Luster questions, please help

MikeKing

ok I Understand that after a few strikes, when the die flow lines form...which is actually a 'defect' therefore in the metal, the basis of cartwheel luster as we know it, is formed.
ok, so what about proof coinage. These are mirrors. Light is reflected. There should be no cartwheel luster, but would you even describe it as luster? rather than 'reflection'?
So to in the case of a new die, or a used die that has been repolished, the first few struck because the metal flow lines haven't formed, isn't this proof-like i.e. it doesn't do cartwheel, it's reflective. Therefore there is no luster, you're looking at proof like fields.
Now I know not all luster is cartweel luster, satiny, subdued luster....things like that. No?
How would you answer these question?
Michael

I mean, no matter how bright and shiny a coin is, luster is shiny but not all shininess is luster. Luster is rolling, it does cartwheels (using the Morgan Dollar as the standard for this phenonenon).

Please contribute your ideas.

MikeKing

anybody???

DNADave

I'm not sure I understand the question.

MikeKing

I guess it distills down to this: if a coin is a proof, a matte proof or a proof-like, is it proper to conclude that there is NO luster. And if so or if not, why?

CarlWohlforth

Most proof coins don't have luster. The looks is often described as deeply reflective, mirror like or watery. Modern proofs have great mirrors as do many Seated and Barber proofs. Mercury dimes and Walkers usually don't have great mirrors. If you have a proof Mercury dime with no striations or flow lines that has deeply reflective, mirror like fields I would pay a premium for it.

Subdued luster is a coin that has a bit of luster, but not that much. Cartwheel luster describes the strong luster that is often found on Morgan Dollars. However some Morgans are Proof Like. These have subdued luster. Some Morgans are Deep Mirror Proof Like. These have no luster and the fields reflect like a mirror.

People who describe a Morgan certified as DMPL as being lustrous are misusing the term. People who describe a raw Morgan as lustrous and DMPL may be misusing the term but I always assume the coin has luster and is not DMPL.

mgoodm3

Some proof do have luster, esp. early ones. In the early proofs, it's more of a die state issue. EDS typically have strong mirrors and little luster. later states show some luster, like the 82 below. Matte proofs can have luster, but I think that it's more related to the textured fields rather than die state.

IGWT

I tend to think of luster as the degree of reflectivity, or brightness, as opposed to way that light reflects off the coin. Proofs have luster, it's just that the light is not typically diffused by flow lines, so the fields resemble mirrors. Don't confuse "luster" with just one kind of reflection, e.g., cartwheels or coruscation.

curly

Brother....that is some '14.