Hairlines on milled silver

[damian1986 142]

It seems to me that the majority of the later milled British silver coins show some hairlines when held under angled light / viewed under high magnification and they are clearest when photographed with a soft light.

These coins are not usually penalised on grade or on price. Many photos tend to mask hairlines, sometimes by using a bright light or a diffusing box to 'wash out' the metallic surfaces, and in hand these hairlines don't usually detract. Also toning has the effect of masking hairlines naturally.

Should these coins be penalised or is this just par for the course? We're not talking about whizzing or rubbing marks here to be clear.

I was photographing this shilling and it's a nice coin but under higher magnification the surface marks do detract. Certainly the seller's photo was much less revealing even though high-res.

Appreciate your thoughts anyway.

[Peckris 579]

It is possible that the lines on that shilling are the result of rubbing - always be suspicious when a group of such lines all run in the same direction. The lines behind the head all run in one direction, the lines in front of the face all run in another, or mostly do.

However, as you say, these things - and especially on forums! - look much much worse when magnified several times lifesize. In hand there would be little to detract, so the coin's value would hold up I feel.

[damian1986 142]

It is possible that the lines on that shilling are the result of rubbing - always be suspicious when a group of such lines all run in the same direction. The lines behind the head all run in one direction, the lines in front of the face all run in another, or mostly do.

However, as you say, these things - and especially on forums! - look much much worse when magnified several times lifesize. In hand there would be little to detract, so the coin's value would hold up I feel.

Thanks Peckris. Ah yes see if the hairlines were a result of cleaning that I would consider damage. In this case I'd probably just like a nicer / less brutal picture for my records.

Below is another one though. Firstly the coin as sold by a German seller, secondly the coin photographed under direct light. Definitely rubbed IMO but you wouldn't know that from the seller's original picture. The second photo is probably too honest but on the other hand I can't make my mind up as to whether the seller's original photo is very good (given that it's not an easy coin to photograph) or a bit deceiving.

[ChKy 61]

Mit Natron abgerieben.

translation: the coin has been cleaned with sodium hydrocarbonate

[damian1986 142]

Mit Natron abgerieben.

translation: the coin has been cleaned with sodium hydrocarbonate

Thanks chky.

I usually watch out for certain key words (Schrötlingsfehler, berieben, kratzer, randfehler, justiert, ...) but the seller didn't describe the coin.

I'm not complaining by the way, both nice coins, just trying to gauge where to draw the line for buying upgrades or seeking better alternatives.

[PWA 1967 2,142]

alternatively whizzed a small brush ,like an electric toothbrush.One big and well known ebay seller a couple of months ago bought one and showed it on his ebay history..Months ago i got told about one seller who puts dust of some kind on his images and although looks really good on copper and bronze.When the coin arrives not the same eye appeal

[Coinery 1,157]

Damian, this is a really good post, and definitely something I've pondered myself!

I have noticed that certain coins in good daylight look like the original seller's photograph you posted but, equally, put them under artificial lights (any bulb in your house) at night and they look hairlined!

So, which is the genuine coin surface as, to reiterate, I can't see the hairlines in the day, but can see them as if they were motorways viewed from a holiday flight at night?

All of Buck's coins have this ethereal glow about them in the images...I really don't know at what point a coin carries the baggage of being cleaned, at which point hairlines interrupt normal vision and become offensive?

Really good post, as I say!

[Coinery 1,157]

alternatively whizzed a small brush ,like an electric toothbrush.One big and well known ebay seller a couple of months ago bought one and showed it on his ebay history..Months ago i got told about one seller who puts dust of some kind on his images and although looks really good on copper and bronze.When the coin arrives not the same eye appeal

I'd love to know more about this seller and his dust, as I find it totally inconceivable that such a practice can fool or improve a high-res image of a coin?

And, more to the point, if you and another person have been able to observe it, it must be perceivable, and something I'd love to see for myself! Do you have any examples or images you could post?

[damian1986 142]

The photography is a tricky one - when you photograph anything else you tweak until it's as you want it to look. It seems to be the nature of photography that you capture the object in its best light. Obviously when something that is perceived to be problematic - whizzing, tooling, dents, scratches etc. - is obfuscated or intentionally buffed out it's a problem, but otherwise I think there's a lot to be said for being able to take a nice photograph that captures the coin as it would be observed in hand.

If anything the Internet has, presumably, made people like me too fussy. Most coins are bought based on ridiculously high resolution images.

I just pulled the below out of a mint roll of coins. So it's practically as it was when it left the mint, excepting bag marks with rubbing against other coins. The hairlines are minimal but do exist.

I appreciate that minting practices were different in 1834 but still. Incidentally, this is the definition of an MS66 on the Sheldon scale:

A few very light hairlines may show under magnification, or there may be one or two light scuff marks showing on frosted surfaces or in the field. The eye appeal must be above average and very pleasing for the date and mint.

Edited December 4, 2014 by damian1986

[declanwmagee 122]

"for the date and mint"

....sounds awfully heretical to me

[ozjohn 661]

This thread is really combining two issues namely photographing coins to show them in their best light and the vagaries of the minting process with some people trying to minimize the former as well as later damage by the use of photo shop, lighting etc.. Perhaps this is where the CGS out of a hundred can come in useful whereas the F, VF etc. gradings are too wide to expose small differences such as hair line marks even if you use gradings such as VF+, GVF etc. are used. The other thing to think about is the grade of a coin is mainly an estimate of the amount of wear a coin has sustained since leaving the mint. For example most florins and halfcrowns minted between 1911 and 1920 are poorly minted coins with the upper shield on the florin almost missing and the ear of the king on both coins flattened. After 1920 with a change of alloy and recut effigy of the king a fresh crop of problems appeared with the king's head almost devoid of detail and the lion's faces on the reverse of the halfcrown flattened. However the upper shield on the reverse of the florin improved after 1920. In summary for photography all you can do is depend on the honesty of the dealer but I have to say instances of too much image processing can be apparent especially with the unsharpen mask are easily detectable by looking at the image. Also the use of a flash rather than external light seems to enhance surface problems. As far as the grading perhaps there should be two grades for a coin like with diamonds with one for clarity and one for inclusions. Read for coins one for grading ie Shelden etc. and two for surface condition. I suppose terms like FDC try to do this but in some ways the grading and the surface condition can be two separate issues.

[Peter 615]

Sometimes you get adjustment marks when the mint has used too much silver.I like history like this.The big chunky French coins 17/18 C springs to mind often scratched to remove surplus silver.

The guy/gal who thought up the banknote did a fine job.Not many of those clipped.

About **** years ago I did find half a fiver...my dad took it and gave me £2 10/- We feasted on Woodpecker Cider for weeks.

It also reminds me of a local pub when the landlady would serve the oldest lad with 10 pints we must of been early teens.

Jumpers for goal posts etc

[damian1986 142]

This thread is really combining two issues namely photographing coins to show them in their best light and the vagaries of the minting process with some people trying to minimize the former as well as later damage by the use of photo shop, lighting etc.. Perhaps this is where the CGS out of a hundred can come in useful whereas the F, VF etc. gradings are too wide to expose small differences such as hair line marks even if you use gradings such as VF+, GVF etc. are used. The other thing to think about is the grade of a coin is mainly an estimate of the amount of wear a coin has sustained since leaving the mint. For example most florins and halfcrowns minted between 1911 and 1920 are poorly minted coins with the upper shield on the florin almost missing and the ear of the king on both coins flattened. After 1920 with a change of alloy and recut effigy of the king a fresh crop of problems appeared with the king's head almost devoid of detail and the lion's faces on the reverse of the halfcrown flattened. However the upper shield on the reverse of the florin improved after 1920. In summary for photography all you can do is depend on the honesty of the dealer but I have to say instances of too much image processing can be apparent especially with the unsharpen mask are easily detectable by looking at the image. Also the use of a flash rather than external light seems to enhance surface problems. As far as the grading perhaps there should be two grades for a coin like with diamonds with one for clarity and one for inclusions. Read for coins one for grading ie Shelden etc. and two for surface condition. I suppose terms like FDC try to do this but in some ways the grading and the surface condition can be two separate issues.

Appreciate your comments.

I would guess that the TPGs are well-placed to grade at this level of detail - they post frequently about the technology they have at their disposal and the techniques utilised to grade coins so I can see where this adds value to their service. It seems in practice there's still a huge element of subjectivity though so short of identifying damaged coins at the microscopic level that value isn't being realised to its fullest IMO.

As a collector I don't feel I really need a surface grade, just a nice photo and anything amiss to be mentioned in the description but it's not a bad idea - they do this with the ancient coins but they come out of the ground; we have very high expectations of the milled coinage!

[damian1986 142]

Sometimes you get adjustment marks when the mint has used too much silver.I like history like this.The big chunky French coins 17/18 C springs to mind often scratched to remove surplus silver.

The guy/gal who thought up the banknote did a fine job.Not many of those clipped.

About **** years ago I did find half a fiver...my dad took it and gave me £2 10/- We feasted on Woodpecker Cider for weeks.

It also reminds me of a local pub when the landlady would serve the oldest lad with 10 pints we must of been early teens.

Jumpers for goal posts etc

I don't mind adjustment marks, I guess it depends where they are and how much adjusting had to be done

Woodpecker cider eh I may have had a few of those too... we then moved onto White Lightning which brought an abrupt end to our cider-drinking careers.

[declanwmagee 122]

White Lightning

Quite frightening.

Edited December 5, 2014 by declanwmagee

[Peckris 579]

It is possible that the lines on that shilling are the result of rubbing - always be suspicious when a group of such lines all run in the same direction. The lines behind the head all run in one direction, the lines in front of the face all run in another, or mostly do.

However, as you say, these things - and especially on forums! - look much much worse when magnified several times lifesize. In hand there would be little to detract, so the coin's value would hold up I feel.

Thanks Peckris. Ah yes see if the hairlines were a result of cleaning that I would consider damage. In this case I'd probably just like a nicer / less brutal picture for my records.

Below is another one though. Firstly the coin as sold by a German seller, secondly the coin photographed under direct light. Definitely rubbed IMO but you wouldn't know that from the seller's original picture. The second photo is probably too honest but on the other hand I can't make my mind up as to whether the seller's original photo is very good (given that it's not an easy coin to photograph) or a bit deceiving.

It's possible that neither picture is a true representation? The seller's picture has a pleasing 'flatness' that may be the result of 1) indirect daylight (no sun) and 2) the use of a sepia slider in a graphics editor. Your picture may indeed be too harsh because of the flash giving an unnatural shiny reflection in places, and a 'too blue' colour cast.

The interesting thing though, is the presence of the hairlines, visible in your picture but not in the seller's. That smacks of a 'dishonest portrayal' by the seller, to be honest, though the coin is not excessively rubbed in my opinion. At the same time, it's not the coin in his pictures.

[ChKy 61]

It is the same coin indeed. You can see that by comparison of the toning

[VickySilver 832]

Yikes, great post. That is a very deceiving bit of photography. Out of my price range is the 1851 proof florin for sale in the upcoming Heritage NYINC sale - one picture shows some very distracting hits/marks/etc. on the obverse. The other (in slab) is the same coin but different appearance like this OP coin.

Sorry not able to linkify.

[Coppers 58]

Here it is -- first view is of the coin by itself and under is the same coin in a slab....

http://coins.ha.com/itm/great-britain/world-coins/victoria-proof-gothic-florin-1851-pr64-ngc-/p/3037-17080.s#1188111881093

[ChKy 61]

Here it is -- first view is of the coin by itself and under is the same coin in a slab....

http://coins.ha.com/itm/great-britain/world-coins/victoria-proof-gothic-florin-1851-pr64-ngc-/p/3037-17080.s#1188111881093

That looks stranges. It appears to me that the slabbed coin is a cameo, whereas the naked coin is a regular strike...

[Coppers 58]

I should add - click on the image of the coin to see the magnified versions -- and the difference between the obverse surfaces of the unslabbed and slabbed versions.

[damian1986 142]

I should add - click on the image of the coin to see the magnified versions -- and the difference between the obverse surfaces of the unslabbed and slabbed versions.

Part of the reason I mentioned milled silver specifically is that I think the hairlines are exacerbated on silver coins under certain lighting.

If this coin has spent say 100 years of its life wrapped in a cloth or in a felted tray, the faintest of hairlines are to be expected? Meaning that the "lightest of handling marks" - the slightly deeper hairlines visible on both photos - are the only marks worth caring about?

If this were a run of the mill florin, would the slabbed photo put you off buying it?

[Coinery 1,157]

Has anyone ever noticed that a lovely field in daylight, can look like it's been treated to a wire-wool clean under artificial light?

Also, when we look at coins under magnification, at what point do we stop? If we viewed a coin by an electron microscope it would look like the moon, full of craters! So, on a slightly more serious note, should we say, when describing a coin, 'stunning coin, amazing fields, when viewed in daylight. However, it looks rubbish under artificial light!'

Just out of interest, what does your coin look like in-hand, in daylight?

[ChKy 61]

I would guess that the TPGs are well-placed to grade at this level of detail - they post frequently about the technology they have at their disposal and the techniques utilised to grade coins so I can see where this adds value to their service. It seems in practice there's still a huge element of subjectivity though so short of identifying damaged coins at the microscopic level that value isn't being realised to its fullest IMO.

As a collector I don't feel I really need a surface grade, just a nice photo and anything amiss to be mentioned in the description but it's not a bad idea - they do this with the ancient coins but they come out of the ground; we have very high expectations of the milled coinage!

I would like to add that example. Here a German 100 Euro commemorative coin 2002 offered for auction. It was graded PR70

http://coins.ha.com/itm/germany/world-coins/germany-federal-republic-gold-proof-100-euro-2002-a-pr70-ultra-cameo-ngc-/a/231450-62174.s

Needless to say that German 100 Euro commemorative coins were never minted & released in proof A first strike is a top grade of course, but still no proof (Polierte Platte)!

Edited December 6, 2014 by ChKy

[Coinery 1,157]

And PF on the slab?????