MS 65 / Great luster........ or lack of marks?

Bustman

I tend to like my gems clean of marks. I'll take a slightly subdued luster coin with ultra clean surfaces everytime. While some can handle a few fairly major hits as long as the luster glows like it was minted yesterday. Whats your preference?

ccrdragon

Clean and glowing!

FinallyHere

Bustman,

I tend to almost always weigh luster a great deal in the grade equation. I'll take a few more marks, provided they are what I would expect and in keeping with the grade assigned and they are not in a major focal area. If such is the case, I'll take a few minor marks to get superb luster, skin and frost.

Mike Printz

Bustman

Mike,
I thought you might feel that way.

cladking

My primary concern is always strike. There's a minimum level of luster and
a maximum number of marks, but to me if a coin lacks much of its detail it
may as well be in fine condition.

FinallyHere

John,

I bet that PM get's your undies in a bundle.....

Mike

FC57Coins

Eye appeal wise an MS65 has to have bold to medium luster. A coin without luster of some sort in my mind would not qualify as GEM status. The same applies to the number of marks and strike level. I don't necessarily agree with a non-fully struck coin making MS65. It seems that if the strike isn't complete, then the coin isn't complete, but then that's an argument onto itself. As for marks, in my mind, if you look at a coin with the naked eye and it looks clean, and you say to yourself - man - this should be an MS66, then you look at it under a 10X loupe and see a few minor dings and maybe one that sticks out a little bit more - then you're on solid MS65 ground as long as the strike, luster, and eye appeal factors are there as well.

1907Quarter

luster rules!

dorkkarl

neither. strike & originality are both ahead of luster / marks for me.

K S

tjkillian

<< <i>My primary concern is always strike. There's a minimum level of luster and a maximum number of marks, but to me if a coin lacks much of its detail it may as well be in fine condition. >>



My opinion exactly! Well said.

Tom

clackamas

I am scared, I agree with the Dork, at least mostly. I hate "GEMS" with weak strikes, in fact I don't believe if a coin has a weak strike it can be a GEM, yet you see them all the time in PCGS holders. The next part I like is surface preservation, e.g. no major marks in focal areas.

Russ

<< <i>A coin without luster of some sort in my mind would not qualify as GEM status. >>



I agree with Frank. On white coins, I think there should be an obvious cartwheel and plenty of luster to grade 65 or higher. Looking at some of the coins in PCGS and NGC holders, it appears that the grading services don't necessarily concur.

Russ, NCNE

dorkkarl

<< <i>I am scared, I agree with the Dork >>

hey!!!

K S

Stuart

I agree with Frank (FC57Coins) on technical grading of luster, strike and marks.

In answer to your question about which I prefer -- I'll take strong mint luster and put up with a few marks as long as they are not a major distraction from the entire coin.

A an example, please see a recent addition to my collection below, which as a PCGS MS-63PL 1878-CC.

It's got some bagmarks on Miss Liberty's cheek as you'd expect on an MS-63 -- but I purchased the coin for the PL fields and the strongly contrasting snow-like cameo white devices.

TWQG

Luster, strike, and surfaces in that order.

To me luster has always seemed like the most fragile part of a coin. It was also the last attribute for me to understand and appreciate.

Luster rules!

dorkkarl

<< <i>To me luster has always seemed like the most fragile part of a coin >>

not me, originality is.

K S

Baley

For me, it's a balance, like a fine wine. It also depends on the coin type, for some I want a sharp strike and booming luster, and can deal with a mark or two. For others I want a mark-free surface, possibly at the expense of a perfect strike and/or luster. Original "looking" surfaces are always nice.

Bustman

I started this thread because I had a coin sent to me ( 1909-s vdb) in 65 red. The coin had fantastic luster, great red color with no spots, but a series ( 2 or 3) fairly large hits on the shoulder ( visible w/o magnification) and a few more small hits visible on the cheek and forehead when using a 7x loupe. The reverse was clean except for a few hairlines visible only under magnification. I had a real hard time passing on this coin because of its ourstanding luster, however I just could not live with all the hits. Went with my gut feeling....and my preference....but what a beautiful coin. Someone else will be very happy with it.

dorkkarl

bingo! your holding out for what you really, really like. that's the right way to do it.

K S

clackamas

Specifically with Lincoln's PCGS will allow a hit, even visible hits (very minor) in a major focal area in a 67RD holder provided the rest of the coin is fantastic. Shoulder hits may be "as struck" since many times metal shavings get caught up in the dies. Shoulder hits visible to the unaided eye are allowed for 65RD and even 66RD provided the rest of the coin (color, strike, luster, etc) are of superb GEM quality. From my experience don't even look through a loupe with Lincolns unless you are looking at 67RD's or better. There will be hits on a 65RD, or the coin will have no luster, weak strike and be perfect under a loupe.

If you are not happy with the coin sell it, there are tons of 09-S VDB's for sale and paying $10k for a coin you are not happy with should not be something you do.

The 09-S VDB's are well struck as a group so the strike is not usually an issue, the luster also does not seem to vary much as well ( there are some boomers) but these are in 66RD holders (or better). Basically I think you probably have a low end (to you) 65 and should either return it or sell it and get something you will be happy with.

puff

FinallyHere

Ed,

If you're going to quote me, get the right quote. I'll get that photo to ya as soon as possible......promise. Donna is out for a week and Larry and I are having to fend for ourselves........COME BACK DONNA!!!!!

Mike Printz

barberlover

To me their are to different definitions of a "gem" which by the word "gem" I always mean a minumum of mint state 65.

1. A coin that meets the minumum standard for a 65 from the grading services which often involves a coin that is technically clean enough to be called 65, but is weekly struck, dipped & lifeless with either a rub in appearance to the luster or broken luster in the fields. To me even if cabinet friction or the like really exist wear is wear and to me it's no different then an au 58 pulled from circulation even if the surfaces are technically clean enough.

2. My defenition of a 65 is a coin that has 0 bagmarks and only a few light scattered ticks that are visible to the nacked eye but not large or distracting, few if any hairlines, a decent strike, but it doesn't have to be razor sharp to be considered as a 65, and to be a gem the coin has to have 0 rub and no brakes in the luster in the unprotected areas. I also prefer original color over dipped white, but that actually has nothing to do with the technical grade.

Les

puff

<< <i>Ed,

If you're going to quote me, get the right quote. I'll get that photo to ya as soon as possible......promise. Donna is out for a week and Larry and I are having to fend for ourselves........COME BACK DONNA!!!!!

Mike Printz >>



SORRY ABOUT THAT MIKE!!!
HAVE A GREAT WEEKEND! Ed