heavy field scratch data question

[willbrooks]

Collecting data. What is the latest year of a cent you have seen with heavy visible die scratches in the field? you know, like this:

[Petespockets55]

Hmmm....
Not sure but will take look.
ps. I do remember thinking I hadn't seen many heavy scratches on many moderns while searching for clashes on some UNC rolls of '83 I bought.

[VAB2013]

Not sure either, but I will look back at some years and see.

I'm thinking 1988 though because of looking for RDV-006's... 89's seem about half scratched up and half not.

[GrumpyEd]

I've seen some pretty extreme ones on 1994 cents.

[makecents]

Is there a correlation between the ending date you are looking for and the single squeeze minting process? I also went back and looked at the number and consistency of clashes in relation to this on MAD Die Clashes. I'm sure there are multiple reasons for the extremely abraded coins but always felt like clashes were the major culprit.

[willbrooks]

Is there a correlation between the ending date you are looking for and the single squeeze minting process? I also went back and looked at the number and consistency of clashes in relation to this on MAD Die Clashes. I'm sure there are multiple reasons for the extremely abraded coins but always felt like clashes were the major culprit.

No correlation there with the single squeeze, but I definitely agree that there is a correlation between prolificity of die clashes and the heavy field abrasion marks. However, I am after something else here.

[VAB2013]

I've seen some pretty extreme ones on 1994 cents.

Most 94's I see are so badly damaged I look for extra columns on the reverse and don't pay much attention to the rest. Although I've seen some pretty nice 94's on the forum.

[makecents]

Ed is right on as always. It seems like there are some pretty extreme abrasions through the mid 90's and then they taper off. I know I've seen some like the 99P I've posted here that are abraded but not as badly as what you are referring to. The reverse look nearly untouched and makes me think it may have been changed out.

[jfines69]

The last I can remember was a 2008 with heavy abrasions... I will need to look for the coin... Not sure I kept it... I have seen some scratches on shields but not to the severity as the coin you posted... Onecent was working on possible FF damage on shields but I do not know how far he has gotten!!!

[Roller]

[QUOTE=willbrooks;340164]No correlation there with the single squeeze, but I definitely agree that there is a correlation between prolificity of die clashes and the heavy field abrasion marks. However, I am after something else here.[/QUOTE"
"Something else." As in the type or kinds of abrasives used. As in the ones that might more readily produce trails? I have not seen heavy abrasions on "modern" coins, if that helps any.

[BadThad]

The frequency seems to start to trail-off after 1990 in my observations. 1990's can be heavily polished, I've found 2 examples where the neck was completely polished away.

[Petespockets55]

[QUOTE=Roller;340201]

No correlation there with the single squeeze, but I definitely agree that there is a correlation between prolificity of die clashes and the heavy field abrasion marks. However, I am after something else here.[/QUOTE"
"Something else." As in the type or kinds of abrasives used. As in the ones that might more readily produce trails? I have not seen heavy abrasions on "modern" coins, if that helps any.

Not necessarily pertaining to abrasives, but if the method, system or other equipment used has changed?

Maybe production methods allowed the mint finally realized it was less expensive to produce an abundance of dies for any given year and simply dispose of or cancel them when clashes or damage occurs. No need to spend manpower to polish damaged/worn dies.
(No hoarding of striking error or die error cents.)
Regulation of strike pressures, consistency of feeding planchetts into the striking chamber, etc. may have been scrutinized and adjusted to minimize die damage for modern shield cents.

[willbrooks]

The frequency seems to start to trail-off after 1990 in my observations. 1990's can be heavily polished, I've found 2 examples where the neck was completely polished away.

Those are great examples of how the field can be severely reduced by polishing and yet no visible die scratches are created. Thanks for posting them. I have also seen a couple where parts of the front jacket were abraded completely away. Those would make a nice illustration for my new article. Not sure I have room for more pictues, but would you grant me permission to use one of them if I decide to?

[willbrooks]

[QUOTE=Petespockets55;340251]

Not necessarily pertaining to abrasives, but if the method, system or other equipment used has changed?

Maybe production methods allowed the mint finally realized it was less expensive to produce an abundance of dies for any given year and simply dispose of or cancel them when clashes or damage occurs. No need to spend manpower to polish damaged/worn dies.
(No hoarding of striking error or die error cents.)
Regulation of strike pressures, consistency of feeding planchetts into the striking chamber, etc. may have been scrutinized and adjusted to minimize die damage for modern shield cents.

Good points. This is one of those things we will probably never know for sure. The relative lack of heavy die scratches in current years could be due to a number of various reasons, and believe me, the Mint ain't talking.

[BadThad]

Sure, no problem.