A test for the naysayers. Which one of these coins has surfaces that are fully original?
Coin 1
Coin 2
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@MasonG said:
"Luster and color are closely related for most coins because exceptional color will enhance average luster..."
Interesting.
Apparently he doesn't think so. The ANA is apparently incorrectly interpreting ANA standards.
I'm done. Carry on without me. If the ANA can't convince Mr. ANA, no one can.
I haven't been around since 1891 but I have been around long enough to have a pretty good command of the English language. I know what the words original, fully and luster mean. I also have an understanding of the process that results in the toning of a silver coin. ANYONE claiming a toned coin represents the original surfaces of a coin as it was minted is delusional.
The statements in the ANA guide are contradictory. A coin's surfaces cannot be fully original and toned at the same time. If you want to argue that those words have been watered down among the numismatic community to mean those contradictory things have at it. Words have meaning. If you're satisfied with this twisted interpretation that's on you. Hopefully you don't apply the same meaning to those words when buying a used car.
Give my best to your wife.
I will. And yes, she really is a saint .
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
"For Mint State coins the four criteria are marks, strike, luster, and eye appeal. Toning is part of the eye appeal. We used to have the following statement on the grading room wall...
"Toning adds a little and forgives a lot."
(We also use to have the saying "Any fool can undergrade" hung on the wall.)
Toning is a very personal preference issue, but most will agree that beautiful rainbow toning is a positive and mottled, splotchy brown toning is a negative. The graders definitely take toning into acount.
Proofs have the same concept (slightly different criteria), i.e. toning is part of eye appeal.
I was always a beautiful rainbow toning fan and I always had a very negative personal opinion on ugly bird doo toning. While I'm as big a fan of blast white luster as anybody, until recently I had been dismayed at the market's seemingly myopic preference for pure white (no matter how dipped-out looking) coins. I am tickled at the resurgence of interest in beautiful rainbow toned coins and the very strong recent auction prices for the rainbow beauties."
"For Mint State coins the four criteria are marks, strike, luster, and eye appeal. Toning is part of the eye appeal. We used to have the following statement on the grading room wall...
"Toning adds a little and forgives a lot."
(We also use to have the saying "Any fool can undergrade" hung on the wall.)
Toning is a very personal preference issue, but most will agree that beautiful rainbow toning is a positive and mottled, splotchy brown toning is a negative. The graders definitely take toning into acount.
Proofs have the same concept (slightly different criteria), i.e. toning is part of eye appeal.
I was always a beautiful rainbow toning fan and I always had a very negative personal opinion on ugly bird doo toning. While I'm as big a fan of blast white luster as anybody, until recently I had been dismayed at the market's seemingly myopic preference for pure white (no matter how dipped-out looking) coins. I am tickled at the resurgence of interest in beautiful rainbow toned coins and the very strong recent auction prices for the rainbow beauties."
I have no problem with toning and eye appeal. My issues is claiming a toned coin has full original luster. I've never seen a toned coin with fully original luster. It doesn't exist. By definition toning is a change in the original luster of a coin.
Now how about the answer to my little quiz.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
A test for the naysayers. Which one of these coins has surfaces that are fully original?
Coin 1
YOU ARE MISQUOTING THE ANA.
It does NOT NOT NOT say "fully original surfaces". It says "FULLY ORIGINAL LUSTER".
BOTH OF THOSE COINS HAVE ORIGINAL LUSTER
Yes, fully original luster and that would translate to full original surfaces.
Now don't shy away. I know some people get nervous when they're hit with a surprise quiz. What's your answer? Which one of those coins has fully original luster?
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
A test for the naysayers. Which one of these coins has surfaces that are fully original?
Coin 1
YOU ARE MISQUOTING THE ANA.
It does NOT NOT NOT say "fully original surfaces". It says "FULLY ORIGINAL LUSTER".
BOTH OF THOSE COINS HAVE ORIGINAL LUSTER
Yes, fully original luster and that would translate to full original surfaces.
Now don't shy away. I know some people get nervous when they're hit with a surprise quiz. What's your answer? Which one of those coins has fully original luster?
I already answered that. BOTH OF THEM. Clearly you don't read all the words.
LUSTER is not COLOR. LUSTER is not SURFACE. Luster is but one component of the surface, separate from color.
Your unwillingness to recognize this does you no credit.
@pmh1nic said:
A test for the naysayers. Which one of these coins has surfaces that are fully original?
Coin 1
YOU ARE MISQUOTING THE ANA.
It does NOT NOT NOT say "fully original surfaces". It says "FULLY ORIGINAL LUSTER".
BOTH OF THOSE COINS HAVE ORIGINAL LUSTER
Yes, fully original luster and that would translate to full original surfaces.
Now don't shy away. I know some people get nervous when they're hit with a surprise quiz. What's your answer? Which one of those coins has fully original luster?
I already answered that. BOTH OF THEM. Clearly you don't read all the words.
LUSTER is not COLOR. LUSTER is not SURFACE. Luster is but one component of the surface, separate from color.
Your unwillingness to recognize this does you no credit.
Have a good life.
Sorry, missed your original answer. I'm also sorry that you're delusional. I asked my wife (the Saint) who has no interest in coins, "which one of these looks original?" Her response was number 1 and added "what coin comes out of the mint looking like that?", meaning number 2.
I clear understand the marketplace and I'm fully aware of the nuisances in language that exist in the numismatic community. To be frank it's ridiculous and in reality unnecessary but for the nonsense that has gone on in the realm of coin grading. To a rational, logical mind fully original luster cannot mean a coin with toning. That's an oxymoron that has become acceptable in the numismatic community.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
I asked my wife (the Saint) who has no interest in coins, "which one of these looks original?" Her response was number 1 and added "what coin comes out of the mint looking like that?", meaning number 2.
Well, there's your answer, right there. Have your wife grade your coins.
@pmh1nic said:
A test for the naysayers. Which one of these coins has surfaces that are fully original?
Coin 1
YOU ARE MISQUOTING THE ANA.
It does NOT NOT NOT say "fully original surfaces". It says "FULLY ORIGINAL LUSTER".
BOTH OF THOSE COINS HAVE ORIGINAL LUSTER
Yes, fully original luster and that would translate to full original surfaces.
Now don't shy away. I know some people get nervous when they're hit with a surprise quiz. What's your answer? Which one of those coins has fully original luster?
I already answered that. BOTH OF THEM. Clearly you don't read all the words.
LUSTER is not COLOR. LUSTER is not SURFACE. Luster is but one component of the surface, separate from color.
Your unwillingness to recognize this does you no credit.
Have a good life.
Luster is a product of the microscope change that occurs when a coin is struck. The luster of a coin is directly connected to the condition of the surface of the coin. The distinction you are making is a distinction having no bearing on the issue of fully original luster.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
I asked my wife (the Saint) who has no interest in coins, "which one of these looks original?" Her response was number 1 and added "what coin comes out of the mint looking like that?", meaning number 2.
Well, there's your answer, right there. Have your wife grade your coins.
My wife's command of the English language hasn't been corrupted by the twisting of the language that has occurred in the realm of coin collecting. Would you advertise a car that has some surface oxidation and claim the finish is "fully original"? In most places that would be a rhetorical question except in the world of numismatics.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
I asked my wife (the Saint) who has no interest in coins, "which one of these looks original?" Her response was number 1 and added "what coin comes out of the mint looking like that?", meaning number 2.
Well, there's your answer, right there. Have your wife grade your coins.
My wife's command of the English language hasn't been corrupted by the twisting of the language that has occurred in the realm of coin collecting. Would you advertise a car that has some surface oxidation and claim the finish is "fully original"? In most places that would be a rhetorical question except in the world of numismatics.
The ANA is in the realm. So maybe you should learn to speak their language rather than cling to your own.
@pmh1nic said:
I asked my wife (the Saint) who has no interest in coins, "which one of these looks original?" Her response was number 1 and added "what coin comes out of the mint looking like that?", meaning number 2.
Well, there's your answer, right there. Have your wife grade your coins.
My wife's command of the English language hasn't been corrupted by the twisting of the language that has occurred in the realm of coin collecting. Would you advertise a car that has some surface oxidation and claim the finish is "fully original"? In most places that would be a rhetorical question except in the world of numismatics.
The ANA is in the realm. So maybe you should learn to speak their language rather than cling to your own.
You mean my own language, the language that 99.5% of the English speak population understands? Again, I understand the nuisance attached to these words in the alternative universe that exist in the realm of numismatics. But there is just something about my rational mind that doesn't allow me to blindly wander down that road. If you think coin number 2 represents the original luster of the coin you've swallowed the blue pill and entered the numismatic equivalent of the matrix.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
I asked my wife (the Saint) who has no interest in coins, "which one of these looks original?" Her response was number 1 and added "what coin comes out of the mint looking like that?", meaning number 2.
Well, there's your answer, right there. Have your wife grade your coins.
My wife's command of the English language hasn't been corrupted by the twisting of the language that has occurred in the realm of coin collecting. Would you advertise a car that has some surface oxidation and claim the finish is "fully original"? In most places that would be a rhetorical question except in the world of numismatics.
The ANA is in the realm. So maybe you should learn to speak their language rather than cling to your own.
You mean my own language, the language that 99.5% of the English speak population understands? Again, I understand the nuisance attached to these words in the alternative universe that exist in the realm of numismatics. But there is just something about my rational mind that doesn't allow me to blindly wander down that road. If you think coin number 2 represents the original luster of the coin you've swallowed the blue pill and entered the numismatic equivalent of the matrix.
Rational is not the correct word.
Words have different meaning in different contexts. Your "mind" should recognize that and adjust.
An essay in philately is different than an essay (essay) in numismatics which is decidedly different than an essay in English lit.
But I'll pay one more time. Find me any definition of luster in a standard English dictionary that includes color with luster. Just one. Not the one in your "mind". One standard English dictionary that defines luster as you claim and I will relent.
@pmh1nic said:
I asked my wife (the Saint) who has no interest in coins, "which one of these looks original?" Her response was number 1 and added "what coin comes out of the mint looking like that?", meaning number 2.
Well, there's your answer, right there. Have your wife grade your coins.
My wife's command of the English language hasn't been corrupted by the twisting of the language that has occurred in the realm of coin collecting. Would you advertise a car that has some surface oxidation and claim the finish is "fully original"? In most places that would be a rhetorical question except in the world of numismatics.
The ANA is in the realm. So maybe you should learn to speak their language rather than cling to your own.
You mean my own language, the language that 99.5% of the English speak population understands? Again, I understand the nuisance attached to these words in the alternative universe that exist in the realm of numismatics. But there is just something about my rational mind that doesn't allow me to blindly wander down that road. If you think coin number 2 represents the original luster of the coin you've swallowed the blue pill and entered the numismatic equivalent of the matrix.
Rational is not the correct word.
Words have different meaning in different contexts. Your "mind" should recognize that and adjust.
An essay in philately is different than an essay (essay) in numismatics which is decidedly different than an essay in English lit.
But I'll pay one more time. Find me any definition of luster in a standard English dictionary that includes color with luster. Just one. Not the one in your "mind". One standard English dictionary that defines luster as you claim and I will relent.
Otherwise, we are done and you are proven wrong.
I'm an engineer by train (electronics). When we are talking standards and specifications words have precise means or they're not really standards or specifications but opinions. If they're opinions don't call them standards as in "grading standards".
Original: present or existing from the beginning; first or earliest
Fully: completely or entirely; to the furthest extent.
Now I could get into the details of what creates the mint luster of a silver coin and the process of change that occurs as a coin tones.
I agree with you, luster has nothing to do with color BUT in this alternative universe of numismatics, where words can mean whatever is convenient for you in pumping up the grade of a coin, the word "white" is often used to describe a coin that is very lustrous. I didn't make up the term but I figured it was may a way to communicate with those that don't seem to understand that a coin can't have fully original luster and be toned at the same time.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
I asked my wife (the Saint) who has no interest in coins, "which one of these looks original?" Her response was number 1 and added "what coin comes out of the mint looking like that?", meaning number 2.
Well, there's your answer, right there. Have your wife grade your coins.
My wife's command of the English language hasn't been corrupted by the twisting of the language that has occurred in the realm of coin collecting. Would you advertise a car that has some surface oxidation and claim the finish is "fully original"? In most places that would be a rhetorical question except in the world of numismatics.
The ANA is in the realm. So maybe you should learn to speak their language rather than cling to your own.
You mean my own language, the language that 99.5% of the English speak population understands? Again, I understand the nuisance attached to these words in the alternative universe that exist in the realm of numismatics. But there is just something about my rational mind that doesn't allow me to blindly wander down that road. If you think coin number 2 represents the original luster of the coin you've swallowed the blue pill and entered the numismatic equivalent of the matrix.
Rational is not the correct word.
Words have different meaning in different contexts. Your "mind" should recognize that and adjust.
An essay in philately is different than an essay (essay) in numismatics which is decidedly different than an essay in English lit.
But I'll pay one more time. Find me any definition of luster in a standard English dictionary that includes color with luster. Just one. Not the one in your "mind". One standard English dictionary that defines luster as you claim and I will relent.
Otherwise, we are done and you are proven wrong.
I'm an engineer by train (electronics). When we are talking standards and specifications words have precise means or they're not really standards or specifications but opinions. If they're opinions don't call them standards as in "grading standards".
Original: present or existing from the beginning; first or earliest
Fully: completely or entirely; to the furthest extent.
Now I could get into the details of what creates the mint luster of a silver coin and the process of change that occurs as a coin tones.
I agree with you, luster has nothing to do with color BUT in this alternative universe of numismatics, where words can mean whatever is convenient for you in pumping up the grade of a coin, the word "white" is often used to describe a coin that is very lustrous. I didn't make up the term but I figured it was may a way to communicate with those that don't seem to understand that a coin can't have fully original luster and be toned at the same time.
No, "white" is used to describe coins that are untoned... even if they have almost no luster.
@pmh1nic said:
I asked my wife (the Saint) who has no interest in coins, "which one of these looks original?" Her response was number 1 and added "what coin comes out of the mint looking like that?", meaning number 2.
Well, there's your answer, right there. Have your wife grade your coins.
My wife's command of the English language hasn't been corrupted by the twisting of the language that has occurred in the realm of coin collecting. Would you advertise a car that has some surface oxidation and claim the finish is "fully original"? In most places that would be a rhetorical question except in the world of numismatics.
The ANA is in the realm. So maybe you should learn to speak their language rather than cling to your own.
You mean my own language, the language that 99.5% of the English speak population understands? Again, I understand the nuisance attached to these words in the alternative universe that exist in the realm of numismatics. But there is just something about my rational mind that doesn't allow me to blindly wander down that road. If you think coin number 2 represents the original luster of the coin you've swallowed the blue pill and entered the numismatic equivalent of the matrix.
Rational is not the correct word.
Words have different meaning in different contexts. Your "mind" should recognize that and adjust.
An essay in philately is different than an essay (essay) in numismatics which is decidedly different than an essay in English lit.
But I'll pay one more time. Find me any definition of luster in a standard English dictionary that includes color with luster. Just one. Not the one in your "mind". One standard English dictionary that defines luster as you claim and I will relent.
Otherwise, we are done and you are proven wrong.
I'm an engineer by train (electronics). When we are talking standards and specifications words have precise means or they're not really standards or specifications but opinions. If they're opinions don't call them standards as in "grading standards".
Original: present or existing from the beginning; first or earliest
Fully: completely or entirely; to the furthest extent.
Now I could get into the details of what creates the mint luster of a silver coin and the process of change that occurs as a coin tones.
I agree with you, luster has nothing to do with color BUT in this alternative universe of numismatics, where words can mean whatever is convenient for you in pumping up the grade of a coin, the word "white" is often used to describe a coin that is very lustrous. I didn't make up the term but I figured it was may a way to communicate with those that don't seem to understand that a coin can't have fully original luster and be toned at the same time.
No, "white" is used to describe coins that are untoned... even if they have almost no luster.
I've never heard or seen white used to refer to a coin with almost no luster. Most of the time the word white is used I the phrase "blast white" to describe a coin with full mint luster. If I saw a silver coin that was simply white I'd highly suspect it had been dipped.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
I asked my wife (the Saint) who has no interest in coins, "which one of these looks original?" Her response was number 1 and added "what coin comes out of the mint looking like that?", meaning number 2.
Well, there's your answer, right there. Have your wife grade your coins.
My wife's command of the English language hasn't been corrupted by the twisting of the language that has occurred in the realm of coin collecting. Would you advertise a car that has some surface oxidation and claim the finish is "fully original"? In most places that would be a rhetorical question except in the world of numismatics.
The ANA is in the realm. So maybe you should learn to speak their language rather than cling to your own.
You mean my own language, the language that 99.5% of the English speak population understands? Again, I understand the nuisance attached to these words in the alternative universe that exist in the realm of numismatics. But there is just something about my rational mind that doesn't allow me to blindly wander down that road. If you think coin number 2 represents the original luster of the coin you've swallowed the blue pill and entered the numismatic equivalent of the matrix.
Rational is not the correct word.
Words have different meaning in different contexts. Your "mind" should recognize that and adjust.
An essay in philately is different than an essay (essay) in numismatics which is decidedly different than an essay in English lit.
But I'll pay one more time. Find me any definition of luster in a standard English dictionary that includes color with luster. Just one. Not the one in your "mind". One standard English dictionary that defines luster as you claim and I will relent.
Otherwise, we are done and you are proven wrong.
I'm an engineer by train (electronics). When we are talking standards and specifications words have precise means or they're not really standards or specifications but opinions. If they're opinions don't call them standards as in "grading standards".
Original: present or existing from the beginning; first or earliest
Fully: completely or entirely; to the furthest extent.
Now I could get into the details of what creates the mint luster of a silver coin and the process of change that occurs as a coin tones.
I agree with you, luster has nothing to do with color BUT in this alternative universe of numismatics, where words can mean whatever is convenient for you in pumping up the grade of a coin, the word "white" is often used to describe a coin that is very lustrous. I didn't make up the term but I figured it was may a way to communicate with those that don't seem to understand that a coin can't have fully original luster and be toned at the same time.
No, "white" is used to describe coins that are untoned... even if they have almost no luster.
I've never heard or seen white used to refer to a coin with almost no luster. Most of the time the word white is used I the phrase "blast white" to describe a coin with full mint luster. If I saw a silver coin that was simply white I'd highly suspect it had been dipped.
Nope. White means white. Coin could even be AU.
Dr. Literal, of all people, should let "white" mean "white".
We are at the point where a holding of the breath contest is right around the corner.
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......
@pmh1nic said:
I asked my wife (the Saint) who has no interest in coins, "which one of these looks original?" Her response was number 1 and added "what coin comes out of the mint looking like that?", meaning number 2.
Well, there's your answer, right there. Have your wife grade your coins.
My wife's command of the English language hasn't been corrupted by the twisting of the language that has occurred in the realm of coin collecting. Would you advertise a car that has some surface oxidation and claim the finish is "fully original"? In most places that would be a rhetorical question except in the world of numismatics.
The ANA is in the realm. So maybe you should learn to speak their language rather than cling to your own.
You mean my own language, the language that 99.5% of the English speak population understands? Again, I understand the nuisance attached to these words in the alternative universe that exist in the realm of numismatics. But there is just something about my rational mind that doesn't allow me to blindly wander down that road. If you think coin number 2 represents the original luster of the coin you've swallowed the blue pill and entered the numismatic equivalent of the matrix.
Rational is not the correct word.
Words have different meaning in different contexts. Your "mind" should recognize that and adjust.
An essay in philately is different than an essay (essay) in numismatics which is decidedly different than an essay in English lit.
But I'll pay one more time. Find me any definition of luster in a standard English dictionary that includes color with luster. Just one. Not the one in your "mind". One standard English dictionary that defines luster as you claim and I will relent.
Otherwise, we are done and you are proven wrong.
I'm an engineer by train (electronics). When we are talking standards and specifications words have precise means or they're not really standards or specifications but opinions. If they're opinions don't call them standards as in "grading standards".
Original: present or existing from the beginning; first or earliest
Fully: completely or entirely; to the furthest extent.
Now I could get into the details of what creates the mint luster of a silver coin and the process of change that occurs as a coin tones.
I agree with you, luster has nothing to do with color BUT in this alternative universe of numismatics, where words can mean whatever is convenient for you in pumping up the grade of a coin, the word "white" is often used to describe a coin that is very lustrous. I didn't make up the term but I figured it was may a way to communicate with those that don't seem to understand that a coin can't have fully original luster and be toned at the same time.
No, "white" is used to describe coins that are untoned... even if they have almost no luster.
I've never heard or seen white used to refer to a coin with almost no luster. Most of the time the word white is used I the phrase "blast white" to describe a coin with full mint luster. If I saw a silver coin that was simply white I'd highly suspect it had been dipped.
Nope. White means white. Coin could even be AU.
Dr. Literal, of all people, should let "white" mean "white".
I bent to the imprecise usage of the word as used in the pumping up of a coin among numismatist. Forgive my momentary weakness.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@pmh1nic said:
A test for the naysayers. Which one of these coins has surfaces that are fully original?
Coin 1
YOU ARE MISQUOTING THE ANA.
It does NOT NOT NOT say "fully original surfaces". It says "FULLY ORIGINAL LUSTER".
BOTH OF THOSE COINS HAVE ORIGINAL LUSTER
Yes, fully original luster and that would translate to full original surfaces.
Now don't shy away. I know some people get nervous when they're hit with a surprise quiz. What's your answer? Which one of those coins has fully original luster?
I already answered that. BOTH OF THEM. Clearly you don't read all the words.
LUSTER is not COLOR. LUSTER is not SURFACE. Luster is but one component of the surface, separate from color.
Your unwillingness to recognize this does you no credit.
Have a good life.
Sorry, missed your original answer. I'm also sorry that you're delusional. I asked my wife (the Saint) who has no interest in coins, "which one of these looks original?" Her response was number 1 and added "what coin comes out of the mint looking like that?", meaning number 2.
I clear understand the marketplace and I'm fully aware of the nuisances in language that exist in the numismatic community. To be frank it's ridiculous and in reality unnecessary but for the nonsense that has gone on in the realm of coin grading. To a rational, logical mind fully original luster cannot mean a coin with toning. That's an oxymoron that has become acceptable in the numismatic community.
By your logic I would consider 90% of all white coins not original as they are tampered with by dipping. So by your thought process almost every white coin is not original as it was dipped. But a toned coin is at least original if not original luster by your delusional thinking
@pmh1nic said:
A test for the naysayers. Which one of these coins has surfaces that are fully original?
Coin 1
YOU ARE MISQUOTING THE ANA.
It does NOT NOT NOT say "fully original surfaces". It says "FULLY ORIGINAL LUSTER".
BOTH OF THOSE COINS HAVE ORIGINAL LUSTER
Yes, fully original luster and that would translate to full original surfaces.
Now don't shy away. I know some people get nervous when they're hit with a surprise quiz. What's your answer? Which one of those coins has fully original luster?
I already answered that. BOTH OF THEM. Clearly you don't read all the words.
LUSTER is not COLOR. LUSTER is not SURFACE. Luster is but one component of the surface, separate from color.
Your unwillingness to recognize this does you no credit.
Have a good life.
Sorry, missed your original answer. I'm also sorry that you're delusional. I asked my wife (the Saint) who has no interest in coins, "which one of these looks original?" Her response was number 1 and added "what coin comes out of the mint looking like that?", meaning number 2.
I clear understand the marketplace and I'm fully aware of the nuisances in language that exist in the numismatic community. To be frank it's ridiculous and in reality unnecessary but for the nonsense that has gone on in the realm of coin grading. To a rational, logical mind fully original luster cannot mean a coin with toning. That's an oxymoron that has become acceptable in the numismatic community.
By your logic I would consider 90% of all white coins not original as they are tampered with by dipping. So by your thought process almost every white coin is not original as it was dipped. But a toned coin is at least original if not original luster by your delusional thinking
What every “white coin” might be is a distraction. I don’t need to know what every white coin is to know that every toned coin does NOT represent the original condition of the coin when it was struck. You can’t rationalize away the fact that coins come out of the minting process with an original luster and that toning if it is present has altered that original luster. No verbal gymnastics changes that fact.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
Luster is reflectivity. It has nothing to do with color, and is not synonymous with surfaces. Fully original luster does not equal fully original surfaces or fully original color. A coin having original luster only implies that it reflects light in the same way it did when it was when struck, and nothing else. Of course, this was pointed out about 200 comments ago, but if reading comprehension were a strong suit in this thread we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
@pmh1nic said:
A test for the naysayers. Which one of these coins has surfaces that are fully original?
Coin 1
YOU ARE MISQUOTING THE ANA.
It does NOT NOT NOT say "fully original surfaces". It says "FULLY ORIGINAL LUSTER".
BOTH OF THOSE COINS HAVE ORIGINAL LUSTER
Yes, fully original luster and that would translate to full original surfaces.
Now don't shy away. I know some people get nervous when they're hit with a surprise quiz. What's your answer? Which one of those coins has fully original luster?
I already answered that. BOTH OF THEM. Clearly you don't read all the words.
LUSTER is not COLOR. LUSTER is not SURFACE. Luster is but one component of the surface, separate from color.
Your unwillingness to recognize this does you no credit.
Have a good life.
Sorry, missed your original answer. I'm also sorry that you're delusional. I asked my wife (the Saint) who has no interest in coins, "which one of these looks original?" Her response was number 1 and added "what coin comes out of the mint looking like that?", meaning number 2.
I clear understand the marketplace and I'm fully aware of the nuisances in language that exist in the numismatic community. To be frank it's ridiculous and in reality unnecessary but for the nonsense that has gone on in the realm of coin grading. To a rational, logical mind fully original luster cannot mean a coin with toning. That's an oxymoron that has become acceptable in the numismatic community.
By your logic I would consider 90% of all white coins not original as they are tampered with by dipping. So by your thought process almost every white coin is not original as it was dipped. But a toned coin is at least original if not original luster by your delusional thinking
What every “white coin” might be is a distraction. I don’t need to know what every white coin is to know that every toned coin does NOT represent the original condition of the coin when it was struck. You can’t rationalize away the fact that coins come out of the minting process with an original luster and that toning if it is present has altered that original luster. No verbal gymnastics changes that fact.
I do admire you sticking to your guns in what you believe in the face of everyone disagreeing with you. Still your thinking is dead wrong.
@pmh1nic said:
A test for the naysayers. Which one of these coins has surfaces that are fully original?
Coin 1
YOU ARE MISQUOTING THE ANA.
It does NOT NOT NOT say "fully original surfaces". It says "FULLY ORIGINAL LUSTER".
BOTH OF THOSE COINS HAVE ORIGINAL LUSTER
Yes, fully original luster and that would translate to full original surfaces.
Now don't shy away. I know some people get nervous when they're hit with a surprise quiz. What's your answer? Which one of those coins has fully original luster?
I already answered that. BOTH OF THEM. Clearly you don't read all the words.
LUSTER is not COLOR. LUSTER is not SURFACE. Luster is but one component of the surface, separate from color.
Your unwillingness to recognize this does you no credit.
Have a good life.
Sorry, missed your original answer. I'm also sorry that you're delusional. I asked my wife (the Saint) who has no interest in coins, "which one of these looks original?" Her response was number 1 and added "what coin comes out of the mint looking like that?", meaning number 2.
I clear understand the marketplace and I'm fully aware of the nuisances in language that exist in the numismatic community. To be frank it's ridiculous and in reality unnecessary but for the nonsense that has gone on in the realm of coin grading. To a rational, logical mind fully original luster cannot mean a coin with toning. That's an oxymoron that has become acceptable in the numismatic community.
By your logic I would consider 90% of all white coins not original as they are tampered with by dipping. So by your thought process almost every white coin is not original as it was dipped. But a toned coin is at least original if not original luster by your delusional thinking
What every “white coin” might be is a distraction. I don’t need to know what every white coin is to know that every toned coin does NOT represent the original condition of the coin when it was struck. You can’t rationalize away the fact that coins come out of the minting process with an original luster and that toning if it is present has altered that original luster. No verbal gymnastics changes that fact.
I do admire you sticking to your guns in what you believe in the face of everyone disagreeing with you. Still your thinking is dead wrong. Not altered muted the luster somewhat. However there are many toned coins with better luster than so called blast white dipped coins
I’m just now starting to suspect that those with differing views might not be able to come to an agreement. But I don’t want to jump to any conclusions. Hopefully, the next few hundred posts will achieve that which the first few hundred did not 😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
As I said in the thread about the 2021 dollar thread, "Salience and relevance of posts decays exponentially as they become more distant from the start of the thread."
@Rexford said:
Luster is reflectivity. It has nothing to do with color, and is not synonymous with surfaces. Fully original luster does not equal fully original surfaces or fully original color. A coin having original luster only implies that it reflects light in the same way it did when it was when struck, and nothing else. Of course, this was pointed out about 200 comments ago, but if reading comprehension were a strong suit in this thread we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Correct and if one of my comments about blast white conveyed otherwise my bad. That cartwheel luster we enjoy is the product of microscopic flow lines created when the coin is struck. Toning does impact the reflectivity of the coin. The deeper the toning the more the original luster will be impacted. That said a toned coin should not be referred to as having full original luster. It does not and no amount of verbal gymnastics changes that fact.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@messydesk said:
As I said in the thread about the 2021 dollar thread, "Salience and relevance of posts decays exponentially as they become more distant from the start of the thread."
Yet, here I am.
I don't think we have strayed that far. The question has been should any toned coin recieve a 68 grade given the description of the grade is requiring full original luster. The question isn't HAVE toned coins received that grade given the luster requirement (we all know they have) but should they. We're not going to come to an agreement becomes some choose to generous redefine the words "fully original" and claim with respect to toning that it meets the requirement of being "fully original", and that this nuisance has been accepted in the numismatic community. I understand that acceptance but I totally disagree that it was necessary to do so, it requires a redefining of some clearly understood words AND it would be down right delusional to do the same in other settings (the car analogy).
So I agree with Mark. At this point mind's aren't going to be changed.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@messydesk said:
As I said in the thread about the 2021 dollar thread, "Salience and relevance of posts decays exponentially as they become more distant from the start of the thread."
Yet, here I am.
I don't think we have strayed that far. The question has been should any toned coin recieve a 68 grade given the description of the grade is requiring full original luster. The question isn't HAVE toned coins received that grade given the luster requirement (we all know they have) but should they. We're not going to come to an agreement becomes some choose to generous redefine the words "fully original" and claim with respect to toning that it meets the requirement of being "fully original", and that this nuisance has been accepted in the numismatic community. I understand that acceptance but I totally disagree that it was necessary to do so, it requires a redefining of some clearly understood words AND it would be down right delusional to do the same in other settings (the car analogy).
So I agree with Mark. At this point mind's aren't going to be changed.
So do you agree than that BLAST WHITE coins shouldn’t be described as having FULL ORIGINAL LUSTER either unless it could be absolutely verified that it came from an original roll. I would say it is safe to say every white coin has been dipped at one time. So technically they don’t have full original luster
@messydesk said:
As I said in the thread about the 2021 dollar thread, "Salience and relevance of posts decays exponentially as they become more distant from the start of the thread."
Yet, here I am.
I don't think we have strayed that far. The question has been should any toned coin recieve a 68 grade given the description of the grade is requiring full original luster. The question isn't HAVE toned coins received that grade given the luster requirement (we all know they have) but should they. We're not going to come to an agreement becomes some choose to generous redefine the words "fully original" and claim with respect to toning that it meets the requirement of being "fully original", and that this nuisance has been accepted in the numismatic community. I understand that acceptance but I totally disagree that it was necessary to do so, it requires a redefining of some clearly understood words AND it would be down right delusional to do the same in other settings (the car analogy).
So I agree with Mark. At this point mind's aren't going to be changed.
So do you agree than that BLAST WHITE coins shouldn’t be described as having FULL ORIGINAL LUSTER either unless it could be absolutely verified that it came from an original roll. I would say it is safe to say every white coin has been dipped at one time. So technically they don’t have full original luster
Actually I thing the term "blast white" is a misnomer. The phrase began to be used for coins that have outstanding luster. It really isn't an appropriate technical term.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@messydesk said:
As I said in the thread about the 2021 dollar thread, "Salience and relevance of posts decays exponentially as they become more distant from the start of the thread."
Yet, here I am.
I don't think we have strayed that far. The question has been should any toned coin recieve a 68 grade given the description of the grade is requiring full original luster. The question isn't HAVE toned coins received that grade given the luster requirement (we all know they have) but should they. We're not going to come to an agreement becomes some choose to generous redefine the words "fully original" and claim with respect to toning that it meets the requirement of being "fully original", and that this nuisance has been accepted in the numismatic community. I understand that acceptance but I totally disagree that it was necessary to do so, it requires a redefining of some clearly understood words AND it would be down right delusional to do the same in other settings (the car analogy).
So I agree with Mark. At this point mind's aren't going to be changed.
So do you agree than that BLAST WHITE coins shouldn’t be described as having FULL ORIGINAL LUSTER either unless it could be absolutely verified that it came from an original roll. I would say it is safe to say every white coin has been dipped at one time. So technically they don’t have full original luster
It is most certainly not safe or correct to say that “every white coin has been dipped at one time”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@messydesk said:
As I said in the thread about the 2021 dollar thread, "Salience and relevance of posts decays exponentially as they become more distant from the start of the thread."
Yet, here I am.
I don't think we have strayed that far. The question has been should any toned coin recieve a 68 grade given the description of the grade is requiring full original luster. The question isn't HAVE toned coins received that grade given the luster requirement (we all know they have) but should they. We're not going to come to an agreement becomes some choose to generous redefine the words "fully original" and claim with respect to toning that it meets the requirement of being "fully original", and that this nuisance has been accepted in the numismatic community. I understand that acceptance but I totally disagree that it was necessary to do so, it requires a redefining of some clearly understood words AND it would be down right delusional to do the same in other settings (the car analogy).
So I agree with Mark. At this point mind's aren't going to be changed.
So do you agree than that BLAST WHITE coins shouldn’t be described as having FULL ORIGINAL LUSTER either unless it could be absolutely verified that it came from an original roll. I would say it is safe to say every white coin has been dipped at one time. So technically they don’t have full original luster
Actually I thing the term "blast white" is a misnomer. The phrase began to be used for coins that have outstanding luster. It really isn't an appropriate technical term.
I think I agree with that. However, there are a great many white/color-free coins which have been dipped and as such, wouldn’t exhibit what you define as “full original luster”. And that’s even though you wouldn’t necessarily know that by looking at them.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@Rexford said:
Luster is reflectivity. It has nothing to do with color, and is not synonymous with surfaces. Fully original luster does not equal fully original surfaces or fully original color. A coin having original luster only implies that it reflects light in the same way it did when it was when struck, and nothing else. Of course, this was pointed out about 200 comments ago, but if reading comprehension were a strong suit in this thread we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Correct and if one of my comments about blast white conveyed otherwise my bad. That cartwheel luster we enjoy is the product of microscopic flow lines created when the coin is struck. Toning does impact the reflectivity of the coin. The deeper the toning the more the original luster will be impacted. That said a toned coin should not be referred to as having full original luster. It does not and no amount of verbal gymnastics changes that fact.
Ok, but this simply isn’t true. Toning usually does not affect reflectivity whatsoever. Dipping, on the other hand, does, as it involves chemically removing a layer of metal, so most untoned “white” older coins do not have original luster, because almost all of them have been dipped at some point. The real verbal gymnastics taking place here involve the repeated misinterpretation of the ANA’s standards.
@Rexford said:
Luster is reflectivity. It has nothing to do with color, and is not synonymous with surfaces. Fully original luster does not equal fully original surfaces or fully original color. A coin having original luster only implies that it reflects light in the same way it did when it was when struck, and nothing else. Of course, this was pointed out about 200 comments ago, but if reading comprehension were a strong suit in this thread we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Correct and if one of my comments about blast white conveyed otherwise my bad. That cartwheel luster we enjoy is the product of microscopic flow lines created when the coin is struck. Toning does impact the reflectivity of the coin. The deeper the toning the more the original luster will be impacted. That said a toned coin should not be referred to as having full original luster. It does not and no amount of verbal gymnastics changes that fact.
Ok, but this simply isn’t true. Toning usually does not affect reflectivity whatsoever. Dipping, on the other hand, does, as it involves chemically removing a layer of metal, so most untoned “white” older coins do not have original luster, because almost all of them have been dipped at some point. The real verbal gymnastics taking place here involve the repeated misinterpretation of the ANA’s standards.
Sorry but you're wrong. The reason toning produces the colors that it does is precisely because the reflectivity of the coin hase been altered.
The longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it possible for an empire to rise without His aid? Benjamin Franklin
@Rexford said:
Luster is reflectivity. It has nothing to do with color, and is not synonymous with surfaces. Fully original luster does not equal fully original surfaces or fully original color. A coin having original luster only implies that it reflects light in the same way it did when it was when struck, and nothing else. Of course, this was pointed out about 200 comments ago, but if reading comprehension were a strong suit in this thread we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Correct and if one of my comments about blast white conveyed otherwise my bad. That cartwheel luster we enjoy is the product of microscopic flow lines created when the coin is struck. Toning does impact the reflectivity of the coin. The deeper the toning the more the original luster will be impacted. That said a toned coin should not be referred to as having full original luster. It does not and no amount of verbal gymnastics changes that fact.
Ok, but this simply isn’t true. Toning usually does not affect reflectivity whatsoever. Dipping, on the other hand, does, as it involves chemically removing a layer of metal, so most untoned “white” older coins do not have original luster, because almost all of them have been dipped at some point. The real verbal gymnastics taking place here involve the repeated misinterpretation of the ANA’s standards.
Sorry but you're wrong. The reason toning produces the colors that it does is precisely because the reflectivity of the coin hase been altered.
That’s more verbal gymnastics and a misinterpretation of what’s actually occurring to the surface.
Comments
A test for the naysayers. Which one of these coins has surfaces that are fully original?
Coin 1
Coin 2
I will. And yes, she really is a saint
.
David Hall:
"For Mint State coins the four criteria are marks, strike, luster, and eye appeal. Toning is part of the eye appeal. We used to have the following statement on the grading room wall...
"Toning adds a little and forgives a lot."
(We also use to have the saying "Any fool can undergrade" hung on the wall.)
Toning is a very personal preference issue, but most will agree that beautiful rainbow toning is a positive and mottled, splotchy brown toning is a negative. The graders definitely take toning into acount.
Proofs have the same concept (slightly different criteria), i.e. toning is part of eye appeal.
I was always a beautiful rainbow toning fan and I always had a very negative personal opinion on ugly bird doo toning. While I'm as big a fan of blast white luster as anybody, until recently I had been dismayed at the market's seemingly myopic preference for pure white (no matter how dipped-out looking) coins. I am tickled at the resurgence of interest in beautiful rainbow toned coins and the very strong recent auction prices for the rainbow beauties."
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/144233/how-does-toning-affect-the-grade
YOU ARE MISQUOTING THE ANA.
It does NOT NOT NOT say "fully original surfaces". It says "FULLY ORIGINAL LUSTER".
BOTH OF THOSE COINS HAVE ORIGINAL LUSTER
I have no problem with toning and eye appeal. My issues is claiming a toned coin has full original luster. I've never seen a toned coin with fully original luster. It doesn't exist. By definition toning is a change in the original luster of a coin.
Now how about the answer to my little quiz.
Yes, fully original luster and that would translate to full original surfaces.
Now don't shy away. I know some people get nervous when they're hit with a surprise quiz. What's your answer? Which one of those coins has fully original luster?
I already answered that. BOTH OF THEM. Clearly you don't read all the words.
LUSTER is not COLOR. LUSTER is not SURFACE. Luster is but one component of the surface, separate from color.
Your unwillingness to recognize this does you no credit.
Have a good life.
Sorry, missed your original answer. I'm also sorry that you're delusional. I asked my wife (the Saint) who has no interest in coins, "which one of these looks original?" Her response was number 1 and added "what coin comes out of the mint looking like that?", meaning number 2.
I clear understand the marketplace and I'm fully aware of the nuisances in language that exist in the numismatic community. To be frank it's ridiculous and in reality unnecessary but for the nonsense that has gone on in the realm of coin grading. To a rational, logical mind fully original luster cannot mean a coin with toning. That's an oxymoron that has become acceptable in the numismatic community.
Well, there's your answer, right there. Have your wife grade your coins.
Luster is a product of the microscope change that occurs when a coin is struck. The luster of a coin is directly connected to the condition of the surface of the coin. The distinction you are making is a distinction having no bearing on the issue of fully original luster.
Sold for 150K? - but yet the thread carries on........
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
My wife's command of the English language hasn't been corrupted by the twisting of the language that has occurred in the realm of coin collecting. Would you advertise a car that has some surface oxidation and claim the finish is "fully original"? In most places that would be a rhetorical question except in the world of numismatics.
The ANA is in the realm. So maybe you should learn to speak their language rather than cling to your own.
. Would you advertise a car that has some surface oxidation and claim the finish is "fully original"?
Well I guess you would have to..........
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
There are four aspects of each grade, of which eye appeal is one. Surface oxidation falls under eye appeal. You can accept this or not.
You mean my own language, the language that 99.5% of the English speak population understands? Again, I understand the nuisance attached to these words in the alternative universe that exist in the realm of numismatics. But there is just something about my rational mind that doesn't allow me to blindly wander down that road. If you think coin number 2 represents the original luster of the coin you've swallowed the blue pill and entered the numismatic equivalent of the matrix.
Rational is not the correct word.
Words have different meaning in different contexts. Your "mind" should recognize that and adjust.
An essay in philately is different than an essay (essay) in numismatics which is decidedly different than an essay in English lit.
But I'll pay one more time. Find me any definition of luster in a standard English dictionary that includes color with luster. Just one. Not the one in your "mind". One standard English dictionary that defines luster as you claim and I will relent.
Otherwise, we are done and you are proven wrong.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/luster
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/luster
https://www.yourdictionary.com/luster
Omg.
I'm an engineer by train (electronics). When we are talking standards and specifications words have precise means or they're not really standards or specifications but opinions. If they're opinions don't call them standards as in "grading standards".
Original: present or existing from the beginning; first or earliest
Fully: completely or entirely; to the furthest extent.
Now I could get into the details of what creates the mint luster of a silver coin and the process of change that occurs as a coin tones.
I agree with you, luster has nothing to do with color BUT in this alternative universe of numismatics, where words can mean whatever is convenient for you in pumping up the grade of a coin, the word "white" is often used to describe a coin that is very lustrous. I didn't make up the term but I figured it was may a way to communicate with those that don't seem to understand that a coin can't have fully original luster and be toned at the same time.
No, "white" is used to describe coins that are untoned... even if they have almost no luster.
Nightmare thread
Define "nightmare".
I've never heard or seen white used to refer to a coin with almost no luster. Most of the time the word white is used I the phrase "blast white" to describe a coin with full mint luster. If I saw a silver coin that was simply white I'd highly suspect it had been dipped.
Mare is Latin for "sea". So apparently this thread is like a nighttime boat ride.
Well, it is getting dark...
Nope. White means white. Coin could even be AU.
Dr. Literal, of all people, should let "white" mean "white".
We are at the point where a holding of the breath contest is right around the corner.
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......
"Blast white" means "no toning". Everybody knows this.
And after that, the feats of strength? We can hold off on the airing of grievances until later...
I bent to the imprecise usage of the word as used in the pumping up of a coin among numismatist. Forgive my momentary weakness.
By your logic I would consider 90% of all white coins not original as they are tampered with by dipping. So by your thought process almost every white coin is not original as it was dipped. But a toned coin is at least original if not original luster by your delusional thinking
What every “white coin” might be is a distraction. I don’t need to know what every white coin is to know that every toned coin does NOT represent the original condition of the coin when it was struck. You can’t rationalize away the fact that coins come out of the minting process with an original luster and that toning if it is present has altered that original luster. No verbal gymnastics changes that fact.
who doesn't love barn mopar?
you can get a decent restored 70 superbird for what the half sold for
Luster is reflectivity. It has nothing to do with color, and is not synonymous with surfaces. Fully original luster does not equal fully original surfaces or fully original color. A coin having original luster only implies that it reflects light in the same way it did when it was when struck, and nothing else. Of course, this was pointed out about 200 comments ago, but if reading comprehension were a strong suit in this thread we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
I do admire you sticking to your guns in what you believe in the face of everyone disagreeing with you. Still your thinking is dead wrong.
I’m just now starting to suspect that those with differing views might not be able to come to an agreement. But I don’t want to jump to any conclusions. Hopefully, the next few hundred posts will achieve that which the first few hundred did not 😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Let's see a show of hands as to whether the barn car in this thread looks better than the way this thread reads...
I was hoping to avoid using "train wreck" or "clean up on aisle 5" especially when the entire store is inundated...
And that just may not be possible.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
As I said in the thread about the 2021 dollar thread, "Salience and relevance of posts decays exponentially as they become more distant from the start of the thread."
Yet, here I am.
Keeper of the VAM Catalog • Professional Coin Imaging • Prime Number Set • World Coins in Early America • British Trade Dollars • Variety Attribution
Correct and if one of my comments about blast white conveyed otherwise my bad. That cartwheel luster we enjoy is the product of microscopic flow lines created when the coin is struck. Toning does impact the reflectivity of the coin. The deeper the toning the more the original luster will be impacted. That said a toned coin should not be referred to as having full original luster. It does not and no amount of verbal gymnastics changes that fact.
I don't think we have strayed that far. The question has been should any toned coin recieve a 68 grade given the description of the grade is requiring full original luster. The question isn't HAVE toned coins received that grade given the luster requirement (we all know they have) but should they. We're not going to come to an agreement becomes some choose to generous redefine the words "fully original" and claim with respect to toning that it meets the requirement of being "fully original", and that this nuisance has been accepted in the numismatic community. I understand that acceptance but I totally disagree that it was necessary to do so, it requires a redefining of some clearly understood words AND it would be down right delusional to do the same in other settings (the car analogy).
So I agree with Mark. At this point mind's aren't going to be changed.
So do you agree than that BLAST WHITE coins shouldn’t be described as having FULL ORIGINAL LUSTER either unless it could be absolutely verified that it came from an original roll. I would say it is safe to say every white coin has been dipped at one time. So technically they don’t have full original luster
Actually I thing the term "blast white" is a misnomer. The phrase began to be used for coins that have outstanding luster. It really isn't an appropriate technical term.
It is most certainly not safe or correct to say that “every white coin has been dipped at one time”.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
I think I agree with that. However, there are a great many white/color-free coins which have been dipped and as such, wouldn’t exhibit what you define as “full original luster”. And that’s even though you wouldn’t necessarily know that by looking at them.
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
Ok, but this simply isn’t true. Toning usually does not affect reflectivity whatsoever. Dipping, on the other hand, does, as it involves chemically removing a layer of metal, so most untoned “white” older coins do not have original luster, because almost all of them have been dipped at some point. The real verbal gymnastics taking place here involve the repeated misinterpretation of the ANA’s standards.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Sorry but you're wrong. The reason toning produces the colors that it does is precisely because the reflectivity of the coin hase been altered.
That’s more verbal gymnastics and a misinterpretation of what’s actually occurring to the surface.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en