Shield nickel specialists: is this dies polish or cleaning?

mercurydimeguy · May 27, 2014 4:07AM

This coin has been a head-scratcher for me for a while.

It was in a PCGS 63 (rattle) holder and looked pretty nice in hand. I had a raw order (this was some time ago) going in so I cracked it thinking it might get upgraded because in hand it looks nice.

It came back cleaning. WTF? I look and look, and for the life of me the marks on the surface look like die polish. They have some relief and are not incuse. Thought, oh well, maybe they looked quickly and made a mistake. I sent it in again with another raw order, and came back cleaning again. WTFFF? I look again, with my Zeiss lens, my Coin microscope, in all possible angles and to me it looks like die polish not cleaning...unless someone can somehow mysteriously clean in between microscopic devices, or would want to spend the time since it is a $250 coin.

Anyhow, admittedly this and 3CN coins are the ones I struggle grading the most, so maybe some Shield Nickel forumites can shed some light on this for me and tell me how this is cleaning...because from my vantage point this looks like die polish I see in 25% of shield nickels on the market today. Here's an eBay 1869 5C for example, with CAC sticker. Badly lit photos (ps. I can make mine badly lit also if it helps you guys), but you can clearly see what I'm talking about.

Please help educate me as to why this is cleaning or do I submit this cracked out PCGS MS63 coin back in a 3rd time to continue with the experiment?

AMRC · May 27, 2014 4:14AM

Not one or the other, but both.

Walkerguy21D · May 27, 2014 4:57AM

Doesn't look cleaned to me.....but from a 63 rattler holder to a genny holder? Ouch!

WoodenJefferson · May 27, 2014 5:57AM

We (the Forum) are only judging this example by looking at just one side. Is the other side completely free of anomalies?

MrHalfDime · May 27, 2014 6:34AM

It would be nearly impossible to distinguish die polish, or lapping lines, from cleaning lines, which are both three-dimensional concepts, from a two-dimensional image. Die polishing, or lapping lines, would appear in relief on the struck coin, while cleaning lines would be incuse. Try looking at the coin under a stereo microscope, which will allow you to see the relief (third dimension). Also, cleaning lines will generally continue across the devices, while lapping lines appear only on the point of highest relief on the die, which would be the fields.

Kove · May 27, 2014 6:47AM

From what I see, it looks like die polish.

The lines go right up next to the devices, which would be hard to do wiping with a cloth.

The lines are also clearly evident in tiny, protected areas, another difficult thing to do with getting a cleaning cloth into those spaces.

Finally, the lines appear to be limited to the fields (the highest points on the die, therefore the most likely area to see polish lines), and do not go up onto the devices, which they would if this had been cleaned.

howards · May 27, 2014 7:23AM

Others have already commented on the important diagnostic about whether the lines are raised or incuse.

I can add that the whitish areas at the bottom of the space between the vertical columns looks like typical shield nickel die polish to me. The horizontal lines across the top third of the coin do not look like typical shield nickel die polish lines to me.

Also, as others have commented, going from just a photo (one-sided at that) is not a particularly good way to answer this question.

mercurydimeguy · May 27, 2014 7:32AM

Interestingly enough, and somewhat ironic, is that I am not a coin cracker/submitter. If I feel coin is under-graded I send the coin in for regrading in the PCGS holder and have decent success with that. In terms of cross-overs, I send in to PCGS in other TPG and ask for crossover grading. This year I am either 9 for 10 or 10 for 11 (lost count) for "at grade" crossovers from NGC; one came back an AU55 vs. what I thought was AU58, but then it got CAC sticker'd so I bet on a re-submittal it might AU58 anyway.

So, I cracked this 1869 5C a while back because I was doing a raw submission (some modern stuff and coins under $300) and submitted it with them to save some $$ for shipping, handling, re-grade fee, etc.

Thinking...what do I have to lose, it's a 63 all day long anyway.

The second time it came back Genuine - Unc - Cleaning I must admit I was a little miffed (more ego bruising than anything else). Now the coin has been sitting on my messy desk for over a month in a Genuine - Unc - Cleaning PCGS slab...and it's just eating at me. I'm thinking about using the slab as a coffee cup coaster or something. I pick up the coin a couple of times per week, examine with my loupe, and scratch my head every time

Try looking at the coin under a stereo microscope, which will allow you to see the relief (third dimension).

I hear you, this was how it all started and what I did before I cracked the coin...lines or raised not incuse. They stop at each device and are only on the surface. The lines actually have frosty/luster on them as would happen with a strike. If you look at image, that is what makes them look slightly "matte" at first glance.

We (the Forum) are only judging this example by looking at just one side. Is the other side completely free of anomalies?

Fair point, thank you for raising it. I assumed the reverse was always no problem but maybe you are on to something and the reverse is the problem? Here's a man-size blow up of the reverse. I should have cleaned off the slab a little better to remove the smudges but you get the idea. I just don't see any cleaning on it. It has nice luster. Some toning, and a bunch of die corrosion on the surface (not at all unusual for a Shield Nickel).

Walkerguy21D · May 27, 2014 8:40AM

Reverse looks pretty good to me....

DIMEMAN · May 27, 2014 8:43AM

Looks like die polish to me!

PS: How many times have I stressed......NEVER....EVER...take a coin out of a PCGS holder!!!!!!!!

TommyType · May 27, 2014 8:48AM

Guess the next obvious question is: Is it reasonable to believe that PCGS graders can be fooled by die polish, not just once, but TWICE??

Can't claim to know the answer....but it seems like a good question....

MrEureka · May 27, 2014 8:56AM

How many times have I stressed......NEVER....EVER...take a coin out of a PCGS holder!!!!!!!!

If PCGS is 100% consistent, there is little risk in cracking a slab.

If they are not, then sometimes they will overgrade and sometimes they'll undergrade. In which case, sometimes it will pay to crack a slab.

What am I missing?

DIMEMAN · May 27, 2014 9:13AM

>>>What am I missing? <<<

Why take the chance?

410a · May 27, 2014 9:13AM

I can't really tell looked like planchet die striation from the metal rolling. The lines do look raised. I don't believe it was cleaned because the devices are not, except the number 5 on the reverse who can tell. Are you sure it does not have a "coin care" or dip residue odor. It's been my experience.Then of course I agree with Andy. I also agree with not having it in hand can be tough to tell.

Generation ONE holder to today? wow big difference back in Generation One PCGS couldn't get the coins in the holders fast enough. This resulted in coins getting cracked and Inflated pricing of common date coins. Until the coins in slabs were ubiquitous then the pricing came down.

Not that any of this is a reason for crackouts.

MrEureka · May 27, 2014 9:28AM

Why take the chance?

For the potential profit?

cheezhed · May 27, 2014 9:37AM

What to do?

Sending it in again and you're reaching the point of diminishing returns if gets bagged or graded same grade(63).

Leaving raw will probably impact price vs. PCGS graded.

I wish I had a good answer fore this.

Coin looks good to me btw from photos.

mercurydimeguy · May 27, 2014 9:42AM

Hhmm. I might try one more time with the next batch of raw coins. Who knows, if it comes back cleaning the third time I will just chalk it up to a lesson learned (although don't know what I can learn if the coin doesn't exhibit any signs of cleaning).

I posted a link in original post to one PCGS MS63..

Here's another one...PCGS MS65.

Here's another...bad lighting covers up most of them but if you look you can still see them...PCGS MS66

Here's another coin on eBay CAC approved (bad lighting, again, interesting theme with bad lighting on the "obverse" of these coins) ... Link to coin.

In all there are dozens of Shield Nickels on eBay ranging from MS63-MS66 (CAC and non-CAC) that all have the same die polish on the obverse and nearly identical to mine looking reverses.

So maybe one other possibility...the same grader graded this coin twice and is inexperienced and graded it cleaned each time. Also I submitted under the economy level each time, wonder if I submit it under regular level if I would have a different outcome?

PS. Keep in mind, this coin in question is not an MS66 coin...the fact that it has imperfections is without question, but where's the cleaning? Oh well...thanks, and I'll keep you posted if I send it in a third time.

BryceM · May 27, 2014 9:46AM

Send it again. If it grades out cleaned, ask for a review before they ship it back. That's worked for me before.

Of course, it might have die polish lines and be cleaned. Dogs can have both ticks and fleas.

mercurydimeguy · May 27, 2014 10:07AM

<< Dogs can have both ticks and fleas. >>

LOL

I will have to plagiarize that line from you. Still laughing...too funny.

All kidding aside, you are right, and thanks for the idea.

howards · May 28, 2014 4:20PM

<< 
Here's another one...PCGS MS65.

Here's another...bad lighting covers up most of them but if you look you can still see them...PCGS MS66

Here's another coin on eBay CAC approved (bad lighting, again, interesting theme with bad lighting on the "obverse" of these coins) ... Link to coin.

>>

I'm not seeing that these examples look like yours.

The first one has circular lathe lines under the cross (seen with regularity on shield nickels). Your lines are not circular, they are straight.

The second one has what appears to me to be crossing scratches to the right of the cross. Possibly a die crack from the left tip of the cross.

The third one shows an obvious long die crack starting at U in TRUST, heading SE and W (then SW to the left of the cross).

None of these match parallel lines seen running horizontally (with a SE tilt) on the upper third of your coin. I don't know from your photos what caused the lines on your coin, but they don't match what I commonly see on shield nickels and perhaps PCGS found their origin questionable and decided to call it "cleaning."

I agree with other posters that the reverse of your coin shows no obvious issues.

Again, working from photos only any opinion I post is suspect.

LotsoLuck · May 28, 2014 4:24PM

It looks like die polish to me. It also looks like it had a cleaning at some point.

keets · May 28, 2014 9:28PM

It was in a PCGS 63 (rattle) holder and looked pretty nice in hand. I had a raw order (this was some time ago) going in so I cracked it thinking it might get upgraded

HRH is on record as saying that it is always best to send things to PCGS in the holder for your own protection. this proves the wisdom of that suggestion.

291fifth · May 28, 2014 10:29PM

Based on the photo it looks like die polish. That said, the lines, whatever they are, look bad on the coin. It's a coin I wouldn't buy as it just has trouble written all over it.

Don't resubmit. Quit wasting money on this turkey.

mercurydimeguy · May 28, 2014 11:04PM

<< Don't resubmit. Quit wasting money on this turkey. >>

That's probably true, I can put the $50 (in total between grading and shipping) into another coin.

I don't need this coin for my Registry Set, I had bought another nice MS63 earlier this spring (while the grading back/forth debacle was going on), and then sent to CAC to get a green sticker.

All the feedback has ben interesting, thank you. You guys/gals answered questions I didn't even ask, which has also been helpful.

For what it's worth...

a) I don't crack coins because I believe HRH is correct, for the most part, because had I sent in for regrading this would have been re-slabbed as MS63 anyway (that is whole other topic/conversation/thread)
b) I didn't crack this out to be graded raw for some financial gain because first of all there isn't much financial gain on this coin from a 63 to 64, not even to cover the cost of grading...I thought the coin looked nice in hand plus this coin was going to be for my set anyway. Primarily the old rattler was so scuffed up I was going to get it reholdered anyway because I couldn't even take photos of the coin, so the amount of money it would have cost me to send in 1 coin for reholdering was more than sending it in raw for grading with another batch (and like I said in the OP, the coin does look nice in hand)
c) the lighting I used in the photo was deliberate, perhaps even exaggerating, to show the die polish to get your feedback; in hand the coin looks nice, whether in a 63 or 64 holder the coin has nice eye appeal...i will shoot normal photos of the coin for you so you can see the difference, not to convince you but to demonstrate that lighting can make a lot of coins on the market look good or bad (look at a lot of early type, a good number of these coins are somewhat hairlined)

Thank you all again fro your feedback...there can be at least 3 to 4 off-shoot topics from this thread, but they have already been debated here over the last decade at nausea so I won't regurgitate them

/md.

PS. here's the 5c in my Registry Set.

291fifth · May 28, 2014 11:10PM

The two 1869 nickels you have are different varieties. Look carefully at the dates and you will see a clear cut difference. The coin in your registry set has elongated numerals while the coin with the die polish has squat (or more rounded) numerals. These varieties are well known to Shield nickel specialists.

ColonelJessup · May 29, 2014 1:57AM

<< >>>What am I missing? <<<

Why take the chance? >>

Because you are looking at the holder coin instead of the coin. If you don't trust your eye, then it's very wise to not trust anything else except the holder.

One thing that I often find useful in discriminating between cleaning lines and die polish is to observe whether or not the lines on the devices have the same pattern as in the fields.

To me, who can't grade from pictures, there are no lines on the devices, and the lines in the field essentially go under the devices and sometimes emerge from underneath the other side of the device. So I'm in the die polish camp.

Since not in-hand, I wouldn't say authoritatively on this piece, but the phenomenon appears often enough across metals and series that this "diagnostic" should prove sometimes useful.

howards · May 29, 2014 9:37AM

<< The two 1869 nickels you have are different varieties. Look carefully at the dates and you will see a clear cut difference. The coin in your registry set has elongated numerals while the coin with the die polish has squat (or more rounded) numerals. These varieties are well known to Shield nickel specialists. >>

This is quite correct. I would add that the wide numeral variant of original coin seen in this discussion is much more common than the narrow numeral variant of the latter coin. The narrow numeral variant has a Cherrypickers' Guide number: FS-301 (old FS-005).

There are a number of different dies that show the narrow numerals, so I wouldn't call it rare and it's probably a stretch to call it scarce. But they can be tough to find in nice grades like the one pictured here.

Also, in case anyone is interested, the wide variant is seen with two different obverse hubs (A &

and two different reverse hubs (IIa and IIc). The narrow date is only seen with obverse A and reverse IIa. Pictures of hubs can be seen here:

Shield Nickel hubs

The original coin in this thread is Obverse B reverse IIc.

Shield nickel specialists: is this dies polish or cleaning?

Comments

Leave a Comment