Does luster really ever limit the grade?

planetsteve

I've decided to focus on later-date Mercury dimes these days. I've made a number of online purchases, mostly pretty satisfying, but I've found myself disappointed in some instances by the lack of luster in a few higher graded coins. One time I got a PCGS MS67 that looked like it had an attractive, thick white toning in images, but when unwrapped out of the cardboard mailer it just looked dull. The surfaces were certainly clean, but when I set it down next to a pair of cheap, PCGS MS65, bright white 43's, it blew my mind how much more attractively lustrous the inexpensive examples were. The 67 had the luster I'd expect of a 63. I returned it.

I've seen how contact marks and strike quality (should!) limit the grade. But I'm starting to wonder if luster isn't as important in grading as I thought. How should I calibrate my expectations?

MFeld

I think that strong luster is more likely to help the grade than subpar luster is to hurt it.

BryceM

There are a great many otherwise gem coins in 62 holders due to poor luster. Keep in mind that die state will greatly affect luster. Early die-state coins often have more of a satiny appearance, and for some issues that can be perfectly normal. Some dates just come better than others.

Finally, don’t try to make sense of what’s going on from a handful of coins or one odd example. Sometimes the grades don’t match my internal like-o-meter either.

Not every coin in a higher graded holder is better.

Insider2

Yes. Since original mint luster has perhaps the most influence on an MS coin's eye appeal and first impression, the more subdued it gets, the more it suggests a lower grade.

morgandollar1878

Yes, luster can limit or help the coins grade.

Elcontador

Limitations on luster limit grades on 19th century type. I saw a 1799 Bust $ that was all there in an MS 64 holder because the midnight blue toning subdued the coin's luster.

I have a 28 S quarter that is fully struck with an ultimate FH which is an MS 65 holder because the toning was deemed to be too thick. It's the nicest strike on a branch mint SLQ I've ever seen.

cheezhed

Luster matters.

planetsteve

Thanks for these comments. Lemme show some Trueviews. The first coin (40D) was formerly NGC 67, spent time in a Merc album, then became PCGS 66 three or four years ago. I reasoned that PCGS didn't find it lustrous enough for 67.

Then I recently purchased the second coin, a CAC 67 40P. The obverse of this coin didn't seem to pop -- or is this just a good example of satin luster?

Anyway, I like 'em both for my set. Comments welcome.

1940-D, MS66FB:

1940, MS67FB:

BryceM

Both look plenty lustrous to me, at least from the photos. Maybe you’re splitting hairs. If so, go with what you like.

ricko

There appears to be luster on both examples, but the splotchy tarnish detracts from how it manifests....Luster is important to grade...from my observations it could add as much as a point...However, since we lack defined standards, that observation could vary....Cheers, RickO

ShadyDave

@planetsteve said:
I've decided to focus on later-date Mercury dimes these days. I've made a number of online purchases, mostly pretty satisfying, but I've found myself disappointed in some instances by the lack of luster in a few higher graded coins. One time I got a PCGS MS67 that looked like it had an attractive, thick white toning in images, but when unwrapped out of the cardboard mailer it just looked dull. The surfaces were certainly clean, but when I set it down next to a pair of cheap, PCGS MS65, bright white 43's, it blew my mind how much more attractively lustrous the inexpensive examples were. The 67 had the luster I'd expect of a 63. I returned it.

I've seen how contact marks and strike quality (should!) limit the grade. But I'm starting to wonder if luster isn't as important in grading as I thought. How should I calibrate my expectations?

I collect MS-FB mercury dimes. From what I have learned with submitting to PCGS is that strong luster is required for a 67 or higher. If a mercury dime has so-so luster but good preservation it will still be limited to a 65 or a 66 (from my submission experience). PCGS is also pretty tight with grading mercury dimes right now in my opinion, so that may have something to do with it. I currently have a submission at PCGS with around 8 mercury dimes (among other coins) so I should be able to give you some more updated feedback in the next week or two as I am on business day 8. PM me if you want to talk further!

DIMEMAN

Those are both beautiful Dimes and on any given day both could be in 66 holders or 67 holders.

steveben

as said before, luster matters. i think they are both great looking coins. the 66 does appear to be a later die state to me.

jabba

I’m my opinion after having several coind graded Eye appeal rules the roost

steveben

@jabba said:
I’m my opinion after having several coind graded Eye appeal rules the roost

i agree, but luster is a component of eye appeal, whether one realizes it or not.

cameonut2011

@planetsteve said:
Thanks for these comments. Lemme show some Trueviews. The first coin (40D) was formerly NGC 67, spent time in a Merc album, then became PCGS 66 three or four years ago. I reasoned that PCGS didn't find it lustrous enough for 67.

Then I recently purchased the second coin, a CAC 67 40P. The obverse of this coin didn't seem to pop -- or is this just a good example of satin luster?

Anyway, I like 'em both for my set. Comments welcome.

1940-D, MS66FB:

1940, MS67FB:

Both have plenty of luster. It varies by date/mint mark, but some issues are known for satiny luster as opposed to a bright/flashy luster (cf. most 1881-S Morgans for instance).

Crypto

@cheezhed said:
Luster matters.

All surfaces matter