| Author |
 Replies: 13 / Views: 2,126 |
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1505 Posts |
Your thoughts would be appreciated on this. I recently purchased this coin with a few other dimes and when I received the coin, I noticed that it looked like it had been cleaned or something (3rd image). After seeing the 1953 PL thread, the amount of cameo on the coin looks like it could be from a PL set. A little lost on this one.   These lines are really hard to see, you have to be at just the right angle.  |
|
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
Canada
21616 Posts |
Looks like someone used a SOS pad on it.
Too bad because it looks like it could have been a Cameo.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2366 Posts |
Yes, most likely a cleaned PL.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
3234 Posts |
Still a nice cameo obverse..
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
5394 Posts |
Mint state early strike cameo.This is not a PL coin. Does appear to have been cleaned.
|
|
Moderator
United States
56855 Posts |
Sometimes a mint cello holder will cause scratches like that and not a cleaning. John1  Edited by John1
07/13/2015 12:29 pm
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
9865 Posts |
I agree with Pacificoin.
"Dipping" is not considered cleaning...
-from PCGS website
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
2845 Posts |
Would it be possible that some manner of abrasive cleaning occurred in a horizontal direction, enough to scratch the mirror background.....but that didn't appear to have harmed the cameo finish on the effigy whatsoever? I was under the impression the frosting is much more "fragile" (sorry, can't think of a better word).
|
|
Valued Member
Canada
228 Posts |
I also agree with Pacificoin.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
1505 Posts |
Thanks for your comments everyone. I would be curious on what kind of cleaning it was, as they seemed to be very delicate on what they cleaned. The mint wrapped set is an interesting thought, I have seen similar marks and I would think the frosting would show signs of cleaning as well. The surface is very shinny, which is not fully reflected in the photos.
Can one of you say how you can clearly spot PL vs. MS. I still have difficulty with this, or is it simply that PCGS/ICCS don't recognize a PL set from 1953, which is something I read in one of the threads.
|
|
Moderator
United States
56855 Posts |
A lot of people think that proof is a condition when in fact it is a process of minting. A proof will have sharper devices then a mint state and a proof will be struck at least two times with higher pressure and a mint state will be struck once with lower pressure.As for the scratches,they will show a lot more on a mirrored surface then a frosted one. There may well be scratches on the frosted areas that are just more difficult to see. John1 |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5394 Posts |
The early PL strikes are quite easy to tell. Just look at a 1954 through 1960 set and you will see the differences from a mint state coin.the Op coin here is simply an early business strike that has a cameo. This effect is usually from the first few hundred strikes from a new die and disappears quickly with each subsequent coin struck off the die. Also the OP coin has scratches that are usually associated with an abrasive cleaning of some type. Again if you look closely there are bag marks as well.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1505 Posts |
Thanks Pacificoin, I wish I still had my 57PL set to compare it with, are all PL sets the same if I am looking for comparisons (eg. 61-67)? As I don't have any earlier versions and struggle pick the two apart, unless there is no cameo.
I had previously contacted the seller (these marks were not visible or described), in hand I thought it was cleaned and we came to an arrangement. Now I have no concerns that it was actually cleaned, leaving a clear conscience. This will be a nice space filler and will focus on higher priority areas.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
5394 Posts |
When you say all the same, not necessarily . For instance some years show unreal ultra cameos , like 1956. Others have most coins with little or no Cameo.1957 being a great example. I cannot recall ever seeing a superb heavy cameo 1957 Dollar for instance.
|
| |
Replies: 13 / Views: 2,126 |
|
Posted 07/13/2015 11:03 am
