Must a coin have lustre to be Mint State?

ajaan

or Uncirculated?

leothelyon

No.

DaveWcoins

yes

LindeDad

Depends on how one defines Mint State or Uncirculated.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

georgiacop50

yes

Kove

To get in a problem-free holder, yes.

If you don't mind an UNC details holder, then, no.

BustHalfBrian

Not if it's covered with toning

lcoopie

Yes

roadrunner

Yes. And that doesn't mean bust coins in MS61 and MS62 holders with 10-25% luster are necessarily "mint state" either.

But from a market grading perspective, the amount of luster needed to make a MS60/61 grade decreases as you go back in time. A 20th century coin essentially needs 98-99% luster. A 1790's to 1807 bust coin could get the MS61 grade with as little as 10-15% luster. And then you have everything else in between. Toning plays no role other than to make the luster more difficult to see. As long as the luster can be seen, that's all that matters for an unc grade.

Type2

No!!!!! Some coins come from the mint this way. Some don't even need to be all there. You see this in a lot of Cents, Buffalo's, Dimes, V-Nickel's, Jefferson's and Dollars some others as well. But if it has all Luster, Strike, not in that order but has it you will rec a higher grade for a eye appealing coin. Here are two to look at just for fun.

cmerlo1

No. Wear is what determines circulated/uncirculated, IMO. I've seen plenty of coins in MS grades in TPG holders that are total duds when it comes to luster.

roadrunner

But if the luster is gone isn't that "wear" of the very highest layer of the coin's metal? Can you say that the luster flow lines are not part of the coin's wearable surfaces?

One high point of the coin that most always gets overlooked are the flat rims. Those often begin to show "wear" on 19th century type coins at around the MS63-MS65 level. I've always though that luster removal was the very first sign of wear.

Wear alone cannot always discern mint state from almost uncirculated as there are plenty of heavily rubbed coins in TPG holders that graded MS63-64. I see this often enough on choice "unc" seated coins where there is heavy rubbing on Miss Liberty's right leg not from striking (ie the plateau effect) yet 95-98% the rest of the coin has full mint luster. These are basically "gems" with rub and they often grade MS63-MS64. MS61-65 Capped bust halves often show this same feature but it is called "stacking friction" there. It's really a mixed bag to try and separate the rub/wear/luster/strike/stacking friction issue. No clear cut winners here.

BillJones

Yes.

Dull coins with no mint luster no longer have their original skin in any form and are therefore not Mint State. If the coin is toned, the mint luster must show through the toning.

Baley

I don't consider the terms "mint state" and "uncirculated" to be interchangeable, and consider both of them widely misused because of the binary nature of coin-grading cut-offs.

A coin without luster can be uncirculated. But to be Mint State, it must have full luster, IMO.

scubafuel

I think the "Uncirculated" designation need to go away. Some coins have more wear/exposure to elements/imperfections than others, and those coins should grade lower. But to suddenly have a cutoff in the grading continuum where people start saying a coin has never circulated just confuses people and prices.

ajaan

I too, feel the term 'Uncirculated' is really not correct. 'No wear" is more appropriate. If I get a brand new 2015 cent from a store, a coin taken right out of the Mint, the coin has been 'circulated' but probably will have no wear. So I guess Mint State is the best term.

stman

I've often wondered when I sell a coin to a dealer he calls it rub. When I buy he calls it stacking friction.

BillJones

A few people have questioned the term "Uncirculated" for a long time (at least since the 1970s). The word really refers to how the coin has been handled, not its state of preservation. As such the term is really misleading, and collectors should gravitate toward the term "Mint State" which really much more useful and descriptive.

cmerlo1

This coin looked pretty much just like the photo- dull and flat and graded mint state. Arguably, the reverse did have some luster, but i have seen coins that look just like this on both sides graded MS:

keets

Must a coin have lustre to be Mint State?

IMHO, yes.

Baley

<< <i>A few people have questioned the term "Uncirculated" for a long time (at least since the 1970s). The word really refers to how the coin has been handled, not its state of preservation. As such the term is really misleading, and collectors should gravitate toward the term "Mint State" which really much more useful and descriptive. >>



IMO, "mint state" is literally, "the state that it left the mint"

so for a business- or circulation-strike coin weak strike ok, bagmarks ok.

Wear, not ok. TONING NOT OK.

Type2

I see that some are going to get some grades wrong in the grading contest if they do it....

steveben

i believe the answer is yes.

CoinJunkie

<< <i>IMO, "mint state" is literally, "the state that it left the mint" >>


Since that is literally a physical impossibility, that's a pretty bad (i.e., useless) definition.

Baley

well, a person must be able to comprehend "relative matters of degree" rather than binary absolutes, for the concept to be useful.

I'm aware that this isn't "how it's done" But IMO it is "how it SHOULD be done"

there's nothing wrong with a coin not being "mint state" (by definition, EVERY coin is "mint state" when it leaves the walls of the mint)

the problem is calling coins Mint State, when they're clearly NOT

JJSingleton

Yes.

CoinJunkie

<< <i>well, a person must be able to comprehend "relative matters of degree" rather than binary absolutes, for the concept to be useful.

I'm aware that this isn't "how it's done" But IMO it is "how it SHOULD be done"

there's nothing wrong with a coin not being "mint state" (by definition, EVERY coin is "mint state" when it leaves the walls of the mint)

the problem is calling coins Mint State, when they're clearly NOT >>


Um, OK. So a coin with a tick that's a result of the minting process is mint state in your view,
but if the same tick appears due to mishandling by a collector, it is not. How will you
determine that when asked to grade the coin?

Baley

you are missing the forest of what I'm saying for the trees of the details. The idea is that the appearance is *plausibly* mint state, no matter how it got there, and that there are matters of degree, not absolute "it is or it isn't" that's the bugaboo of the "uncirculated" line between Au58 and MS60, which is arbitrary and subjective, for older coins.

IMO, the hobby would do well to get rid of the adjectives, and just use a number, that's a composite of the qualities of a coin we're all familiar with, such as strike, luster, details, marks, toning, eye appeal, etc.

So a coin can be a "technical" composite 65 out of 70 for example, but be "valued" or appraised, or "graded" as an 80, 90, 150, 500, whatever multiple, for monster toning for example.

Isn't that how it actually works, after all? Get rid of the confusing words and just use "I'd buy it as a.." numbers.

stman

ColonelJessup

I've seen a Morgan with no original surface graded as high as MS67. And it has a spot on the cheek from inadequate conservation. Obviously, interpretations vary. . .

Feldini and I have argued for years about what's OK and what's not before or after a micro-dip. He is in the "no molecule left behind" crowd. We don't get past him seeing it as a form of "doctoring". Which is fine at the 3-4 micron level. For many.

Me, I sometimes go for the 99%-thick skin that blazes under some unexciting color. Tell potential customers I disagree with the grade because the coin is "artificially white" by EAC standards .. And add that this is considered the apogee of the aspirations of the "white is right" crowd. And, I glibly say they've got their points, which is true but politically incorrect, which the customer will appreciate as irony (Or I'm dead Explain the market acceptance is not because it is "shiny", as aficionados of originality might call it, but that it's the more refined (if archaic) "snazzy", which makes it as cool as a Lamborghini.

And they should have at least one of each. . . . .

Maybe a PR68DCAM 1895 $1. They dip out great. A PR64 to PR66CAM few years ago (sorta surprised actually) and two others. It's no secret. Did I mention they dip out great?

But the Childs 1804 has (IIRC) a few lines in the right obverse field, so that's probably an unlikely candidate. . . . The Dexter-Sconyers coin has a hole in it that's somewhat subdued, but noticeable to even the casual observer. Dipping would make that damage more obvious. My own 1804 $1 (sometimes referred to as the Garrett coin) should not be dipped, just acetoned to take off a little THC. But, consider that any coin that's a Restrike can be dipped because it was never Original.

I'm glad I cleared that up, though Professor Irwin Corey could explain it better

As Mongkut the First once said, "It's a puzzlement"

Walkerfan

<< <i>No. Wear is what determines circulated/uncirculated, IMO. I've seen plenty of coins in MS grades in TPG holders that are total duds when it comes to luster. >>

Shamika

No

leothelyon

Here's one with subtle luster. Possibly due to being one of the first 12 coins struck for the year. The details on this one
are the most impressive I've seen for a Jefferson nickel in over 23 years. There are no grading standards for this one.
Already encased by ANACS and that's where it will stay. Only for the true coin collector who can recognize it for what it is.









Leo

COALPORTER

I'm surprised no one has mention Proof-like business strikes. Not to much luster on a DMPL.
Luster and mirrors are opposite ends of the spectrum.

LotsoLuck

If I am buying it does.

leothelyon

<< <i>I'm surprised no one has mention Proof-like business strikes. Not to much luster on a DMPL.
Luster and mirrors are opposite ends of the spectrum. >>



While one is the creation of flow lines from the movement of the metal during the stamping process and prooflike surfaces is the result of polished dies, both still have flow lines that produce luster although for proofs and prooflikes, they're just more microscopic.

And to add, for the coin I posted, the flow lines are simply not there during the first few strikes but are just beginning to develop with each passing coin stamped. And, of course, this is more a hypothetical than a fact.

TopographicOceans

I would say no, but some experts are saying yes.

leothelyon

<< <i>I would say no, but some experts are saying yes. >>



Experts?

keets

Possibly due to being one of the first 12 coins struck for the year.

oh brother......................

leothelyon

<< <i>Possibly due to being one of the first 12 coins struck for the year.

oh brother...................... >>



What do you know? You're a dealer.

Steve27

I recall seeing no luster, black toned coins in PCGS MS65 holders 10-15 years ago; however, they seem to have disappeared. Thus, my conclusion is the standards have changed, and now MS coins must have luster.

LanLord

Didn't the mint sell matte unc coins in their mint sets from 2005 to about 2010?
I would think a good matte struck coin wouldn't have lustre, but still be mint state/unc.

DennisH

It does if I'm going to buy it.

roadrunner

<< <i>I recall seeing no luster, black toned coins in PCGS MS65 holders 10-15 years ago; however, they seem to have disappeared. Thus, my conclusion is the standards have changed, and now MS coins must have luster. >>



What particular series did you see that in?

I've never seen anything like that in gem silver type coins during the past 29 years. PCGS has held their line pretty consistently with darkly toned coins not usually getting graded higher than 63 to 64 regardless of how mark free they might be. Any TPG coin graded 65 has to show some luster even through the darkest toning. I've never seen a TPG coin in MS65 grade without luster. I have seen plenty of blue-black type coins graded as high as 65-66 but those would have had full to "nearly full" luster, even if well-diminished through the heavy toning. No luster vs. muted luster under heavy toning are two different things imo.

CoinJunkie

<< <i>My own 1804 $1 (sometimes referred to as the Garrett coin) should not be dipped, just acetoned to take off a little THC. >>


What've you been smokin', Colonel?