Adjustment marks or scratches?

lkeigwin

Milling marks as well?

What do you say?
Lance.

LanLord

Wow, nice coins.

I think on the 94, there may be both scratches and adjustment marks. Wouldn't adjustment marks all be parallel?

I like the raised marks on the 95. Very cool.

lkeigwin

I'm troubled by the reverse of the 1795.

The lines near the rims may be from the reducing roller. But the stuff in the center looks like scratches to me.

I know these early coins get some slack but this seems a little extreme. Both halves were cleanly graded.
Lance.

LanceNewmanOCC

.
.
those images are exceptional

did u diffuse?
.

DenverDave

I love that 95...

At first glance I thought scratches but the closer I look the more I think AM's...

CaptHenway

Adjustment marks need not be parallel, though they sometimes show at clusters of lines parallel within the cluster.

On these two coins, I would say predominantly adjustment marks, but cannot rule out the possibilty of a few scratches as well just from looking at some (excellent) photos.

TD

g048406

The 1794 has adjustment marks on the obverse and a couple of scratches.
The 1795 has a large scratch on the reverse that is not quite straight

Adjustment marks rarely touch the low points (the fields) they should stop at the demarc where the raised profile meets the lower field

PerryHall

<< <i>The 1794 has adjustment marks on the obverse and a couple of scratches.
The 1795 has a large scratch on the reverse that is not quite straight

Adjustment marks rarely touch the low points (the fields) they should stop at the demarc where the raised profile meets the lower field >>



Agree with the above assessment. Any idea how these adjustment marks affect the value of this coin? Mint made or not, I never liked them and I would pass on this coin unless it were extremely cheap.

lkeigwin

<< <i>

<< <i>Agree with the above assessment. Any idea how these adjustment marks affect the value of this coin? Mint made or not, I never liked them and I would pass on this coin unless it were extremely cheap. >>

I don't know how the value is affected. I'm not the owner or buyer. I'm shooting some pix for a dealer and these coins are among them.

I was surprised the 1794 graded cleanly.
Lance.

DenverDave

I'm in the other camp as I like AM's and especially Clashes and think they add to the piece...

I'm glad others look at them the other way or they would cost me more money...

Nysoto

The 1794 O101a has adjustment marks through the portrait and obverse rims. They often appear where the coin is weakly struck, such as the area from 3 to 5 o'clock where the dentils were not well struck, from a die setting that was slightly off parallel. The adjustment marks were not pressed out in these areas. The 1794 on 1795 half dollars had adj marks that were much deeper as more coarse files were used than on draped bust coins. The adj marks through the portrait were deep and could not be struck out, my 1794 O101a has similar, random adj marks through the weak centers of the portrait. They are not always parallel.

The 1795 has adj marks at the rims, again more visible on the side that was more weakly struck. The planchets are drawn through a drawing machine after being rolled, I don't believe these are drawing or rolling marks, as planchets are always adjusted on one side as this coin was. Sometimes scratches or test marks can appear as adj marks, they will always leave a raised ridge from metal displacement. The marks through the eagle are probably adj marks, I would have to see the coin to make sure.

Minor adj marks at the rim usually don't affect value, stronger ones through the Miss Liberty or eagle will affect value. As a variety collector I like them on some examples, but would not want adj marks for a type coin.