Another RDV 5?

[DWK]

Hi gang,
Here's another possible RDV 5 to look at. What do you think?

[Cdiddle]

I just found one yesterday also. A 1989P with reverse of 88. I posted it on a different forum and one person said he thinks the 89's are from over polish. I can't wait to other opinions on yours. Good luck.

[jcuve]

To me, both examples look like RDV-006s with abrasion (polishing) and die wear.

[Cdiddle]

Thank you.

[DWK]

Hi Jason: I'm sure you're right but I have trouble visualizing the process.

Since the G is raised on the coin, it is recessed in the die. Why wouldn't excessive polishing make the recessed hole bigger and hence the G bigger on the coin?

I can think of two explanations to choose from.

A. The excessive polishing is on the master so the foot of the G is gone from dies created from it.

B. The recessed area in the die for the foot of the G has been filled in somehow so the coins created don't have a foot on the G.

What say ye experts?

DWK

[jcuve]

I think what happens is the field around the G on the Die, which has already experienced wear, is further polished down and thus lowered to the extent that the incuse aspect of the design is at the same level as the surrounding field and the hook of the G ceases to exist any longer.

[jcuve]

I believe the following example is die polishing where the field was lowered to the point where details were erased around the bow-tie. (I think it was polished because the die clashed with the other die.)

http://i732.photobucket.com/albums/ww322/jcuve/2010_Die_Abrasion01.jpg

[DCW]

Very nice example with that 2010 missing bowtie, Jay.

[Cdiddle]

I agree, this is a good example and explains a lot.

[copperlover]

Excellent Demo which goes beyond the basics. Thanks again for the contribution.

Learning at least one lesson each day.

Lucien