"Yes, but your point is invalid since luster isn't reflectivity" and "Luster isn't simple reflection, it's directional reflection caused by flow lines."
What kind of parsing of words is that? The magnitude of the luster is dependent on the reflectivity of the those flow lines. Toning diminishes the reflectivity of the flow lines but does not necessarily destroying the flow lines and hence affects luster. My point is valid and no amount of parsing of the words is going to validate your the erroneous statements that "toning affects the reflectivity of the coin by destroying it" and "toning cannot affect the hot and cold luster test because it darkens the entire coin." Your first statement is wrong as a matter of degree and your second statement is just wrong.
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 know what luster is. The sad thing is you know what it is too but rather than admit that the statements that you made were wrong you continue to parse words in and attempt to turn the discussion on it's head.
You made the blanket statement that toning destroys flow lines. I correct you by saying toning doesn't necessarily "destroy" flow lines but can impair their reflectivity. Proof of that are toned coins which exhibit cartwheel luster. I'm right, you're wrong.
You said there aren't limits in how much you can restore luster because luster can't be restored at all. I said that removing toning that hasn't worked its way deeply into the surface of the coin can restore the reflectivity of flow, the result being the restoration of the coins luster. I never said you could restore the coin to its full original luster. Again, I'm correct and you're wrong.
The real irony here is that by your own admission you have dipped coins to remove superficial toning in order to restore luster (improve the reflectivity of flow lines) and yet you continue to stand by your obviously erroneous statements.
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>Jeeez man, you honestly think this is a contradiction? >>
<< <i>Pmh, you're not making points. Without meaning to be insulting, I don't think you know what luster is. >>
You are being purposely obtuse. Is that an inherited quality or is it something you created yourself? I think PMH's point was right on so why do you continue this arguement?
pmh said that luster can be restored. This point is wrong and any assumption it is based on is also wrong. If you think I'm wrong, tell it to the cat.
Yes pmh, I dip coins all the time. I'm a silver collector, not a silver sulfide collector. If I wanted to collect silver sulfide, I'd buy it in bulk at the chemical supply store.
Meow.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Wow, I wonder if I can mediate some sort of agreement on this thread!
I think most people agree on the following:
(1) Toning can impair the eye appeal of a coin
(2) In some cases, toning can be removed to improved the appearance of a coin.
[these at least should not be controversial?)
I need help with the next ones, but perhaps:
(3) Light toning may not seriously impact the flow lines, so that it spite of toning, there is underlying luster.
(4) Carefully dipping such a coin can removed the toning without removing enough silver to seriously impair the flow lines, making the luster more apparent, and therefore making the coin more attractive.
You didn't mediate you restated the things I said.
Iwog
"Yes pmh, I dip coins all the time. I'm a silver collector, not a silver sulfide collector"
And what changes in the appearance of the coin do you see after you dip those coins?
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
Since you didn't answer I'll answer for you using your own words:
"While dipping oxidation off a coin cannot return it to absolute originality, it CAN give back a freshly minted appearance and reveal its reflectivity and luster." From your post on Thursday July 18, 2002 2:55 PM
Yes, dipping can removing light toning to reveal a coins reflectivity and luster, reflectivity and luster that was hided or impaired by the toning. In simple language that means dipping reveals reflectivity and luster that is hidden or impaired by toning.
Here is another one of your post that validates my statements:
"#2 dipping can only reveal what's under the layer of oxidation." From your post Friday July 19, 2002 6:16 PM
Dipping can reveal what has been hidden or impaired under a layer of toning.
Here is one more for you:
"THEREFORE any coin that can come out brilliant and lusterous after being dipped is probably better than 95% of all other examples in the first place..." From your post Tuesday July 23, 2002 12:21 AM
And based on the other two statements this means that this brilliants and luster was somewhat hidden or impaired (but not destroyed) by the toning and the the reflectivity and luster was improved when the toning was removed.
Iwog, now you can debate with yourself what you truly believe.
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 might be weird but I don't talk out of both sides of my mouth. It seems that sometime between July of 2002 and now you've changed your tune about what dipping can and cannot do.
Actually your real problem is that you make EXTREME statements in order to make a point and when you're challenged on those statements and shown to be wrong (in this case by your own words) rather than show some maturity and admit that you mis-spoke you either resort to negative characterizations or drop out of sight.
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
pmh, when you seek to simplify an issue, you are seeking to understand it.
When you seek to complicate the issue with a mountain of irrelevant garbage, you're only seeking to obscure the truth. I'll attempt (again) to simplify it.
#1 You said that dipping can restore luster, this is WRONG. #2 Everyone knows that toning can hide defects/luster/reflectivity. This has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I said that a hot/cold differential can be measured under the color, and you cannot contradict this. #3 Grading services don't take luster into account when grading coins. If they did, coins with zero luster would never be in slabs.
Try to keep things in context next time.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
1. You first statement is parsing words. Dipping removes impairments to luster improving/restoring WHAT YOU CAN SEE with respect to the coins luster. Grading is about what you can see. If removing superficial toning improves the reflectivity of the coin it is restoring luster.
2. Since what you can see regarding cold and hot differential is affected by toning toning DOES have something to do with this discussion.
3. This is another example of your taking things to the extreme. Grading services absolutely consider luster in the overall grade of a coin BUT they also consider the affects of toning on the eye appeal of a coin. The toning may subdue the luster (affect the reflectivity of light off the flow lines) but the additional eye appeal may offset any detraction in grade due to the subduing of the luster by the toning.
Iwog, keep talking. It's my best source of ammo in countering your prior statements.
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 buy the MS65 coin. The wash-out dull coin I wouldn't have in my collection. I do like lightly toned coins as long as it does not impair the luster.
It's difficult to address your parsing of words comment without you being specific. I was specific in pointing out your errors and parsing of words. Rather than making vague accusations tell me exactly how I've parsed words so I can address those issues directly.
I'm dealing with what can be seen when you look at a coin (that's how coins are graded) and changes in what you see if you dip a coin. You may want to try to divert the discussion and cover-up your mis-statements and errors by changing the discussion from how coins are graded (based on what you see) and what affect toning has on luster (impairing it) and the affect dipping can have on coins (improving/restoring luster) by interjecting issues that don't have an bearing on the overall discussion (luster being the reflectivity of light at an angle of the flow lines...duh, tell us something we don't know). That tactic might work if this was the kindergarden numismatic crowd but not here.
The bottom line is the extreme statements you made are incorrect. The grading service consider luster along with many other issues in determining a grade. Luster can (out of you own mouth) be improved (what you see) by removing impairments to luster.
O.K. be specific. Give some examples of where I've parsed words.
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
Actually your reaction to a thread about grading and luster reminds me of a wounded animal. It happens every time I dare say that toning causes damage. Oh well, life goes on. The rest of your post is kinda non-sequitur to what I wrote so I'll ignore it.
Certification services regularly ignore luster when grading a coin and they shouldn't. I've proved it. Thank you for your time.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
It seems that any time a post brings to light your errors and misstatements it becomes non-sequitur. The discussion was about luster and your misstatements about luster and how the grading services consider luster in grading a coin. I could cut and paste what you said and highlight the errors and contradictory statements you've made but why rehash the old when it seems that every time you post you continue down the same path.
Here is another example:
"Certification services regularly ignore luster when grading a coin."
The only basis you have for making that statement is your very limited experience (what have you seen, 0.001% of all the graded coins?) and your particular bias against toned coins in general. The services may not give the weight to luster that you feel is due it but they don't regularly "ignore" luster in determining a grade.
Your other misstatements and exaggerations are documented above. Take some time to review them. While you're at it look up the definition of the words regularly and ignore. You also seem to need some remedial instruction on the definition of damage.
BTW, you mischaracterize my reaction. It's more like the reaction of a father who is dissappointed in a child that continues the same bad behavior after having been corrected on numerous occassions .
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
Comments
What kind of parsing of words is that? The magnitude of the luster is dependent on the reflectivity of the those flow lines. Toning diminishes the reflectivity of the flow lines but does not necessarily destroying the flow lines and hence affects luster. My point is valid and no amount of parsing of the words is going to validate your the erroneous statements that "toning affects the reflectivity of the coin by destroying it" and "toning cannot affect the hot and cold luster test because it darkens the entire coin." Your first statement is wrong as a matter of degree and your second statement is just wrong.
<< <i>Pmh, you're not making points. Without meaning to be insulting, I don't think you know what luster is. >>
I would not say that to my worst enemy on this forum!
I know what luster is. The sad thing is you know what it is too but rather than admit that the statements that you made were wrong you continue to parse words in and attempt to turn the discussion on it's head.
You made the blanket statement that toning destroys flow lines. I correct you by saying toning doesn't necessarily "destroy" flow lines but can impair their reflectivity. Proof of that are toned coins which exhibit cartwheel luster. I'm right, you're wrong.
You said there aren't limits in how much you can restore luster because luster can't be restored at all. I said that removing toning that hasn't worked its way deeply into the surface of the coin can restore the reflectivity of flow, the result being the restoration of the coins luster. I never said you could restore the coin to its full original luster. Again, I'm correct and you're wrong.
The real irony here is that by your own admission you have dipped coins to remove superficial toning in order to restore luster (improve the reflectivity of flow lines) and yet you continue to stand by your obviously erroneous statements.
<< <i>Jeeez man, you honestly think this is a contradiction? >>
<< <i>Pmh, you're not making points. Without meaning to be insulting, I don't think you know what luster is. >>
You are being purposely obtuse. Is that an inherited quality or is it something you created yourself? I think PMH's point was right on so why do you continue this arguement?
jom
Yes pmh, I dip coins all the time. I'm a silver collector, not a silver sulfide collector. If I wanted to collect silver sulfide, I'd buy it in bulk at the chemical supply store.
Meow.
I'm sure Englehard appreciates your business.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
I think most people agree on the following:
(1) Toning can impair the eye appeal of a coin
(2) In some cases, toning can be removed to improved the appearance of a coin.
[these at least should not be controversial?)
I need help with the next ones, but perhaps:
(3) Light toning may not seriously impact the flow lines, so that it spite of toning, there is underlying luster.
(4) Carefully dipping such a coin can removed the toning without removing enough silver to seriously impair the flow lines, making the luster more apparent, and therefore making the coin more attractive.
How did I do?
Go away. We're having too much fun bickering over nonsense. Wouldn't want it to end.
Doggedly collecting coins of the Central American Republic.
Visit the Society of US Pattern Collectors at USPatterns.com.
You didn't mediate you restated the things I said.
Iwog
"Yes pmh, I dip coins all the time. I'm a silver collector, not a silver sulfide collector"
And what changes in the appearance of the coin do you see after you dip those coins?
Since you didn't answer I'll answer for you using your own words:
"While dipping oxidation off a coin cannot return it to absolute originality, it CAN give back a freshly minted appearance and reveal its reflectivity and luster." From your post on Thursday July 18, 2002 2:55 PM
Yes, dipping can removing light toning to reveal a coins reflectivity and luster, reflectivity and luster that was hided or impaired by the toning. In simple language that means dipping reveals reflectivity and luster that is hidden or impaired by toning.
Here is another one of your post that validates my statements:
"#2 dipping can only reveal what's under the layer of oxidation." From your post Friday July 19, 2002 6:16 PM
Dipping can reveal what has been hidden or impaired under a layer of toning.
Here is one more for you:
"THEREFORE any coin that can come out brilliant and lusterous after being dipped is probably better than 95% of all other examples in the first place..." From your post Tuesday July 23, 2002 12:21 AM
And based on the other two statements this means that this brilliants and luster was somewhat hidden or impaired (but not destroyed) by the toning and the the reflectivity and luster was improved when the toning was removed.
Iwog, now you can debate with yourself what you truly believe.
Actually your real problem is that you make EXTREME statements in order to make a point and when you're challenged on those statements and shown to be wrong (in this case by your own words) rather than show some maturity and admit that you mis-spoke you either resort to negative characterizations or drop out of sight.
When you seek to complicate the issue with a mountain of irrelevant garbage, you're only seeking to obscure the truth. I'll attempt (again) to simplify it.
#1 You said that dipping can restore luster, this is WRONG.
#2 Everyone knows that toning can hide defects/luster/reflectivity. This has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I said that a hot/cold differential can be measured under the color, and you cannot contradict this.
#3 Grading services don't take luster into account when grading coins. If they did, coins with zero luster would never be in slabs.
Try to keep things in context next time.
1. You first statement is parsing words. Dipping removes impairments to luster improving/restoring WHAT YOU CAN SEE with respect to the coins luster. Grading is about what you can see. If removing superficial toning improves the reflectivity of the coin it is restoring luster.
2. Since what you can see regarding cold and hot differential is affected by toning toning DOES have something to do with this discussion.
3. This is another example of your taking things to the extreme. Grading services absolutely consider luster in the overall grade of a coin BUT they also consider the affects of toning on the eye appeal of a coin. The toning may subdue the luster (affect the reflectivity of light off the flow lines) but the additional eye appeal may offset any detraction in grade due to the subduing of the luster by the toning.
Iwog, keep talking. It's my best source of ammo in countering your prior statements.
Overland Trail Collection Showcase
Dahlonega Type Set-2008 PCGS Best Exhibited Set
Extreme is grading a coin MS66 when it has no luster. Nothing I said is extreme.
It's difficult to address your parsing of words comment without you being specific. I was specific in pointing out your errors and parsing of words. Rather than making vague accusations tell me exactly how I've parsed words so I can address those issues directly.
I'm dealing with what can be seen when you look at a coin (that's how coins are graded) and changes in what you see if you dip a coin. You may want to try to divert the discussion and cover-up your mis-statements and errors by changing the discussion from how coins are graded (based on what you see) and what affect toning has on luster (impairing it) and the affect dipping can have on coins (improving/restoring luster) by interjecting issues that don't have an bearing on the overall discussion (luster being the reflectivity of light at an angle of the flow lines...duh, tell us something we don't know). That tactic might work if this was the kindergarden numismatic crowd but not here.
The bottom line is the extreme statements you made are incorrect. The grading service consider luster along with many other issues in determining a grade. Luster can (out of you own mouth) be improved (what you see) by removing impairments to luster.
O.K. be specific. Give some examples of where I've parsed words.
Certification services regularly ignore luster when grading a coin and they shouldn't. I've proved it. Thank you for your time.
It seems that any time a post brings to light your errors and misstatements it becomes non-sequitur. The discussion was about luster and your misstatements about luster and how the grading services consider luster in grading a coin. I could cut and paste what you said and highlight the errors and contradictory statements you've made but why rehash the old when it seems that every time you post you continue down the same path.
Here is another example:
"Certification services regularly ignore luster when grading a coin."
The only basis you have for making that statement is your very limited experience (what have you seen, 0.001% of all the graded coins?) and your particular bias against toned coins in general. The services may not give the weight to luster that you feel is due it but they don't regularly "ignore" luster in determining a grade.
Your other misstatements and exaggerations are documented above. Take some time to review them. While you're at it look up the definition of the words regularly and ignore. You also seem to need some remedial instruction on the definition of damage.
BTW, you mischaracterize my reaction. It's more like the reaction of a father who is dissappointed in a child that continues the same bad behavior after having been corrected on numerous occassions
Even the best most thought out and logical argument loses credibility when the speaker refuses to own up to a misstatement.