Nothing more I can do here. Iwog has schooled us all on the fact that 90% of all MS66 and higher classic commems (and possibly all slabbed US silver) are crap. He's personally held all 60 of those PCGS MS67 CACs auctioned at Heritage over the past 7 years. CAC is stickering MS67 ARKs showing just a whisper of luster near the rim. Next topic.
@roadrunner said:
Nothing more I can do here. Iwog has schooled us all on the fact that 90% of all MS66 and higher classic commems (and possibly all slabbed US silver) are crap. Next topic.
That's not what I said.
I said 90% or more of classic commemoratives in grades higher than MS66 have clearly impaired luster. Objectively provably impaired luster. In fact the only way you can get away from this reality is by the huge presumption that coins..........and specifically classic commemorative coins..........came originally with surfaces that are never found today, never found in original rolls, never found in original bags, and absolutely defiant of any explanation of why directional light scattering with hot and cold areas are missing when this effect is so well documented.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Who at the ANA is selling this stuff? That blue square in the lower right obv is around a polished area of the planchet. There's minimal to no luster there. And I'd guess by that logic, there's no luster in the upper left quadrant as boxed in blue (which we both know is not true). I could shoot that same TEXAS above, and reverse your blue and red areas just by the angle of light applied. I could reshoot both the 1939-s ARK and 1867 quarter under different lighting and they would both gleam with radiating cartwheel luster.
No, it's a polished area of the DIE. I've seen hundreds of original silver rolls and these little spots are on every single coin. It's part of the luster.
As far as reshooting the 1939-S Ark under different lighting and getting radiating cartwheel luster, that's absolutely false. I've been to more Heritage auctions than I can possible remember and I've held all of these coins. The luster is either greatly damaged or entirely gone.
Believe it or not, I have an original roll of commemorative half dollars. They 1952 so they are approximately 15 years more recent but I've looked very carefully at all of them and they all appear exactly like I would expect them to appear. They are undipped and original. I'll show you a picture. Which one of these do you think came with "original" sandblasted surfaces?
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
I'm no commem expert, but I've made it a point to pay attention to interpreting the various types of photography that you can find on the Internet. Look at the websites of 10 different dealers and you'll see 10 different styles, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. I personally find that reasonably high-quality images have two primary weak spots. The first is the detection of hairlines. These are very easy to hide, sometimes if you're not even trying. Most hairlines actually only appear when the light hits the coin at a certain angle. The second is luster.
I've really paid attention to this with Heritage auction photos. Sometimes really flashy coins look flat and other times the luster comes through just fine. I've noted this multiple times when comparing images to the actual coins during lot viewing. There is no substitute for in-hand viewing, which I might add is how the actual TPGs and pros look at these.
It's trivially easy to find TPG outliers if you sort through enough coins. It's 100 times easier to find bad photography, or photos that don't show the attributes of a coin favorably.
I don't have any Arkansas commems (never liked the design), but I have a Stone Mt. coin that I photographed with a few different techniques just now. In-hand, I'd say the luster of the coin is just fine. It's not as flashy as some, but it's probably as flashy as it ever was and the luster is commensurate with the assigned grade, PCGS MS67 CAC. Some of these images accentuate surface imperfections, some make the coin look flat and lifeless, and others bring out the luster pretty well. None are a perfect representation of the coin in-hand.
If the OP wants to make the point that it's good to seek out the coins with the best luster, that's fine. If he thinks many have been dipped out, I'd agree. If he thinks most forms of toning are bad, I'd disagree. If he thinks the TPGs and market have it wrong 90% of the time, I'd suggest he re-calibrate his opinion or accept that fact that very few will agree with his point of view. If he feels that 90% of extant commems show impaired luster, I'd suggest that a great many of them didn't have booming luster to start with (more satiny than flashy), and that these coins are perfectly acceptable to most everyone. Google says "impair" means "weaken or damage something". If it wasn't there to start with it can't be weakened or damaged.
The most telling point is the OP's comment is this from the 8th post of the thread: "When 98% of the examples in an entire series appear flat and dull, it's easy to forget that they all originally left the mint looking like the coin above." No, they didn't. Dies produce very different luster at different points in the life of the die. While not exactly a minting 101 concept, it's probably covered in the 200 level courses.
Finally, I doubt any of this is useful, as it sounds like the OP's mind is made up, and the discussion to this point hasn't been terribly enlightening.
The most telling point is the OP's comment is this from the 8th post of the thread: "When 98% of the examples in an entire series appear flat and dull, it's easy to forget that they all originally left the mint looking like the coin above." No, they didn't.
Yes they did. I don't know where people got the idea that a die of hardened steel striking a silver target with enough force to imprint a coin would create vastly different types of surfaces but it's simply not true. It's not true now and it wasn't true 100 years ago. Bright silvery luster is a physical constant. The metal always flows the same way. The microscopic lines are always parallel and always radiate from the center and into the raised parts of the coin. Even if you polish a die to make a proof or a proof-like coin, they still exist and they still throw off the same effect.
In fact I would defy anyone under any conditions to strike a silver coin on whatever die you want today and get something that approximates ANY of the dull Arkansas coins I've posted above. It can't be done.
Now none of this is to say you can't have brilliant white coins or heavily frosted coins depending on die preparation. You absolutely can. However you can show the cartwheel effect on all types of surfaces. The more original the coin, the stronger the effect. Even a proof coin will do this.
Dies produce very different luster at different points in the life of the die. While not exactly a minting 101 concept, it's probably covered in the 200 level courses. Finally, I doubt any of this is useful, as it sounds like the OP's mind is made up, and the discussion to this point hasn't been terribly enlightening.
All those stages are well understood and they all result in blast white radial cartwheel luster. Go through 500,000 brand new rolls of walking liberty halves and every last one of them is going to be blast white, hot and cold, with a cartwheel effect. All of them except the cappers on very old rolls. No exceptions.
The Arkansas series was minted at exactly the same time as Walkers were minted. The same presses were used. The same steel was used for the dies at the same pressure. The same blanks of silver were cut. The same weights and compositions were utilized. What's lacking here is any sort of explanation on how a lusterless coin can actually be produced. It can't.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
One of the problems with commemorative coins that get high grades is that they spent a lot of time, in my opinion too much time, in their original issue cases. Those cases were not free of sulfur and probably other contaminants that attacked surfaces and destroyed the luster. The same can be said for some high grade Barber Proof coins that stayed in the tissue paper until they turned black or close to it. Yes, these coins have original surfaces, but those surfaces are impaired. And NO I am not a fan of heavy "tab toning. I have always avoided such pieces.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
Love beautifully toned commems with tab toning and they almost always come with a premium price tag. To me they are most desirable
Mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@ricko said:
Great discussion here..... However, let me say, I really like the coin in the OP.... My type of coin...Cheers, RickO
Of course you do! Fortunately who those that like them that way they rarely if ever come with any premium whatsoever and can be bought on the cheap.
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@ricko said:
Mark, that is true.... and since I buy coins, and do not sell them, then it works well for me. Cheers, RickO
Trust me I'm jealous!!
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@ricko said:
Great discussion here..... However, let me say, I really like the coin in the OP.... My type of coin...Cheers, RickO
Of course you do! Fortunately who those that like them that way they rarely if ever come with any premium whatsoever and can be bought on the cheap.
mark
Yep! That's why I bought my commemorative collection "on the cheap;" they are mostly white. Here is an exception:
To clarify, light tab toning is OK with me. The heavy dark markings are not.
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@Justacommeman said:
Love beautifully toned commems with tab toning and they almost always come with a premium price tag. To me they are most desirable
Mark
They are also by far the easiest to make.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
@Justacommeman said:
Love beautifully toned commems with tab toning and they almost always come with a premium price tag. To me they are most desirable
Mark
They are also by far the easiest to make
Whatever you say baby bath water guy. I will counter with all blast white coins are dipped
then. Eye roll.
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Most of my commems are toned toned but I've always appreciated the subtle toning of this Stone Mountain. PCGS 67 CAC
mark
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
This "ANA approved" hot vs. cold points presented by IWOG to prove original mint made luster on a coin was intriguing. It was never mentioned in any of the earlier ANA grading guides that I owned. And until yesterday, I had never run across "hot-cold reference" in 50 years of grading coins. Not one other dealer, collector, mentor, grading guide, numismatic articles, etc. ever presented the notion to me. What did they all miss? When viewing coins at auction or a major coin show I never heard anyone say I just can't see "the hot and cold points" on this coin. When PCGS published their comprehensive and state of the art Grading and Authentication guide in 1997 everything of importance in grading US mint state coins would have been included. Yet nowhere in the guide can I find references to "hot and cold" points when grading MS coins. Huh?
The PCGS grading guide does reference flat, satin, frosty, and proof-like luster gradations . Proof-like coins and DMPLs have minor to almost invisible cartwheels unlike your typical frosty 1881-s Morgan mint luster. By Iwog's inferences PL/DMPL coins are cleaned/impaired as the luster flow lines aren't visible. The PCGS grading guide notes (page 7) that cartwheel luster can be all but invisible to the unaided eye, though microscopic examination would reveal them. Nearly invisible flow lines would be on coins with flat luster, often due to worn dies, weaker striking pressures, etc. In striking approx 85,000 ARKs from 1935-1939 I wonder just how much "care" the mint applied to these coins during the depressionary 1930's? The Walkers of that period were produced to the tune of approx 65 MILL total. Probably not the best comparison. With so few ARKs minted (sometimes only 2K per branch mint) you'd think most of them would have PL luster being so early on a die.
In going to the USMint's website here's what you find:
"mint luster:
the dull, frosty, or satiny shine found on uncirculated coins." You mean all coins aren't born "blasty & blazing?"
Even the US Mint's reference to coin grades doesn't even mention the term luster, let alone "hot vs. cold" spots.
"Perfect Uncirculated (MS-70). Is in perfect new condition, showing no trace of wear. The finest quality possible, with no evidence of scratches, handling or contact with other coins. Very few regular issue coins are ever found in this condition.
Choice Uncirculated (MS-65). Is above average, may be brilliant or lightly toned, with very few contact marks on the surface or rim. MS-67 through MS-62 indicate slightly higher or lower grades of preservation.
Uncirculated (MS-60). Has no trace of wear but may show a number of contact marks, and surface may be spotted or lack some luster. "
I have seen a similar phrase used in connection with photos of coins and assessing luster. JP Martin, in 'Grading Mint State U.S. Coins [ANA Correspondence Course book]," uses 'hot and cool'.
Member: EAC, NBS, C4, CWTS, ANA
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
@Sonorandesertrat said:
I have seen a similar phrase used in connection with photos of coins and assessing luster. JP Martin, in 'Grading Mint State U.S. Coins [ANA Correspondence Course book]," uses 'hot and cool'.
When the ANA becomes the market leader in grading US Coinage or it shows up in the PCGS Grading Guide, I'll give it more thought. The ANA also chose NGC as their authorized grading company for quite a few years. And that's as far as I'd want to dig with that "hot topic." Why wouldn't the ANA endorse their own grading brand instead?
@Sonorandesertrat said:
I have seen a similar phrase used in connection with photos of coins and assessing luster. JP Martin, in 'Grading Mint State U.S. Coins [ANA Correspondence Course book]," uses 'hot and cool'.
Thanks for mentioning this @Sonorandesertrat . It's good to know where this is covered by the ANA.
@Justacommeman said:
Love beautifully toned commems with tab toning and they almost always come with a premium price tag. To me they are most desirable
@Iwog said:
I have personally watched "original" tab toning applied to a blast white commemorative using an old cardboard holder and a few chemicals. There's no way to tell the difference.
@Zoins said:
Do you remember what chemicals were used? Was the person that did it selling the coins then and / or still selling them today?
I researched this issue heavily back when I was spending a significant amount of money on these coins, we're talking late 1990s mostly, and I saw an artificially toned example achieve a PCGS MS67 grade which was subsequently sold at a Heritage auction.
There's no way I'm going to discuss the method involved because it would spawn a hundred new coin doctors.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
When the ANA becomes the market leader in grading US Coinage or it shows up in the PCGS Grading Guide, I'll give it more thought. The ANA also chose NGC as their authorized grading company for quite a few years. And that's as far as I'd want to dig with that "hot topic." Why wouldn't the ANA endorse their own grading brand instead?
There's no need to appeal to the ANA or any other authority. Silver metal is destroyed when a coin is toned and the silver is replaced by silver sulfide which is a non-reflective salt. The microscopic ridges which make up the luster on a coin can be destroyed by this process.
The only way you can tell how intact these ridges are on a coin is to measure the reflective differences from different angles. Since these ridges radiate in spokes from the center of the coin, the more cartwheel effect is present, the more original the surface of the coin.
This is high school chemistry and I don't know why you think it's controversial.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
There's no need to appeal to the ANA or any other authority......
The only way you can tell how intact these ridges are on a coin is to measure the reflective differences from different angles. Since these ridges radiate in spokes from the center of the coin, the more cartwheel effect is present, the more original the surface of the coin.
This is high school chemistry and I don't know why you think it's controversial.
I "appealed" to ANA only because you did that initially with the "hot and cold" methodology from ANA....as some sort of "proof" to support your 90% cleaned coin theory. Hence my PCGS grading guide and US Mint rebuttal on all of that. Read what I posted again from PCGS Grading Guide. You must have skipped over it above. Those microscopic luster ridges may be "all but invisible" on coins as struck, right from the US mint dies. Their comment, not mine. The "originality" of a surface is not entirely dependent on how visible those lines are. Flat, satiny, and PL luster don't follow your rules of "blasty" luster, even on the day they were struck.....as adequately explained in the PCGS Grading Guide.
Luster flow lines have NOTHING to do with chemistry. This is about physics, metal flow, die striking, die wear, design details, light refraction/reflection, pressure application, etc. I learned those things in my college and post grad physics classes, not in high school chemistry. I'm also not in the Weimar White camp who stated back in the 1970's/1980's that all toned coins were damaged. Once you dip them out...then I agree you have damage.
What remains controversial is your statement that 90% of all MS66/67 Commems are overdipped/cleaned with destroyed luster. That has nothing to do with HS Chemistry class. And it's very controversial. First time I've ever seen anyone suggest such a thing. Though I would say JA rejecting 90% of slabbed gem classic gold is in the same ball park. But, he's not saying the 90% rejected are cleaned with destroyed luster. That's an IWOG-only statement. JA is saying the 90% don't meet his standards for a A and B quality coins....making them C and D coins. I've never seen a destroyed luster PCGS MS67 commem. At my next show in March I'll be on the lookout for such a unicorn.
@Zoins said:
Do you remember what chemicals were used? Was the person that did it selling the coins then and / or still selling them today?
I researched this issue heavily back when I was spending a significant amount of money on these coins, we're talking late 1990s mostly, and I saw an artificially toned example achieve a PCGS MS67 grade which was subsequently sold at a Heritage auction.
There's no way I'm going to discuss the method involved because it would spawn a hundred new coin doctors.
Theoretically, if the technique were more widely known, prices / premiums for tab toners would decrease. Additionally, it could make some tab toners less market acceptable. Of course, I'm not sure this would actually stop doctors as we are seeing relatively high prices for Genuine and other slabbed not-market acceptable coins.
I will again ask you how a coin could possibly be minted without flow lines radiating from the center of the coin? I understand the flow lines can be invisible which is why you have to look at the property of the light reflecting from the surface. You can't see the lines on a DVD disk however it's extremely obvious in which direction they flow.
You're right this isn't chemistry. It's high school physics.
Satiny and PL luster follow these rules extremely well. Nothing is more satiny than modern commemoratives. Want to see some?
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Why wouldn't the ANA endorse their own grading brand instead?
Perhaps because the ANA sold the company and the brand name to another concern, AND that concern sold it to someone else. Despite the name, the ANA grading company has nothing to do with the ANA.
As for why the ANA endorsed NGC, as they used to say on the ANA radio spots, "Money Talks."
Retired dealer and avid collector of U.S. type coins, 19th century presidential campaign medalets and selected medals. In recent years I have been working on a set of British coins - at least one coin from each king or queen who issued pieces that are collectible. I am also collecting at least one coin for each Roman emperor from Julius Caesar to ... ?
The techniques & standards of modern commems is light years from 1935. Not even comparable. Night vs. Day.
Using a proof Merc to show mint luster? I see no hot and cold spots on that proof Merc.
What happened to the discussion on ARK's? Including the dipped one you originally posted as the "standard." And I'm still waiting on that Heritage archives list of the 54 out of 60 ARKs graded PCGS MS67 CAC that have destroyed luster. No reason to go any further until you produce that.
@roadrunner said:
1. The techniques & standards of modern commems is light years from 1935. Not even comparable. Night vs. Day.
2. Using a proof Merc to show mint luster? I see no hot and cold spots on that proof Merc.
3. What happened to the discussion on ARK's? Including the dipped one you originally posted as the "standard."
They are exactly the same. The only difference is the preparation and polishing of the dies to create different surfaces from matte to brilliant to burnished. The materials are the same. The steel is the same. The pressure is the same. In most cases the relief is the same.
I'm using a Merc to show flow lines. Not luster. You see PLENTY of hot and cold spots on that proof merc in the head and bust area. The fields are polished to be almost entirely reflective. There aren't enough lines to create a cartwheel. However there is plenty of cartwheel effect on the frosted parts which you could easily see if you rotated the coin in your hand.
I'll ask you that question since you fled my discussion on ARKS, expanded it out to every Ark at a large auction, then attempted to assert that a coin exhibiting zero luster of any kind is original. It's not original.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
The original assertion was that 90% of all MS66 and higher ARKs are cleaned/overdipped/have destroyed luster. Let's focus on you proving that. Nothing you have presented so far gets us there. Though you have posted quite a bit of extraneous info from ANA experts to modern commems to Mercs to supposedly support your point...on ARKs. I haven't seen anyone showing up to the thread agreeing with your 90% destroyed luster assertion.
Your assertion. Your proof is required...not mine. I supplied the 60 source coins to assert your thesis. Please do so and pick out just those few coins (ie 10%) that would pass your stringent luster criteria. We will then assume the other 90% are "destroyed/impaired." Your original assertion in the first post that "this is what an ARK should look like" appears false considering it's a dipped out ARK. That's NOT what they should look like. That coin once had toning (ie damage) which was removed in subsequent dipping(s). I guess the luster has been "impaired." I can see why the thread took a left turn right after the initial post.
Your assertion. Your proof is required...not mine. I supplied the 60 source coins to assert your thesis. Please do so. Your original assertion in the first post that "this is what an ARK should look like" appears false to some responders as you showed what appears to be a dipped out ARK. That's NOT what they should look like. Your credibility went downhill from there.
It's astounding to me that a coin with better luster than almost every other Arkansas in the market today would appear "dipped out". Meanwhile a flat coin with no luster whatsoever is termed "Original".
The reason this conversation left the field of Arkansas commemoratives is because of you. You are apparently under the misconception that silver coins in the 1930s could have been minted devoid of cartwheel mint luster. I consider this assertion absolutely unsupportable and FURTHERMORE it is a positive assertion: "This coin is original." Being a positive assertion, the proof is entirely on YOU and not I. You cannot prove a negative.
However I also made a positive assertion and that is the coin cannot be original. To support it, I used the well known fact that ALL original walker rolls were blast white and minted at the same time. ALL Arkansas commemoratives were issued in cardboard holders without protection. ALL silver coins minted today have rich luster and intact flow lines. There is no explanation, even a theoretical one, why coins minted in the 1930s would not have exactly the same intact flow lines. Lastly, and this is the most important fact of them all, I have several extremely scarce examples of Arkansas commemoratives with radiating, blast white luster to prove that these coins DO exist and WERE made at the time.
So basically I've made a huge argument here with numerous examples, physics, chemistry, and an explanation for what is going on while you have presented "The surfaces are original because I say so."
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
@georgiacop50 said:
Please explain how the recessed areas are protected from a liquid ?
Contrary to the belief most people hold in the industry, dipping a coin causes far less destruction of original surfaces than toning does. I have proven this to my satisfaction by dipping toned coins and getting BLAH then dipping fresh blast white original coins and having them remain essentially unchanged.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Comments
Nothing more I can do here. Iwog has schooled us all on the fact that 90% of all MS66 and higher classic commems (and possibly all slabbed US silver) are crap. He's personally held all 60 of those PCGS MS67 CACs auctioned at Heritage over the past 7 years. CAC is stickering MS67 ARKs showing just a whisper of luster near the rim. Next topic.
That's not what I said.
I said 90% or more of classic commemoratives in grades higher than MS66 have clearly impaired luster. Objectively provably impaired luster. In fact the only way you can get away from this reality is by the huge presumption that coins..........and specifically classic commemorative coins..........came originally with surfaces that are never found today, never found in original rolls, never found in original bags, and absolutely defiant of any explanation of why directional light scattering with hot and cold areas are missing when this effect is so well documented.
The area in question is a result of die basining.
Choice Numismatics www.ChoiceCoin.com
CN eBay
All of my collection is in a safe deposit box!
Believe it or not, I have an original roll of commemorative half dollars. They 1952 so they are approximately 15 years more recent but I've looked very carefully at all of them and they all appear exactly like I would expect them to appear. They are undipped and original. I'll show you a picture. Which one of these do you think came with "original" sandblasted surfaces?
Lots of circular arguments here.
I'm no commem expert, but I've made it a point to pay attention to interpreting the various types of photography that you can find on the Internet. Look at the websites of 10 different dealers and you'll see 10 different styles, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. I personally find that reasonably high-quality images have two primary weak spots. The first is the detection of hairlines. These are very easy to hide, sometimes if you're not even trying. Most hairlines actually only appear when the light hits the coin at a certain angle. The second is luster.
I've really paid attention to this with Heritage auction photos. Sometimes really flashy coins look flat and other times the luster comes through just fine. I've noted this multiple times when comparing images to the actual coins during lot viewing. There is no substitute for in-hand viewing, which I might add is how the actual TPGs and pros look at these.
It's trivially easy to find TPG outliers if you sort through enough coins. It's 100 times easier to find bad photography, or photos that don't show the attributes of a coin favorably.
I don't have any Arkansas commems (never liked the design), but I have a Stone Mt. coin that I photographed with a few different techniques just now. In-hand, I'd say the luster of the coin is just fine. It's not as flashy as some, but it's probably as flashy as it ever was and the luster is commensurate with the assigned grade, PCGS MS67 CAC. Some of these images accentuate surface imperfections, some make the coin look flat and lifeless, and others bring out the luster pretty well. None are a perfect representation of the coin in-hand.
If the OP wants to make the point that it's good to seek out the coins with the best luster, that's fine. If he thinks many have been dipped out, I'd agree. If he thinks most forms of toning are bad, I'd disagree. If he thinks the TPGs and market have it wrong 90% of the time, I'd suggest he re-calibrate his opinion or accept that fact that very few will agree with his point of view. If he feels that 90% of extant commems show impaired luster, I'd suggest that a great many of them didn't have booming luster to start with (more satiny than flashy), and that these coins are perfectly acceptable to most everyone. Google says "impair" means "weaken or damage something". If it wasn't there to start with it can't be weakened or damaged.
The most telling point is the OP's comment is this from the 8th post of the thread: "When 98% of the examples in an entire series appear flat and dull, it's easy to forget that they all originally left the mint looking like the coin above." No, they didn't. Dies produce very different luster at different points in the life of the die. While not exactly a minting 101 concept, it's probably covered in the 200 level courses.
Finally, I doubt any of this is useful, as it sounds like the OP's mind is made up, and the discussion to this point hasn't been terribly enlightening.
Great examples Bryce
Yes they did. I don't know where people got the idea that a die of hardened steel striking a silver target with enough force to imprint a coin would create vastly different types of surfaces but it's simply not true. It's not true now and it wasn't true 100 years ago. Bright silvery luster is a physical constant. The metal always flows the same way. The microscopic lines are always parallel and always radiate from the center and into the raised parts of the coin. Even if you polish a die to make a proof or a proof-like coin, they still exist and they still throw off the same effect.
In fact I would defy anyone under any conditions to strike a silver coin on whatever die you want today and get something that approximates ANY of the dull Arkansas coins I've posted above. It can't be done.
Now none of this is to say you can't have brilliant white coins or heavily frosted coins depending on die preparation. You absolutely can. However you can show the cartwheel effect on all types of surfaces. The more original the coin, the stronger the effect. Even a proof coin will do this.
All those stages are well understood and they all result in blast white radial cartwheel luster. Go through 500,000 brand new rolls of walking liberty halves and every last one of them is going to be blast white, hot and cold, with a cartwheel effect. All of them except the cappers on very old rolls. No exceptions.
The Arkansas series was minted at exactly the same time as Walkers were minted. The same presses were used. The same steel was used for the dies at the same pressure. The same blanks of silver were cut. The same weights and compositions were utilized. What's lacking here is any sort of explanation on how a lusterless coin can actually be produced. It can't.
Every coin leaves the mint blast white..... yes, of course.
Every photo perfectly demonstrates how much luster a coin has.
Every silver coin ever made left the mint with exactly identical, perfect, deep, booming luster...... Got it.
One of the problems with commemorative coins that get high grades is that they spent a lot of time, in my opinion too much time, in their original issue cases. Those cases were not free of sulfur and probably other contaminants that attacked surfaces and destroyed the luster. The same can be said for some high grade Barber Proof coins that stayed in the tissue paper until they turned black or close to it. Yes, these coins have original surfaces, but those surfaces are impaired. And NO I am not a fan of heavy "tab toning. I have always avoided such pieces.
Love beautifully toned commems with tab toning and they almost always come with a premium price tag. To me they are most desirable
Mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Great discussion here..... However, let me say, I really like the coin in the OP....
My type of coin...Cheers, RickO
Of course you do! Fortunately who those that like them that way they rarely if ever come with any premium whatsoever and can be bought on the cheap.
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Mark, that is true.... and since I buy coins, and do not sell them, then it works well for me.
Cheers, RickO
Trust me I'm jealous!!
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Yep! That's why I bought my commemorative collection "on the cheap;" they are mostly white. Here is an exception:
To clarify, light tab toning is OK with me. The heavy dark markings are not.
That is a very well struck Stone Mountain Bill...Cheers, RickO
I hear you Bill
Mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
They are also by far the easiest to make.
Whatever you say baby bath water guy. I will counter with all blast white coins are dipped
then. Eye roll.
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
Most of my commems are toned toned but I've always appreciated the subtle toning of this Stone Mountain. PCGS 67 CAC
mark
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
This "ANA approved" hot vs. cold points presented by IWOG to prove original mint made luster on a coin was intriguing. It was never mentioned in any of the earlier ANA grading guides that I owned. And until yesterday, I had never run across "hot-cold reference" in 50 years of grading coins. Not one other dealer, collector, mentor, grading guide, numismatic articles, etc. ever presented the notion to me. What did they all miss? When viewing coins at auction or a major coin show I never heard anyone say I just can't see "the hot and cold points" on this coin. When PCGS published their comprehensive and state of the art Grading and Authentication guide in 1997 everything of importance in grading US mint state coins would have been included. Yet nowhere in the guide can I find references to "hot and cold" points when grading MS coins. Huh?
The PCGS grading guide does reference flat, satin, frosty, and proof-like luster gradations . Proof-like coins and DMPLs have minor to almost invisible cartwheels unlike your typical frosty 1881-s Morgan mint luster. By Iwog's inferences PL/DMPL coins are cleaned/impaired as the luster flow lines aren't visible. The PCGS grading guide notes (page 7) that cartwheel luster can be all but invisible to the unaided eye, though microscopic examination would reveal them. Nearly invisible flow lines would be on coins with flat luster, often due to worn dies, weaker striking pressures, etc. In striking approx 85,000 ARKs from 1935-1939 I wonder just how much "care" the mint applied to these coins during the depressionary 1930's? The Walkers of that period were produced to the tune of approx 65 MILL total. Probably not the best comparison. With so few ARKs minted (sometimes only 2K per branch mint) you'd think most of them would have PL luster being so early on a die.
In going to the USMint's website here's what you find:
"mint luster:
the dull, frosty, or satiny shine found on uncirculated coins." You mean all coins aren't born "blasty & blazing?"
Even the US Mint's reference to coin grades doesn't even mention the term luster, let alone "hot vs. cold" spots.
"Perfect Uncirculated (MS-70). Is in perfect new condition, showing no trace of wear. The finest quality possible, with no evidence of scratches, handling or contact with other coins. Very few regular issue coins are ever found in this condition.
Choice Uncirculated (MS-65). Is above average, may be brilliant or lightly toned, with very few contact marks on the surface or rim. MS-67 through MS-62 indicate slightly higher or lower grades of preservation.
Uncirculated (MS-60). Has no trace of wear but may show a number of contact marks, and surface may be spotted or lack some luster. "
I have seen a similar phrase used in connection with photos of coins and assessing luster. JP Martin, in 'Grading Mint State U.S. Coins [ANA Correspondence Course book]," uses 'hot and cool'.
RMR: 'Wer, wenn ich schriee, hörte mich denn aus der Engel Ordnungen?'
CJ: 'No one!' [Ain't no angels in the coin biz]
This thread just got me thinking of Officer Obie and the twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with circles
and arrows
When the ANA becomes the market leader in grading US Coinage or it shows up in the PCGS Grading Guide, I'll give it more thought. The ANA also chose NGC as their authorized grading company for quite a few years. And that's as far as I'd want to dig with that "hot topic." Why wouldn't the ANA endorse their own grading brand instead?
Thanks for mentioning this @Sonorandesertrat . It's good to know where this is covered by the ANA.
@lwog mentioned the following earlier in the other thread. Do you remember what chemicals were used? Was the person that did it selling the coins then and / or still selling them today?
I researched this issue heavily back when I was spending a significant amount of money on these coins, we're talking late 1990s mostly, and I saw an artificially toned example achieve a PCGS MS67 grade which was subsequently sold at a Heritage auction.
There's no way I'm going to discuss the method involved because it would spawn a hundred new coin doctors.
There's no need to appeal to the ANA or any other authority. Silver metal is destroyed when a coin is toned and the silver is replaced by silver sulfide which is a non-reflective salt. The microscopic ridges which make up the luster on a coin can be destroyed by this process.
The only way you can tell how intact these ridges are on a coin is to measure the reflective differences from different angles. Since these ridges radiate in spokes from the center of the coin, the more cartwheel effect is present, the more original the surface of the coin.
This is high school chemistry and I don't know why you think it's controversial.
I "appealed" to ANA only because you did that initially with the "hot and cold" methodology from ANA....as some sort of "proof" to support your 90% cleaned coin theory. Hence my PCGS grading guide and US Mint rebuttal on all of that. Read what I posted again from PCGS Grading Guide. You must have skipped over it above. Those microscopic luster ridges may be "all but invisible" on coins as struck, right from the US mint dies. Their comment, not mine. The "originality" of a surface is not entirely dependent on how visible those lines are. Flat, satiny, and PL luster don't follow your rules of "blasty" luster, even on the day they were struck.....as adequately explained in the PCGS Grading Guide.
Luster flow lines have NOTHING to do with chemistry. This is about physics, metal flow, die striking, die wear, design details, light refraction/reflection, pressure application, etc. I learned those things in my college and post grad physics classes, not in high school chemistry. I'm also not in the Weimar White camp who stated back in the 1970's/1980's that all toned coins were damaged. Once you dip them out...then I agree you have damage.
What remains controversial is your statement that 90% of all MS66/67 Commems are overdipped/cleaned with destroyed luster. That has nothing to do with HS Chemistry class. And it's very controversial. First time I've ever seen anyone suggest such a thing. Though I would say JA rejecting 90% of slabbed gem classic gold is in the same ball park. But, he's not saying the 90% rejected are cleaned with destroyed luster. That's an IWOG-only statement. JA is saying the 90% don't meet his standards for a A and B quality coins....making them C and D coins. I've never seen a destroyed luster PCGS MS67 commem. At my next show in March I'll be on the lookout for such a unicorn.
Theoretically, if the technique were more widely known, prices / premiums for tab toners would decrease. Additionally, it could make some tab toners less market acceptable. Of course, I'm not sure this would actually stop doctors as we are seeing relatively high prices for Genuine and other slabbed not-market acceptable coins.
I will again ask you how a coin could possibly be minted without flow lines radiating from the center of the coin? I understand the flow lines can be invisible which is why you have to look at the property of the light reflecting from the surface. You can't see the lines on a DVD disk however it's extremely obvious in which direction they flow.
You're right this isn't chemistry. It's high school physics.
Satiny and PL luster follow these rules extremely well. Nothing is more satiny than modern commemoratives. Want to see some?
Perhaps because the ANA sold the company and the brand name to another concern, AND that concern sold it to someone else. Despite the name, the ANA grading company has nothing to do with the ANA.
As for why the ANA endorsed NGC, as they used to say on the ANA radio spots, "Money Talks."
On a lot of proof coins, these lines can be observed directly.
Please explain how the recessed areas are protected from a liquid ?
The original assertion was that 90% of all MS66 and higher ARKs are cleaned/overdipped/have destroyed luster. Let's focus on you proving that. Nothing you have presented so far gets us there. Though you have posted quite a bit of extraneous info from ANA experts to modern commems to Mercs to supposedly support your point...on ARKs. I haven't seen anyone showing up to the thread agreeing with your 90% destroyed luster assertion.
Your assertion. Your proof is required...not mine. I supplied the 60 source coins to assert your thesis. Please do so and pick out just those few coins (ie 10%) that would pass your stringent luster criteria. We will then assume the other 90% are "destroyed/impaired." Your original assertion in the first post that "this is what an ARK should look like" appears false considering it's a dipped out ARK. That's NOT what they should look like. That coin once had toning (ie damage) which was removed in subsequent dipping(s). I guess the luster has been "impaired." I can see why the thread took a left turn right after the initial post.
It's astounding to me that a coin with better luster than almost every other Arkansas in the market today would appear "dipped out". Meanwhile a flat coin with no luster whatsoever is termed "Original".
The reason this conversation left the field of Arkansas commemoratives is because of you. You are apparently under the misconception that silver coins in the 1930s could have been minted devoid of cartwheel mint luster. I consider this assertion absolutely unsupportable and FURTHERMORE it is a positive assertion: "This coin is original." Being a positive assertion, the proof is entirely on YOU and not I. You cannot prove a negative.
However I also made a positive assertion and that is the coin cannot be original. To support it, I used the well known fact that ALL original walker rolls were blast white and minted at the same time. ALL Arkansas commemoratives were issued in cardboard holders without protection. ALL silver coins minted today have rich luster and intact flow lines. There is no explanation, even a theoretical one, why coins minted in the 1930s would not have exactly the same intact flow lines. Lastly, and this is the most important fact of them all, I have several extremely scarce examples of Arkansas commemoratives with radiating, blast white luster to prove that these coins DO exist and WERE made at the time.
So basically I've made a huge argument here with numerous examples, physics, chemistry, and an explanation for what is going on while you have presented "The surfaces are original because I say so."
Contrary to the belief most people hold in the industry, dipping a coin causes far less destruction of original surfaces than toning does. I have proven this to my satisfaction by dipping toned coins and getting BLAH then dipping fresh blast white original coins and having them remain essentially unchanged.