@TommyType said: "This is really not worth arguing about. But I think you should be prepared to hear that once you reveal YOUR definition of luster, (no matter how good your source)....some of us aren't going to be buyers. We're kind of wandering into a symantics area."
Symantics? LOL, seems like that's more "smoke" just like the mirror example.
Nevertheless, I I hope you will keep an open mind because words mean something. At the end of this exercise, we may agree. Now just because some "Johnny-come-lately" (Not you or any of the "some of us" you refer to) learns a narrow definition of a word as it is applied to a characteristic seen on coins does not limit its use.
You see, long before there were any grading service crutches (BTW, I think TPGS are a very positive part of our hobby/profession) there were very knowledgeable numismatists who taught folks to grade. When learning to grade, factors such as a coin's Original Mint Luster is extremely important. Beginners need to understand what "luster" actually is, what causes it, and what it looks like. For example, I don't think you or the "some of us" would disagree that there are different types of Original Mint Luster on Peace dollars. That's all I'll say on this until the drawing is over tomorrow as I'm giving too many hints.
As to this:
"I give you our hosts comment on grading":
For Mint State and Proof coins, the three factors comprising a coin's "technical grade" are:
1.Number and severity of marks and abrasions
2.Luster, or Reflectivity for Proofs
3.Strike, which is rarely a problem for proofs and strike is expected to be sharp, a weak strike being a deduction in the case of proofs.
Note that according to them, "Luster" applies to MS coins, while "Reflectivity" applies to proof coins. That's what I've learned, and that makes sense to me.
I've read the PCGS Grading Guide at least three times cover to cover and have used parts of it on many occasions. IMO, it should be in every collector's library along with a host of other books just as groundbreaking.
However, "true" Technical Grading was devised over a decade before PCGS was established. The PCGS book is a guide to the Commercial Grading System we all use. What you have posted (thank you) and what they have written is NOT TECHNICAL GRADING AT ALL! For example, a coin's strike was not important and only the coin's condition of preservation based on what it looked like when it left the dies was considered. Tarnish was not important and eye appeal was not the all-important thing it is today!
So you see, I'm not arguing at all. I'm just passing along the simple way I was introduced to the Original Mint Luster we see on coins during a Summer Seminar forty-four years ago by the numismatist who actually devised the true technical grading system as used for internal records at ANACS in Washington DC. Trust me when I tell you that this little introduction to "luster" works in real life classrooms. Just keep in mind that this is baby step one. You and the "some of us" are way past this.
PS "Reflectivity for Proofs" is a great way to describe the reflection of light from a surface (the luster) on those coins. Good Luck in the drawing and I'll tell everyone now that if "Tommy" is the winner in a fair drawing I will draw another name so there will be two winners.
My only point was that to many, "Luster" and "Reflectivity" are two different things. A mirror is reflective, but it's not lustrous. A proof coin, made as intended, has no luster, it has mirrors. (Though, of course, as the die wears, the surfaces may change...) We can argue what word to use, and find PCGS or NGC or the ANA grading guide or Webster's agrees or disagrees with us. But it's not really productive.
To the REAL point, I do agree: Call it luster or reflectivity, a collector does need to know what the original surfaces should look like....be it a mirrored proof, or an MS coin, or a Matte Proof. Morgans look different than Peace, and some Peace look different than other Peace. But DEFINING luster is much less useful than SEEING luster.
As for the drawing...I never really intended to enter to begin with! I was being my normal Pain in the (whatever).
Feel free to re-draw....or better yet, pick the person with the best answer in your opinion.
Setting the contest aside since I already submitted my entry, there are many valid points through out the debate. As a learning curve , is it safe to say that any reflective object is not necessary lustrous? Although some luster can be produce intentionally or artificially, does it contain the true soul/luster that collectors desire?
@TurboSnail said:
Setting the contest aside since I already submitted my entry, there are many valid points through out the debate. As a learning curve , is it safe to say that any reflective object is not necessary lustrous? Although some luster can be produce intentionally or artificially, does it contain the true soul/luster that collectors desire?
I probably should leave this for Insider2, since he has something specific he's trying to convey to us....
But as far as COIN LUSTER, I personally would agree with your statement that "any reflective object is not necessarily lustrous". If you dip the life out of a coin, it still may reflect light, and have a metallic shine to it....but no numismatist would call it lustrous. (My opinion).
@logger7 said: "You of course are one of the leading numismatists in your region, hence the "insider" 2 name. Inside trading however is against the law."
That's a good one! ROTFL. Actually, I'm not but thanks. To be more correct, I know many of the folks you just posted about. I picked the name "Insider" because I'm a wanna-be- -like-them.
Question pertains to light and surface of object: All objects display luster in varying degrees that are based upon level of light, direction of light, and position of object from it's lights source. Some objects may absorb light to the degree of producing no reflection nor subsequent luster; while, other objects emit a brilliance from surface bearing qualities that may develop eye squinting renderings that could perhaps leave viewer blind.
Question 1: Luster is the reflection (or refraction) of light from the surface of a struck coin. Luster from reflection occurs on coins without changes in the surface (e.g. toning) where the light reflects from the surface irregularities resulting from erosion lines in the die. Luster from refraction is similar to luster from reflection except that the light must travel through the surface alteration (e.g. toning) which may change the pathway of the light.
Question 2: The plastic and rubber pen image does not show luster.
Great post, BTW!
Edited for punctuation.
Numismatist Ordinaire See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
@TommyType said: "As for the drawing...I never really intended to enter to begin with! I was being my normal Pain in the (whatever). Feel free to re-draw....or better yet, pick the person with the best answer in your opinion."
I was not clear. If you are picked you win BUT I should feel that a second winner is also given the same prize... I have a roll of them.
@Onastone said: "Seriously though, this is a good exercise. I don't know enough about grading but am learning. After this LUSTER lesson, will there be another class?"
Yes, I've taken lots of notes over the years. I'm willing to take the snarky posts about being a "professor" or "know-it-all" because everyone is not as fortunate to have been in classes. I'll recommend you join the ANA and order the correspondence courses. Also PCGS has a set of grading images on line. Two books you will need are The ANA Grading Guide and Grading coins by Photographs. READ THE INTRODUCTIONS of both books at least twice and you will know more about grading than many folks you deal with! PCGS has a book about Grading and Authentication you should read at least twice also.
Thanks for the definitions of luster. I'll be posting more on this and explaining what I learned this weekend.
Answer: All the items have "luster" - the reflection of light from a surface [not limited to any material]. We add "Mint" to the word luster as it applies to our coins. Only the nickel and cent have "Mint luster."
The mint luster we see on coins has adjectives as "frosty," "satin," dull," etc.
Why can't I ever win? I'm philosophical about it. lol I had an english teacher in high school who would reward the top producer in each of his classes with escargot at a fancy schmancy place in NYC. One semester I should have gotten that honor but he found a way to reward a female classmate on a technicality....
@logger7 said:
Why can't I ever win? I'm philosophical about it. lol I had an english teacher in high school who would reward the top producer in each of his classes with escargot at a fancy schmancy place in NYC. One semester I should have gotten that honor but he found a way to reward a female classmate on a technicality....
You didn't answer the question correctly. Look at all the images. Each has a different type of "luster." Only two have Original Mint luster.
I define Luster as the result of how reflected light interacts, and is affected or scattered by, the texture or grain of the coin’s metallic surface.
This metallic surface texture is affected by a combination of the planchet preparation and the minting process wear state of the die surface, which is impacted by a combination of Initial New Die State, Die Wear via friction from metal flow through striking of thousands of coins, and Die Polishing or Lapping to enhance the Eye Appeal of struck coins as the dies begin to show signs of wear.
The dies may originally have Mirror Highly Reflective Surfaces (Proof, DMPL or PL), or Frosty Surfaces as are typical on many Business Strike Coins. They may also have Textures and Reflectivity Strength in between the above-mentioned End Members due to wear during the minting process.
I classify luster into the following categories from Left to Right as dies progressively wear via the minting process:
Damn, didn't realize that the winner was going to be picked early today. I should have had my answers in last night but it got late and didn't realize that by the time I got my answers in that the drawing had already taken place lol I would have loved to had been able to have a chance at this coin, would of loved to had it in my collection if I would of won it.
Congratulations on winning this fine coin Jedm!
That was very nice of you to give such a fine coin away Insider2! Wish I would have gotten my answers in last night but it got to be really late and thought I would get it in time today, I was thinking that you were going to do the drawing later in the day. Anyhow, that was very nice of you to give away such a nice coin. If there is a next time, I now know not to wait to get my answers in lol
I promise to pick another topic soon. Let the grumps complain. Anyway, as I said, this is very helpful for ME ALSO. Best thing is the back and forth opinions from folks who don't agree. That's how I learn other sides of a topic.
@logger7 said:
Why can't I ever win? I'm philosophical about it. lol I had an english teacher in high school who would reward the top producer in each of his classes with escargot at a fancy schmancy place in NYC. One semester I should have gotten that honor but he found a way to reward a female classmate on a technicality....
High school teacher, producer, escargot, reward, underage girl .... Say WHAT??
@logger7 said:
Why can't I ever win? I'm philosophical about it. lol I had an english teacher in high school who would reward the top producer in each of his classes with escargot at a fancy schmancy place in NYC. One semester I should have gotten that honor but he found a way to reward a female classmate on a technicality....
High school teacher, producer, escargot, reward, underage girl .... Say WHAT??
Thank you Insider for the chance, and the PRIZE! Thanks to all for your congratulations. The discussions that the post sparked have been informative and thought provoking.
Comments
@TommyType said: "This is really not worth arguing about. But I think you should be prepared to hear that once you reveal YOUR definition of luster, (no matter how good your source)....some of us aren't going to be buyers. We're kind of wandering into a symantics area."
Symantics? LOL, seems like that's more "smoke" just like the mirror example.
Nevertheless, I I hope you will keep an open mind because words mean something. At the end of this exercise, we may agree. Now just because some "Johnny-come-lately" (Not you or any of the "some of us" you refer to) learns a narrow definition of a word as it is applied to a characteristic seen on coins does not limit its use.
You see, long before there were any grading service crutches (BTW, I think TPGS are a very positive part of our hobby/profession) there were very knowledgeable numismatists who taught folks to grade. When learning to grade, factors such as a coin's Original Mint Luster is extremely important. Beginners need to understand what "luster" actually is, what causes it, and what it looks like. For example, I don't think you or the "some of us" would disagree that there are different types of Original Mint Luster on Peace dollars.
That's all I'll say on this until the drawing is over tomorrow as I'm giving too many hints.
As to this:
"I give you our hosts comment on grading":
For Mint State and Proof coins, the three factors comprising a coin's "technical grade" are:
1.Number and severity of marks and abrasions
2.Luster, or Reflectivity for Proofs
3.Strike, which is rarely a problem for proofs and strike is expected to be sharp, a weak strike being a deduction in the case of proofs.
Note that according to them, "Luster" applies to MS coins, while "Reflectivity" applies to proof coins. That's what I've learned, and that makes sense to me.
I've read the PCGS Grading Guide at least three times cover to cover and have used parts of it on many occasions. IMO, it should be in every collector's library along with a host of other books just as groundbreaking.
However, "true" Technical Grading was devised over a decade before PCGS was established. The PCGS book is a guide to the Commercial Grading System we all use. What you have posted (thank you) and what they have written is NOT TECHNICAL GRADING AT ALL! For example, a coin's strike was not important and only the coin's condition of preservation based on what it looked like when it left the dies was considered. Tarnish was not important and eye appeal was not the all-important thing it is today!
So you see, I'm not arguing at all. I'm just passing along the simple way I was introduced to the Original Mint Luster we see on coins during a Summer Seminar forty-four years ago by the numismatist who actually devised the true technical grading system as used for internal records at ANACS in Washington DC. Trust me when I tell you that this little introduction to "luster" works in real life classrooms. Just keep in mind that this is baby step one. You and the "some of us" are way past this.
PS "Reflectivity for Proofs" is a great way to describe the reflection of light from a surface (the luster) on those coins.
Good Luck in the drawing and I'll tell everyone now that if "Tommy" is the winner in a fair drawing I will draw another name so there will be two winners. 
Like I said, we're talking semantics now.
My only point was that to many, "Luster" and "Reflectivity" are two different things. A mirror is reflective, but it's not lustrous. A proof coin, made as intended, has no luster, it has mirrors. (Though, of course, as the die wears, the surfaces may change...) We can argue what word to use, and find PCGS or NGC or the ANA grading guide or Webster's agrees or disagrees with us. But it's not really productive.
To the REAL point, I do agree: Call it luster or reflectivity, a collector does need to know what the original surfaces should look like....be it a mirrored proof, or an MS coin, or a Matte Proof. Morgans look different than Peace, and some Peace look different than other Peace. But DEFINING luster is much less useful than SEEING luster.
As for the drawing...I never really intended to enter to begin with! I was being my normal Pain in the (whatever).
Feel free to re-draw....or better yet, pick the person with the best answer in your opinion.
Setting the contest aside since I already submitted my entry, there are many valid points through out the debate. As a learning curve , is it safe to say that any reflective object is not necessary lustrous? Although some luster can be produce intentionally or artificially, does it contain the true soul/luster that collectors desire?
Luster: a gentle sheen or soft glow, especially that of a partly reflective surface
on the above:
no, no, no, yes, no, yes
BHNC #203
I probably should leave this for Insider2, since he has something specific he's trying to convey to us....
But as far as COIN LUSTER, I personally would agree with your statement that "any reflective object is not necessarily lustrous". If you dip the life out of a coin, it still may reflect light, and have a metallic shine to it....but no numismatist would call it lustrous. (My opinion).
You cannot win if you don't enter!
Buffalo seems to have standard surface with luster.
You of course are one of the leading numismatists in your region, hence the "insider" 2 name. Inside trading however is against the law.
@logger7 said: "You of course are one of the leading numismatists in your region, hence the "insider" 2 name. Inside trading however is against the law."
That's a good one! ROTFL. Actually, I'm not but thanks. To be more correct, I know many of the folks you just posted about. I picked the name "Insider" because I'm a wanna-be-
-like-them.
Luster - the qualities of the light reflected from a surface.
All of the photos include luster.
Question pertains to light and surface of object: All objects display luster in varying degrees that are based upon level of light, direction of light, and position of object from it's lights source. Some objects may absorb light to the degree of producing no reflection nor subsequent luster; while, other objects emit a brilliance from surface bearing qualities that may develop eye squinting renderings that could perhaps leave viewer blind.
I think we're being schooled here and only the shiniest student will win! The student that has the most luster!!!!!
Seriously though, this is a good exercise. I don't know enough about grading but am learning. After this LUSTER lesson, will there be another class?
@Onastone said: "I think we're being schooled here and only the shiniest student will win! The student that has the most luster!!!!!"
I'm the one being schooled. This is a research project.
"Luster", in a general sense, means refectivity (or "shine").
I learned that luster was called "mint bloom" in the bad old days.
The pics could be better.............but the only "mint bloom" i see is on the Buff.
I SEE (personally speaking).......is the indicator.
Pete
Looking at your avatar BuffaloIronTail, I've got to get a better Buffalo! Mine was found out in the wild though and really has lost it's luster!
I'm going with the new guy answer, Luster is a reflection of its original state to me . I like the buffalo nickle.
Working on the entries to see who goes into the pot.
Question 1: Luster is the reflection (or refraction) of light from the surface of a struck coin. Luster from reflection occurs on coins without changes in the surface (e.g. toning) where the light reflects from the surface irregularities resulting from erosion lines in the die. Luster from refraction is similar to luster from reflection except that the light must travel through the surface alteration (e.g. toning) which may change the pathway of the light.
Question 2: The plastic and rubber pen image does not show luster.
Great post, BTW!
Edited for punctuation.
See http://www.doubledimes.com for a free online reference for US twenty-cent pieces
The finer the porosity of the metal the more frost and more luster.
bob
@TommyType said: "As for the drawing...I never really intended to enter to begin with! I was being my normal Pain in the (whatever).
Feel free to re-draw....or better yet, pick the person with the best answer in your opinion."
I was not clear. If you are picked you win BUT I should feel that a second winner is also given the same prize... I have a roll of them.
@Onastone said: "Seriously though, this is a good exercise. I don't know enough about grading but am learning. After this LUSTER lesson, will there be another class?"
Yes, I've taken lots of notes over the years. I'm willing to take the snarky posts about being a "professor" or "know-it-all" because everyone is not as fortunate to have been in classes. I'll recommend you join the ANA and order the correspondence courses. Also PCGS has a set of grading images on line. Two books you will need are The ANA Grading Guide and Grading coins by Photographs. READ THE INTRODUCTIONS of both books at least twice and you will know more about grading than many folks you deal with! PCGS has a book about Grading and Authentication you should read at least twice also.
Thanks for the definitions of luster. I'll be posting more on this and explaining what I learned this weekend.
Answer: All the items have "luster" - the reflection of light from a surface [not limited to any material]. We add "Mint" to the word luster as it applies to our coins. Only the nickel and cent have "Mint luster."
The mint luster we see on coins has adjectives as "frosty," "satin," dull," etc.
Members in the drawing:
@divecchia @jwitten @Kkathyl @WildIdea @WoodenJefferson @1630Boston @ricko @kaz @coin4sale @newcoincollector @TommyType @jedm @MattTheRiley and @thevolcanogod
The winner is @Jedm Please PM me with shipping address. Thanks to all who entered.
Congratulations @Jedm....Cheers, RickO
Congrats to the winner and thanks "Mr Know it all" @insider2 for the information
Just kidding professor
Successful transactions with : MICHAELDIXON, Manorcourtman, Bochiman, bolivarshagnasty, AUandAG, onlyroosies, chumley, Weiss, jdimmick, BAJJERFAN, gene1978, TJM965, Smittys, GRANDAM, JTHawaii, mainejoe, softparade, derryb, Ricko
Bad transactions with : nobody to date
Why can't I ever win? I'm philosophical about it. lol I had an english teacher in high school who would reward the top producer in each of his classes with escargot at a fancy schmancy place in NYC. One semester I should have gotten that honor but he found a way to reward a female classmate on a technicality....
You didn't answer the question correctly. Look at all the images. Each has a different type of "luster." Only two have Original Mint luster.
Congrats to the winner @jedm and thanks to @Insider2 for the learning experience.
Donato
Donato's Complete US Type Set ---- Donato's Dansco 7070 Modified Type Set ---- Donato's Basic U.S. Coin Design Set
Successful transactions: Shrub68 (Jim), MWallace (Mike)
Definition of Luster is a gentle sheen or soft glow of a partly reflective surface, a thin coating containing unoxidized metal.
Answer: 0, All have Luster of some kind
I define Luster as the result of how reflected light interacts, and is affected or scattered by, the texture or grain of the coin’s metallic surface.
This metallic surface texture is affected by a combination of the planchet preparation and the minting process wear state of the die surface, which is impacted by a combination of Initial New Die State, Die Wear via friction from metal flow through striking of thousands of coins, and Die Polishing or Lapping to enhance the Eye Appeal of struck coins as the dies begin to show signs of wear.
The dies may originally have Mirror Highly Reflective Surfaces (Proof, DMPL or PL), or Frosty Surfaces as are typical on many Business Strike Coins. They may also have Textures and Reflectivity Strength in between the above-mentioned End Members due to wear during the minting process.
I classify luster into the following categories from Left to Right as dies progressively wear via the minting process:
Deeply Mirrored (Proof) => Deep Mirrored Prooflike (DMPL) => Prooflike (PL) => Semi-Prooflike => Glossy => Satiny => Frosty => Matte (Proof)
I’m interested in hearing comments, thoughts & observations about this from fellow forum members.
Stuart
Collect 18th & 19th Century US Type Coins, Silver Dollars, $20 Gold Double Eagles and World Crowns & Talers with High Eye Appeal
"Luck is what happens when Preparation meets Opportunity"
Damn, didn't realize that the winner was going to be picked early today. I should have had my answers in last night but it got late and didn't realize that by the time I got my answers in that the drawing had already taken place lol I would have loved to had been able to have a chance at this coin, would of loved to had it in my collection if I would of won it.
Congratulations on winning this fine coin Jedm!
That was very nice of you to give such a fine coin away Insider2! Wish I would have gotten my answers in last night but it got to be really late and thought I would get it in time today, I was thinking that you were going to do the drawing later in the day. Anyhow, that was very nice of you to give away such a nice coin. If there is a next time, I now know not to wait to get my answers in lol
So I was right! The winner also has luster!@!!
Congrats @jdem~
I promise to pick another topic soon. Let the grumps complain. Anyway, as I said, this is very helpful for ME ALSO. Best thing is the back and forth opinions from folks who don't agree. That's how I learn other sides of a topic.
I'll do the same prize.
I
High school teacher, producer, escargot, reward, underage girl .... Say WHAT??
I thought that is what made objects black in color - the absorption of all visible light and the reflection of none.
It was a blessing in disguise to not be invited, he was head of the english department at our high school for 25 plus years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Allen_Smith
Thank you Insider for the chance, and the PRIZE! Thanks to all for your congratulations. The discussions that the post sparked have been informative and thought provoking.
Congrats to the winner. Thanks for the chance!
Despite my wish that he hit the 2000 mark, I have never disagreed with @Insider2 so little in a thread
Congrats to the winner and winners good job, I learned something which is a good thing!