What the Arkansas commem is really supposed to look like
Iwog
Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
2
Iwog
Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭
Iwog
Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭
Iwog
Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭
Iwog
Posts: 1,089 ✭✭✭
Comments
Hmmm....I think I need a better camera
Been many years since I photographed coins.
Sorry, but I have never thought of the Arkansas commemorative as an attractive coin, regardless of the grade.
My current practice coin.
Better?
With some original color the Ark sets can be extremely eye appealing. I bought a couple of orig PDS sets a while back just because of the matching, attractive original colors.
I like the obv and rev designs though. It sure beats the Big Fat Heads of so many other commems.
"What the Arkansas commem is really supposed to look like"
What a silly statement. That's tantamount to saying the mint struck these coins without toning.
Maybe yours, but AFAIK no others. Maybe it's an error.
What I meant was most in this series are over-dipped and white or over-dipped and toned. The few examples in MS67 and higher have heavily damaged luster.
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.
still a nice commem.
I can see why they weren't popular when released by the mint.
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......
The lustre and surfaces look nice and white coins can certainly be nice.
But as a general statement, it's kind of like saying old coins should look like they were minted yesterday.
You know I wanted to post a high grade, MS66 or MS67 Arkansas with the luster completely destroyed for comparison, but the last time I did that I created a firestorm and I'm well aware of the liability issues surrounding low population slabs.
IMO either luster is an important attribute for the grade or it isn't. It's staggering to realize that an attribute you can see across the room (luster) is less important to a grading company than an attribute you need a magnifying glass to identify property. (bagmarks, hairlines, poor strike, etc) I've never understood this and I never will.
What are the issues?
It would be great to see a low luster coin for comparison.
I find the Robinson - Arkansas to be a bit more interesting, mainly because it was a reflection of when the hubris of the Senate leadership was at its height. If Senator Robinson had not died of a heart attack at the time he did, he would have been alive and in office at the time this coin was issued. Of course it took Congressional approval to authorize this coin which met that Robinson probably voted for the bill that created it .
FDR was thinking about appointing Robinson to the Supreme Court as part of his "court packing" plan. Usually the Senate feels obligated to approve the appointment of one their own to another government post, or at least is used to be that way.
This coin is only an MS-64. Most of my old commemoratives are what you might call collector or "pedestrian grade. " i put the set together with I was dealer at wholesale prices. Today I'd be lucky to break even on it if I were to sell it.
An interesting part of the design is that 1836 is next to the Indian and 1936 is next to Lady Liberty. It seems similar to the Century of Progress medals that compare life a century ago to now.
I will use this coin as an example. This Arkansas has severely damaged luster through over-dipping. The surface has been oxidized to an extent that all of the microscopic lines have been removed. You cannot demonstrate a cartwheel pattern in this coin if your life depended on it. Wanna guess the grade?
My guess would be MS-63.
Here's my example which has a bit for life. It is graded MS-64.
>
Too low.
I'll guess MS65 non-CAC.
Hehe.....still too low.
MS66
Wow. I much prefer your coin earlier in this thread.
Given your discription of it, I was thinking of as low as MS-62.
Some Arkansas coins are naturally dull because the dies were worn. Still you would have to see this one in person to make a case for that.
I am surprised that that coin graded that high, given the dullness. I was disappointed when this Oregon Trail only got an MS-64. I figured it was because it had been dipped a couple of times and was too dull to grade higher.
Actually worn dies make for the most spectacular luster with heavy metal flow lines. Look at coins with lots of polish marks and/or die cracks if you want to know what I mean.
I have some super late die state coins with heavy metal flow lines and love the look. I believe Dan has also mentioned here that luster improves as the dies age.
Here's a ridiculously gorgeous Merc with lots of polish marks and worn dies.
I am not sure about that. If that were true then this McKinley gold dollar, which has a P-L look to it would be at the end of the coining cycle, not the beginning. I don't think that's true. Old, worn dies can be repolished which will give the coins made by them luster and polishing lines.
My MS66 matching ARK sets have bold luster and a nice look with natural toning, just as they should look after 80 yrs. So I'm not sure what you're getting destroyed luster on 66/67 coins. I can't recall seeing stuff like that on 90% or more of superb commems. It's even less likely that over-dipped coins get graded as 66/67.
The TPG's still attribute luster as the most important feature of a gem commem. That hasn't changed in the time you have been away from the Forum. If a commem has MS67 luster yet is loaded with hits, hairlines, and a weak strike, that sounds like a MS62-MS64 coin. Morgan dollars are graded that way. Most common Morgans from MS63 and up have the luster to satisfy an MS67 grade....though marks and other defects lower the grade. Original bags of Morgans have superb luster....and plenty of marks too. No different for gem classic silver commems.
The MS66 commem you pictured above with "destroyed luster" does look somewhat dull or dusky as photographed. That seems fairly normal for many ARKs. That's not from over-dipping but more from decades of environmental exposure or storage where the luster slowly degrades, turning sort of flat and a bit dullish. A lot of otherwise untouched gem commems can get that "burnt" luster look over time. It's not from over-dipping imo.
90% or more commemoratives grading MS67 or higher have severely impaired or totally destroyed luster and it can be easily demonstrated to be the case by looking for a strong cartwheel effect present on ALL coins at the time of issue. Even proof coins have this effect on the frosted surfaces if you look closely.
The MS66 coin above doesn't really need an explanation for why the luster is almost entirely gone. It might be toning and dipping or it might be slow oxidation or it might be from being soaked in ammonia. The point is it cannot be higher than an MS64 and IMO should be body bagged. The fact that these coins have saturated the market (because no one will buy them) is a condemnation of market grading. Most of these end up being sold at a Heritage auction where the hype and limited access to viewing might result in a sale.
>
I've yet to see a MS67 commem without a full strong cartwheel luster, let alone impaired or destroyed luster. All superb gem silver coins (1818-1947) that I have ever seen in slabs over the past 50 years, including classic commems, have invariably had killer original luster. So I don't know where your ">90% are impaired" comment comes from. That cannot be easily demonstrated and runs counter to everything I've ever seen. Why would it be "different" for superb gem commems and not gem superb type coins for example? Or for superb gem Mercs, SLQ's, Walkers, and Washingtons of that same era? If 90% were so impaired, the CAC rates for such MS67 commems would reflect your 90% failure supposition. That doesn't seem to be the case however.
Most of the time commems with that burnt look reside in 63/64 holders.
I've already posted numerous examples. Why don't you pick one and we can discuss where you think the luster is being exhibited?
For ARKs, CAC has stickered 519 MS65's, 563 MS66's, and 128 MS67's. That seems pretty typical for the classic commems. Most commems seen to have about a 2X-5X ratio from MS67 down to MS66. The Hudson as 20X is at the high end. Don't see why CAC would be part of such a MS66/67 conspiracy where dead luster coins grade MS67 and get stickered. They've already gone out on a limb in gem classic gold where they only sticker 5-15% of all the coins submitted. If they could reject 90% there against the will of the market....why wouldn't reject 90% of MS67 commems if they honestly felt they all had burnt or destroyed luster?
In scanning PCGS pops, they grade approximately 2X as many MS65 ARKS as MS66's. Makes sense. And about 7X to 10X as many MS66's and MS67's. So a ratio of approx 14X to 20X going from 65 to 67. That doesn't seem to support a "burnt luster" policy for such a tiny portion of the overall pops (ie only 4% on average of all classic commems submitted over 30 yrs have graded MS67 or higher).
I'd rather discuss specifics. Here are ALL of the 1939 MS67 Arkansas coins. There are only three of them.
None of these have unimpaired luster and the last one has almost completely obliterated luster. In fact it looks to me like the + designation was awarded to the coin that had a little bit of brightness left.
https://coins.ha.com/c/search-results.zx?N=790+231+3183+322+3952+75+2007&Ntk=SI_Titles-Desc&Nty=1&Ntt=arkansas&ic4=KeywordSearch-A-K-071316
Here's a listing of Heritage Auction archives of all MS67 CAC ARKS. We can limit ourselves to the 50 on page one. So which 45 of these are over-dipped/destroyed with burnt out luster? It might be easier to name only the 5 that would pass muster. Though in looking at all of them, I find a couple dozen that I like.
I have a good idea what IWOG is concerned about. This next one has those "flat" like surfaces yet still 67 CAC'd. While this might appear over-dipped or messed with to an untrained eye, the coin looks 100% original to me....and to CAC as well. This is how the coin was basically made except for some light toning. No way is this over-dipping. Just as it's unlikely to me that the MS66 ARK linked above is also over-dipped.
https://coins.ha.com/itm/commemorative-silver/classic-commemoratives/1939-s-50c-arkansas-ms67-pcgs-cac/a/1186-4895.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515
Most of them are clearly impaired and this is a big problem with Arkansas coins. They weren't issued particularly brilliant so a lot of people tried to dip them bright. However I don't know why you're expanding this discussion to an entire auction when I've posted three out of three MS67 coins above.
I presented a list of over 60 PCGS MS67 CAC coins as you requested.
"Why don't you pick one and we can discuss where you think the luster is being exhibited?".....I picked 60.
These are representative of what the market considers "solid enough" coins for MS67's. 5 years of auction results from the real market place. Now please identify which 5-10 of that group are NOT cleaned/over-dipped. Pick out just the good ones that pass your luster criteria. We want to know why you disagree with both PCGS and CAC. CoinFacts is not a market. But since they list 3 photos for each date/mm that's several dozen superb gem coins, of which 90% should be impaired. Show us a single MS67 Coinfacts ARK that is "impaired." Should be easy to find if 90% of all MS67's are cleaned/impaired. Just 1 coin. Of the 3 CoinFacts 1939 ARKs you listed above, the luster on all of those looks fine to me....and not impaired.
A blanket statement that "most of them are clearly impaired" doesn't cut it. I state just the opposite that most or all of them are clearly unimpaired. This is just ARKS. We still have to get to the other several dozen design types to see why you apply this same "impaired luster" mentality to Iowa's, Pilgrims, San Diego's, Oregons, Texas', Boone's, etc. ARKs are just the start.
I'm sorry but this is absolutely untrue. Furthermore I'd like to know specifically how you know this considering the coin you linked has fingerprints on it? Where's the data that says "well a lot of these were issued blast white but some were issued sandblasted without any luster"?
Which makes it impossible to analyze what luster actually is. You are appealing to authority. I am trying to determine what you think the parallel flow lines present on ALL freshly minted coins looks like?
What do fingerprints or toning for that matter have to do with assessing original luster/flow lines from the US mint? Nothing, last I checked. All 60 of those MS67 ARKS I listed will demonstrate an obvious mint luster cartwheel. Of that I am certain. And by having cartwheel luster, you have mint manufactured flow lines. Other than proof commems, I've yet to see a non-PL MS67 or higher commem without a strong cartwheel luster. That statement applies to any non-PL/DMPL MS67 coin from 1818-1947...classic coin area up to end of the Walkers....though it applies much later and earlier as well.
Fwiw, the OP's original posted coin looked dipped out to me. That was the very first thing I thought of. A gem ARK is not supposed to look like that....unless blast white dipped is what you're after. IWOG started out taking the stance that 90% of all superb gem ARKS are over-dipped/cleaned/destroyed. Now he has back-tracked and stated the mint made them "poorly" that way. So what's the next iteration going to be?
Okay so where's the cartwheel on the coin you linked above? Actually this was taken in a light box so show me the hot and cold regions of the coin which constitute luster.
If you can't see the luster, I can't help you. The entire obv surface has a thick skin of white satiny luster that is strongest in the recesses around the mouth, lips, eyes, nose, the outline of the Indian's head, feathers, etc. Very apparent. Satiny luster with a much fainter cartwheel than your typical 1881-s MS67 Morgan dollar. How many decades did this 1939-s MS67 ARK spend in the original holder? Miss Liberty seems to be fully covered in a luster bath, even on the cheek, neck, and cap. The Indian has faint luster breaks on his cheek and lower nose.....lending proof that those other lighter areas are indeed covered with luster.
But, I purposely picked out the flattest looking photograph of those 60 coins since that is what you are focusing on....the flatter luster ARKs....as made by the US Mint. And Heritage photos sometimes "dull up" the actual luster in the photography process. What I'd like to know is, what on that coin tells you it's not 100% original and never dipped/cleaned?
What I'd like to know is, what on that coin tells you it's not 100% original and never dipped/cleaned.
Straight from the ANA. Hot and cold areas of the coin as the light is reflected towards you from one ray and away from you from a different ray. Rays being the lines radiating from the center. There are no freshly minted coins today that don't exhibit this pattern STRONGLY. There are no original rolls going back 100 years that don't exhibit this pattern STRONGLY. There is no explanation for why an original coin would exist WITHOUT this effect. In fact I paged through the auction you linked and it reminds me once again what a sorry state the market is in. Perhaps this is why prices keep falling.
Here's one coin from your auction that qualifies and I'll demonstrate what hot and cold look like. Hot is red, cold is blue.
Wow, we're talking about the 1 ARK coin I presented for discussion (as requested by IWOG) and he diverts off on a Texas and a Merc dime. Apples and oranges. Fwiw, those light bands you have circled are useless imo. Those are from the angle the light was applied to the coin, not always how the luster changes on the coin based on lighting angle. That's more a photography process than anything else....not the luster of the coin.
But I'll play this "new" game. Here's a picture of a finest known 1867 seated quarter for it's date. One of the best of any date in the rugged 1866-1872 era. It's possibly the highest surviving quality example of any of the scarce S mints from 1855-s to 1878-s. I'm not aware of anything fully original and better preserved.
https://coins.ha.com/itm/seated-quarters/quarters-and-twenty-cents/1867-s-25c-ms67-ngc-cac-briggs-1-a/a/1228-98352.s?ic4=GalleryView-Thumbnail-071515
Not "hot" and "cold" lines on this one. So it must be a piece of cleaned/overdipped crap rather than a coin that was put away near time of issue and stored under nearly ideal circumstances for 108 years...until showing up in the James Stack collection of March 1975. Unchanged in appearance in the last 42 years as well. It has a solid cartwheel despite the satiny appearance very similar to the MS67 1939-s ARK pictured above. Both coins are PCGS MS67 CAC.
Perfect! Classic cartwheel luster.
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.
Compare this Oregon to Bill's above.
IWOG "proved" above that the 1939-s ARK and 1867-s quarters above aren't suitable under "ANA hot and cold" ......so the luster must be impaired. Seems plausible on first glance. So, let's look at a different photo of the same 1867-s quarter as it was taken for the Gene Gardner collection. Oops. There's cartwheel luster in those fields. Very apparent. Now what? You mean it comes down to photography? Pretty much. So depending on how the photo was taken, you have to "interpret" what's really there. That 39-s ARK has good luster, despite the missing "hot and cold" areas. I cheated too. If you look at the Heritage 360 deg videos of that 67-s above, the coin seems to have the cartwheel luster of a gem 1934 Washington quarter. It's all about angles and perspectives.
http://www.seateddimevarieties.com/Gardner_Collection/QuarterBS_Images/1867s_obv.jpg
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.
Nope it doesn't come down to Photography. Coins with intact luster are difficult to photograph. Coins with damaged luster are easy to photograph. That's your first clue.
Your second clue is the fact that there's more brightness at the rim than in the middle. MOST coins with ruined luster have this trait. It was caused by old time collectors who used to freely handle their coins and whenever they got too dark they dipped them. Being the most protected part of the coin, the area right below the rim will generally have a brighter look and more intact flow lines. The fingerprint is there for a reason.
These whispers of original luster are excellent proof that this coin is nether original nor in possession of original surfaces. Being the most protected, they are also the brightest.
EXACTLY the same effect can be seen here:
