Do you consider die polish marks on proofs to be a negative?

291fifth · January 24, 2007 5:11AM

My answer: yes.

tmot99 · January 24, 2007 5:15AM

Typically, yes.

cladking · January 24, 2007 7:32AM

I hate die polish marks. They are as annoying as damage and planchet defects especially on unc coins,
but they're often nearly as bad on the proofs.

BECOKA · January 24, 2007 7:34AM

Depends, sometimes yes sometimes no. I think in some cases it adds character to the coin.

GAT · January 24, 2007 7:43AM

It doesn't bother me but it sure does PCGS. I have a 1921-D MS63PL with heavy polish lines that is really a 64 otherwise.

Ronyahski · January 24, 2007 7:58AM

<< <i>Depends, sometimes yes sometimes no. I think in some cases it adds character to the coin. >>

I agree. Though sometimes they look just like hairlines, which goes into my negative column.

mgoodm3 · January 24, 2007 8:00AM

I don't mind and kinda like a few. i just don't like when proofs are overwhelmed with them like some patterns.

CarlWohlforth · January 24, 2007 8:51AM

They don't bother me on Mint State Mercury dimes. I see a lot of those and on high grade coins too.

They do bother me on proofs. I think they distract from the ideal that proofs are intended to portray.

MAD4MORGANS · January 24, 2007 8:54AM

I think they are COOL!!

BECOKA · January 24, 2007 9:26AM

<< <i>I think they are COOL!!

>>

Now that is just plain cruel. It might as well be cleaned and body bagged.

BillJones · January 24, 2007 9:33AM

I don't care for them. Too often a casual shopper will look at the coin and not bother to check to see if they are raised (polish marks) or in the surface (hairline scratches). Anything that discourages people from taking an initial look at the coin is a negative to me.

66Tbird · January 24, 2007 9:44AM

For the 20c series they don't bother me.

Do you consider die polish marks on proofs to be a negative?

Comments

Leave a Comment