Options
In theory, at what grade does a coin HAVE to have luster remaining?
llafoe
Posts: 7,220 ✭✭
Is it possible for an MS coin to have NO luster? An AU coin? An XF coin?
WANTED: Cincinnati Reds TEAM Cards
0
Comments
and should get a genuine sticker.
Camelot
EAC 6024
<< <i>For myself, its always going to be AU50. >>
That makes the most sense based on the grading naming convention... but you'd think one grade below would almost have to have some luster remaining?
EAC 6024
<< <i>True, but the question asked "have to" have luster. >>
I know what the question asked... I wrote the question (and invented the internet too)!
EAC 6024
<< <i>A MS coin must have luster, or it is over dipped out
and should get a genuine sticker. >>
A few years ago, I was offered (and rejected) an 1893S Morgan dollar graded MS60. It had a weak strike, absolutely NO luster, and was a battleship gray color. Surprisingly, it was essentially mark-free on both sides.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
Conventional wisdom is not correct in every case, I'm sure...
Lance.
<< <i>50. By definition. >>
Not correct by PCGS published ANA standards. The correct answer IMO is EF-45.
AU-50 - (About Uncirculated) - With traces of wear on nearly all of the highest areas. At least half of the original mint luster is present.
EF-45 - (Choice Extremely Fine) - With light overall wear on the coin's highest points. All design details are very sharp. Mint luster is usually seen only in protected areas of the coin's surface.
EF-40 - (Extremely Fine) - With only slight wear but more extensive than the preceding, still with excellent overall sharpness. Traces of mint luster may still show.
I'm going to bet that someone will look at the wording above and argue differently. Still, I could say the sky is blue and get arguments here, so it would be no surprise.
<< <i>
<< <i>50. By definition. >>
Not correct by PCGS published ANA standards. The correct answer IMO is EF-45.
AU-50 - (About Uncirculated) - With traces of wear on nearly all of the highest areas. At least half of the original mint luster is present.
EF-45 - (Choice Extremely Fine) - With light overall wear on the coin's highest points. All design details are very sharp. Mint luster is usually seen only in protected areas of the coin's surface.
EF-40 - (Extremely Fine) - With only slight wear but more extensive than the preceding, still with excellent overall sharpness. Traces of mint luster may still show.
I'm going to bet that someone will look at the wording above and argue differently. Still, I could say the sky is blue and get arguments here, so it would be no surprise. >>
I picked XF45... but from the standards above, AU50 is clear "At least half of the original mint luster is present." while XF45 isn't as clear "Mint luster is usually seen only in protected areas of the coin's surface." Is it possible for at least half of the original mint luster to dissapear one grade lower (AU50 to XF45)? I doubt it. I'm still happy with my vote for XF45.
I have seen some in higher grades that got in holders without it.
<< <i>
<< <i>50. By definition. >>
Not correct by PCGS published ANA standards. The correct answer IMO is EF-45.
AU-50 - (About Uncirculated) - With traces of wear on nearly all of the highest areas. At least half of the original mint luster is present.
EF-45 - (Choice Extremely Fine) - With light overall wear on the coin's highest points. All design details are very sharp. Mint luster is usually seen only in protected areas of the coin's surface.
EF-40 - (Extremely Fine) - With only slight wear but more extensive than the preceding, still with excellent overall sharpness. Traces of mint luster may still show.
I'm going to bet that someone will look at the wording above and argue differently. Still, I could say the sky is blue and get arguments here, so it would be no surprise. >>
I think your answer supports my answer, which is that a 50 must have luster, and a 45 might.
I have seen many PCGS coins graded EF-45 (correctly IMO) that did not have any luster remaining. I have also seen many PCGS coins graded EF-40 (again, correctly IMO) that actually had some luster remaining.
I personally would not accept a coin with a grade of AU that did not have any luster remaining.
Joe.
<< <i>I pulled out the "PCGS Guide to Coin Grading and Counterfeit Detection" (First Edition) to check. According to the authors, luster must be present on AU50 and higher. An XF45 coin can have zero luster. >>
Dang it! I got my own quiz wrong!
<< <i>An MS60 coin can have no luster so long as it has no wear. >>
How can a coin with no wear lose its luster?
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>An MS60 coin can have no luster so long as it has no wear. >>
How can a coin with no wear lose its luster? >>
Dip, dip, dip. My grandmother gave me a gem BU 1917 Standing Liberty quarter about 40-45 years ago. It had a little bit of mottled toning that I didn't like, so I bought a bottle of a coin dip and thought that half a dozen extended dips should do the trick. I was correct---the coin is now white, but has absolutely zero luster. It sits in my Dansco 7070 album as a memorial to my stupidity.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
<< <i>Ill bet the two guys who voted MS65 are difficult customers to deal with...... >>
Bruce thinks the grading scale begins at MS65!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>An MS60 coin can have no luster so long as it has no wear. >>
How can a coin with no wear lose its luster? >>
Dip, dip, dip. My grandmother gave me a gem BU 1917 Standing Liberty quarter about 40-45 years ago. It had a little bit of mottled toning that I didn't like, so I bought a bottle of a coin dip and thought that half a dozen extended dips should do the trick. I was correct---the coin is now white, but has absolutely zero luster. It sits in my Dansco 7070 album as a memorial to my stupidity. >>
Bad example. Harshly cleaned (over dipping to the point where the surfaces are totally destroyed) is no longer MS60.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>I can visualize an AU50 w/ no luster - so I said AU55 >>
Me too. But I figured at AU53 is where luster needs to be there. While we're used to seeing coins from VF to XF45 often having luster, it doesn't mean they have to have it.
This was a "theoretical" question, not necessarily how is it defined in a grading guide, or what do the grading services do in reality, or what do knowledgeable collectors demand?
If an otherwise gem coin was acid dipped enough, that would be a perfect candidate for an AU55 to AU58 "no luster" coin, especially if it toned deeply over those stripped surfaces.
And in the market such a coin would probably trade for AU58 money rather than XF40 money where a coin doesn't technically have to have luster.
One can a very sharply AU50 detailed coin where the luster is just gone. Maybe it was subjected to an environment where the toning took all the remaining luster out?
The 1970's and 1980's were littered with "unc" coins that had no wear and also no luster. Many chemicals can remove all traces of luster and still leave a coin with no wear. While
technically those are unc because of no wear, they are also worth a fraction of the unc price. Back in those days most wanted their XF coins to have traces of luster. These days
those same XF coins have been pushed up into the AU category.
AU-50 - (About Uncirculated) - With traces of wear on nearly all of the highest areas. At least half of the original mint luster is present.
I wish most TPG graded AU50 coins had 50% luster or that only "traces" of wear appear. The norm is probably closer to 10-25%. I think the B&D grading book requires that all
18th and 17th century type coins have a full rim and denticles to grade "good." We can all dream it were so. While not the norm, if I had a dollar for every AU50 graded coin that
had no luster I'd be doing pretty well. And I think the further you go back (such as early bust material) the more likely you will find something like this. Heck, I had an 1803 half
dime graded AU58 and it had about 15% luster left. No doubt it had been dipped and stripped a few times in its lift. But the detail was very sharp and close to unc. I can only
imagine how little luster an AU50 1803 half dime would need to have.....3%....2%...1%? Fwiw that AU58 half dime was later upgraded to MS62 by the next owner.
But personally, I want my AU50 coins to have obvious luster at least in the devices. And in many instances, the XF45 should have some hidden luster as well.
roadrunner