Does this look VF-20 to you?

http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI...tem=2212773075

It looks like the surface of the coin has been brushed with something leaving
marks (a cleaning attempt at some time?). Also notice "Liberty" is missing a
few letters and that ugly gouge about the "9" close to the edge.

Not worth the price it is bid up to IMO.

On 31 Dec 2003 23:07:03 GMT, JSTONE9352 wrote:

http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI...tem=2212773075

It looks like the surface of the coin has been brushed with something
leaving
marks (a cleaning attempt at some time?). Also notice "Liberty" is
missing a
few letters and that ugly gouge about the "9" close to the edge.

Not worth the price it is bid up to IMO.

Not an attractive coin, I wonder how bad the reverse looks. Wear wise it
looks like a VG, but then the super harsh cleaning, and the two gouges
detract considerably.

(JSTONE9352) wrote in message ...
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI...tem=2212773075

It looks like the surface of the coin has been brushed with something leaving
marks (a cleaning attempt at some time?). Also notice "Liberty" is missing a
few letters and that ugly gouge about the "9" close to the edge.

Not worth the price it is bid up to IMO.

I have several Lincolns with similar surfaces. I think it's caused by
impurities in the metal rather than cleaning.

But I agree about the gouges. And I wonder why there's no photo of the
reverse.

Jorg Lueke wrote:

On 31 Dec 2003 23:07:03 GMT, JSTONE9352 wrote:

http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI...tem=2212773075

It looks like the surface of the coin has been brushed with something
leaving
marks (a cleaning attempt at some time?). Also notice "Liberty" is
missing a
few letters and that ugly gouge about the "9" close to the edge.

Not worth the price it is bid up to IMO.

Not an attractive coin, I wonder how bad the reverse looks. Wear wise it
looks like a VG, but then the super harsh cleaning, and the two gouges
detract considerably.

Based on the ending bid, I own a couple $600 1909-S Lincolns. ;-/

Alan
'AU never looked so good'

(James McCown) wrote:
I have several Lincolns with similar surfaces. I think it's caused by
impurities in the metal rather than cleaning.

This might be a "wood grain" cent, but I rather suspect wiping. I have
a few wood grain Lincolns, too, but I don't know of one where the wood
graining covers the entire surface, and the grain patterns aren't as
uniform or fine as on this '09-S. I also have a number of Philadelphia
cents from this era that have a wood grain look more like this coin's.
Since I understand ingot-quality related wood-graining to have been
unique to SF mint cents prior to 1925, I assume my P-mint cents were
wiped, and the same could have happenened to this coin, regardless of
planchet quality.

--Chris

What is Woodgrain? I may have a few that i suspect may be if the definition
matches. And how does this affect value?

--
*
/?\
/___\
-O=O-
^
AS & His Magic Hat

A conclusion is simply the place
where you decided to stop thinking.
"Chris S" wrote in message
m...
(James McCown) wrote:
I have several Lincolns with similar surfaces. I think it's caused by
impurities in the metal rather than cleaning.

This might be a "wood grain" cent, but I rather suspect wiping. I have
a few wood grain Lincolns, too, but I don't know of one where the wood
graining covers the entire surface, and the grain patterns aren't as
uniform or fine as on this '09-S. I also have a number of Philadelphia
cents from this era that have a wood grain look more like this coin's.
Since I understand ingot-quality related wood-graining to have been
unique to SF mint cents prior to 1925, I assume my P-mint cents were
wiped, and the same could have happenened to this coin, regardless of
planchet quality.

--Chris

Woodgrain toning is what had happens to some earlier copper coinage
including Lincolns. The alloy mixture was not perfectly mixed and the
different elements of the alloy tone slightly differently over time
crating a wood grain look. I'm not certain about price but it shouldn't
be much different than any toning, it depends on how attractive it is for
the particular issue.


On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 19:38:30 GMT, Aladdin Sane
wrote:

What is Woodgrain? I may have a few that i suspect may be if the
definition
matches. And how does this affect value?

--
*
/?\
/___\
-O=O-
^
AS & His Magic Hat

A conclusion is simply the place
where you decided to stop thinking.
"Chris S" wrote in message
m...
(James McCown) wrote:
I have several Lincolns with similar surfaces. I think it's caused by
impurities in the metal rather than cleaning.

This might be a "wood grain" cent, but I rather suspect wiping. I have
a few wood grain Lincolns, too, but I don't know of one where the wood
graining covers the entire surface, and the grain patterns aren't as
uniform or fine as on this '09-S. I also have a number of Philadelphia
cents from this era that have a wood grain look more like this coin's.
Since I understand ingot-quality related wood-graining to have been
unique to SF mint cents prior to 1925, I assume my P-mint cents were
wiped, and the same could have happenened to this coin, regardless of
planchet quality.

--Chris

YUK!

Shudder Cringe

"Aladdin Sane" wrote:
What is Woodgrain? I may have a few that i suspect may be if the definition
matches. And how does this affect value?

Take a look at the two coins at
http://www.shawus.com/cjs/coins/Woodgrain%20Cents.jpg. I believe the
'21-S has planchet-defect-related woodgraining, whereas the '21-P had
post-mint surface contact. According to David Lange, the
planchet-defect issue is uncommon except among S-mint cents when the
Mint made its own planchets from ingot--from 1908 to "1923-24".

I suppose you could call both planchet-quality and surface-contact
toning effects "wood graining", but an alloy defect is akin to a
planchet variety or error, whereas surface contact is a preservation
problem. Distinguishing the two can be difficult, even in person. SEGS
certified the coloring of the following 1925-S cent as "woodgrain
toning". http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tegory=11 944
This looks more like my '21-P than my '21-S (and it's post-"1923-24");
in short, I think SEGS misattributed this coin.

--Chris