| Author |
 Replies: 17 / Views: 386 |
|
Valued Member
Canada
471 Posts |
Hello - here's another pretty thing for your consideration. Curious to know where people would put this grade-wise. Somewhere in the EF-AU range I'm thinking?   |
|
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
581 Posts |
Very nice obverse.
I'd have to venture AU58, with only the reverse holding it back from MS due to the line through the date and the marks that look like bubbles under the C in CENTS. Otherwise, I see no wear at all.
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
471 Posts |
It's clearly an issue with the initial strike but would you say that the sort of smeared (not sure what the right word is) effect along rim at 6 o'clock on the reverse and 12 o'clock on the obverse has an impact? I've seen this effect on a number of coins. Maybe I should create a specific thread about that issue...
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
998 Posts |
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
53577 Posts |
AU-58 sounds about right.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
3307 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5493 Posts |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1733 Posts |
MS. I see no wear. Nice clash.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
8231 Posts |
 Those aren't bubbles they are clash marks.
"Dipping" is not considered cleaning... -from PCGS website |
|
New Member
Canada
22 Posts |
I'm kind of curious about the areas that Silver asked about too. On the obverse from about 10 to 1 and on the reverse from about 4 to 8, there is no definition between the upper part of the denticles and the rim. Like Silver I would tend to blame the strike since there really is no wear to be seen elsewhere on the coin, but on a somewhat worn coin it would look a lot like uneven rim wear. Was the planchet seated weirdly in the collar when it was struck or was something a little off with the dies or....?
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1014 Posts |
Could be MS but will need a sharper photo
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
471 Posts |
@Levaril - yes - I have another post about this issue here on the grading page. It's something that you see from time to time. It's got to be something that happens during production but that does not damage the surface - just screws up the denticles. My other question is how does it influence grade? It could either have no effect but introduce a 'details' notation (though, what is the name of that notation?) or it could drop it by a few points on the Sheldon scale. I would lean towards the former but I don't know.
|
|
New Member
Canada
22 Posts |
If you look at the rim from the side is it thinner there or the same as the rest? I can think of several possibilities but some would be eliminated depending on what your answer is to that.
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
471 Posts |
No - same thickness at the edge....
|
|
New Member
Canada
22 Posts |
Okay so that limits the possibilities then for sure. It makes me think that you are seeing the raw planchet surface in those spots or something like that. I wonder if the thickness of the areas where there are fields on both sides of the coin are consistent or if it's a little thicker closer to the worn looking rims. I'd bet it's incrementally thicker there. If it is then my guess would be that the top die was somehow slightly cocked when it went in and the one edge didn't get struck properly as a result. It's very well struck on the opposite side. If that's the case then if you were to cut the coin in half you'd be able to see that the surfaces of the dies got much closer on the other side of the coin and not so much on the worn looking side. And that is a totally made up theory! Lol.
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
471 Posts |
not bad for 11 am on a Saturday morning....
|
|
Replies: 17 / Views: 386 |
|
Posted 01/13/2021 8:19 pm
