Microscope photos: Silver Proof 1oz and 2oz Tudor Beast coins

[Charliemouse]

I've had these coins for a while now.  In some cases, I wish I'd looked at them as closely sooner.  They are not returnable any more, but that's really not the point of this thread.

I would be very interested to know the likely cause of any of these marks / 'defects'.

All the pictures were taken close to minimum distance, approx. 15-20mm.  That gives a magnification around 300-500x.

 

Definite signs of a shifting die between impressions.  A few typical frosting holes.

 

Not much wrong here.  Ripples in the fields I find very attractive, and can sometimes be caught when the angle is just right with the SLR.

 

Again, obvious die shift, plus a strange 'bleeding' effect.  Also maybe some milk spotting or minor discolouration on the left.

 

'Big' gaps in the frosting here.

 

Amazingly, very difficult to spot with the naked eye, this looks quite horrible with the microscope.  Almost like the surface is flaking off.

 

These look like very small impact marks not visible to the naked eye.  But might be fibres caught in the strike.  Also some very fine trails in the fields; I guess a cleaning issue with the die leaving imperfections in the surface.

 

Bit messy here.  Looks like foreign bodies in the fields, causing a mark to spread out.

 

Some different type of discolouration here.

 

Edited February 26 by Charliemouse

[Petra]

So putting things in to perspective, how big are those holes in the frosting 😮🤔🤔

[Charliemouse]

1 hour ago, Petra said:

So putting things in to perspective, how big are those holes in the frosting 😮🤔🤔

Take the image of the Panther's jaw, picture 4.  The entire image is about 1.5mm wide by 1mm tall.  The frosting hole is just visible to the naked eye if you look for it.

In contrast, the Yale's tongue in image 5 is about 1mm long, so that image is about 5x3mm.  You can tell it is zoomed out as the frosting appears finer.

To be clear, I am not complaining about these.  Plenty of other threads for that.  None are visible without very close inspection.

I am more interested in sharing the images and learning.

Edited February 26 by Charliemouse

[Petra]

7 hours ago, Charliemouse said:

Take the image of the Panther's jaw, picture 4.  The entire image is about 1.5mm wide by 1mm tall.  The frosting hole is just visible to the naked eye if you look for it.

In contrast, the Yale's tongue in image 5 is about 1mm long, so that image is about 5x3mm.  You can tell it is zoomed out as the frosting appears finer.

To be clear, I am not complaining about these.  Plenty of other threads for that.  None are visible without very close inspection.

I am more interested in sharing the images and learning.

🤔👍actually great pictures, very interesting! I think if I had something to look this closely at coins it would make me paranoid 🤔😁

[Charliemouse]

59 minutes ago, Petra said:

🤔👍actually great pictures, very interesting! I think if I had something to look this closely at coins it would make me paranoid 🤔😁

Sadly, the world we live in now is one where visible perfection isn't good enough. It has to be perfect at 5x to get that precious 70 grade. The step down in value to 69 is ridiculous.

[9x883]

Well, that's the nail in the coffin for the TB series😅

Edited February 26 by 9x883

[Petra]

9 minutes ago, Charliemouse said:

Sadly, the world we live in now is one where visible perfection isn't good enough. It has to be perfect at 5x to get that precious 70 grade. The step down in value to 69 is ridiculous.

🤔that’s great, buy the 69s and get em out their slabs🤔😮😁

[Charliemouse]

Just now, Petra said:

🤔that’s great, buy the 69s and get em out their slabs🤔😮😁

I do buy 69s because I can get real bargains.  But when you grade something new and it comes back 69, it's marginal whether it was worth the time and money.  The market only seems to want 70s.

[HonestMoneyGoldSilver]

Scanning electron microscope next please 🤗

6 hours ago, Charliemouse said:

I do buy 69s because I can get real bargains.  But when you grade something new and it comes back 69, it's marginal whether it was worth the time and money.  The market only seems to want 70s.

I know you know this but the 70 thing is about accounting, not about coin collecting. The premium on the 70s is for the money managers and rich collectors to fill out their spreadsheets. For an ordinary person there is no difference between a 69 and a 70. I'm sure you've seen this too, but time can often leave 69s looking visibly superior with the naked eye to 70s

If something is a 69 then it basically excludes the largest sources of capital in the market for modern coins, hence dramatic price inequalities between what is essentially two examples of the same coin that are indistinguishable with the human eye

[Spyder]

Looking at any coin through a microscope will show up defects, there is no perfect coin at that magnification. You are lucky you did not see some moving mico germs of the person who installed that coin in the capsule.  

 

[Charliemouse]

35 minutes ago, Spyder said:

Looking at any coin through a microscope will show up defects, there is no perfect coin at that magnification. 

Exactly my point.

I am just interested in what these 'defects' are and how they happen.

[Petra]

1 hour ago, Charliemouse said:

Exactly my point.

I am just interested in what these 'defects' are and how they happen.

But are they defects? Will you ever get a coin at that magnification without any marks? With the normal naked eye these are normal everyday coins…. no ‘defects’. Naked eye see issues … fine, send back. Just enjoy your coin!🤔😮😁😁

[Charliemouse]

44 minutes ago, Petra said:

But are they defects? Will you ever get a coin at that magnification without any marks? With the normal naked eye these are normal everyday coins…. no ‘defects’. Naked eye see issues … fine, send back. Just enjoy your coin!🤔😮😁😁

I think we are now arguing semantics (not where I wanted this thread to go, but there).

They are defects only in that they are imperfections, not intended or part of the design, but artefacts of manufacture.  Of course no coin is going to be perfect, so by that definition all coins have defects.

Other possible definitions of 'defect':

1. It can be seen unaided.
2. It can be seen with a certain magnification (such as graders do).
3. You can see it and care about it.

All of these definitions are subjective, as different people have different eyesight, skills and standards.

That's why I put the word 'defect' in quotes.

[Petra]

55 minutes ago, Charliemouse said:

I think we are now arguing semantics (not where I wanted this thread to go, but there).

They are defects only in that they are imperfections, not intended or part of the design, but artefacts of manufacture.  Of course no coin is going to be perfect, so by that definition all coins have defects.

Other possible definitions of 'defect':

1. It can be seen unaided.
2. It can be seen with a certain magnification (such as graders do).
3. You can see it and care about it.

All of these definitions are subjective, as different people have different eyesight, skills and standards.

That's why I put the word 'defect' in quotes.

😮👍👍😁look forward to more pics 👍👍

[Spyder]

@Charliemouse, how about doing the same test with one of your graded 70 coins and see what that shows up. 

[James32]

23 minutes ago, Spyder said:

@Charliemouse, how about doing the same test with one of your graded 70 coins and see what that shows up. 

@Charliemouse don't you fekin dare. I'll bin everything. 

[9x883]

This is good therapy. Really kills the urge to spend on crumbly, spore ridden, low relief bits of metal.