
Hairlines DO go onto devices, they just don’t generally seamlessly climb from field to device without a break. That photo is not high enough res to be sure of that. But sure, maybe it’s a die line, as I said. It’s not a planchet striation.
Lol, no they aren’t. You just continue to be wrong.
Maybe I’m not making sense to you only because you don’t actually know enough to understand my points. Otherwise the gold coin I posted would be enough for you to admit your errors.
Ok, don’t. You’re just misleading people in this forum.
.
Coin Photographer.
I’ve been watching this thread for a while, and for the sake of ending the toxicity from @You and settling things before this thread gets closed down, I’m going to jump in and say that unpleasant as he is, he’s right about this.
The lines on the Kennedy do come off as normal hairlines. The lines on the Jefferson are die polish. They’re raised, they run right up to devices without climbing onto them, and they come off the edges of the devices in some areas in a tapered shape called “trails” - caused by the polishing tool digging into the rim of the incuse device. https://www.traildies.com/the-theory-of-trail-formation/.
I’m a former grader. Can we stop with the back-and-forth now?
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Reading your post and looking at the pictures again, I believe that you’re correct. Said another way, I believe I was incorrect.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Are you looking for a show of hands?
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
What a great read. This is how we all learn. I agree with all of @you observations - but I enjoyed reading all points of view rather wrong or right.
I’ve seen a few coins and actually look at a lot of coins under a microscope. You’d be amazed what your eyes can see and understand the puzzles to the minting process.
Seth - aka the world’s greatest wheat cent sorter.
Fair enough. I would also like to see this thread come to an end.
Glad someone got something from this.
Coin Photographer.
If we ignore (please) the examples shown, are there ANY instances when planchet (not die) striations are evident in the fields of US coins?
Being among the ignorant on this topic, I appreciate the debate but did not enjoy the rudeness of @You . One can argue without being personal.
"Got a flaming heart, can't get my fill"
100% agreed. Although being confrontational and unpleasant seems to be his modus operandi.
Just another obviously very bright and even more obviously very unpleasant person in numismatics.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
His rudeness aside, people like "You" are why you SHOULD post here. To me this is a wonderful board to post on because my ideas will be judged and torn apart by competent numismatists if they're wrong.
We're all learning. I learned something from this thread - I never realized that roller marks could cut rather deeply into the metal. Please don't be reluctant to post your thinking on coins because you'll be cheating yourself out of the opportunity to learn from the interactions with others here.
Sure, it definitely happens with roller marks and adjustment marks - but @you was correct that they will be heavier on the devices. They will also look different - not hairline thin lines like those, but thicker. Someone can probably find an example of a Morgan with roller marks that made it to the fields. Aside from roller marks there shouldn’t really be incuse lines on the planchet on modern coins though.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Regarding this request, from the above quote-
"Someone can probably find an example of a Morgan with roller marks that made it to the fields."
This isn't a Morgan dollar, but it is an 1838 RE half dollar that I own with roller marks going primarily over the devices, but also trailing into the fields. You can right click and open the image in a new tab and it will expand greatly.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Here’s an example I found. Aside from being on the devices and being thicker (and incuse), they’re generally going to be very very parallel and spaced close together in groups.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Also not a Morgan but here is a coin of mine. These are fairly common (comparatively) on trade dollars.
chopmarkedtradedollars.com
When I read your above post, I immediately thought of 1902-S Morgan Dollars as possible candidates.
Does this one work for you as an example?:
Link to lot listing so you can enlarge image: https://coins.ha.com/itm/morgan-dollars/1902-s-1-ms66-pcgs-pcgs-7282-/a/1292-3727.s?ic4=ListView-ShortDescription-071515#
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Another point regarding all three of the above examples: if you look at the area of the devices where the lines go heavily over the devices (the N on the coin I posted, the claws and lower eagle on the 1838, the D in UNITED on the Trade Dollar) you will notice the strike is weaker there. This is a fairly consistent characteristic. In a large part this is because a weaker strike means that the lines will survive better, and in part (particularly on that N) probably because the metal has a difficult time filling the gaps between the lines. I wouldn’t really expect roller marks to show in the fields on a proof because the strike should be sufficiently strong to eliminate them.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Yep, that’s a great example. There are some roller marks surviving in the fields but noticeably weaker than on the high points (cheek, back of cap, S U in pluribuS Unum).
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Closeup of my Seated half with incuse roller lines visible on the devices and faint in the fields. There must be a lot of pressure on those rollers to cut the lettering like that. Do these rollers have or develop sharp, blade-like prominences on them?
Understand the roller marks and adjustment marks. Since roller marks occur when the sheets are rolled, are there other preparation problems that might leave a similar result? (Not including the planchet flaws we see in early coins.). I could envision damage from careless handling if a manual step or more are involved, but cannot see striations resulting. I’ve read that proof planchets are polished, could heavy-handed or careless polishing leave striations deep enough that they would be preserved during the striking process? (Which appears to
be the original question debated, correct?) Apologies for ignorance re the minting process and the redundancy. Great thread.
I'm glad that one served its purpose. I had to look at pictures of more examples with roller marks than I'd anticipated, in order to find one with the marks apparent in the fields, too. Thanks for helping to turn this thread into a positive experience.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Here is a site that shows them on Eisenhowers. The info is laid out clear and simple: https://www.ikegroup.info/?page_id=207
Here is the full reverse photo of the CBH lines habaraca posted earlier
"But seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you" Matthew 6:33. Young fellow suffering from Bust Half fever.
BHNC #AN-10
JRCS #1606
Someone here PMed me to ask about parallel die lines, figured I would share a few examples of that as well:
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
.
Once again outside my realm but I kind of thought there should be other possible steps that could impact the planchet since the sheets need to go through a process to make blanks. So here is some stuff I found but I can not attest to how much impact could come from these steps.
First is the US mint page for coin production with written steps and some videos (short and limited with no verbal descriptions).
https://www.usmint.gov/learn/production-process/coin-production
So the sheets go through various rollers when stamping out the blanks and here are some screenshots from the video.
The one at the bottom is from another video showing the blanks going through some dirty roller.
With more searching could probably find more and better stuff.
This is not the production of the sheets at the manufacturing plant that draws down the sheet to the proper thickness where I think the typical roller marks are from but again I don't know the actual numbers.
.
.
As far as polishing planchets for proofs - from the above mint website:
Special proof and uncirculated planchets go through a cleaning process called burnishing. They are placed in a drum with cleaning agents and small metal pellets to smooth and polish the surface. An employee then rinses the planchets and hand-dries them with towels.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=wwmUMvhy-lY - Pink Me And Bobby McGee
.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=D0FPxuQv2ns - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Maybe I'm Amazed
RLJ 1958 - 2023
From the description of the polishing process it doesn’t seem probable that striations would remain on proofs from this process. So what’s left?
I have proofs with die polish. Ideally the proof die preparation process is high quality enough that any lines in the die are removed. Although that's wishful thinking and I've seen examples where proofs have polish. I think present day proofs are much better prepared than in the past.
IG: DeCourcyCoinsEbay: neilrobertson
"Numismatic categorizations, if left unconstrained, will increase spontaneously over time." -me
Agree and why I asked in my initial post to this thread about 1940's:
"But first I want to ask (and I am asking and not trying to make a point) - In this era (1940's) how much work went into the planchets for proofs as far as polishing and quality control of them?
Note: proofs are not my thing and therefore the question.".
I would add that the information I added above is for the time of the video (which might be several years old) or whenever the mint last updated their web page. So how proof blanks / planchets were polished in the 1940's may be different than what is stated on today's mint website. Also the coining machine process may have been different. The 1940's process might be in my book FMTM or on a website like NNP but I don't have the interest to look it up (and thus why I asked the previous question).
https://youtube.com/watch?v=wwmUMvhy-lY - Pink Me And Bobby McGee
.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=D0FPxuQv2ns - Ruby Starr (from 'Go Jim Dandy') Maybe I'm Amazed
RLJ 1958 - 2023
Asked Grok what these very fine lines are and here’s the reply:
“The very fine lines visible on the penny in the image are called "die lines" or "die scratches." These lines occur during the minting process when imperfections or scratches on the die (the tool used to strike the coin) transfer onto the coin's surface. In the case of this 1942 Lincoln cent, the golden color suggests it might be a brass or bronze composition, typical of wartime pennies, and the die lines are a common feature in coins from that era, especially if the die was used extensively or damaged. If you'd like more detailed information or verification, I can offer to search the web for additional insights.“
www.grok.com ai model grok 3
Here are some interesting striations from improper annealing
All I can say is that I would have a difficut time distinguishing the difference between post mint damage and a processing flaw as described here. Glad this isn't my day job. James
C> @johnny010 said:
Grok V3 is a game changer, I’ve been playing with it the past couple days and I’m astonished at progress achieved from the Grok Beta. I’m thinking that in about 5 years, human customer service agents might be completely extinct. A human sounding AI program is still much preferable than many of the automated prompts being used currently, that make me scream lol.
Founder- Peak Rarities
Website
Instagram
Facebook
I agree with @You . Its unfortunate that this turned into an argument.
Successful BST with ad4400, Kccoin, lablover, pointfivezero, koynekwest, jwitten, coin22lover, HalfDimeDude, erwindoc, jyzskowsi, COINS MAKE CENTS, AlanSki, BryceM
I never heard the word "die lines" used by anyone who is knowledgeable about coins and hope it does not catch on! Gronk must be one of these IA apps that are filled with nonsense written for the masses.
Here is what I've taken from this discussion and learned on my own. I would appreciate it if someone will correct me. PS Thank goodness that @Rexford posted.
Striations are thin parallel lines INTO a planchet that can appear anywhere on a struck coin (over and under the relief parts or on the field) that were too deep to be struck out. Therefore, they are never raised on a coin. A single one is a "Stria." More than one are called "Striae."