What causes coins to not have luster?

tjkillian

I have an 1880 Indian cent I bought raw from Liberty Coins in Signal Hill, CA that was advertised as MS-65Brown. It looked great when I bought it as it was FULLY struck and very few blemishes to be found anywhere. I sent it to PCGS and they graded it MS-63Brown.

Now, the coin is free from luster, i.e. it has no luster at all. What causes a coin not to have luster, yet is extremely well-struck?

cinman14

Environment?... Global warming?

Kdog08

Not sure...but I love the fact that the carpet matches the toning!

CopperWire

In the case of your cent, the interaction between the metal and the environment has caused toning.

ambro51

I can tell you in the case of 1874 gold dollars overuse of the dies diminished luster to the degree that a counterfeit of that date is apparant because it HAS luster.

MisterBungle

The coin doesn't have luster, or it doesn't
have a cartwheel effect??

The coin looks to have luster, protected
around the devices.

~

tjkillian

<< <i>The coin doesn't have luster, or it doesn't have a cartwheel effect?? The coin looks to have luster, protected around the devices. ~ >>




I cannot detect any luster at all, even traces of luster. I'm guessing it was struck from very fresh dies with full force on a fairly nice planchet, sort of like a proof coin has no luster either.

coinlieutenant

toning will do it....

coolest

Luster is caused by the way light reflects from the flow-lines on a "die" struck metal surface.

I think the "intensity" of the flow-lines are proportional to the amount of luster.

When a coin is struck there are many factors that effect the quality of the flow lines (die state, planchet state and composition, strike force)

Also after a coin is issued into circulation their are many environmental factors that determine how well the luster will be preserved.

Since flow-lines are very small and on the surface they of course are the first part of the coin to be oxidized resulting in the diminishment of luster.

When coins are dipped it is these flow-lines that are most significantly effected, by being chemically dissolved.

BillJones

Coins lack luster for these reasons:

- Wear
- Tied coin dies
- Dipped too much or improperly
- Toning that has destroyed the luster on the original surface
- Cleaned
- Improper storage

In general copper coins lose their luster faster than silver gold coins do. BUT high grade (MS-64+) copper coins should have full luster. The coin you bought was not an MS-65 becasue it did not have the luster required for the grade.

cladking

A better question might be what causes a coin to have luster. Some
don't right off the dies.

But this isn't typical for US coins so most without luster probably lost
it to one enviromental factor or another.

Colorfulcoins

Technically looks like a VERY nice MS63! Ouch...

lathmach

As you stated tjkillian, it was struck from new dies.
Luster comes from the radial lines that dies develop from striking wear.

Ray

cladking

<< <i>As you stated tjkillian, it was struck from new dies.
Luster comes from the radial lines that dies develop from striking wear.
>>



Even PL coins from brand new dies will have luster. It is a more subdued kind of luster but they are certainly shiny.

TwoSides2aCoin

The only Mint State coins I know that lost luster are the Langbord pieces.

JungleFever

<< <i>Not sure...but I love the fact that the carpet matches the toning! >>



I'm pretty sure that's the top chameleon IHC in existance......

Steve27

That coin has no luster due to the oxidation (i.e. toning).

howards

<< <i>

Even PL coins from brand new dies will have luster. It is a more subdued kind of luster but they are certainly shiny. >>



I disagree with the above statement.

Luster is caused by flow lines on a die which are imparted to a coin. The flow lines are created as the die is used (metal flow occurs in both the die and the coin). A brand new die should not have flow lines. Instead of luster, a new die will impart mirrored fields.

Walmann

Fondling coins can also remove luster.

keets

luster is caused by the metal flow as a coin is struck and there's little doubt that your coin did display good luster at one time since you descibe it as well struck. the luster was simply covered/removed as the copper toned from bright red to brown. it happens with all coins as they tone, the luster will eventually not be visible when the tone gets heavy enough. remember, visible luster depends on light reflection which is inhibited by toning.

darktone

My first thought was that coin was dipped and retoned- probably trying to get rid of that spot. I really don't see it as a 65. I think PCGS got the 63brown grade right on. Here's an Indian cent with original luster to show some that might view this thread what it looks like on an Indian cent.

Fairlaneman

"the luster will eventually not be visible when the tone gets heavy enough."

I have a rough time going along with this statement. Luster does not disappear because of tone. It may be harder to see but the luster is still there if you take a good look.

Ken

tjkillian

I have many brown indian cents that are very lusterous, grading all the way to MS-65BN in my case. I've seen a great many heavily toned coins that had significant luster. Heck, I have an 1814 dime in a PCGS AU-58 holder that is half way to being black, yet you can see extensive luster.

I've seen, of course, proof indian cents that were fully red, and they had not luster, but that is normal for proofs.

I am wondering if there is a relationship between early dies or how well a coin is struck to the amount of luster. By the way, the indian cent that I posted was taken with a digital camera and not a scanner to show the luster.

darktone

I know what you mean- like finding shield nickels or three cent nickels with nice luster. I think like you said the new dies and striking pressure have a lot to do with it. Or using proof dies to strike business strikes.