53 Franklin proof - Strike through grease???
ehhblack
Posts: 6
A couple of questions for the experts.
Take a look at the eagle - no definition - is this common?
Also, the fields look clean, but the relief has hairlines in all directions, could this have been caused by movement in the cello?
Thanks,
Eric
Take a look at the eagle - no definition - is this common?
Also, the fields look clean, but the relief has hairlines in all directions, could this have been caused by movement in the cello?
Thanks,
Eric
0
Comments
Yes- sometimes the elements, like the eagle on your coin, can just be struck up weakly. And while your coin may have hairlines- they do sometimes come with polish lines on the designs that are not hairlines from a cleaning. Look at this 51 Washie CAM as an example. Sorry for these older pics- this set is in the box so I have no better pics on hand.
<< <i>
Also, the fields look clean, but the relief has hairlines in all directions, could this have been caused by movement in the cello?
>>
It's hard to tell much of anything from your image, but most likely, as JRocco says, the lines you are talking about are repolishing lines.
U.S. Type Set
Welcome to forum...hope you get qualified responses.
edited: Wonder what this Frankie would look like out of the old yellowed cello? Do you see any frosting on the devices?
"Keep your malarkey filter in good operating order" -Walter Breen
In my experience the eagle on the 53 Frankling is typically weakly struck, but it is inherent in the master die. Note the full bell lines and the ability to read the "Pass & Stow" lettering on the bell - this suggests a full strike during the striking of the planchet. So the weak eagle is part of the die, not a result of the striking pressure. As an aside, the eagle was "fixed" by the mint in 1956 - hence the Type 1 (weak) and Type II (new, stronger eagle design). So you see the weak eagles from 1950 to 1956 and the stronger eagles from 1956 to 1963.
The random lines on the devices is very typical of '50's proofs and is usually the result of die polishing. It is certainly possible for hairlines and scratches to be on the devices and fields. If you have good enough magnification, you would typically see that the die polishing lines are tiny raised ridges whereas the hairlines are scratches into the surfaces. 1953 has a couple of Franklin dies with spectacular die repolishing - one example I have seen looks like someone took a heavy wire brush to Franklin's portrait!
“In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Thomas Jefferson
My digital cameo album 1950-64 Cameos - take a look!
<< <i>To answer your questions directly:
In my experience the eagle on the 53 Frankling is typically weakly struck, but it is inherent in the master die. Note the full bell lines and the ability to read the "Pass & Stow" lettering on the bell - this suggests a full strike during the striking of the planchet. So the weak eagle is part of the die, not a result of the striking pressure. As an aside, the eagle was "fixed" by the mint in 1956 - hence the Type 1 (weak) and Type II (new, stronger eagle design). So you see the weak eagles from 1950 to 1956 and the stronger eagles from 1956 to 1963.
The random lines on the devices is very typical of '50's proofs and is usually the result of die polishing. It is certainly possible for hairlines and scratches to be on the devices and fields. If you have good enough magnification, you would typically see that the die polishing lines are tiny raised ridges whereas the hairlines are scratches into the surfaces. 1953 has a couple of Franklin dies with spectacular die repolishing - one example I have seen looks like someone took a heavy wire brush to Franklin's portrait! >>
56 type 1
after NCS submitted for me by Keets
Go BIG or GO HOME. ©Bill