STRIKE....or.....LUSTER ?? ..... poll

topstuf

Which is MOST important to you? "BOTH" of course, but looking for ....preference....in this poll.

eyoung429

IMHO- you can have an excellent strike but major defects ---ie hits,chatter,scratches.....but the luster of a coin is what I like to see.

topstuf

For purposes of the poll (whatever they are) let's assume no DAMAGE.....just honest wear.

Shamika

In general, I like luster. But with Buffalo nickels (my primary interest), I look for strike as it is often poor.

AuldFartte

I'll take strike over luster every day for pre-1960's coins.

Iwog

I'll favor any attribute I can see from across the bourse aisle over one that takes a magnifying glass any day.

nwcs

Luster nearly always wins for me.

prooflike

A year ago I would have voted luster, but recently I have been appreciating the strike of a coin more than the luster, and I have had an interest in 19th century circulated coins with eye appeal... go figure!

mgoodm3

Strike, i think, is what draws me to proofs. They certainly don't have much luster.

wallstreetman

Nothing worse than a dull coin!

topstuf

Case in point. Sorry it took so long to post, but got busy.

mgoodm3

I'd take the '05.

Iwog

Not a good comparisson since there isn't much luster on either coin and the 07 is cleaned.

topstuf

NGC sez it ain't cleaned. The 1807 is notorious for weak strike but a good comparison for our purposes. The BEST 1807 will usually look poor (for details) compared to an 05 or 06, but it may have terrific luster.

rkfish

for MS coins......luster


I'll favor any attribute I can see from across the bourse aisle over one that takes a magnifying glass any day.

Iwog

NGC doesn't say if the coin is cleaned or not, they grade dipped coins all the time. They will body bag if the coin shows signs of abrasive cleaning.

solid

I chose luster as the overriding factor for me, but it's never just that simple.

For coins that have at least an average strike, luster is more important to me. All other
things being equal, I would choose a highly lusterous average strike coin over a well-struck
dull coin.

On the other hand, poor strikes really bug me on some series. In those cases, I may well
choose the well-struck dull coin over a poorly struck lusterous example.

Ken

anablep

Luster...
Its what attracts me to those shiny round metal things!!

numonebuyer

You guys are not making fare comparisons.

Someone put up a coin with great luster and crappy strike. Someone else put up a coin with great strike and crappy luster.

Once this has happened then we can talk.

merz2

topstuf
While I believe luster is important,I believe "strike " is more impostant.The hits eyoung mentions is another mayyer altogether.IMHO

topstuf

Sure, me too. ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL, I would also want luster. Who wouldn't? But that argument states that for "luster" to be the overriding factor, then the coins must have an "average" strike.

Which.......then makes the question moot, as making the strikes equal obviates the choice.

The question is: If things are UNEQUAL, which coin do you want? Strike or luster?

tjkillian

Strike does it for me, far more than luster.

Tom

Cratylus

Since I prefer the "dirty" looking XF coins in the series I collect, I'll take strike over luster any day. Now on MS coins, that's another story.

EVillageProwler

In general, PCGS, NGC and ANACS gives more weight to luster over strike. By far. There will be exceptions to this, but few.

As for me, I generally choose luster over marks as well as strike. By far over strike and by a little over marks. Of course, I'm speaking in generalities.

EVP

mojorizn

I collect buffalo Nickels & Flying Eagle Cents....STRIKE!! Duh!

mojo

caitlin

With Buffalo Nickels it would have to be strike.

roadrunner

Without luster you don't have an UNC coin. So for circs it's strike and for UNC's you must have luster. I'm not a fan of sharply struck dull/cleaned coins.

Pretty much agree with EVP.

roadrunner