"Actually luster can be measured with a single point of light from any angle. That's what a cartwheel effect is. You turn the coin, and a band of white rotates around the coin between two bands of dark."
But reflecting that single point of light from a multitude of angles and covering the whole surface of the coin while taking measurements sounds like a lot of work.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
<< <i>When you pull enough commems out of Wayte Raymond boards and manilla envelopes put away in the thirties and forties, you learn that the coins Iwoq's calling dead are just nice original coins. >>
missed that post by mr-eureka, & it is 195% absolutely correct. what is "original" DOES NOT generally have the in-your-face blast-white flash that people today mistkenly call "original". in the example given, the left coin has been dipped & stripped, & the 1 on the right has fresh, "just out of the album" originality
In my experience, a heavily frosted coin exhibits just as much directional light reflection as a brilliant blast white coin does. On a microscopic scale, it's a difference between tiny flow lines and large ones but they all do the same thing with regards to making reflected areas either light or dark. Picture one huge mirror versus 10 small mirrors when viewed from a distance. The look isn't the same, but the amount of light reflected in any direction will be.
I took a test shot of the most heavily frosted coin in my collection. It's an MS66 Huguenot, and it clearly shows the exact same pattern that my Boone does. The same measurement could be applied to this coin. I think the pitfall that most people fall into is that they assume a matte or pitted surface is mint frost. (as some people have said about the Boone I posted) It is NOT. It shows none of the characteristics of flow lines (directional reflection) and is the result of damage. I'll point out again that no collector in 1936 would accept such a coin under any conditions, they would have returned it for a replacement and it would have been melted.
Regarding design, I agree that some designs create better luster than others since the amount of metal flowing will vary; the Spanish Trail being a good example of poor luster and an Oregon Trail being an example of exceptional. A different set of numbers for each series would be a simple solution.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Coins pulled out of Wayte Raymond boards and manilla envelopes are no guarantee of anything, other than a guarantee that the coin was unprotected for decades. In the 1950's, coins were cleaned as a matter of practice. It was recommended, it was expected, and EVERYONE did it. The only true test of preservation is luster. Those tiny ridges are the most fragile part of the coin.
The coin on the left was dipped at some point. Who cares, it will outsell the other one by a huge margin and looks better to most people. Ask any dealer.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
You Present a great argument for ORIGINALITY. Original coins being defined in this sense as "Being made by the mint and stored until now." Original does NOT mean "since the last guy dipped it" or "Since the guy in 1960 dipped it" or "Since the previous owner dipped it in 1989". Original to me means "AS MADE". I'm only a collector, I'm NOT an expert but this discussion about using flow lines and luster to seperate the MEN coins (not f*d up by man) from the BOY coins (dipped anytime since creation) seems to me a very valid point.
I'm not making any BLAST WHITE IS BETTER THAN TONED argument here... to me obviously the majority of coins minted in the 19th century and anytime prior to 25 or so years ago *MUST* show some signs of tarnish unless someone got lucky and accidently or on purpose stored it in the perfect intert container.
PREACH ON BROTHER IWOG you've presented me with a coin-altering-experience and i'm a believer.
I don't see how coin#2 can be considered original.
Both pictures were taken under the same light, in (almost) the same position, with the same camera on the same day, with the planets in the same alignment. I posted a second picture of the abused coin further down. Instead of showing no luster, it shows barely any luster. Not a significant difference.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Ah, it's hopeless to try and convince you, Iwog. Just do me a favor, sell me your "stripped and ugly" one before you do anything to "improve" it and REALLY ruin it - please?
Mrdq, your willingness to jump on the "brilliantisbest" bandwagon is fine - you can have all such dipped-out pieces as much as you'd like. But please don't go about dipping pieces you think can be "improved." 96% of the time, they very opposite is the case.
Dipping coin #2 would not alter the appearance other than to take off a bit of color near the edges. It's already been trashed, dipped out, and rendered ugly and nothing can save it. I weep for all the poor unprotected coins in the world.
Thanks again for your offer, but I must protect this little one from being paraded around as "original" when it's clearly not. I regret that I need to keep it locked in a little black box all alone, but you must understand that the shame would be unbearable if my other coins were allowed to make fun of it.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
<< <i>to me obviously the majority of coins minted in the 19th century and anytime prior to 25 or so years ago *MUST* show some signs of tarnish unless someone got lucky and accidently or on purpose stored it in the perfect intert container. >>
I did say
<< <i>I'm not making any BLAST WHITE IS BETTER THAN TONED argument here... >>
I did say "
<< <i>You Present a great argument for ORIGINALITY. Original coins being defined in this sense as "Being made by the mint and stored until now." Original does NOT mean "since the last guy dipped it" or "Since the guy in 1960 dipped it" or "Since the previous owner dipped it in 1989". Original to me means "AS MADE". >>
I'm listening to a man (or woman) make great points on flow lines creating LUSTER. If you go to ebay and read many of the auctions that have LUSTER in their description and take that as "LUSTER" I think you're missing IWOG's point that Luster is something different.
If I offer to sell you an Ice Cream Cone and give it to you you know what to expect and you get it. Now lets say everyone born this year from now on gets Ice Cream Cone in a dish eventually they're not going to know what a cone is! they'll think a cone is a dish and then you come along and say HEY THAT'S A DISH NOT A CONE! And they'll think YOU are the weird one.
Coin #2 may be a lot of things but it is not a coin with luster.
That's not the conclusion I would draw. I would think to myself "Gee, that's strange. He's putting a cardboard cutout of a coin next to all his pretty silver coins........."
My 7 year old son plays with my slabs. He puts the pretty silver coins in one pile, the pretty gold coins in another pile, (he considers bright copper gold too) and he puts the yukky coins back in the drawer. Knowing that lusterless dull pieces of metal are actually valuable original coins to be cherished is a learned behavior.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
If you want to look at the dealer discards which are routinely dumped into various Heritage auctions as 'proof' for your premise, you are deluding yourself. If you want to think the emperor has new clothes, you are entitled to do that.
This is not to say that Heritage does not have quality material at its auctions. Rather, in addition to quality material, their auctions include many what I would refer to problem coins, and it is re these coins on which you base your faulty premise.
Few if any of these ugly coins has been holdered in the last two years. Ask any dealer in the know re 19th Century Unc. type, and he / she will tell you that eye appeal -- the bulk of which is luster -- accounts for the largest % of a 19th Century type coin's grade, with contact marks and strike playing minor parts.
If you want to live in fantasyland, that is your perogative, but please do not confuse newbies to this board.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
The issue of problem coins at Heritage is irrelevant. It's my assertion that all grading services ignore luster as an attribute, and finding a substantial number of slabs at a Heritage auction with NO luster doesn't hurt my case, it helps it. Of course I can find these same coins at ebay if you prefer. Or on the bourse floor? How many examples would constitute proof in your opinion? Do you see MS67 coins with multiple large bagmarks in prime focal areas? No you don't. Zero examples. Not at Heritage, not anywhere. This is because bagmarks ARE considered when a coin is certified.
So how come there are MS67 coins with NO luster? How come there are hundreds? Thousands? Because luster is NOT considered when a coin is certified OR luster is selectively ignored when a coin is certified. Either way, it's an abomination. Original mint blast is THE MOST OBVIOUS FEATURE OF A COIN! You can spot a blazer from across the isle and they sell instantly.
So who is in fantasy land? By the way, The Emperor's New Clothes is a fairytale about elitism and the law of the herd, NOT taking something out of context. I believe the parable you are looking for is the three blind men and the elephant where someone is only taking a small part of the whole and reaching the wrong conclusion ie. "it's a snake, it's a tree, etc."
Anyway, back to the Emperor. All the coin dealers......uh I mean townspeople in the land praised the Emperor's new coin....I mean clothes. They all agreed that only someone with culture and taste and breeding could see how original the dull and tarnished clothing was, and this being the case anyone who couldn't see the fabulous originality was obviously without class. So it was, until a little boy came along and pointed out the Emperor HAD no luster.......I mean no clothes.
The End! <bows>
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Of your opinions I care little, oh "blasty luster", but mainly I'm just VERY hopeful you don't ruin any "lusterless" ("I've dipped hundreds") coins before I can get to them. Please do send those nasty old "lusterless" coins my way - it'll save you the trouble of having to mess with 'em. Thanks very sincerely!
Both coins have been dipped. The one on the left was dipped and has not retoned. The one on the right was dipped (probably numerous times) and as aquired a VERY light tone, mostly near the edges. How do I know this? Because toning on coins is always silver sulfide and silver sulfide always disolves in Jeweluster. The brown gunk on coin #2 does not come off. It's part of the coin and under a microscope it looks like a sandblasted surface. And round and round we go, where it stops nobody knows..........
What's worse? A coin that looks dipped or a coin that has every micron of luster demolished by oxidation? Which is more original?
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
I know which I think is the better deal. I also know which you think is. Which is why I am urging you to keep your particular faves, and send your rejects my way! At reject prices, natch.
I understand the basic premise of your argument in that lustre is the key to determining the originality of a coin. Originality being further defined as the condition the coin was in at the time it was struck and left the mint. Perhaps the word "original" seems to have taken on a different meaning among collectors and perhaps the lawyers out there will probably point out that the word could even be considered ambigious... at least with respect to coins.
From my perspective, the originality of a coin is not measured by lustre as much as its current natural state of preservation. Lustre is obviously a component of that evaluation, but not the sole factor as you seem to imply. A coin that has not been dipped, cleaned or enhanced in any way is original. The majority of coin collectors would most likely agree with that position. A dipped or enhanced coin is no longer original even though it may display blazing lustre. The lustre has been merely enhanced or even restored... (I believe coin restoration is the current politically correct term).
Can original lustre and enhanced/restored lustre be the same? Perhaps to some collectors, but not to me.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I understand your point, but luster cannot be recreated, restored, or enhanced. The closest approximation to returning flow lines to a coin is whizzing, which is very easy to detect.
I cannot buy the argument that a coin left to slowly rust away is original while a fully lusterous coin that has been protected and dipped once is not. You can destroy a coin with a hammer, you can destroy a coin with nitric acid, or you can destroy a coin over years by letting hydrogen sulfide attack it. A freshly minted coin is blast white, lusterous and clean. A carefully preserved coin, one stored in a roll or a silver box is blast white, lusterous and clean EVEN if it was dipped once to remove a bit of oxidation. A coin stored in a cardboard holder and left to tarnish is damaged, and the flow lines which USED to be on the coin have been destroyed.
I agree with you that the term "original" should refer to the state of preservation. A coin with intact luster is FAR more preserved than a coin without it, and as I grow weary of pointing out, is the most fragile feature of the coin.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Hi! One quick comment. Many Boone commemoratives actually were struck with a somewhat matte finish. It doesn't surprise me at all that you say the surfaces look "sandblasted" because they are supposed to look that way. You will find several issues of the series were minted with both finishes. The ones with the "matte" look do, in fact, have less apparent cartwheel luster. Hope that helps!
"I cannot buy the argument that a coin left to slowly rust away is original while a fully lusterous coin that has been protected and dipped once is not."
I guess it depends on how you define original. I think of original, at least when discussing coins that are 100+ years old, is not just a matter of the coin appearing to be exactly as it did when it left the Mint. Coins from that time period are almost alway (unless they have been dipped) have some amount of toning. That toning is a result of the coins passage through a time period in which modern climate control didn't exist and is testament to the period of time in which the coin was Minted. Since the vast majority of coins from this time period have some toning the toning attest to the coins originality. Finding a coin from this time period that is blast white is almost always an indication that the coin has been intentionally altered to restore the appearance of being just as it left the Mint but it does that by stripping away some of the original surface.
BTW, as our resident Ph.D chemist has instructed us in the past:
"The term "rust", Iwog, is nearly universally used to denote the oxidation of ferrous (iron) compounds. It can be used in a greatly expanded and broader sense for oxidation, however, you would never find that usage in a scientific setting, even in your chem class...."
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
I realize that this is hopeless, but I will try one more time. The reason you see so many problem coins repeatedly at Heritage Auctions is because it is the largest auction house with the most national exposure and the dealers can't sell these coins to their customers.
I don't buy coins on E-Bay or Teletrade precisely because I believe that there is so much garbage being sold on the site that I don't want to waste my time there. So, your argument that seeing all of these problem coins on Heritage & E-Bay sites is a false argument.
Ditto re these same coins which sit in dealer cases for six months or so before they wind up at a Heritage Auction or at E-Bay.
Because these are problem coins, no one will pay anywhere near sheet on them, irrespective of their holders, so they constantly get recycled. Virtually none of these coins has been slabbed in the last few years.
Ask Mark Feld of Pinnacle, ask Laura Sperber of Legend, ask David Hall if you wish. They will all tell you that eye appeal -- of which luster is the major component -- has been the primary driving force in the slabbing of supergrade coins (MS 66 & better) in the last several years.
I cannot comment re MS 67 material, because as I collect 19th Century Type, there is precious little of it, and what there is, I cannot afford.
Phil (PMH) responded to your other comment re the toning of coins better than I can do here.
"Vou invadir o Nordeste, "Seu cabra da peste, "Sou Mangueira......."
Yes I know there's a lot of junk at Heritage and Ebay. This however, is completely beside the point.
Jade, Boone commemoratives were never issued with a matte finish. Many commemoratives have a heavily frosted surface, however heavily frosted is still heavily lusterous and will always exhibit the cartwheel effect. In fact, to PROVE this is true I posted a picture of a heavily frosted Huguenot with a very clear cartwheel. To my knowlege, a matte or sandblasted surface is very rare and always in proof. A couple of Hawaiian commems were issued in Matte.
Pmh, toning can never attest to originality. Toning can only attest to oxidation. A coin dipped in 1945 and again in 1960 might still have some very good bullseye album color and will be sold by all dealers as "original".
I will keep repeating myself until it sinks in. YOU CANNOT RESTORE LUSTER ON A COIN! Now pause, take a deep breath, and re-read what I wrote in caps. The repeat it again....and again. Luster is NOT reproducable, it cannot be faked, it cannot be simulated, it cannot be replaced. Once the luster on a coin is destroyed by toning, overdipping, or buffing with an emery board wheel, it is GONE FOREVER. I cannot comprehend why something so simple is so difficult to get across. To make this conversation even more absurd, it is TONING that can be added to a coin after the fact, and I am forced to defend a blast white coin that hasn't been screwed up!!!
The rust comment was pretty funny to me. Next time I'll clearly label any sarcasm.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Iwog, regarding "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? "
Anthony Swiatek suggests that many commemoratives, including various of the Boone issues, were minted with dull luster. This of course does not mean that they should receive high grades -- he suggests that in some cases it is due to poor die preparation. But, as others in the thread have said, it is quite possible for coins to have flat, not-terribly-reflective luster as made. To the extent that this is the norm for a particular issue, it will be taken into account in the grading standards.
For example, regarding the 1935 D and S coins, Swiatek says they "display a virtual matte-like finish, especially on the obverse due to die preparation. They will look dull or grainy instead of lustrous because the dies were not prepared in a manner similar to the Philadelphia dies" He says that the 1936, your coin, will have luster ranging from brilliant frosty to dull frosty. Dull frosty does not seem like a bad description for your coin.
It is an important point that many commemoratives did in fact have a matte like appearance, or rather dull luster, as produced. Bright shiny was not necessarily the norm for many of these issues.
"Pmh, toning can never attest to originality. Toning can only attest to oxidation. A coin dipped in 1945 and again in 1960 might still have some very good bullseye album color and will be sold by all dealers as "original".
Wrong. Toning can attest to originality when you take into account the appearance of the coin in addition to facts regarding the the time period in which the coin was minted and the time period over which it has survived. And in many cases you can spot a coin that has toned, been dipped and has retoned.
"I will keep repeating myself until it sinks in. YOU CANNOT RESTORE LUSTER ON A COIN!"
You cannot totally restore the full original luster but dipping a coin is an attempt to restore the appearance of the full luster of a coin as when it was originally struck. As you know there are limits to how successful this process can be.
It is also very difficult if not impossible to restore original toning once it has been removed by dipping.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
commem's are not my thing, but what jadecoin and higashiyama said are, to my observation, somewhat true. though not minted with a matte luster per-se, the finish on many boone commem's is in fact dull as-struck, having a somewhat matte (or "satin") look to it. as higashiyama quoted swiatek (& i think breen says this too), the surfaces may have a "grainy" look, as struck. i'd still claim that the coin on the right is the nicer of the 2 you digi-pic'ed
personally, i really love the matte look, such as on early 20th century proofs.
If the coins sometimes come from the mint in a luster-free condition, then the grading service obviously has justification (in their minds) for ignoring it. So you're right, Luster is Dead!!!
Coins never come from the mint without luster. (unless they are sandblasted after the die strikes) You cannot mint a coin without flow lines and this includes proofs.
I posted a coin with a grainy look. The Huguenot has the most grainy look of any commemorative, and it also has a very well defined cartwheel. Everyone seems to be using the argument that some coins leave the mint looking like coin #2, and I've used several examples to prove this is impossible, but the myth is too strong it seems. Does anyone have any actual evidence that coins resembling cardboard regularly left the mint in 1936? My point about collectors of that era not tolerating such a coin is actually a very good one I think, because I have yet to receive a counter argument. So what gives?
Pmh, there aren't limits in how much you can restore luster because luster can't be restored at all. I think you're confusing clean or bright metal with what we are talking about. Dipping a coin will NEVER increase the degree of separation between hot and cold areas of a coin. This is never as in NEVER EVER. You cannot add flow lines, you cannot add cartwheel effect, you cannot enhance a coin this way. Do I need to get a chalk board?
So tell us.....how do you identify a coin that was dipped in 1950 and has since retoned? The Boone I'm posting is such a coin, but since everyone is claiming it's original don't mind me if I show a bit of skepticism.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Many Boones do have subdued luster, but it's not as dull as the coin that opened this string. That coin had been messed around with.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
"Pmh, there aren't limits in how much you can restore luster because luster can't be restored at all. I think you're confusing clean or bright metal with what we are talking about. Dipping a coin will NEVER increase the degree of separation between hot and cold areas of a coin. This is never as in NEVER EVER. You cannot add flow lines, you cannot add cartwheel effect, you cannot enhance a coin this way. Do I need to get a chalk board?"
Toning affects the reflectivity of the surfaces of the coin. If the toning hasn't progress too fair it came be removed to restore luster without seriously changing the cartwheel. Dipping if done proper can remove superficial toning with minimal disturbance of the flowlines, restoring the luster of the coin. True, you cannot add flow lines but you can remove superficial toning from those flow lines that impairs luster.
"So tell us.....how do you identify a coin that was dipped in 1950 and has since retoned? The Boone I'm posting is such a coin, but since everyone is claiming it's original don't mind me if I show a bit of skepticism."
As you know making judgements about a coin based on a photograph is a shot in the dark.
If a MS coin was deeply toned and then dipped to remove the toning and then retoned the underlying luster is probably going to have some impairments. Those areas of the coin that have not retoned may also show evidence of impaired luster or shine rather than have the hot and cold areas you mentioned. It's also my understanding that many coins, once they have been dipped, do not retone in the same way (shades of collor, pattern) as the original toning.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
Luster is more than just a surface effect caused by the flow of metal across the face of the die and the work hardening caused by the heat and pressure. Luster actually has depth. As a coin is exposed to the friction of sliding and grinding in normal circulation there will be atom sloughed off the high points right from the beginning. When a coin is dipped metal from the surface is stripped away right along with the toning or tarnish. In both cases the luster will remain unbroken. It is this which normally defines whether the coin is uncirculated or not.
The nature and depth of luster can vary greatly depending on many characteristics of the minting process. It even varies greatly within series from one year or mint to the next. It's depth and density are the two primary variables and determine things like how many times it can be dipped, it's color, texture, and rate at which it wears.
Luster can sometimes be quite difficult to ascertain even to those who are experts in the specific coin. It is typically hazardous when outside of one's field or from nothing more than a scan.
Higashiyama, the coin you're showing as a substantial amount of luster left and has little in common with the one I posted. Without looking at it in person, I would still say that the luster on your coin is impaired somewhat. The fingerprint on the reverse was dipped off at one point, so the coin is not "original". I don't know if you have the coin in your possession, but if you viewed it from the edge you would probably see a dull haze. This is characteristic of a toned and dipped coin, as is the spotty nature of the toning.
Nope, luster is just a surface effect caused by flow lines. There is no depth unless you're talking about some visual effect. It is also the most fragile part of the coin which is why I continue to assert that a blast white coin with a good cartwheel is far more original than a dull coin, cleaned or not.
Toning affects the reflectivity of the coin by destroying it. When you remove the toning, you do not replace the silver metal that was used up in the toning process. Toning cannot affect the hot and cold luster test because it darkens the entire coin, not just the hot areas. The differential caused by reflecting light in different directions is still present.
Luster is not simply how shiny the coin is. Buffing a coin with a wheel will remove all the luster, but the coin will be more brilliant than ever. This is why dipping cannot enhance the luster on a coin. By the way, those hot and cold areas ARE luster. If the coin doesn't have them, the coin has been damaged and all of the microscopic flow lines are gone. Many "original" coins have exactly this characteristic.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
"Toning affects the reflectivity of the coin by destroying it. When you remove the toning, you do not replace the silver metal that was used up in the toning process. , not just the hot areas. The differential caused by reflecting light in different directions is still present."
Iwog...wrong again. Toning doesn't necessarily "destroy" the flow lines. It all depends on how deeply the toning has worked it's way into the surface metal.
"Toning cannot affect the hot and cold luster test because it darkens the entire coin."
Wrong again...the depth of toning is not uniformed throughout the surface of the coin so it can decrease the reflectivity in some areas more than others. The differential caused by the reflecting light in different directs is still present but the amount of reflectivity can vary depending on the depth of the toning on the different areas of the coin.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
<< <i>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. >>
Hear, hear. I totally agree. There's nothing wrong with color or originality, but the cycle has reached its apogee. I think it's cyclical, like many trends- once the color madness runs its course, things'll swing back toward the middle, then to the "blast white" extreme, then back again. Neither is "right" or "wrong", but when we reach extreme ends of the cycle, it's time for a reality check. Just a pet theory of mine.
Iwog...wrong again. Toning doesn't necessarily "destroy" the flow lines. It all depends on how deeply the toning has worked it's way into the surface metal.
Toning turns the top layer of silver metal into silver sulfide and flow lines are the top layer of silver metal. Therefore silver sulfide necessarily destroys flow lines. The only thing you can argue is the extent. Silver sulfide is a dull looking black power and not reflective so yes, luster is destroyed by toning.
Therefore I am not wrong.
Your second point isn't so much wrong as not relevant. Toning affects all areas of the coin that are equally toned so if you want a solution to your objection, simply pick two points with the same amount of color. I am however, correct in my original argument. Toning does NOT affect luster beyond the damage necessary to create the toning in the first place, so measuring the remaining luster on a toned coin is as easy as on a clean coin. EVERYONE already knows this since EVERYONE talks about fire beneath the toning.
Higashiyama, what you say is true wise one. Undamaged heavy frost however is also highly lusterous so it's not a problem. There are hot and cold areas of your coin indicating that significant luster still exists. There are no such areas on my coin because it was toned, trashed, dipped, and slabbed.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Man, someone who's so sure they're RIGHT, not just "right" all the time - fascinating. Guess I'd better tell the owners of lightly toned classics what a bunch of junk they have, so's I can pick 'em up cheep!
And that is the exactly my point. The extent of the toning will determine to what degree the hot and cold areas are affected by the toning. I've got some toned coins with incrediable cartwheel luster. Luster may be impaired but not "destroyed" by toning.
"Toning affects all areas of the coin that are equally toned"
Tell me something I don't know. The point is that not all areas on a coin are equally toned. In fact some areas might not having any toning. Toned coins can and do have cartwheel luster, cartwheel luster as a result of the intact flow lines.
"Your second point isn't so much wrong as not relevant."
And since we're talking about luster my statement is absolutely relevant. Toned coins can display incredible luster. You want to make it a black and white issue. Sorry, in a discussion of toned coins and luster there is a large area of wonderful color.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
1. Wrong again. Your point was "Toning affects the reflectivity of the coin by destroying it"
My point was that it's a matter of degree and that toned coins can display tremendous luster.
2. You other erroneous point was "there aren't limits in how much you can restore luster because luster can't be restored at all"
My point was toning can impair luster (decrease reflectivity off the flow lines) and removing the toning (without destroying the flow lines) can increase reflectivity off the flow lines and restore luster.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
I would have to agree that grading services are favoring "less luster" & leaning towards toning (or "non-standard"). My father sent off 1887/6-O to PCGS in January & it is nice coin and it came back MS-64 (highest PCGS grading for this coin). Coin has light yellowing toning over entire surface of coin. Coin has what I call "muted" luster but eye appeal is not super (my opinion). It is an excellent coin. Maybe they really like the combination of light toning w/ luster. "Unusual" coin appearance maybe getting more attention and all grading services (esp PCGS) like genuine coins in unaltered condition. Great luster can be created by cleaning.
I think it should be clearly pointed out to new collectors that might be reading this that just because a coin is bright and shiney does not mean the coin has luster. mike
Comments
But reflecting that single point of light from a multitude of angles and covering the whole surface of the coin while taking measurements sounds like a lot of work.
<< <i>When you pull enough commems out of Wayte Raymond boards and manilla envelopes put away in the thirties and forties, you learn that the coins Iwoq's calling dead are just nice original coins. >>
missed that post by mr-eureka, & it is 195% absolutely correct. what is "original" DOES NOT generally have the in-your-face blast-white flash that people today mistkenly call "original". in the example given, the left coin has been dipped & stripped, & the 1 on the right has fresh, "just out of the album" originality
K S
I took a test shot of the most heavily frosted coin in my collection. It's an MS66 Huguenot, and it clearly shows the exact same pattern that my Boone does. The same measurement could be applied to this coin. I think the pitfall that most people fall into is that they assume a matte or pitted surface is mint frost. (as some people have said about the Boone I posted) It is NOT. It shows none of the characteristics of flow lines (directional reflection) and is the result of damage. I'll point out again that no collector in 1936 would accept such a coin under any conditions, they would have returned it for a replacement and it would have been melted.
Regarding design, I agree that some designs create better luster than others since the amount of metal flowing will vary; the Spanish Trail being a good example of poor luster and an Oregon Trail being an example of exceptional. A different set of numbers for each series would be a simple solution.
The coin on the left was dipped at some point. Who cares, it will outsell the other one by a huge margin and looks better to most people. Ask any dealer.
You Present a great argument for ORIGINALITY. Original coins being defined in this sense as "Being made by the mint and stored until now." Original does NOT mean "since the last guy dipped it" or "Since the guy in 1960 dipped it" or "Since the previous owner dipped it in 1989". Original to me means "AS MADE". I'm only a collector, I'm NOT an expert but this discussion about using flow lines and luster to seperate the MEN coins (not f*d up by man) from the BOY coins (dipped anytime since creation) seems to me a very valid point.
I'm not making any BLAST WHITE IS BETTER THAN TONED argument here... to me obviously the majority of coins minted in the 19th century and anytime prior to 25 or so years ago *MUST* show some signs of tarnish unless someone got lucky and accidently or on purpose stored it in the perfect intert container.
PREACH ON BROTHER IWOG you've presented me with a coin-altering-experience and i'm a believer.
I don't see how coin#2 can be considered original.
--------T O M---------
-------------------------
K S
Mrdq, your willingness to jump on the "brilliantisbest" bandwagon is fine - you can have all such dipped-out pieces as much as you'd like. But please don't go about dipping pieces you think can be "improved." 96% of the time, they very opposite is the case.
Thanks again for your offer, but I must protect this little one from being paraded around as "original" when it's clearly not. I regret that I need to keep it locked in a little black box all alone, but you must understand that the shame would be unbearable if my other coins were allowed to make fun of it.
I didn't say "brilliant is best", I said
<< <i>to me obviously the majority of coins minted in the 19th century and anytime prior to 25 or so years ago *MUST* show some signs of tarnish unless someone got lucky and accidently or on purpose stored it in the perfect intert container. >>
I did say
<< <i>I'm not making any BLAST WHITE IS BETTER THAN TONED argument here... >>
I did say "
<< <i>You Present a great argument for ORIGINALITY. Original coins being defined in this sense as "Being made by the mint and stored until now." Original does NOT mean "since the last guy dipped it" or "Since the guy in 1960 dipped it" or "Since the previous owner dipped it in 1989". Original to me means "AS MADE". >>
I'm listening to a man (or woman) make great points on flow lines creating LUSTER. If you go to ebay and read many of the auctions that have LUSTER in their description and take that as "LUSTER" I think you're missing IWOG's point that Luster is something different.
If I offer to sell you an Ice Cream Cone and give it to you you know what to expect and you get it. Now lets say everyone born this year from now on gets Ice Cream Cone in a dish eventually they're not going to know what a cone is! they'll think a cone is a dish and then you come along and say HEY THAT'S A DISH NOT A CONE! And they'll think YOU are the weird one.
Coin #2 may be a lot of things but it is not a coin with luster.
--------T O M---------
-------------------------
My 7 year old son plays with my slabs. He puts the pretty silver coins in one pile, the pretty gold coins in another pile, (he considers bright copper gold too) and he puts the yukky coins back in the drawer. Knowing that lusterless dull pieces of metal are actually valuable original coins to be cherished is a learned behavior.
K S
If you want to look at the dealer discards which are routinely dumped into various Heritage auctions as 'proof' for your premise, you are deluding yourself. If you want to think the emperor has new clothes, you are entitled to do that.
This is not to say that Heritage does not have quality material at its auctions. Rather, in addition to quality material, their auctions include many what I would refer to problem coins, and it is re these coins on which you base your faulty premise.
Few if any of these ugly coins has been holdered in the last two years.
Ask any dealer in the know re 19th Century Unc. type, and he / she will tell you that eye appeal -- the bulk of which is luster -- accounts for the largest % of a 19th Century type coin's grade, with contact marks and strike playing minor parts.
If you want to live in fantasyland, that is your perogative, but please do not confuse newbies to this board.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
The issue of problem coins at Heritage is irrelevant. It's my assertion that all grading services ignore luster as an attribute, and finding a substantial number of slabs at a Heritage auction with NO luster doesn't hurt my case, it helps it. Of course I can find these same coins at ebay if you prefer. Or on the bourse floor? How many examples would constitute proof in your opinion? Do you see MS67 coins with multiple large bagmarks in prime focal areas? No you don't. Zero examples. Not at Heritage, not anywhere. This is because bagmarks ARE considered when a coin is certified.
So how come there are MS67 coins with NO luster? How come there are hundreds? Thousands? Because luster is NOT considered when a coin is certified OR luster is selectively ignored when a coin is certified. Either way, it's an abomination. Original mint blast is THE MOST OBVIOUS FEATURE OF A COIN! You can spot a blazer from across the isle and they sell instantly.
So who is in fantasy land? By the way, The Emperor's New Clothes is a fairytale about elitism and the law of the herd, NOT taking something out of context. I believe the parable you are looking for is the three blind men and the elephant where someone is only taking a small part of the whole and reaching the wrong conclusion ie. "it's a snake, it's a tree, etc."
Anyway, back to the Emperor. All the coin dealers......uh I mean townspeople in the land praised the Emperor's new coin....I mean clothes. They all agreed that only someone with culture and taste and breeding could see how original the dull and tarnished clothing was, and this being the case anyone who couldn't see the fabulous originality was obviously without class. So it was, until a little boy came along and pointed out the Emperor HAD no luster.......I mean no clothes.
The End! <bows>
<< <i>i liked the coin on the right (ms-66). the "flashy" 1 looks dipped >>
This was also my first thought when I saw the pictures. mike
What's worse? A coin that looks dipped or a coin that has every micron of luster demolished by oxidation? Which is more original?
I understand the basic premise of your argument in that lustre is the key to determining the originality of a coin. Originality being further defined as the condition the coin was in at the time it was struck and left the mint. Perhaps the word "original" seems to have taken on a different meaning among collectors and perhaps the lawyers out there will probably point out that the word could even be considered ambigious... at least with respect to coins.
From my perspective, the originality of a coin is not measured by lustre as much as its current natural state of preservation. Lustre is obviously a component of that evaluation, but not the sole factor as you seem to imply. A coin that has not been dipped, cleaned or enhanced in any way is original. The majority of coin collectors would most likely agree with that position. A dipped or enhanced coin is no longer original even though it may display blazing lustre. The lustre has been merely enhanced or even restored... (I believe coin restoration is the current politically correct term).
Can original lustre and enhanced/restored lustre be the same? Perhaps to some collectors, but not to me.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
I cannot buy the argument that a coin left to slowly rust away is original while a fully lusterous coin that has been protected and dipped once is not. You can destroy a coin with a hammer, you can destroy a coin with nitric acid, or you can destroy a coin over years by letting hydrogen sulfide attack it. A freshly minted coin is blast white, lusterous and clean. A carefully preserved coin, one stored in a roll or a silver box is blast white, lusterous and clean EVEN if it was dipped once to remove a bit of oxidation. A coin stored in a cardboard holder and left to tarnish is damaged, and the flow lines which USED to be on the coin have been destroyed.
I agree with you that the term "original" should refer to the state of preservation. A coin with intact luster is FAR more preserved than a coin without it, and as I grow weary of pointing out, is the most fragile feature of the coin.
- jade
I guess it depends on how you define original. I think of original, at least when discussing coins that are 100+ years old, is not just a matter of the coin appearing to be exactly as it did when it left the Mint. Coins from that time period are almost alway (unless they have been dipped) have some amount of toning. That toning is a result of the coins passage through a time period in which modern climate control didn't exist and is testament to the period of time in which the coin was Minted. Since the vast majority of coins from this time period have some toning the toning attest to the coins originality. Finding a coin from this time period that is blast white is almost always an indication that the coin has been intentionally altered to restore the appearance of being just as it left the Mint but it does that by stripping away some of the original surface.
BTW, as our resident Ph.D chemist has instructed us in the past:
"The term "rust", Iwog, is nearly universally used to denote the oxidation of ferrous (iron) compounds. It can be used in a greatly expanded and broader sense for oxidation, however, you would never find that usage in a scientific setting, even in your chem class...."
I don't buy coins on E-Bay or Teletrade precisely because I believe that there is so much garbage being sold on the site that I don't want to waste my time there. So, your argument that seeing all of these problem coins on Heritage & E-Bay sites is a false argument.
Ditto re these same coins which sit in dealer cases for six months or so before they wind up at a Heritage Auction or at E-Bay.
Because these are problem coins, no one will pay anywhere near sheet on them, irrespective of their holders, so they constantly get recycled.
Virtually none of these coins has been slabbed in the last few years.
Ask Mark Feld of Pinnacle, ask Laura Sperber of Legend, ask David Hall if you wish. They will all tell you that eye appeal -- of which luster is the major component -- has been the primary driving force in the slabbing of supergrade coins (MS 66 & better) in the last several years.
I cannot comment re MS 67 material, because as I collect 19th Century Type, there is precious little of it, and what there is, I cannot afford.
Phil (PMH) responded to your other comment re the toning of coins better than I can do here.
"Seu cabra da peste,
"Sou Mangueira......."
Jade, Boone commemoratives were never issued with a matte finish. Many commemoratives have a heavily frosted surface, however heavily frosted is still heavily lusterous and will always exhibit the cartwheel effect. In fact, to PROVE this is true I posted a picture of a heavily frosted Huguenot with a very clear cartwheel. To my knowlege, a matte or sandblasted surface is very rare and always in proof. A couple of Hawaiian commems were issued in Matte.
Pmh, toning can never attest to originality. Toning can only attest to oxidation. A coin dipped in 1945 and again in 1960 might still have some very good bullseye album color and will be sold by all dealers as "original".
I will keep repeating myself until it sinks in. YOU CANNOT RESTORE LUSTER ON A COIN! Now pause, take a deep breath, and re-read what I wrote in caps. The repeat it again....and again. Luster is NOT reproducable, it cannot be faked, it cannot be simulated, it cannot be replaced. Once the luster on a coin is destroyed by toning, overdipping, or buffing with an emery board wheel, it is GONE FOREVER. I cannot comprehend why something so simple is so difficult to get across. To make this conversation even more absurd, it is TONING that can be added to a coin after the fact, and I am forced to defend a blast white coin that hasn't been screwed up!!!
The rust comment was pretty funny to me. Next time I'll clearly label any sarcasm.
Anthony Swiatek suggests that many commemoratives, including various of the Boone issues, were minted with dull luster. This of course does not mean that they should receive high grades -- he suggests that in some cases it is due to poor die preparation. But, as others in the thread have said, it is quite possible for coins to have flat, not-terribly-reflective luster as made. To the extent that this is the norm for a particular issue, it will be taken into account in the grading standards.
For example, regarding the 1935 D and S coins, Swiatek says they "display a virtual matte-like finish, especially on the obverse due to die preparation. They will look dull or grainy instead of lustrous because the dies were not prepared in a manner similar to the Philadelphia dies" He says that the 1936, your coin, will have luster ranging from brilliant frosty to dull frosty. Dull frosty does not seem like a bad description for your coin.
It is an important point that many commemoratives did in fact have a matte like appearance, or rather dull luster, as produced. Bright shiny was not necessarily the norm for many of these issues.
"Pmh, toning can never attest to originality. Toning can only attest to oxidation. A coin dipped in 1945 and again in 1960 might still have some very good bullseye album color and will be sold by all dealers as "original".
Wrong. Toning can attest to originality when you take into account the appearance of the coin in addition to facts regarding the the time period in which the coin was minted and the time period over which it has survived. And in many cases you can spot a coin that has toned, been dipped and has retoned.
"I will keep repeating myself until it sinks in. YOU CANNOT RESTORE LUSTER ON A COIN!"
You cannot totally restore the full original luster but dipping a coin is an attempt to restore the appearance of the full luster of a coin as when it was originally struck. As you know there are limits to how successful this process can be.
It is also very difficult if not impossible to restore original toning once it has been removed by dipping.
personally, i really love the matte look, such as on early 20th century proofs.
K S
If the coins sometimes come from the mint in a luster-free condition, then the grading service obviously has justification (in their minds) for ignoring it. So you're right, Luster is Dead!!!
I posted a coin with a grainy look. The Huguenot has the most grainy look of any commemorative, and it also has a very well defined cartwheel. Everyone seems to be using the argument that some coins leave the mint looking like coin #2, and I've used several examples to prove this is impossible, but the myth is too strong it seems. Does anyone have any actual evidence that coins resembling cardboard regularly left the mint in 1936? My point about collectors of that era not tolerating such a coin is actually a very good one I think, because I have yet to receive a counter argument. So what gives?
Pmh, there aren't limits in how much you can restore luster because luster can't be restored at all. I think you're confusing clean or bright metal with what we are talking about. Dipping a coin will NEVER increase the degree of separation between hot and cold areas of a coin. This is never as in NEVER EVER. You cannot add flow lines, you cannot add cartwheel effect, you cannot enhance a coin this way. Do I need to get a chalk board?
So tell us.....how do you identify a coin that was dipped in 1950 and has since retoned? The Boone I'm posting is such a coin, but since everyone is claiming it's original don't mind me if I show a bit of skepticism.
(thanks to Pinnacle)
Toning affects the reflectivity of the surfaces of the coin. If the toning hasn't progress too fair it came be removed to restore luster without seriously changing the cartwheel. Dipping if done proper can remove superficial toning with minimal disturbance of the flowlines, restoring the luster of the coin. True, you cannot add flow lines but you can remove superficial toning from those flow lines that impairs luster.
"So tell us.....how do you identify a coin that was dipped in 1950 and has since retoned? The Boone I'm posting is such a coin, but since everyone is claiming it's original don't mind me if I show a bit of skepticism."
As you know making judgements about a coin based on a photograph is a shot in the dark.
If a MS coin was deeply toned and then dipped to remove the toning and then retoned the underlying luster is probably going to have some impairments. Those areas of the coin that have not retoned may also show evidence of impaired luster or shine rather than have the hot and cold areas you mentioned. It's also my understanding that many coins, once they have been dipped, do not retone in the same way (shades of collor, pattern) as the original toning.
face of the die and the work hardening caused by the heat and pressure. Luster
actually has depth. As a coin is exposed to the friction of sliding and grinding in
normal circulation there will be atom sloughed off the high points right from the
beginning. When a coin is dipped metal from the surface is stripped away right
along with the toning or tarnish. In both cases the luster will remain unbroken. It
is this which normally defines whether the coin is uncirculated or not.
The nature and depth of luster can vary greatly depending on many characteristics
of the minting process. It even varies greatly within series from one year or mint
to the next. It's depth and density are the two primary variables and determine things
like how many times it can be dipped, it's color, texture, and rate at which it wears.
Luster can sometimes be quite difficult to ascertain even to those who are experts in
the specific coin. It is typically hazardous when outside of one's field or from nothing
more than a scan.
Nope, luster is just a surface effect caused by flow lines. There is no depth unless you're talking about some visual effect. It is also the most fragile part of the coin which is why I continue to assert that a blast white coin with a good cartwheel is far more original than a dull coin, cleaned or not.
Toning affects the reflectivity of the coin by destroying it. When you remove the toning, you do not replace the silver metal that was used up in the toning process. Toning cannot affect the hot and cold luster test because it darkens the entire coin, not just the hot areas. The differential caused by reflecting light in different directions is still present.
Luster is not simply how shiny the coin is. Buffing a coin with a wheel will remove all the luster, but the coin will be more brilliant than ever. This is why dipping cannot enhance the luster on a coin. By the way, those hot and cold areas ARE luster. If the coin doesn't have them, the coin has been damaged and all of the microscopic flow lines are gone. Many "original" coins have exactly this characteristic.
Iwog...wrong again. Toning doesn't necessarily "destroy" the flow lines. It all depends on how deeply the toning has worked it's way into the surface metal.
"Toning cannot affect the hot and cold luster test because it darkens the entire coin."
Wrong again...the depth of toning is not uniformed throughout the surface of the coin so it can decrease the reflectivity in some areas more than others. The differential caused by the reflecting light in different directs is still present but the amount of reflectivity can vary depending on the depth of the toning on the different areas of the coin.
<< <i>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. >>
Hear, hear. I totally agree. There's nothing wrong with color or originality, but the cycle has reached its apogee. I think it's cyclical, like many trends- once the color madness runs its course, things'll swing back toward the middle, then to the "blast white" extreme, then back again. Neither is "right" or "wrong", but when we reach extreme ends of the cycle, it's time for a reality check. Just a pet theory of mine.
Toning turns the top layer of silver metal into silver sulfide and flow lines are the top layer of silver metal. Therefore silver sulfide necessarily destroys flow lines. The only thing you can argue is the extent. Silver sulfide is a dull looking black power and not reflective so yes, luster is destroyed by toning.
Therefore I am not wrong.
Your second point isn't so much wrong as not relevant. Toning affects all areas of the coin that are equally toned so if you want a solution to your objection, simply pick two points with the same amount of color. I am however, correct in my original argument. Toning does NOT affect luster beyond the damage necessary to create the toning in the first place, so measuring the remaining luster on a toned coin is as easy as on a clean coin. EVERYONE already knows this since EVERYONE talks about fire beneath the toning.
Higashiyama, what you say is true wise one. Undamaged heavy frost however is also highly lusterous so it's not a problem. There are hot and cold areas of your coin indicating that significant luster still exists. There are no such areas on my coin because it was toned, trashed, dipped, and slabbed.
"The only thing you can argue is the extent."
And that is the exactly my point. The extent of the toning will determine to what degree the hot and cold areas are affected by the toning. I've got some toned coins with incrediable cartwheel luster. Luster may be impaired but not "destroyed" by toning.
"Toning affects all areas of the coin that are equally toned"
Tell me something I don't know. The point is that not all areas on a coin are equally toned. In fact some areas might not having any toning. Toned coins can and do have cartwheel luster, cartwheel luster as a result of the intact flow lines.
"Your second point isn't so much wrong as not relevant."
And since we're talking about luster my statement is absolutely relevant. Toned coins can display incredible luster. You want to make it a black and white issue. Sorry, in a discussion of toned coins and luster there is a large area of wonderful color.
Just a quick reminder: The above statment was my point. Your point was that toning diminishes luster, and dipping enhances it.
Thank you for your time.
My point was that it's a matter of degree and that toned coins can display tremendous luster.
2. You other erroneous point was "there aren't limits in how much you can restore luster because luster can't be restored at all"
My point was toning can impair luster (decrease reflectivity off the flow lines) and removing the toning (without destroying the flow lines) can increase reflectivity off the flow lines and restore luster.
"Unusual" coin appearance maybe getting more attention and all grading services (esp PCGS) like genuine coins in unaltered condition. Great luster can be created by cleaning.
98panda on ebay
My point was toning can impair luster (decrease reflectivity off the flow lines)
Yes, but your point is invalid since luster isn't reflectivity. Perhaps this is the basic misunderstanding you have about toned coins and dipping?
<< <i>Luster is the directional reflection of light >>
Then you said:
<< <i>Yes, but your point is invalid since luster isn't reflectivity. >>
Uh? Reflectivity is NOT the reflection of light? Please explain. lol
jom
Jeeez man, you honestly think this is a contradiction?