Australia 1972 50c with possible die gouges

[KurtS]

Here is a 1972 50c from a mint set which at first I considered severe post-mint damage and a total loss, which would be tragic since it's the second-lowest mintage.

However, looking closer under my scopes, many features on these scratches appear raised above the field, and as a friend noted—there doesn't appear to be an interruption of mint luster by these marks. As pictured below, there are two groups of marks, all parallel to one another through the legends from edge-to-edge, and bounding the portrait on each side. Any thoughts as to the cause? Thank you for your insights.

Following are shots from my QX5 with captions for specific details.

10X shot of one side:


A series of scratches, raised in some areas and rough elsewhere that cleanly run into the legends (arrows). If this were damage to the actual coin, I would expect gaps where the object hits the letter and skips off the field of the coin, leaving a break.


Another example of this, with some raised blobs trailing the letter:


More rough, raised surfaces:


One prominent, raised line (parallel to all other lines):


Rough surfaces with raised features interacting with the legend:


Marks trailing towards the coin's edge:

[Gabe]

I dont know, but I have a feeling that this is probably post mint damage. Maybe someone else could chime in?

[coop]

Normally I would think die scratches/gouges. But the way they go through the devices makes me think of planchet imperfection. Kind of like the little lines on the Lincoln planchets that don't get removed from the strike. The go in one direction on fields and devices. So I would like to hear other suggestions on this coin. Mike Diamond might have a better idea?

[eagames]

Kurt,

It's tough to say what's raised from the pics.

a) If you drag something over a coin it makes an incuse gouge but it also raises the metal on both sides of the gouge.

b) If something gouges the die it could make a coin with a raised gouge and incused lines along the raised gouge.

c) If the planchet was gouged before the strike then nothing should be raised on the coin.
You say some are raised so that rules choice C out unless raised means only raised compared to the incuse (not the field).

I'm split between A and B.
Look close, see if the raised areas are along the deep areas (gouged coin) or if the incuse areas are along the raised areas (gouged die).

[KurtS]

I appreciate your input--I'm still a bit baffled. I took another look under my better scope, and I see the marks abutting the edges of devices, and markings seem fainter on the vertical sides of the devices--where they appear to my eyes to be flattened under flow lines, resuming more strongly on the top of devices. Perhaps metal got pushed around on the coin--I'm hardly an expert to call that, but it just looks different than scratches I usually see on a coin. Well, that's more description to fill in where the photos lack.

Perhaps I'll send it sometime to an expert who could say for sure? It's a fairly valuable coin if it's not damaged post-mint.

[eagames]

I'm stumped at how it goes throught the devices, looks like the letters did not cause it deviate it's path.

That might be a sign of something like a gouge on the planchet, is anything truly raised above the field?

(adding: Also look close where that mark meets the rim, a die gouge will not show at all on the rim edge but a coin gouge or planchet defect would probably show there)

[Dick]

When I first saw the marks, I wondered if they were interrupted by the devices, (letters). The first view didn't show anything in this area. The second, same thing, however the third did show exactly what I was, (am) curious about. To wit: why, or maybe how can the tops, (which are the deepest part of the recess on the die, show the severity of the (scratches), if that be what they are? It is possible that the upper edges of the "recess" that forms the device, (letter) , being more exposed, but the depth, and the severity of the shape of the letter, in some cases, makes it very hard to reach that area. The shape of the lower leg of the "Z", shows a very wide area, which would permit some damage. I don't know what kind of "polishing tools are available to repair clashes, etc, and whether or not the wire wheel is one of them. It is possible that if that is one of the tools, that it is possible that an accidental light touch migh have been made, without the operators knowledge, as the tool was retired from the die surface. Poor qulity control? Mike?
Dick

[Bob P]

Possible ejector damage? That would be my guess.

[Dick]

Bob, I had not considered that aspect, but yes. The "damage would indicate that type of damage, from something having been drug, or slid across. But, the edges of the devices seem to be equally "marked", and the feeder/ejector arm is a laterally mioving instrument, so to speak, so .....Back to square one!
Dick

[KurtS]

Thanks for all your thoughts...it makes for interesting discussion and maybe I'll learn something too. As Eagames noted, it's very interesting how the devices don't deflect these marks, and under the scope I see incuse marks on the top of letters, but where these gouges meet the edge of devices, I don't see raised metal edges above the profile of the letter that I'd expect with PMD. Instead, it appears that metal has been flattened to conform to the profile of the device. I also considered how a wire wheel damaged the die, but that doesn't explain the incuse features on the tops of devices.

As an update, I compared the QX5 photos to what I see under my optical scope, and I think lighting has exaggerated features in the pics shown above. It's hard to describe further, but I think I see flow lines running over these marks in the field, which is impossible to capture in pics. If I were to guess a cause at this point, I might think the planchet was damaged before striking. That might explain why the marks run straight into the devices, appear flattened on letter corners, and leave incuse areas on the tops of these devices. But of course, I have never seen this before on a coin, so I'll appreciate hearing what the experts think.

[eagames]

Sounds like it's what Coop said:

"But the way they go through the devices makes me think of planchet imperfection. Kind of like the little lines on the Lincoln planchets that don't get removed from the strike."

[Dick]

That is an alternate to what I was thinking. If it is pre-strike damage to the planchet, I assume it would be flattened , due to the pressure of, and during the strike. Maybe Mike diamond will comment?
Dick