Which do you prefer.
ironmanl63
Posts: 1,974 ✭✭✭✭✭
I am in the camp of luster and eye appeal! I will always choose a coin with great luster and eye appeal that might have a tad to many marks over a mark free coin for grade with luster and eye appeal that might be lacking. When I look at a coin I want to say wow that is a beautiful coin. This question is of course referring to Mint State coins and high AU coins with luster remaining.
0
Comments
They are all about blast white.
Lance.
Latin American Collection
I too voted "eye appeal" but I always draw a line on surfaces. It's really a component of eye appeal.
Lance.
This is spot on, no pun intended, cause a gash or a spot or a line can have negative eye appeal so they must be taken into consideration.
And that's fine for what I think is the OP's intent.
But real coins don't come with all other factors being equal. A lot of marks will limit the eye appeal.
So, as is always the case with questions like this, the real answer is - it depends on the coin.
I don't care how "eye appealing" it may be. If the luster is not there and there's rub, who cares if it's a monster AU often placed there via a dipping and pretty secondary album toning. It's not UNC though. You want fully gem, original pre-1853 silver coins that are pretty? They typically don't exist. That pretty eye appeal usually comes from a dipping, then re-toning in a sulfur rich environment. A generous dose of "thumb" prints often helps to give some "eye appeal."
Grade is always secondary.
Mike
Color and toning---I could take or leave.
Sometimes, it’s better to be LUCKY than good. 🍀 🍺👍
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
For me luster is 100% tied to eye appeal. That is why I included both in that choice. I do not think you can have great eye appeal without great luster. Toning without luster is not what I would consider appealing. Toning was not even mentioned as an option. Can a toned coin have great eye appeal, absolutely when accompanied by great luster. LOL on the thumb print! It is pretty transparent what you are referring to with that comment.
I have no clue what you're talking about with being "transparent with finger prints." I'd bet you have no idea what I meant. Fwiw, look at many of the great toned silver coins currently at auction from Gardner, Newman, Pogue as well as those from Eliasberg, Norweb, Pittman, and others. You will often find superb toning with a fingerprint (light or otherwise) buried within that toning pattern. We can debate which came first. I've always assumed that the same oils and substances on one's fingers aided a coin to tone, often spectacularly. Look at the posts over the past few months about members showing their monster toner type coins. Quite often you will see a faint print buried in there.
I'm almost to the point of saying that a print is an aid in getting neat orig toning, though you still need an active sulfur environment to keep it going. I actually get a chuckle from the anti-fingerprint society when they show off their latest toners newps and there's a faint print pattern buried in that toner....which they are oblivious to. I have zero problems with very faint prints on wonderfully toned gem seated coins. I've owned many.
Of course you can have great eye appeal without great luster. The best luster comes on gem mint state coins in the MS66-MS69 range. What about an AU50, 55, or 58 coin that doesn't have full luster but has outstanding color and surfaces. Happens all the time. What about an XF40 w/o any remaining luster than was stored in an album for decades? Maybe that coin went in fairly light on original skin. Now it has a Wayte Raymond rings of rainbow toning.
Luster is certainly tied to eye appeal on gem mint state coins. But just because the luster is bold doesn't mean the coin has eye appeal. There are a million MS65 Walkers, Mercs, and Roosy dimes that have the same luster as any white MS67 coin. Yet we don't say the MS65's have eye appeal unless they got a "proper" layer of toning from end of roll, bags, albums, paper flips, etc.
You can have wonderful toning on VG, Fine, and VF coins that have no luster. Check out the Buffalo Historical Society collection auction from around 10-12 years ago. There were numerous non-luster early bust coins in Good-VF that had miraculous toning on them.
Proof coins are often toned wonderfully from sitting in paper wrappers, albums, mint sets, etc. Where's the luster on say an 1866 Proof Seated half. I had a post on a PCGS PF66 CAC this week. Show me the luster on the coin and the apparent lack of eye appeal because of the missing "luster." Are we at the point where proof coins can't have eye appeal because they don't have luster?
Toning is probably just as important to overall eye appeal as luster is. I recall a post this week on "Super VF's." Most of those are toners yet don't have the luster you require. While eye appeal standards might be most easily apply to mint state coins, it applies to circs as well. Imagine a white MS63 coin that has too much scuffing to be considered eye appealing. Yet the luster is bold. Are you going to tell me that an AU58 of that same date with 75% luster (ie not full) and wonderful rings of album color doesn't have more eye appeal than the 63 coin? The luster on the white 63 is unquestionably superior to that found on most any AU58. Yet the coin with less luster can have more eye appeal.
I didn't vote for this first option, possibly because the logic seems off. First of all, we don't have technical grading in the current coin market, except maybe on raw coins. Anything in a slab is "market" graded. You can toss technical out the window. Luster is part of grading. So it's sort of illogical to have a "technically" graded coin that lacks luster for that grade. I'd call that a mistake. There are lots of those in holders.
If a coin lacks luster and eye appeal, it likely gets downgraded despite having other beneficial features like good strike and clean surfaces. If that coin is not downgraded, then it's at best low end for the grade. More than likely, it's market grade assignment was a mistake. Send it back in a few times and it will eventually return with the lower (and correct) market grade.
Let's assign some of these attributes to the MS67 1867-s quarter post I have out today. That coin doesn't have good "eye appeal" as most seated quarters go. It doesn't look anything like a semi-PL flashy 1879. The luster is a tad dull and satiny, typical for how that date comes. It doesn't lack any luster as all of the original applied mint luster is there. It's market grade is now MS67 and its stickered. If there were such a thing as technical grading maybe it only gets a MS66 as there's nothing dazzling about it....other than it kicks that crap out of every other piece known on earth. If it were dipped it might have bolder luster...and hence bolder luster. Would that help any to destroy the original skin? I don't know.
Eye appeal is transient and varies wildy from series to series. When it comes to gem better date seated quarters I'm more than happy to accept average luster, average strike, and average marks...those I prefer less marks than typical. Just didn't give me a dipped out blazer with "eye appeal." Now that I think of that, the 1866-s MS66 was a dipped out blazer from the 1970's to the 1990's. It's still bright and blazing but has grown some fat black spots on both sides, negating any positive eye appeal it once had. "Forced" eye appeal today, can lead to problems down the road.
However if you are patient you can buy coins with luster, eye appeal and technical merit
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......
95% of collectors will hem and haw about buying an eye appealing coin with great luster and a crap load of marks for the grade (ie low end, or even next grade lower based on marks). So in a way, the first poll choice almost doesn't exist, forcing everyone to the 2nd choice, which in many cases doesn't ever happen as most of us are gun shy about buying something with too many marks.
Another example. I had a wonderfully eye appealing 1838 RE half with MS66 luster, strike, and original toning. The fields had no marks of note, they were MS66 too. Only one thing on the entire coin was not MS66....a reed mark on Liberty's neck from coin to coin contact. That was enough to take an MS66 coin down to an NGC MS65 or PCGS 64+ coin. So much for eye appeal and luster trumping marks. One obvious mark can spoil the brew. Marks can negate eye appeal. It's too hard to categorize all this into one size fits all. There are dozens shades of gray to be evaluated.
How about toner MS Morgans like the Battle Creek coin? Many of these coins have deep purple, blue, green and magenta toning that takes the luster in those spots down a notch. Those can't radiate luster better than a blast white coin fresh from a bag. Those BC coins have top notch eye appeal because of the toning, not the luster. The luster is typical of any MS63-MS66 Morgan. Remove that toning and the eye appeal is average. Can a MS Morgan have great eye appeal w/o great luster? Yup.
Technical grade means nothing in the grading room, accordingly, creamy, consistent luster and great "pop" are where it's at.
That is a lot of very good information. Most of the coins you speak of I have never even seen or will ever be able to purchase. I am coming at this as more of a beginner. When I started collecting I picked Indian Cents and that was 95% of what I dealt with. I have owned other coins such as Morgans and other series all with a price tag well under a thousand bucks. I have recently started to get into gold pieces with what I consider nice color luster and eye appeal. When I ask these questions it is to try and gain knowledge from the guys here who have much more experience than me. I don't have a mentor so I am self taught and this forum has been a huge help. Thanks for all the great opinions and keep the answers coming. They help a guy who really has no where else to turn.
You can buy good looking coins with proper technical merit in most every series at most every level.
If you stick to the following mantra you will be ahead of the game in the end:
Buy good looking coins that when cracked out of their holder 100 times will get back in the same holder or better every single time.
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......
You can buy good looking coins with proper technical merit in most every series at most every level.
If you stick to the following mantra you will be ahead of the game in the end:
Buy good looking coins that when cracked out of their holder 100 times will get back in the same holder or better every single time.
100% agree...problem is, finding coins that meet this criteria is not easy. It takes a lot of patience to wait for the "right" coin to come along...and then, of course, asking price and you having the money to pull the trigger have to come together as well. Seems like when a coin that meets this criteria comes along, you know it as soon as you see it.
I too voted "eye appeal" but I always draw a line on surfaces. It's really a component of eye appeal.
Lance.
This!
- Jim
I agree with this as an ideal. But it's probably not realistic. If I can buy a coin that will grade the same way 3X or 4X in a row, I know I've found a solid for the grade coin or even a PQ one. Over the years I've cracked out and resubmitted several hundred choice and gem seated coins. Only one time in that period did I get the same grade 4X or more in a row. That was a near gem MS64 better date O mint seated 25c that I felt had a 30-50% shot to upgrade. It was a wonderful coin that had eye appeal equivalent to the coins graded higher. It had minimal marks too. On the 5th time getting MS64 I gave up.
That coin would have graded 64+ today. What happened to it? My agent took the coin to either the FUN or Baltimore show and sold it to a major dealer. The new owner took the coin into the men's room dipped it and then applied putty to it to mask all the tiny marks. It then graded as MS65. Another win-win story.
Short of something like MS69 moderns or generic Morgan dollars that are dead solid in the middle of the grade range, it's quite a feat to expect the TPG's to grade the same coin 10X or 100X the same. What is more likely to happen such as with my coin is on the 10th or more try an upgrade occurs. Now you have a coin that might get that higher grade again maybe 10-30% of the time. I've always figured that any coin that can grade the same way 5X or 10X in a row is probably destined for an upgrade...and the subsequent fate/stigma of being a low end coin.
Eye appeal first.
Grade is always secondary.
Mike
My YouTube Channel
luster and eye appeal
same camp here.
tarnish - of which I am not a fan. Cheers, RickO
[URL=http://s595.photobucket.com/user/leothelion_04/media/DSC_0682a_1.jpg.html]
[URL=http://s595.photobucket.com/user/leothelion_04/media/DSC_0683a_1.jpg.html]
Leo
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
[URL=http://s595.photobucket.com/user/leothelion_04/media/DSC_0628a.jpg.html]
[URL=http://s595.photobucket.com/user/leothelion_04/media/DSC_0629ab.jpg.html]
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection
[URL=http://s595.photobucket.com/user/leothelion_04/media/DSC_0693a.jpg.html]
[URL=http://s595.photobucket.com/user/leothelion_04/media/DSC_0686a.jpg.html]
[URL=http://s595.photobucket.com/user/leothelion_04/media/DSC_0687a.jpg.html]
The more qualities observed in a coin, the more desirable that coin becomes!
My Jefferson Nickel Collection