The Death of luster
Iwog
Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭
Luster is dead, at least as far as the grading services are concerned. One of the most striking aspect of any coin is the flash and brilliance that it can exhibit. Although toned coin collectors rave about color and originality, a person who appreciates a 'clean' piece of silver will look for 'mint blast' and 'cartwheel' effect to assure the coin isn't screwed up or damaged.
Rather unfortunately, ALL of the major grading services currently ignore mint luster when grading a coin. Not only do they dismiss the fire and flash as totally unimportant, but they often give a darkly toned or oxidized-to-death coin a HIGHER grade because the hairlines and scuffs have been covered up or hidden by a NON-ORIGINAL sandblasted surface. This is an abomination. Take the following example:
Both of these coins are in my collection. The one on the left is a very flashy blast white (misgraded, should be at least a 66) brilliant Boone commemorative. The one on the right had a thick layer of brown gunk dipped off of it, leaving a matte (or matted) and utterly dull looking finish that has NO LUSTER LEFT AT ALL!!
As stated previously, ANA grading standards prohibit a grade higher than MS63 for a coin with obviously impaired mint luster. No one has followed this rule for at least 15 years however. In fact most of the top grades in all denominations are given to heavily toned or lusterless junk. So which coin would you buy?
Note: Luster is defined as the directional reflection of light caused by tiny raised flow lines on the surface of the coin. The easiest way (for me at least) to grasp what true luster looks like, is to look at "hot" and "cold" areas as you view the coin from all angles. ANA defines a hot area as bright or white, and a cold area as dark or black. In the above photo, the coin on the left has many hot and cold areas since light is being directionally reflected torwards or away from the camera. It's clear that the coin on the left has no luster at all because hot and cold areas are totally absent.
Rather unfortunately, ALL of the major grading services currently ignore mint luster when grading a coin. Not only do they dismiss the fire and flash as totally unimportant, but they often give a darkly toned or oxidized-to-death coin a HIGHER grade because the hairlines and scuffs have been covered up or hidden by a NON-ORIGINAL sandblasted surface. This is an abomination. Take the following example:
Both of these coins are in my collection. The one on the left is a very flashy blast white (misgraded, should be at least a 66) brilliant Boone commemorative. The one on the right had a thick layer of brown gunk dipped off of it, leaving a matte (or matted) and utterly dull looking finish that has NO LUSTER LEFT AT ALL!!
As stated previously, ANA grading standards prohibit a grade higher than MS63 for a coin with obviously impaired mint luster. No one has followed this rule for at least 15 years however. In fact most of the top grades in all denominations are given to heavily toned or lusterless junk. So which coin would you buy?
Note: Luster is defined as the directional reflection of light caused by tiny raised flow lines on the surface of the coin. The easiest way (for me at least) to grasp what true luster looks like, is to look at "hot" and "cold" areas as you view the coin from all angles. ANA defines a hot area as bright or white, and a cold area as dark or black. In the above photo, the coin on the left has many hot and cold areas since light is being directionally reflected torwards or away from the camera. It's clear that the coin on the left has no luster at all because hot and cold areas are totally absent.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
0
Comments
Free Ice Cream, come and get it!
I'm a fan of Luster and I miss it dearly. Those 2 coins you show make me shake my head and wonder HOW that could happen.
--------T O M---------
-------------------------
<< <i> So which coin would you buy? >>
Definitely the 65. That 66 is so lifeless, makes me wonder how it managed to get that grade.
it's interesting that the lusterless coin is in the older holder. Conder would know just how old the grading job is, but it's at least a few years older than the newer slab. Perhaps that has something to do with the services, going back a little in time, still grading more technically, with regard to contact marks being perhaps the most important determinant of ms grade. With all the talk about PCGS being tight right now, perhaps that is reflected in the 65 grade on the newer slab?
As one of the few from the boards who's just completed the ana grading class, I think I'm speaking for all of us who attended when I say that those guys from NGC are with you. Luster is king. Whether or not that comes through in the majority of coins graded, I can't say, as i certainly don't see the majority of them. All I know is all three of the graders were most impressed by the flashiest coins with the best luster.
We were all quite surprised at how great luster on a coin seemed to overcome any number of other sins that may have been visited to the specimen in question.
I guess what I'm saying is that whether it's coming through or not, the three graders i met who are employed by NGC right now agree wholeheartedly with you in regards to the importance of luster.
z
ps. it's ironic that they give out the ana grading standards book in the class, seeing as "market grading" as we are now calling it, pretty much totally disregards said "standards."
Messing around with a coin’s surfaces is a risky business. That’s why my attitude is to leave coins alone except to remove dirt or perhaps put a little Care on copper to help preserve it. Coin doctors have ruined many coins, and the list gets bigger every day because of collector demands for “blazing white (or red) luster” or “monster toning.”
perhaps during the "green holder" period at PCGS, the employed graders allowed lusterless and obviously over-dipped coins to slip through. more probably what happened is that some examples are always holdered, at least a small percentage, and the one pictured is among that number which still remains in the open market. regarding the statement about the NGC graders and their apparent over-reliance on luster as a grade determinant, it seems that services can err in both directions.
i feel quite strongly, as i assume that most members will, about grade being a factor of the above three aspects of a coins appearance: strike, luster, contact marks. for the major/minor grading services to grade with an over or under importance on any of those elements does a disservice to the collecting community.
al h.
I have a strong aversion to contact marks, and they show up most prominently on very lustrous coins. That’s the main reason why I see very few Proof-like coins that I really like. The marks really turn me off.
I like blast white and color but I hate dipped, stripped of luster coins. If the above statement is accurate then the coin should be in a BB and this is another example of a PCGS mistake.
That said one coin does not a policy make. I don't think PCGS is in the practice of certifying overdipped coins. And since the appeal or lack of appeal of the vast varieties of toning is subjective each coin has to be judged individual based on its merits (luster, strike, marks and eye appeal).
I've seen some brilliant coins where the effect of the brilliance is to exaggerate and highlight marks and dings negatively affecting the overall eye appeal of the coin. On the opposite side you can have a wonderful toned coin that will subdue the negative affects of contact mark or ding minimizing there affect on the overall eye appeal.
a good example of a series that is difficult to find in gem brilliant condition is the Ike's. more often than not the surfaces are marred with an abundance of light scratches. a gentle tone is actually quite helpful on them as you mentioned. i have several myself. every once in a while i find a clean brilliant coin, but it isn't often.
oh yeah, nice to see you on board again. where have you been hangin' your hat lately??
al h.
Funny, I would have NEVER guessed that from the scan. It looks nice and original to me.
On a more philosophical note, I wonder if we're entering a new era where coins will be graded not by how nice they are but instead by how photogenic they are.
BTW, if you hate this coin so much, why is it still in your collection? To relieve you of your burden, I'd pay $210 (sight unseen) for it, delivered.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I think you are correct...and it is a shame, but with the web the way it is these days, coins are bought for how nice they image, and not how nice they really are. Coins that do not image as well, but are truly superb coins go unsold due solely to how they image. I find this true especially with early type coins.
A shame for sure as there are many superb Gems to be had!!
Mike
Harlan J. Berk, Ltd.
https://hjbltd.com/#!/department/us-coins
That is about the toughest "toning" to successfully remove without completely stripping away the surface; seems to almost always leave a pasty like mud colored residue.
Iwog,
Even toned coins can exhibit the cartwheel effect added by luster and if you can ever bring yourself to look at my toned dollar collection, you'll quickly see how importantly I view it. Many who have viewed my coins comment that luster is obviously a key component coupled with bright, vibrant colors and above average surfaces as it relates to bagmarks.
To me, that 'mint blast effect' adds greatly to the eye appeal of the coin.
Good post.
GSAGUY
I bought this coin at a Heritage auction years ago and it looked the same then as it does now. In fact, the auction photo is still in the Heritage archives somewhere. There's no way that this kind of damage happened while the coin was in the holder.
I use this example because it's the only one I have, but there are thousands of other coins that have had the luster totally stripped and still get certified at a high grade. All you need to do is browse ebay or Heritage to find the highest graded coins in any denomination are generally lusterless dogs. It seems that an attribute that can only be seen in a halogen light under magnification (hairlines) is far more important than an attribute that can be seen across the room. (blast white brilliant LUSTER)
Dog #1
Dog #2
MrE, unless some Boone half dollars were minted in a special way that eliminated flow lines, this coin cannot be original. Mint luster CAN be quantified by comparing hot and cold areas, and it's not just a questionable photo it's the coin. I took both pictures with the same camera under the same light at the same angle.
To be fair however, I have another picture taken with a VERY bright light to try and capture some of the remaining luster HERE. This is as good as I can make it look on camera.
The coin on the right was darkly toned, and was dipped to remove the thick layer of silver sulfide which had eaten away the surface of the coin. It was 'overtoned' so to speak. I've dipped 100's of coins just like it and can identify the look in an instant.
Hydrogen sulfide is extremely reactive and the trace amounts responsible for toning on coins will get used up quicky. That's why coins in albums and rolls tend to tone on the edges. On a microscopic level, the silver at the top of the flow lines (ridges) will tone the most, while the protected valleys will tone least. When viewed head on, you can still see a very faint cartwheel effect in coin #2. When you look at it from the edge however, it appears to be cardboard.
In contrast, an overdipped coin has the same apparent luster no matter which angle you look at it. The dipping solution becomes saturated with sulfide ions and attacks every part of the coin. It's really quite easy to tell the difference if you've looked at several side by side.
In any case, I would be more than willing to take the lusterless #2 off your hands, of course you must be fair and be willing to give me a bargain rate, due to its history, I would hope!
I'm kind of puzzled why some people think that a coin actually came off the press looking like this. After examining hundreds of original rolls and bags in my lifetime, I've NEVER seen anything even remotely like the crud which covers this coin. The closest approximation I can find is a matte proof. (which makes sense since sandblasting a coin causes pitting too)
Anyway, it's still clear to me that this coin has almost no luster at all. So I'll ask the question again: How come an attribute that can only be seen in a halogen light under magnification (hairlines) is far more important than an attribute that can be seen across the room?
<< <i>
Anyway, it's still clear to me that this coin has almost no luster at all. So I'll ask the question again: How come an attribute that can only be seen in a halogen light under magnification (hairlines) is far more important than an attribute that can be seen across the room? >>
seeing as any grader i've spoken to would take the luster, i think it's an appropriate question for HRH.
Any X-Graders reading this who can answer?
peacockcoins
I agree that there are plenty of lifeless high grade 19th Century type coins out there. The worst examples I've seen are a number of MS 65 & 6 Trade Dollars & a few MS 65 Seated $s.
However, if you send in a coin today for grading, it's ALL eye appeal. If a coin doesn't have that blast white or monster toned look, forget it. IMO, Contact marks, nor strike are not nearly important in grading a coin today as they were five or ten years ago.
I've seen type Seated with Motto halves from the Philadelphia mint with weak strikes on Miss Liberty's head & on the stars in 6 holders. While I would expect this from New Orleans Seated Halves, this is not the case re
Philadelphia.
I have a nice album-toned no-motto Seated Half that doesn't have a mark on it in a 5 holder. Ditto re an exceptionally well-struck FH SLQ. Both coins have nice cartwheel luster. Neither coin will go six because they don't have that blast white look.
I am not mad. Rather, I am pointing out what I believe to be inconsistencies in grading and to some degree, why I disagree with your statement.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
(The ebay Washington quarter in Iwog's previous example seems to have rather good luster, in spite of heavy toning)
Iwog -- why don't you show the coin to Mr. Hall at the next show?
I suppose in the right light the damaged Boone doesn't look so bad, but keep in mind that it's graded as an MS66! If not slabbed, I can guarantee the MS65 blast white coin would outsell the MS66 example 100:1. So much for the market grading approach.
Here's the way a Spanish Trail is SUPPOSED too look
SpanishTrail
(edited to add -- I like this coin, but you probably have reservations!)
You missed my point. These days, a dead coin will not get a supergrade, period.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Most Sp. Trail halves have subdued luster because large flat areas of a coin don't produce many flow lines. (My appologies to Mike for disagreeing, but it wasn't due to the polishing of dies) Besides, anyone who's examined a $2000 bag of halves will see there is very little variation in luster and NOTHING resembling the brown haze that is turning up on so called "original" coins. Keeping in mind that the total mintage of Spanish Trail coins is only a few bags, how can there be so many variations in finish unless the coins are screwed with later?
Issues with poor luster are heavily dipped because collectors have the mistaken opinion that luster is a function of how clean the coin is. Thus it's no suprised to me that Sp. Trail halves are usually found dull. Which then leads to the question: Since blast white Spanish Trail coins like the one above do exist but are extremely rare, is my coin simply a freak of nature, or did MOST coins start out this way and get damaged over the years from poor storage and over dipping?
Dead coin with supergrade #1 (new holder)
Dead coin with supergrade #2 (new holder)
Coins with the luster fully destroyed are being slabbed every day by all the majors. (See NGC coins on other page) Why?
Two conclusions:
1. Buy what you like.
2. There's nothing like experience.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I guess I don't get it but I kinda like the "Dogs" you are using for examples. I have collected comems off and on for years and not all come with that cartwheel luster you see on Morgans. Most Arkansas come with a matte like finish. I have never seen one with that Blast white lustre. Also a lot of Boone's have a satin like lustre. I have seen original undipped Boone halfs and they were rather dull. I have also seen a few Boone's with Proof Like surfaces. Your coin maybe over dipped and maybe not, I can't tell from the photos.
Looking for Nationals, Large VF to AU type, 1928 Gold, and WWII Emergency notes. Also a few nice Buffalo Nickels and Morgan Dollars.
Monty...
I know nothing about Commems or gold, so I can't comment re how these coins are graded. I DO know 19th Century Type, and my comments about these coins are dead on.
Another issue is that your idea of how toning affects a coin is far different than that of many other members of this board. That has been gone over in earlier threads; I bring it up for the benefit of some newer people on these boards, not to rehash the issue.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
While I welcome your thoughts and opinions, I think that your report of the death of lustre is exaggerated to some extent. First, at least from my perspective, white coins with attractive lustre get a fair shake by the TPGs. Lustre is still and always wll be a critical factor in determining the appropriate grade for a coin whether it be MS65 or 66 or even AU55 or 58.
Before I go further, you posted some excellent high quality coins...especially the Old Spanish Trail commems.
Grading has a subjective component that really makes a difference between grades...especially among high end coins and that also will not change because it is an inherent part of the grading process.
I favor original coins and like color and lustre. I see these issues differently than you. Both of the BOONE commems are attractive and some collectors will prefer the white example and others will prefer the other toned example than was graded MS66. Which coin is better? That is a question that could be debated until he!! freezes over but in the final analysis, there just is not a right or wrong answer. The good news is that you received two offers on the Boone that you like the least...
I do not believe in enhancing or dipping coins unless there is a valid reason to do so (example PVC damage due to improper storage). The disturbing trend that I see is the number of dipped or coins that have obviously been enhanced (I am not using enhanced to mean something good) that have been graded by the TPGs. This is especially true for early type coins dated through the 1890s, gold and even Morgan Dollars. Sorry to ask this again but how many original AU50+ 1892-S Morgans exist? There are so many other examples I could use here, but let's move on.
You have expressed concern about the TPGs grading coins that have impaired lustre due to toning. I am not sure that is or should be as big of a concern compared to the long term effects of chemical dips that have been used on coins or that have not been properly rinsed. I think the jury is still out in that one. In any event, collectors can and should share their thoughts. Good luck in your efforts to find white blazers.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
My 1866 Philly Mint Set
roadrunner
I've been spending too much time on the open forum. I keep getting suckered into these political debates
Here's a example of a coin with some fairly heavy toning that still has quite a bit of luster. Heavy toning doesn't necessarily mean no luster.
and another
Luster as defined in my post is the DIRECTIONAL reflection of light caused by tiny ridges on the coin's surface likewise caused by flow lines created when the coin was minted. ANA describes visible luster on a coin as hot and cold (bright and dark) areas visible when the coin is viewed under a tight beam of light. Anyone disagree so far? I hope not........
Now for the part that makes people uncomfortable. Since luster is can be described as hot and cold areas visible on a coin, then the amount of luster present or left on a coin is QUANTIFIABLE! It can be measured. If a coin is toned and the luster is still there, you will STILL have sharply defined hot and cold areas of the cartwheel to measure. Look at the obverse on this toned Franklin. The upper left is almost black, the cartwheel is cutting across from the "Y" in Liberty to "God" and is almost white. The luster is intact and brilliant even though there is some dark color on the coin.
Conclusion: This is NOT guesswork. Luster can be defined, described, and measured in real numbers. PCGS should have adopted this standard a long time ago but pressure from dealers and collectors forced them to abandon luster as a grading attribute. In my two examples, coin #1 has dark areas that are almost BLACK and light areas that are almost pure WHITE. Coin #2 has none of it. The luster is almost totally destroyed in #2 and almost perfect in #1. I hope this has addressed all the "yeah but the luster might be okay" arguments. The luster is not okay, it is non-existent. It has ceased to be. It is ex-luster!
<deep breath> El, all grading services put premium grades on dull dead coins. I can provide examples all day. 50% of the grade is bagmarks and hairlines, 50% of the grade is color and strike, and 0% of the grade is luster. I'm not sure how many examples you need to prove it, however the Heritage archives will provide thousands. Literally. Go look.
Coinkat, proper dipping of a coin does nothing but remove the layer of silver sulfide so you can see what's under it. It's my assertion that luster is the ONLY component that can really report on the originality of any coin since those tiny ridges are the most fragile feature and the first to be destroyed by either heavy oxidation or overdipping. Boone #2 is not original in any sense, it has been transformed to something resembling cardboard and has almost no directional reflection of light left.
Buy original rolls of silver coins, pour them out on your bedspread, LOOK at what freshly minted unoxidized coins look like. Then buy more and do the same thing. Then buy more and do it again until you're convinced that coin #2 could never have left the mint looking like that. Put yourself in the shoes of a collector in 1936, when the NORMAL conservation of coins included cleaning and tarnish (it was not toning back then, it was tarnish and was removed) was the devil. *********** Does anyone think for a moment that a collector from THOSE times would tolerate a brand new commemorative that didn't arrive in the mail all shiny and new looking?
Can you find examples of coins with that have impaired luster that are overgraded? Sure, just like you can find coins with other deficiencies that are over graded. But to say luster is dead is a stretch.
As far as quantifying luster is concerned, luster like most other aspects of grading is a judgement call. The concept of grading coins was never intented to be an exact science. Reflectivity can be measure although measuring it over the whole surface of a coin with light reflecting from numerous angles might not be so easy. Could you break down the grading process and criteria to a precise science? Maybe but the time, effort and expense of developing such a system and the cost of the precision instruments to measure the factors involved in formulating a precise grade would probably be very prohibitive.
So I think my point has developed into this. Luster is not in fact a judgement call. All coins will fall into a range between 'all the flow lines present' and 'none of the flow lines present', and the state of this damage can be measured. All the major grading services routinely slab coins with ZERO luster as defined by ANA therefore it cannot simply be a matter of someone's opinion. I'm sure some graders take luster into account some of the time, but it is by no means consistant or even common.
(Your argument, taken to an extreme, might suggest that many modern MS commems should not receive high grades because of their matte luster, which is less booming than the luster on, for example, many Morgans or 1964 Kennedy halves)
K S