What we refer to as “luster”, meaning the strength and pattern of the reflectivity, remains the same, because the underlying flow lines remain the same. It just reflects in a different color. The latter does not fall under the definition of luster.
@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.
No verbal gymnastics. A newly struck coin will have a level of reflectivity or luster (there may be technical differences between the two words but not really germane to this discussion). Toning is a result of a chemical change that occurs on the surface of a coin that cause a change in the way the surface metal reflects light (thin film interference). This "interference" ultimately results in the sometimes very vibrant colors we see on some toned coins. Unfortunately if this chemical process is allowed to continue you can end up with very dark toning and a dramatic loss of reflectivity.
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
With the recent back and forth regarding “(verbal) gymnastics”, I’m starting to think this thread might belong on the sports forum. Or better yet, is their an Olympics forum.😉
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.
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.
No verbal gymnastics. A newly struck coin will have a level of reflectivity or luster (there may be technical differences between the two words but not really germane to this discussion). Toning is a result of a chemical change that occurs on the surface of a coin that cause a change in the way the surface metal reflects light (thin film interference). This "interference" ultimately results in the sometimes very vibrant colors we see on some toned coins. Unfortunately if this chemical process is allowed to continue you can end up with very dark toning and a dramatic loss of reflectivity.
It is precisely germane to the discussion, because the meaning you are applying to “luster” is not the meaning applied to it by the numismatic community. Luster refers specifically to the strength and pattern of reflectivity. “A change” to the way the surface metal reflects light does not affect luster if it does not affect the strength or pattern of the reflectivity, and just the color of it. Yes, very dark and heavy (“terminal”) toning can cause the underlying luster to become obscured from sheer thickness of the layer of tone, but coins displaying terminal toning don’t appear in top grades for a reason.
@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”.
Okay wouldn’t you say most especially pre 1935 before coins became commonly saved in rolls
@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.
No verbal gymnastics. A newly struck coin will have a level of reflectivity or luster (there may be technical differences between the two words but not really germane to this discussion). Toning is a result of a chemical change that occurs on the surface of a coin that cause a change in the way the surface metal reflects light (thin film interference). This "interference" ultimately results in the sometimes very vibrant colors we see on some toned coins. Unfortunately if this chemical process is allowed to continue you can end up with very dark toning and a dramatic loss of reflectivity.
It is precisely germane to the discussion, because the meaning you are applying to “luster” is not the meaning applied to it by the numismatic community. Luster refers specifically to the strength and pattern of reflectivity. “A change” to the way the surface metal reflects light does not affect luster if it does not affect the strength or pattern of the reflectivity, and just the color of it. Yes, very dark and heavy (“terminal”) toning can cause the underlying luster to become obscured from sheer thickness of the layer of tone, but coins displaying terminal toning don’t appear in top grades for a reason.
Right! The toning layers of silver compounds, mostly silver sulfide and related oxides with other environmental elements, but remember copper too.. anyway these cause the thin-film interference phenomenon, essentially altering the light wavelengths we see, creating prism effects that is generally viewed as colors, which are sometimes interpreted as pretty.
When very attractive, this increases the market grade of the coin, elevating it above the technical grade. That's why I asserted earlier, if someone dips this coin, it becomes a rather ordinary 67 with a big tic on the sun.
@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.
No verbal gymnastics. A newly struck coin will have a level of reflectivity or luster (there may be technical differences between the two words but not really germane to this discussion). Toning is a result of a chemical change that occurs on the surface of a coin that cause a change in the way the surface metal reflects light (thin film interference). This "interference" ultimately results in the sometimes very vibrant colors we see on some toned coins. Unfortunately if this chemical process is allowed to continue you can end up with very dark toning and a dramatic loss of reflectivity.
It is precisely germane to the discussion, because the meaning you are applying to “luster” is not the meaning applied to it by the numismatic community. Luster refers specifically to the strength and pattern of reflectivity. “A change” to the way the surface metal reflects light does not affect luster if it does not affect the strength or pattern of the reflectivity, and just the color of it. Yes, very dark and heavy (“terminal”) toning can cause the underlying luster to become obscured from sheer thickness of the layer of tone, but coins displaying terminal toning don’t appear in top grades for a reason.
Wrong. The thin film "interference" is interfering with the way light is reflected off the coin. This is the reason you're seeing different colors. Toning does change the strength and pattern of reflectivity of light coming off the coin. If it didn't you would notice no difference in the way light is reflected.
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.
No verbal gymnastics. A newly struck coin will have a level of reflectivity or luster (there may be technical differences between the two words but not really germane to this discussion). Toning is a result of a chemical change that occurs on the surface of a coin that cause a change in the way the surface metal reflects light (thin film interference). This "interference" ultimately results in the sometimes very vibrant colors we see on some toned coins. Unfortunately if this chemical process is allowed to continue you can end up with very dark toning and a dramatic loss of reflectivity.
It is precisely germane to the discussion, because the meaning you are applying to “luster” is not the meaning applied to it by the numismatic community. Luster refers specifically to the strength and pattern of reflectivity. “A change” to the way the surface metal reflects light does not affect luster if it does not affect the strength or pattern of the reflectivity, and just the color of it. Yes, very dark and heavy (“terminal”) toning can cause the underlying luster to become obscured from sheer thickness of the layer of tone, but coins displaying terminal toning don’t appear in top grades for a reason.
Wrong. The thin film "interference" is interfering with the way light is reflected off the coin. This is the reason you're seeing different colors. Toning does change the strength and pattern of reflectivity of light coming off the coin. If it didn't you would notice no difference in the way light is reflected.
@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.
No verbal gymnastics. A newly struck coin will have a level of reflectivity or luster (there may be technical differences between the two words but not really germane to this discussion). Toning is a result of a chemical change that occurs on the surface of a coin that cause a change in the way the surface metal reflects light (thin film interference). This "interference" ultimately results in the sometimes very vibrant colors we see on some toned coins. Unfortunately if this chemical process is allowed to continue you can end up with very dark toning and a dramatic loss of reflectivity.
It is precisely germane to the discussion, because the meaning you are applying to “luster” is not the meaning applied to it by the numismatic community. Luster refers specifically to the strength and pattern of reflectivity. “A change” to the way the surface metal reflects light does not affect luster if it does not affect the strength or pattern of the reflectivity, and just the color of it. Yes, very dark and heavy (“terminal”) toning can cause the underlying luster to become obscured from sheer thickness of the layer of tone, but coins displaying terminal toning don’t appear in top grades for a reason.
Wrong. The thin film "interference" is interfering with the way light is reflected off the coin. This is the reason you're seeing different colors. Toning does change the strength and pattern of reflectivity of light coming off the coin. If it didn't you would notice no difference in the way light is reflected.
@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.
No verbal gymnastics. A newly struck coin will have a level of reflectivity or luster (there may be technical differences between the two words but not really germane to this discussion). Toning is a result of a chemical change that occurs on the surface of a coin that cause a change in the way the surface metal reflects light (thin film interference). This "interference" ultimately results in the sometimes very vibrant colors we see on some toned coins. Unfortunately if this chemical process is allowed to continue you can end up with very dark toning and a dramatic loss of reflectivity.
It is precisely germane to the discussion, because the meaning you are applying to “luster” is not the meaning applied to it by the numismatic community. Luster refers specifically to the strength and pattern of reflectivity. “A change” to the way the surface metal reflects light does not affect luster if it does not affect the strength or pattern of the reflectivity, and just the color of it. Yes, very dark and heavy (“terminal”) toning can cause the underlying luster to become obscured from sheer thickness of the layer of tone, but coins displaying terminal toning don’t appear in top grades for a reason.
Wrong. The thin film "interference" is interfering with the way light is reflected off the coin. This is the reason you're seeing different colors. Toning does change the strength and pattern of reflectivity of light coming off the coin. If it didn't you would notice no difference in the way light is reflected.
🤦♂️ I give up
Prudent move because your numismatic torturing of words doesn't hold up under scrutiny. The reason you see colors when a coin has toned is precisely because the light being reflected has been impacted by the the layer of silver sulfide that has developed. It's called thin film "interference" for a reason.
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
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......
@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.
No verbal gymnastics. A newly struck coin will have a level of reflectivity or luster (there may be technical differences between the two words but not really germane to this discussion). Toning is a result of a chemical change that occurs on the surface of a coin that cause a change in the way the surface metal reflects light (thin film interference). This "interference" ultimately results in the sometimes very vibrant colors we see on some toned coins. Unfortunately if this chemical process is allowed to continue you can end up with very dark toning and a dramatic loss of reflectivity.
It is precisely germane to the discussion, because the meaning you are applying to “luster” is not the meaning applied to it by the numismatic community. Luster refers specifically to the strength and pattern of reflectivity. “A change” to the way the surface metal reflects light does not affect luster if it does not affect the strength or pattern of the reflectivity, and just the color of it. Yes, very dark and heavy (“terminal”) toning can cause the underlying luster to become obscured from sheer thickness of the layer of tone, but coins displaying terminal toning don’t appear in top grades for a reason.
Wrong. The thin film "interference" is interfering with the way light is reflected off the coin. This is the reason you're seeing different colors. Toning does change the strength and pattern of reflectivity of light coming off the coin. If it didn't you would notice no difference in the way light is reflected.
🤦♂️ I give up
Prudent move because your numismatic torturing of words doesn't hold up under scrutiny. The reason you see colors when a coin has toned is precisely because the light being reflected has been impacted by the the layer of silver sulfide that has developed. It's called thin film "interference" for a reason.
Not because it "interferes" with light. In fact, thin film interference can enhance reflectivity. It is how dielectric mirrors work.
This is yet another silly pedantic argument that has nothing to do with anything.
@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.
No verbal gymnastics. A newly struck coin will have a level of reflectivity or luster (there may be technical differences between the two words but not really germane to this discussion). Toning is a result of a chemical change that occurs on the surface of a coin that cause a change in the way the surface metal reflects light (thin film interference). This "interference" ultimately results in the sometimes very vibrant colors we see on some toned coins. Unfortunately if this chemical process is allowed to continue you can end up with very dark toning and a dramatic loss of reflectivity.
It is precisely germane to the discussion, because the meaning you are applying to “luster” is not the meaning applied to it by the numismatic community. Luster refers specifically to the strength and pattern of reflectivity. “A change” to the way the surface metal reflects light does not affect luster if it does not affect the strength or pattern of the reflectivity, and just the color of it. Yes, very dark and heavy (“terminal”) toning can cause the underlying luster to become obscured from sheer thickness of the layer of tone, but coins displaying terminal toning don’t appear in top grades for a reason.
Wrong. The thin film "interference" is interfering with the way light is reflected off the coin. This is the reason you're seeing different colors. Toning does change the strength and pattern of reflectivity of light coming off the coin. If it didn't you would notice no difference in the way light is reflected.
🤦♂️ I give up
Prudent move because your numismatic torturing of words doesn't hold up under scrutiny. The reason you see colors when a coin has toned is precisely because the light being reflected has been impacted by the the layer of silver sulfide that has developed. It's called thin film "interference" for a reason.
I’ve already explained why that is irrelevant to luster in my last two posts. I give up because it’s pointless to continue when I’ve already tried to break this down into the simplest terms possible and it just doesn’t seem to be computing on the other end. There isn’t any point to continuing in a discussion like this when the information one offers seems to be selectively ignored in favor of faulty preconceived notions. Others have abandoned their efforts for the same reason. It’s just a waste of time.
@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.
No verbal gymnastics. A newly struck coin will have a level of reflectivity or luster (there may be technical differences between the two words but not really germane to this discussion). Toning is a result of a chemical change that occurs on the surface of a coin that cause a change in the way the surface metal reflects light (thin film interference). This "interference" ultimately results in the sometimes very vibrant colors we see on some toned coins. Unfortunately if this chemical process is allowed to continue you can end up with very dark toning and a dramatic loss of reflectivity.
It is precisely germane to the discussion, because the meaning you are applying to “luster” is not the meaning applied to it by the numismatic community. Luster refers specifically to the strength and pattern of reflectivity. “A change” to the way the surface metal reflects light does not affect luster if it does not affect the strength or pattern of the reflectivity, and just the color of it. Yes, very dark and heavy (“terminal”) toning can cause the underlying luster to become obscured from sheer thickness of the layer of tone, but coins displaying terminal toning don’t appear in top grades for a reason.
Wrong. The thin film "interference" is interfering with the way light is reflected off the coin. This is the reason you're seeing different colors. Toning does change the strength and pattern of reflectivity of light coming off the coin. If it didn't you would notice no difference in the way light is reflected.
🤦♂️ I give up
Prudent move because your numismatic torturing of words doesn't hold up under scrutiny. The reason you see colors when a coin has toned is precisely because the light being reflected has been impacted by the the layer of silver sulfide that has developed. It's called thin film "interference" for a reason.
I’ve already explained why that is irrelevant to luster in my last two posts. I give up because it’s pointless to continue when I’ve already tried to break this down into the simplest terms possible and it just doesn’t seem to be computing on the other end. There isn’t any point to continuing in a discussion like this when the information one offers seems to be selectively ignored in favor of faulty preconceived notions. Others have abandoned their efforts for the same reason. It’s just a waste of time.
Give up because you are dead wrong. Toning disrupts the reflectivity of a coin. This isn't rocket science. That disruption is the altering the original luster of the coin. A coin doesn't go from brightly reflective with no color to radiating greens, purples, yellows and blues unless you have interfered with the reflectivity, the luster, of the coin. The waste of time is your insisting that toning can be consider the fully original luster of a coin. That fact isn't alter by you say "this is how it is understood in numismatics". That's ludicrous.
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
Here is a quote from my copy of the PCGS grading book, regarding MS 68:
LUSTER: The luster will be full (or virtually so) and "glowing". Any luster breaks will be extremely minor and usually restricted to the high points. Slight unevenness in toning is acceptable, as long as it is still attractive.
Laura has mentioned several times in her descriptions of auction coins that have a small tick.... holding the coin back from gem grade ..now a tick = bump up to MS68 ?
@Higashiyama said:
Here is a quote from my copy of the PCGS grading book, regarding MS 68:
LUSTER: The luster will be full (or virtually so) and "glowing". Any luster breaks will be extremely minor and usually restricted to the high points. Slight unevenness in toning is acceptable, as long as it is still attractive.
So ... what exactly is this discussion all about?
Someone believes that any toning is considered a decrease in luster and limits the coin to a 65.
@bestday said:
She does honest descriptions of coins offered for auction...would she call this walker a 67?
No. She'd probably declare it 1000% perfect with no flaws under her neutron microscope with blinding luster beaming at all angles. She might also throw in the peacock in heat toning language she routinely uses for good measure. And of course she'd expect "spirited bidding." Opportunity knocks loudly.
@Higashiyama said:
Here is a quote from my copy of the PCGS grading book, regarding MS 68:
LUSTER: The luster will be full (or virtually so) and "glowing". Any luster breaks will be extremely minor and usually restricted to the high points. Slight unevenness in toning is acceptable, as long as it is still attractive.
So ... what exactly is this discussion all about?
The discussion is whether a toned coin can be said to have "fully original luster". My position is it cannot. The phrase in the PCGS standard the luster will be full (or virtually so) is verbal gymnastics. "Virtually so"??? What does that even mean. Toning alters (diminishes) the luster of a coin. The change may be pretty but the luster has been altered by the chemical change that has occurred on the coin's surface. You can try to torture the language or claim this is a special numismatic nuisance to the words but the bottom line is the toning represents a chemical change in the surface of the coin and that change has altered the coins appearance.
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
@bestday said:
Laura has mentioned several times in her descriptions of auction coins that have a small tick.... holding the coin back from gem grade ..now a tick = bump up to MS68 ?
One tick too many will hold it back. I doubt she ever said that a single tick knocked a coin down to 64 in the absence of other marks.
@bestday said:
Laura has mentioned several times in her descriptions of auction coins that have a small tick.... holding the coin back from gem grade ..now a tick = bump up to MS68 ?
One tick too many will hold it back. I doubt she ever said that a single tick knocked a coin down to 64 in the absence of other marks.
Depends on where the tick is located. A tick hidden in some detail isn't going to detract as much as a tick in a prime focal area.
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:
What about toning hidden in some detail vs. toning in a prime focal area?
I know the words begin with the same letter but it's a "tick" hidden in some detail not "toning". It's late but try to focus.
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
My sense of humor is just fine. Was that suppose to be funny? Did you borrow that line from Bill Cosby?
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
@Higashiyama said:
Here is a quote from my copy of the PCGS grading book, regarding MS 68:
LUSTER: The luster will be full (or virtually so) and "glowing". Any luster breaks will be extremely minor and usually restricted to the high points. Slight unevenness in toning is acceptable, as long as it is still attractive.
So ... what exactly is this discussion all about?
Someone has dug their heels in so deep that they can't get out or won't.
m
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......
@sellitstore said:
The luster is unbelievable, I don't see a mark on it and the strike is quite nice, too. I don't think that I've ever seen a nicer one. But for the money that it would take to own it, I have a long list of other items that I would buy first.
Really? There is a good size mark/graze in the middle of the sun that is very easy to see.
Thought the same thing. Kind of hard to miss that.
@sellitstore said:
The luster is unbelievable, I don't see a mark on it and the strike is quite nice, too. I don't think that I've ever seen a nicer one. But for the money that it would take to own it, I have a long list of other items that I would buy first.
Really? There is a good size mark/graze in the middle of the sun that is very easy to see.
Thought the same thing. Kind of hard to miss that.
Like the signature photo . I just started working on a set. Hopefully I can find some as nice.
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
@bestday said:
She does honest descriptions of coins offered for auction...would she call this walker a 67?
No. She'd probably declare it 1000% perfect with no flaws under her neutron microscope with blinding luster beaming at all angles. She might also throw in the peacock in heat toning language she routinely uses for good measure. And of course she'd expect "spirited bidding."
coin's all their udder a strong glass oppertunity nocks loud
@Higashiyama said:
Here is a quote from my copy of the PCGS grading book, regarding MS 68:
LUSTER: The luster will be full (or virtually so) and "glowing". Any luster breaks will be extremely minor and usually restricted to the high points. Slight unevenness in toning is acceptable, as long as it is still attractive.
So ... what exactly is this discussion all about?
The discussion is whether a toned coin can be said to have "fully original luster". My position is it cannot. The phrase in the PCGS standard the luster will be full (or virtually so) is verbal gymnastics. "Virtually so"??? What does that even mean. Toning alters (diminishes) the luster of a coin. The change may be pretty but the luster has been altered by the chemical change that has occurred on the coin's surface. You can try to torture the language or claim this is a special numismatic nuisance to the words but the bottom line is the toning represents a chemical change in the surface of the coin and that change has altered the coins appearance.
Well just maybe, even with the chemically altered toned surfaces enough luster is still present to be considered fully original surfaces.
Hence the 68 minus a plus.
@Higashiyama said:
Here is a quote from my copy of the PCGS grading book, regarding MS 68:
LUSTER: The luster will be full (or virtually so) and "glowing". Any luster breaks will be extremely minor and usually restricted to the high points. Slight unevenness in toning is acceptable, as long as it is still attractive.
So ... what exactly is this discussion all about?
The discussion is whether a toned coin can be said to have "fully original luster". My position is it cannot. The phrase in the PCGS standard the luster will be full (or virtually so) is verbal gymnastics. "Virtually so"??? What does that even mean. Toning alters (diminishes) the luster of a coin. The change may be pretty but the luster has been altered by the chemical change that has occurred on the coin's surface. You can try to torture the language or claim this is a special numismatic nuisance to the words but the bottom line is the toning represents a chemical change in the surface of the coin and that change has altered the coins appearance.
Well just maybe, even with the chemically altered toned surfaces enough luster is still present to be considered fully original surfaces.
Hence the 68 minus a plus.
If you have to “consider” than it’s not. In this case a significant portion of the coin’s surface has toning. Nothing really to consider. This is a case where the words “fully original luster” have lost their literal meaning. That’s blue pill life 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
The Trueviews are in. I like the color better. It looks like a luster bomb. The tick on the sun is definitely not an artifact, and there are other ticks over Miss Liberty.
@Higashiyama said:
Here is a quote from my copy of the PCGS grading book, regarding MS 68:
LUSTER: The luster will be full (or virtually so) and "glowing". Any luster breaks will be extremely minor and usually restricted to the high points. Slight unevenness in toning is acceptable, as long as it is still attractive.
So ... what exactly is this discussion all about?
The discussion is whether a toned coin can be said to have "fully original luster". My position is it cannot. The phrase in the PCGS standard the luster will be full (or virtually so) is verbal gymnastics. "Virtually so"??? What does that even mean. Toning alters (diminishes) the luster of a coin. The change may be pretty but the luster has been altered by the chemical change that has occurred on the coin's surface. You can try to torture the language or claim this is a special numismatic nuisance to the words but the bottom line is the toning represents a chemical change in the surface of the coin and that change has altered the coins appearance.
Well just maybe, even with the chemically altered toned surfaces enough luster is still present to be considered fully original surfaces.
Hence the 68 minus a plus.
If you have to “consider” than it’s not. In this case a significant portion of the coin’s surface has toning. Nothing really to consider. This is a case where the words “fully original luster” have lost their literal meaning. That’s blue pill life in the world of numismatics.
I wonder how much your stance would change had this been your coin?
Not that it really matters but it might be comical to hear the change in tone.
Or maybe not! Either way I wouldn’t be complaining if it were mine
@Higashiyama said:
Here is a quote from my copy of the PCGS grading book, regarding MS 68:
LUSTER: The luster will be full (or virtually so) and "glowing". Any luster breaks will be extremely minor and usually restricted to the high points. Slight unevenness in toning is acceptable, as long as it is still attractive.
So ... what exactly is this discussion all about?
The discussion is whether a toned coin can be said to have "fully original luster". My position is it cannot. The phrase in the PCGS standard the luster will be full (or virtually so) is verbal gymnastics. "Virtually so"??? What does that even mean. Toning alters (diminishes) the luster of a coin. The change may be pretty but the luster has been altered by the chemical change that has occurred on the coin's surface. You can try to torture the language or claim this is a special numismatic nuisance to the words but the bottom line is the toning represents a chemical change in the surface of the coin and that change has altered the coins appearance.
Well just maybe, even with the chemically altered toned surfaces enough luster is still present to be considered fully original surfaces.
Hence the 68 minus a plus.
If you have to “consider” than it’s not. In this case a significant portion of the coin’s surface has toning. Nothing really to consider. This is a case where the words “fully original luster” have lost their literal meaning. That’s blue pill life in the world of numismatics.
Perhaps there is something to consider. If nearly everyone other than you interprets the words “fully original luster” a certain/different way, maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t be so stuck on their “literal meaning”.
Other than to be able to say repeatedly that everyone else is wrong, twisting words, etc., where else does your literal interpretation get you?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
@MFeld said:
Other than to be able to say repeatedly that everyone else is wrong, twisting words, etc., where else does your literal interpretation get you?
Comments
What we refer to as “luster”, meaning the strength and pattern of the reflectivity, remains the same, because the underlying flow lines remain the same. It just reflects in a different color. The latter does not fall under the definition of luster.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
No verbal gymnastics. A newly struck coin will have a level of reflectivity or luster (there may be technical differences between the two words but not really germane to this discussion). Toning is a result of a chemical change that occurs on the surface of a coin that cause a change in the way the surface metal reflects light (thin film interference). This "interference" ultimately results in the sometimes very vibrant colors we see on some toned coins. Unfortunately if this chemical process is allowed to continue you can end up with very dark toning and a dramatic loss of reflectivity.
With the recent back and forth regarding “(verbal) gymnastics”, I’m starting to think this thread might belong on the sports forum. Or better yet, is their an Olympics forum.😉
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
It is precisely germane to the discussion, because the meaning you are applying to “luster” is not the meaning applied to it by the numismatic community. Luster refers specifically to the strength and pattern of reflectivity. “A change” to the way the surface metal reflects light does not affect luster if it does not affect the strength or pattern of the reflectivity, and just the color of it. Yes, very dark and heavy (“terminal”) toning can cause the underlying luster to become obscured from sheer thickness of the layer of tone, but coins displaying terminal toning don’t appear in top grades for a reason.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Okay wouldn’t you say most especially pre 1935 before coins became commonly saved in rolls
Right! The toning layers of silver compounds, mostly silver sulfide and related oxides with other environmental elements, but remember copper too.. anyway these cause the thin-film interference phenomenon, essentially altering the light wavelengths we see, creating prism effects that is generally viewed as colors, which are sometimes interpreted as pretty.
When very attractive, this increases the market grade of the coin, elevating it above the technical grade. That's why I asserted earlier, if someone dips this coin, it becomes a rather ordinary 67 with a big tic on the sun.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Wrong. The thin film "interference" is interfering with the way light is reflected off the coin. This is the reason you're seeing different colors. Toning does change the strength and pattern of reflectivity of light coming off the coin. If it didn't you would notice no difference in the way light is reflected.
🤦♂️ I give up
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
No worries- you fought the good fight.
Feels good to give up, doesn't it?
Prudent move because your numismatic torturing of words doesn't hold up under scrutiny. The reason you see colors when a coin has toned is precisely because the light being reflected has been impacted by the the layer of silver sulfide that has developed. It's called thin film "interference" for a reason.
This thread
m
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......
Nonsense grading on Walker series ..Have The Walker series in Prf 67..now comes 68s . are 69s next?..finally next 70s?
I can hardly wait for the argument over the difference between a 97 vs 98, when we have a 100 point system.
Not because it "interferes" with light. In fact, thin film interference can enhance reflectivity. It is how dielectric mirrors work.
This is yet another silly pedantic argument that has nothing to do with anything.
Don't leave out the 97+
I’ve already explained why that is irrelevant to luster in my last two posts. I give up because it’s pointless to continue when I’ve already tried to break this down into the simplest terms possible and it just doesn’t seem to be computing on the other end. There isn’t any point to continuing in a discussion like this when the information one offers seems to be selectively ignored in favor of faulty preconceived notions. Others have abandoned their efforts for the same reason. It’s just a waste of time.
Gobrecht's Engraved Mature Head Large Cent Model
https://www.instagram.com/rexrarities/?hl=en
Anyone else love copper?
Give up because you are dead wrong. Toning disrupts the reflectivity of a coin. This isn't rocket science. That disruption is the altering the original luster of the coin. A coin doesn't go from brightly reflective with no color to radiating greens, purples, yellows and blues unless you have interfered with the reflectivity, the luster, of the coin. The waste of time is your insisting that toning can be consider the fully original luster of a coin. That fact isn't alter by you say "this is how it is understood in numismatics". That's ludicrous.
Here is a quote from my copy of the PCGS grading book, regarding MS 68:
LUSTER: The luster will be full (or virtually so) and "glowing". Any luster breaks will be extremely minor and usually restricted to the high points. Slight unevenness in toning is acceptable, as long as it is still attractive.
So ... what exactly is this discussion all about?
Laura has mentioned several times in her descriptions of auction coins that have a small tick.... holding the coin back from gem grade ..now a tick = bump up to MS68 ?
Somebody is confused because PCGS doesn't grade coins based on somebody's personal interpretation of ANA grading standards.
I know- silly, right?
Don’t bring ‘she who will not be mentioned’ into this discussion. Have you no compassion, sir?
Someone believes that any toning is considered a decrease in luster and limits the coin to a 65.
She does honest descriptions of coins offered for auction...would she call this walker a 67?
Hell, no. Not in my opinion
No. She'd probably declare it 1000% perfect with no flaws under her neutron microscope with blinding luster beaming at all angles. She might also throw in the peacock in heat toning language she routinely uses for good measure. And of course she'd expect "spirited bidding." Opportunity knocks loudly.
The discussion is whether a toned coin can be said to have "fully original luster". My position is it cannot. The phrase in the PCGS standard the luster will be full (or virtually so) is verbal gymnastics. "Virtually so"??? What does that even mean. Toning alters (diminishes) the luster of a coin. The change may be pretty but the luster has been altered by the chemical change that has occurred on the coin's surface. You can try to torture the language or claim this is a special numismatic nuisance to the words but the bottom line is the toning represents a chemical change in the surface of the coin and that change has altered the coins appearance.
One tick too many will hold it back. I doubt she ever said that a single tick knocked a coin down to 64 in the absence of other marks.
Depends on where the tick is located. A tick hidden in some detail isn't going to detract as much as a tick in a prime focal area.
What about toning hidden in some detail vs. toning in a prime focal area?
Am I buying or selling?
Define "buying" and "selling".
Renting?
I know the words begin with the same letter but it's a "tick" hidden in some detail not "toning". It's late but try to focus.
No sense of humor. Check!
That surprises you?
No. It was pretty much expected.
My sense of humor is just fine. Was that suppose to be funny? Did you borrow that line from Bill Cosby?
Someone has dug their heels in so deep that they can't get out or won't.
m
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......
Thought the same thing. Kind of hard to miss that.
Like the signature photo
. I just started working on a set. Hopefully I can find some as nice.
coin's all their udder a strong glass oppertunity nocks loud
But it stickered.
Well just maybe, even with the chemically altered toned surfaces enough luster is still present to be considered fully original surfaces.
Hence the 68 minus a plus.
If you have to “consider” than it’s not. In this case a significant portion of the coin’s surface has toning. Nothing really to consider. This is a case where the words “fully original luster” have lost their literal meaning. That’s blue pill life in the world of numismatics.
The Trueviews are in. I like the color better. It looks like a luster bomb. The tick on the sun is definitely not an artifact, and there are other ticks over Miss Liberty.
I wonder how much your stance would change had this been your coin?
Not that it really matters but it might be comical to hear the change in tone.
Or maybe not! Either way I wouldn’t be complaining if it were mine
Perhaps there is something to consider. If nearly everyone other than you interprets the words “fully original luster” a certain/different way, maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t be so stuck on their “literal meaning”.
Other than to be able to say repeatedly that everyone else is wrong, twisting words, etc., where else does your literal interpretation get you?
Mark Feld* of Heritage Auctions*Unless otherwise noted, my posts here represent my personal opinions.
A 400+ post thread?