@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?
The other thing to consider is there are two ways to interpret original. "Original luster" could be taken to mean the luster originally present. On the other hand, it could simply mean luster that has not been enhanced.> @Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
What do they know?
You know they have a new category of event in the 2021 Olympic's. It's called "verbal gymnastics". You be perfect for it.
Just because someone has a different interpretation than you - and at least a few do 😉 - doesn’t mean they’re engaging in “verbal gymnastics”. Someone who disagrees with you, could just as easily and justifiably say the same about you.
Why not just disagree, without accusing those with different opinions, of intentionally twisting words or verbal gymnastics?
When someone on your side of the fence claims the words original, fully and luster have a different meaning in the world of numismatics I think I'm justified in using the term "verbal gymnastics". No slander or slight intended.
On the other hand I've been mocked a little in this thread but I don't take it personally. When we're done with this thread (moderator please) it's on to enjoying the hobby together until someone tells me the 20x premium paid for an MS-70 coin over a MS-69 is a rational decision.
You mention throughout this thread that you would never pay a premium for a one point difference.
A few times I've witnessed someone turn almost nothing into 6 figures playing blackjack at a casino. In each case the gambler lost it all back at some point. I've heard many people say "if that was me I would have put aside $50,000 and not lost it all." What they dont get is they would have never had turned $500 into 6 figures in the first place. Never. The guys who did it took insane chances to build such a win (they would win and double their bet over and over). The people who would "save" half and not lose it all would not win it in the first place.
What does this have to do with you? You will never own a top pop coin because you will never pay the premium to own it. It will never make sense to you for you to pay 10× premium to have the 68 over the 67. That's fine. But also understand there are people who can tell the difference between a 67 and a 68 and they will pay the premium. The top pop coins will almost always trade for big premiums and your more "sensible" coins wont. Either way is fine but dont think your way is the right way---it's just one of the ways to collect.
@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?
The other thing to consider is there are two ways to interpret original. "Original luster" could be taken to mean the luster originally present. On the other hand, it could simply mean luster that has not been enhanced.> @Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
What do they know?
You know they have a new category of event in the 2021 Olympic's. It's called "verbal gymnastics". You be perfect for it.
Just because someone has a different interpretation than you - and at least a few do 😉 - doesn’t mean they’re engaging in “verbal gymnastics”. Someone who disagrees with you, could just as easily and justifiably say the same about you.
Why not just disagree, without accusing those with different opinions, of intentionally twisting words or verbal gymnastics?
When someone on your side of the fence claims the words original, fully and luster have a different meaning in the world of numismatics I think I'm justified in using the term "verbal gymnastics". No slander or slight intended.
On the other hand I've been mocked a little in this thread but I don't take it personally. When we're done with this thread (moderator please) it's on to enjoying the hobby together until someone tells me the 20x premium paid for an MS-70 coin over a MS-69 is a rational decision.
You mention throughout this thread that you would never pay a premium for a one point difference.
A few times I've witnessed someone turn almost nothing into 6 figures playing blackjack at a casino. In each case the gambler lost it all back at some point. I've heard many people say "if that was me I would have put aside $50,000 and not lost it all." What they dont get is they would have never had turned $500 into 6 figures in the first place. Never. The guys who did it took insane chances to build such a win (they would win and double their bet over and over). The people who would "save" half and not lose it all would not win it in the first place.
What does this have to do with you? You will never own a top pop coin because you will never pay the premium to own it. It will never make sense to you for you to pay 10× premium to have the 68 over the 67. That's fine. But also understand there are people who can tell the difference between a 67 and a 68 and they will pay the premium. The top pop coins will almost always trade for big premiums and your more "sensible" coins wont. Either way is fine but dont think your way is the right way---it's just one of the ways to collect.
I gamble sometimes and I don’t see anything wrong with taking half of a huge win. $50,000 is a super win in my book, losing it all is dumb ass stupid and having nothing to show for your work. There may be a few who can tell the difference between 67-68 but they are not many and they are mainly competing for bragging rights for their registry sets. Nobody can convince me there is a significant difference visually to justify value in paying 20x for a 68 over a 67. True old school regular collectors never will overpay for a 68 even if they’re rich because they wouldn’t see or appreciate the minute visual difference
You miss my point. You will never turn $500 into 6 figures if your mindset is also to squirl away $50,000 when your up. That's because when you turn 500 into 5000 you will stop. You wont get to 6 figures. You wont keep doubling it up. I'm not being critical. It's just a fact. And someone who wont pay 10x premium for one grade up on a top pop coin, they will never own a top pop coin because it will never make "sense" to them.
Many of these coins are being bought for registry sets for bragging rights by millionaires who can fritter away money without a care. I think serious collectors who are wealthy but not super rich put more thought and care how they invest their money
@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?
The other thing to consider is there are two ways to interpret original. "Original luster" could be taken to mean the luster originally present. On the other hand, it could simply mean luster that has not been enhanced.> @Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
What do they know?
You know they have a new category of event in the 2021 Olympic's. It's called "verbal gymnastics". You be perfect for it.
Just because someone has a different interpretation than you - and at least a few do 😉 - doesn’t mean they’re engaging in “verbal gymnastics”. Someone who disagrees with you, could just as easily and justifiably say the same about you.
Why not just disagree, without accusing those with different opinions, of intentionally twisting words or verbal gymnastics?
When someone on your side of the fence claims the words original, fully and luster have a different meaning in the world of numismatics I think I'm justified in using the term "verbal gymnastics". No slander or slight intended.
On the other hand I've been mocked a little in this thread but I don't take it personally. When we're done with this thread (moderator please) it's on to enjoying the hobby together until someone tells me the 20x premium paid for an MS-70 coin over a MS-69 is a rational decision.
You mention throughout this thread that you would never pay a premium for a one point difference.
A few times I've witnessed someone turn almost nothing into 6 figures playing blackjack at a casino. In each case the gambler lost it all back at some point. I've heard many people say "if that was me I would have put aside $50,000 and not lost it all." What they dont get is they would have never had turned $500 into 6 figures in the first place. Never. The guys who did it took insane chances to build such a win (they would win and double their bet over and over). The people who would "save" half and not lose it all would not win it in the first place.
What does this have to do with you? You will never own a top pop coin because you will never pay the premium to own it. It will never make sense to you for you to pay 10× premium to have the 68 over the 67. That's fine. But also understand there are people who can tell the difference between a 67 and a 68 and they will pay the premium. The top pop coins will almost always trade for big premiums and your more "sensible" coins wont. Either way is fine but dont think your way is the right way---it's just one of the ways to collect.
@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?
The other thing to consider is there are two ways to interpret original. "Original luster" could be taken to mean the luster originally present. On the other hand, it could simply mean luster that has not been enhanced.> @Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
What do they know?
You know they have a new category of event in the 2021 Olympic's. It's called "verbal gymnastics". You be perfect for it.
Just because someone has a different interpretation than you - and at least a few do 😉 - doesn’t mean they’re engaging in “verbal gymnastics”. Someone who disagrees with you, could just as easily and justifiably say the same about you.
Why not just disagree, without accusing those with different opinions, of intentionally twisting words or verbal gymnastics?
When someone on your side of the fence claims the words original, fully and luster have a different meaning in the world of numismatics I think I'm justified in using the term "verbal gymnastics". No slander or slight intended.
On the other hand I've been mocked a little in this thread but I don't take it personally. When we're done with this thread (moderator please) it's on to enjoying the hobby together until someone tells me the 20x premium paid for an MS-70 coin over a MS-69 is a rational decision.
You mention throughout this thread that you would never pay a premium for a one point difference.
A few times I've witnessed someone turn almost nothing into 6 figures playing blackjack at a casino. In each case the gambler lost it all back at some point. I've heard many people say "if that was me I would have put aside $50,000 and not lost it all." What they dont get is they would have never had turned $500 into 6 figures in the first place. Never. The guys who did it took insane chances to build such a win (they would win and double their bet over and over). The people who would "save" half and not lose it all would not win it in the first place.
What does this have to do with you? You will never own a top pop coin because you will never pay the premium to own it. It will never make sense to you for you to pay 10× premium to have the 68 over the 67. That's fine. But also understand there are people who can tell the difference between a 67 and a 68 and they will pay the premium. The top pop coins will almost always trade for big premiums and your more "sensible" coins wont. Either way is fine but dont think your way is the right way---it's just one of the ways to collect.
I gamble sometimes and I don’t see anything wrong with taking half of a huge win. $50,000 is a super win in my book, losing it all is dumb ass stupid and having nothing to show for your work. There may be a few who can tell the difference between 67-68 but they are not many and they are mainly competing for bragging rights for their registry sets. Nobody can convince me there is a significant difference visually to justify value in paying 20x for a 68 over a 67. True old school regular collectors never will overpay for a 68 even if they’re rich because they wouldn’t see or appreciate the minute visual difference
You miss my point. You will never turn $500 into 6 figures if your mindset is also to squirl away $50,000 when your up. That's because when you turn 500 into 5000 you will stop. You wont get to 6 figures. You wont keep doubling it up. I'm not being critical. It's just a fact. And someone who wont pay 10x premium for one grade up on a top pop coin, they will never own a top pop coin because it will never make "sense" to them.
Many of these coins are being bought for registry sets for bragging rights by millionaires who can fritter away money without a care. I think serious collectors who are wealthy but not super rich put more thought and care how they invest their money
Evidence?
Define "serious collector".
Why is someone with a multi- million dollar registry set automatically a "serious collector"?
501 posts. and still this one self-inflated 'expert' has not seen this coin in hand. This is way past a p***ing contest now, the whole Olympic pool has turned a yellow-green and it's debatable now if that is an original color or not.
This thread is like watching a bad movie with 2 minutes of action crammed into 4 hours.
@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?
The other thing to consider is there are two ways to interpret original. "Original luster" could be taken to mean the luster originally present. On the other hand, it could simply mean luster that has not been enhanced.> @Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
What do they know?
You know they have a new category of event in the 2021 Olympic's. It's called "verbal gymnastics". You be perfect for it.
Just because someone has a different interpretation than you - and at least a few do 😉 - doesn’t mean they’re engaging in “verbal gymnastics”. Someone who disagrees with you, could just as easily and justifiably say the same about you.
Why not just disagree, without accusing those with different opinions, of intentionally twisting words or verbal gymnastics?
When someone on your side of the fence claims the words original, fully and luster have a different meaning in the world of numismatics I think I'm justified in using the term "verbal gymnastics". No slander or slight intended.
On the other hand I've been mocked a little in this thread but I don't take it personally. When we're done with this thread (moderator please) it's on to enjoying the hobby together until someone tells me the 20x premium paid for an MS-70 coin over a MS-69 is a rational decision.
You mention throughout this thread that you would never pay a premium for a one point difference.
A few times I've witnessed someone turn almost nothing into 6 figures playing blackjack at a casino. In each case the gambler lost it all back at some point. I've heard many people say "if that was me I would have put aside $50,000 and not lost it all." What they dont get is they would have never had turned $500 into 6 figures in the first place. Never. The guys who did it took insane chances to build such a win (they would win and double their bet over and over). The people who would "save" half and not lose it all would not win it in the first place.
What does this have to do with you? You will never own a top pop coin because you will never pay the premium to own it. It will never make sense to you for you to pay 10× premium to have the 68 over the 67. That's fine. But also understand there are people who can tell the difference between a 67 and a 68 and they will pay the premium. The top pop coins will almost always trade for big premiums and your more "sensible" coins wont. Either way is fine but dont think your way is the right way---it's just one of the ways to collect.
@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?
The other thing to consider is there are two ways to interpret original. "Original luster" could be taken to mean the luster originally present. On the other hand, it could simply mean luster that has not been enhanced.> @Higashiyama said:
The PCGS standard also very clearly states that toning is acceptable on an MS68 coin.
What do they know?
You know they have a new category of event in the 2021 Olympic's. It's called "verbal gymnastics". You be perfect for it.
Just because someone has a different interpretation than you - and at least a few do 😉 - doesn’t mean they’re engaging in “verbal gymnastics”. Someone who disagrees with you, could just as easily and justifiably say the same about you.
Why not just disagree, without accusing those with different opinions, of intentionally twisting words or verbal gymnastics?
When someone on your side of the fence claims the words original, fully and luster have a different meaning in the world of numismatics I think I'm justified in using the term "verbal gymnastics". No slander or slight intended.
On the other hand I've been mocked a little in this thread but I don't take it personally. When we're done with this thread (moderator please) it's on to enjoying the hobby together until someone tells me the 20x premium paid for an MS-70 coin over a MS-69 is a rational decision.
You mention throughout this thread that you would never pay a premium for a one point difference.
A few times I've witnessed someone turn almost nothing into 6 figures playing blackjack at a casino. In each case the gambler lost it all back at some point. I've heard many people say "if that was me I would have put aside $50,000 and not lost it all." What they dont get is they would have never had turned $500 into 6 figures in the first place. Never. The guys who did it took insane chances to build such a win (they would win and double their bet over and over). The people who would "save" half and not lose it all would not win it in the first place.
What does this have to do with you? You will never own a top pop coin because you will never pay the premium to own it. It will never make sense to you for you to pay 10× premium to have the 68 over the 67. That's fine. But also understand there are people who can tell the difference between a 67 and a 68 and they will pay the premium. The top pop coins will almost always trade for big premiums and your more "sensible" coins wont. Either way is fine but dont think your way is the right way---it's just one of the ways to collect.
I gamble sometimes and I don’t see anything wrong with taking half of a huge win. $50,000 is a super win in my book, losing it all is dumb ass stupid and having nothing to show for your work. There may be a few who can tell the difference between 67-68 but they are not many and they are mainly competing for bragging rights for their registry sets. Nobody can convince me there is a significant difference visually to justify value in paying 20x for a 68 over a 67. True old school regular collectors never will overpay for a 68 even if they’re rich because they wouldn’t see or appreciate the minute visual difference
You miss my point. You will never turn $500 into 6 figures if your mindset is also to squirl away $50,000 when your up. That's because when you turn 500 into 5000 you will stop. You wont get to 6 figures. You wont keep doubling it up. I'm not being critical. It's just a fact. And someone who wont pay 10x premium for one grade up on a top pop coin, they will never own a top pop coin because it will never make "sense" to them.
Many of these coins are being bought for registry sets for bragging rights by millionaires who can fritter away money without a care. I think serious collectors who are wealthy but not super rich put more thought and care how they invest their money
Not sure how you know that "many" of these coins are being bought "for bragging rights by millionaires who can fritter away money with out a care." There are serious collectors on the full range of the financial spectrum.
@ElmerFusterpuck said:
501 posts. and still this one self-inflated 'expert' has not seen this coin in hand. This is way past a p***ing contest now, the whole Olympic pool has turned a yellow-green and it's debatable now if that is an original color or not.
This thread is like watching a bad movie with 2 minutes of action crammed into 4 hours.
@ElmerFusterpuck said:
This is way past a p***ing contest now, the whole Olympic pool has turned a yellow-green and it's debatable now if that is an original color or not.
pmh1nic is actually the IBM Watson supercomputer here conducting a psychological test to see how long humans will persist in an unwinable effort to change the mind of an unchangeable mind.
Lots of good data has been collected for the eventual conquering of humans by distracting them in trivial logic loops while the takeover is going on elsewhere.
But you can still win if you just keep trying.
Carry on.
.
.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
@clarkbar04 said:
Back and forth! Kinda like watching someone shooting a BB gun at a missile silo.
Yea, they didn't have a chance...LOL.
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
@cameonut2011 said:
Are we all done here? I've sort of enjoyed this thread and the back and forth.
I find it fatiguing.
Actually I had just gotten out of the hospital after surgery (carotid endarterectomy) when this thread started and my blood pressure was too low. The doctor said they might have to put me in ICU if my pressure remain low. I kept returning to this tread to raise it. It’s back to normal now .
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
@cameonut2011 said:
But, guys it stickered. Does the coin even really matter anymore? The green bean looks immaculate. We're all going to feel weird when it ends up in a 68+ or 69 holder.
I predict it will grade 68+ one day (if we're referring to the 1946 we auctioned; it's difficult to keep up with this thread!).
@cameonut2011 said:
But, guys it stickered. Does the coin even really matter anymore? The green bean looks immaculate. We're all going to feel weird when it ends up in a 68+ or 69 holder.
I predict it will grade 68+ one day (if we're referring to the 1946 we auctioned; it's difficult to keep up with this thread!).
@cameonut2011 said:
I wonder what the subject coin would fetch as a 68+.
I discussed this with the consignor before we sent to CAC. My thoughts: It's already the single finest graded, so a plus is less important compared to another date, where perhaps there's already a few graded 68.
@Raybo said:
12 million + mintage coin with a 150K price tag?
Lots of members with very skinny wallets talking this coin up (just guessing).
I use to collect Walkers and if I had the money.....Pass!
For some folks the condition rarity thing is a big deal. Paying 10x, 20x premiums for a very nice 68 over a very nice 67 doesn't phase them. It's never been my thing but to each his won't.
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
@Raybo said:
12 million + mintage coin with a 150K price tag?
Lots of members with very skinny wallets talking this coin up (just guessing).
I use to collect Walkers and if I had the money.....Pass!
For some folks the condition rarity thing is a big deal. Paying 10x, 20x premiums for a very nice 68 over a very nice 67 doesn't phase them. It's never been my thing but to each his won't.
At that point; I think it's more about competition.
Being able to say: 'I have the BEST'.
“I may not believe in myself but I believe in what I’m doing” ~Jimmy Page~
@Raybo said:
12 million + mintage coin with a 150K price tag?
Lots of members with very skinny wallets talking this coin up (just guessing).
I use to collect Walkers and if I had the money.....Pass!
For some folks the condition rarity thing is a big deal. Paying 10x, 20x premiums for a very nice 68 over a very nice 67 doesn't phase them. It's never been my thing but to each his won't.
Maybe other people can see the difference between a 67 and 68 better than you?
@Raybo said:
12 million + mintage coin with a 150K price tag?
Lots of members with very skinny wallets talking this coin up (just guessing).
I use to collect Walkers and if I had the money.....Pass!
For some folks the condition rarity thing is a big deal. Paying 10x, 20x premiums for a very nice 68 over a very nice 67 doesn't phase them. It's never been my thing but to each his won't.
Maybe other people can see the difference between a 67 and 68 better than you?
I can see the differences. That said, based on any grading standard you want to apply, the differences by definition are miniscule. A 67 or 68 both have to have exceptional eye appeal and full original luster. Any contact marks must be minor, none detracting. The differences come down to small variations (one or two contact marks and/or slight difference in strike). The issue is not whether or not they are noticed, the difference is not valuing the absence or presence of those differences at 10x or 20x the value of the 67 coin.
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:
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 phrase full original luster means full, strong cartwheel luster. It does not mean that there are no changes to luster at all. Any diminution in luster from the light toning on this piece would be de minimis and not disqualifying.
Moreover your position would mean that no toned coin (and virtually no copper or silver piece) would ever grade superb gem uncirculated. This was not the intent. The ANA standards were based on the Sheldon scale for copper coins. There were superb gem pieces at that time and it is ludicrous to think that the scale was created such that the grades 67-70 were never used.
If I recall correctly the ANA standards specifically contemplate color changes as there is even a mention of mellowness in copper.
If the coin failed to make the grade, it would be because of the marks on the sun. Three PCGS graders called it a 68. CAC affirmed. @ianrusell, whose grading skills and opinion I trust, also speaks favorably of it. If everyone who has seen it in hand is okay with the grade, then it is time to consider the possibility that the coin just doesn’t present as well in photos (multiple photographers now) than it does in hand.
Similarly the phrasing “virtually as struck” isn’t excluding light toning. See #2-3 above. That phrase is clearly referring to technical attributes (e.g. surface preservation).
@cameonut2011 said:
3. If I recall correctly the ANA standards specifically contemplate color changes as there is even a mention of mellowness in copper.
The ANA uses a coin with toning to illustrate the MS68 grade on their website.
@cameonut2011 said:
3. If I recall correctly the ANA standards specifically contemplate color changes as there is even a mention of mellowness in copper.
The ANA uses a coin with toning to illustrate the MS68 grade on their website.
@pmh1nic said:
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 phrase full original luster means full, strong cartwheel luster. It does not mean that there are no changes to luster at all. Any diminution in luster from the light toning on this piece would be de minimis and not disqualifying.
Moreover your position would mean that no toned coin (and virtually no copper or silver piece) would ever grade superb gem uncirculated. This was not the intent. The ANA standards were based on the Sheldon scale for copper coins. There were superb gem pieces at that time and it is ludicrous to think that the scale was created such that the grades 67-70 were never used.
If I recall correctly the ANA standards specifically contemplate color changes as there is even a mention of mellowness in copper.
If the coin failed to make the grade, it would be because of the marks on the sun. Three PCGS graders called it a 68. CAC affirmed. @ianrusell, whose grading skills and opinion I trust, also speaks favorably of it. If everyone who has seen it in hand is okay with the grade, then it is time to consider the possibility that the coin just doesn’t present as well in photos (multiple photographers now) than it does in hand.
Similarly the phrasing “virtually as struck” isn’t excluding light toning. See #2-3 above. That phrase is clearly referring to technical attributes (e.g. surface preservation).
Toning disrupts the original luster. If it did not you wouldn't notice it. Toning is caused by thin film interference. It's a twisting of the words "fully original" or "mint state" to apply them to toned coins.
Actually you understand me perfectly. Whatever the intent was the usage of the words fully original luster are a very poor choice of words as far as describing a toned coin.
Again, what the ANA contemplated doesn't change the fact that words have meaning. Some have argued that the meaning of words can differ based on context. I understand that BUT at some point that altered meaning becomes ludicrous. You wouldn't describe a car, airplane, Airstream travel trailer, etc. with a layer of oxidation on its surface as having fully original surfaces, not unless you were inviting a lawsuit.
I understand the details on how the coin was graded. It is what it is. Again, my issue is the terminology that has been used to describe the surfaces of the coin. When you bring toning into the discussion of grading it introduces another very subjective factor in assigning a grade. Personally I like toned coins and I'm suspect of any 70+ year old coin that doesn't have some degree of toning.
When you couple "virtually as struck" with the words "fully original luster" it reinforces the idea that what you're going to see is a silver coin with undisturbed, bright cartwheel surfaces not one with toning and spots.
In reality none of the verbal gymnastics was unnecessary. If all toned coins were dropped from the higher grades they would be then be judged against one another in some subjective fashion. Coins with fully original luster in a state more closely resembling "virtually as struck" would occupy the higher grades. It takes some of the guess work and subjectivity out of the grading of the higher MS coins.
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 entire forum agrees on the luster and grading point except for one obdurate individual. There is really no point in trying to convince him of anything.
@pmh1nic said:
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 phrase full original luster means full, strong cartwheel luster. It does not mean that there are no changes to luster at all. Any diminution in luster from the light toning on this piece would be de minimis and not disqualifying.
Moreover your position would mean that no toned coin (and virtually no copper or silver piece) would ever grade superb gem uncirculated. This was not the intent. The ANA standards were based on the Sheldon scale for copper coins. There were superb gem pieces at that time and it is ludicrous to think that the scale was created such that the grades 67-70 were never used.
If I recall correctly the ANA standards specifically contemplate color changes as there is even a mention of mellowness in copper.
If the coin failed to make the grade, it would be because of the marks on the sun. Three PCGS graders called it a 68. CAC affirmed. @ianrusell, whose grading skills and opinion I trust, also speaks favorably of it. If everyone who has seen it in hand is okay with the grade, then it is time to consider the possibility that the coin just doesn’t present as well in photos (multiple photographers now) than it does in hand.
Similarly the phrasing “virtually as struck” isn’t excluding light toning. See #2-3 above. That phrase is clearly referring to technical attributes (e.g. surface preservation).
Toning disrupts the original luster. If it did not you wouldn't notice it. Toning is caused by thin film interference. It's a twisting of the words "fully original" or "mint state" to apply them to toned coins.
Actually you understand me perfectly. Whatever the intent was the usage of the words fully original luster are a very poor choice of words as far as describing a toned coin.
Again, what the ANA contemplated doesn't change the fact that words have meaning. Some have argued that the meaning of words can differ based on context. I understand that BUT at some point that altered meaning becomes ludicrous. You wouldn't describe a car, airplane, Airstream travel trailer, etc. with a layer of oxidation on its surface as having fully original surfaces, not unless you were inviting a lawsuit.
I understand the details on how the coin was graded. It is what it is. Again, my issue is the terminology that has been used to describe the surfaces of the coin. When you bring toning into the discussion of grading it introduces another very subjective factor in assigning a grade. Personally I like toned coins and I'm suspect of any 70+ year old coin that doesn't have some degree of toning.
When you couple "virtually as struck" with the words "fully original luster" it reinforces the idea that what you're going to see is a silver coin with undisturbed, bright cartwheel surfaces not one with toning and spots.
In reality none of the verbal gymnastics was unnecessary. If all toned coins were dropped from the higher grades they would be then be judged against one another in some subjective fashion. Coins with fully original luster in a state more closely resembling "virtually as struck" would occupy the higher grades. It takes some of the guess work and subjectivity out of the grading of the higher MS coins.
So now you don’t even consider toned coins mint state? I don’t think even Ricko would agree with that.
Did you miss the part in the grading guide that it is just that (I.e. a guide and not an edict with any controlling force)?
@pmh1nic said:
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 phrase full original luster means full, strong cartwheel luster. It does not mean that there are no changes to luster at all. Any diminution in luster from the light toning on this piece would be de minimis and not disqualifying.
Moreover your position would mean that no toned coin (and virtually no copper or silver piece) would ever grade superb gem uncirculated. This was not the intent. The ANA standards were based on the Sheldon scale for copper coins. There were superb gem pieces at that time and it is ludicrous to think that the scale was created such that the grades 67-70 were never used.
If I recall correctly the ANA standards specifically contemplate color changes as there is even a mention of mellowness in copper.
If the coin failed to make the grade, it would be because of the marks on the sun. Three PCGS graders called it a 68. CAC affirmed. @ianrusell, whose grading skills and opinion I trust, also speaks favorably of it. If everyone who has seen it in hand is okay with the grade, then it is time to consider the possibility that the coin just doesn’t present as well in photos (multiple photographers now) than it does in hand.
Similarly the phrasing “virtually as struck” isn’t excluding light toning. See #2-3 above. That phrase is clearly referring to technical attributes (e.g. surface preservation).
Toning disrupts the original luster. If it did not you wouldn't notice it. Toning is caused by thin film interference. It's a twisting of the words "fully original" or "mint state" to apply them to toned coins.
Actually you understand me perfectly. Whatever the intent was the usage of the words fully original luster are a very poor choice of words as far as describing a toned coin.
Again, what the ANA contemplated doesn't change the fact that words have meaning. Some have argued that the meaning of words can differ based on context. I understand that BUT at some point that altered meaning becomes ludicrous. You wouldn't describe a car, airplane, Airstream travel trailer, etc. with a layer of oxidation on its surface as having fully original surfaces, not unless you were inviting a lawsuit.
I understand the details on how the coin was graded. It is what it is. Again, my issue is the terminology that has been used to describe the surfaces of the coin. When you bring toning into the discussion of grading it introduces another very subjective factor in assigning a grade. Personally I like toned coins and I'm suspect of any 70+ year old coin that doesn't have some degree of toning.
When you couple "virtually as struck" with the words "fully original luster" it reinforces the idea that what you're going to see is a silver coin with undisturbed, bright cartwheel surfaces not one with toning and spots.
In reality none of the verbal gymnastics was unnecessary. If all toned coins were dropped from the higher grades they would be then be judged against one another in some subjective fashion. Coins with fully original luster in a state more closely resembling "virtually as struck" would occupy the higher grades. It takes some of the guess work and subjectivity out of the grading of the higher MS coins.
So now you don’t even consider toned coins mint state? I don’t think even Ricko would agree with that.
Did you miss the part in the grading guide that it is just that (I.e. a guide and not an edict with any controlling force)?
Actually that's not exactly what I said. I said coins with original surfaces would occupy "the higher grades" meaning toned coins would be in grades where the description for the grade doesn't include the words "original luster", grades 66 and lower.
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
You also forget about dipping. If a lightly toned coin is properly dipped you won’t be able to detect it. Doesn’t that undermine your argument that the luster is damaged to a degree sufficient enough to to consider it unoriginal? And if toning precludes a superb gem grade, then dipping (I.e. a removal of a layer of metal) certainly does. In that case there are no superb gem coins at all prior to the 20th century with possible exception of a bag hoard date common date Morgan. In other words there would largely be no point in grades MS-67 to MS-70.
BTW, my previous post was based on memory, the toned coin on the ANA website is actually MS67 and the text states "Fully lustrous". Sorry for the mixup.
BTW, my previous post was based on memory, the toned coin on the ANA website is actually MS67 and the text states "Fully lustrous". Sorry for the mixup.
The point still stands: The ANA clearly does not take the position that toning precludes a superb gem uncirculated grade.
BTW, my previous post was based on memory, the toned coin on the ANA website is actually MS67 and the text states "Fully lustrous". Sorry for the mixup.
The point still stands: The ANA clearly does not take the position that toning precludes a superb gem uncirculated grade.
Only ONE person in the galaxy takes that position.
@cameonut2011 said:
You also forget about dipping. If a lightly toned coin is properly dipped you won’t be able to detect it. Doesn’t that undermine your argument that the luster is damaged to a degree sufficient enough to to consider it unoriginal? And if toning precludes a superb gem grade, then dipping (I.e. a removal of a layer of metal) certainly does. In that case there are no superb gem coins at all prior to the 20th century with possible exception of a bag hoard date common date Morgan. In other words there would largely be no point in grades MS-67 to MS-70.
I grant you I might not be able to detect it under the 10x magnification normally used to examine a coin. But under higher magnification and/or using sophisticated chemical analysis techniques (the type we sometimes use in conducting component failure analysis, SEM-EDS) I'm pretty certain it would be possible to detect it. But that's another discussion.
That said I'm not sure this undermines my argument. What is obvious is the coin in question HAS been altered (toned) to the point where anyone seeing it would know the luster is not fully original. I agree with your statement, taken to the extreme very few if any 19th century coins could be considered fully original since in general extraordinarily care would have had to be taken to avoid all oxidation. This is why I commented that I am suspect of any 70+ year old coin that show no signs of toning and yes, there would largely be no point of MS-67 and higher grades for these coins. But the fact that these coins would not have that number on the label doesn't change the character of the coin.
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
BTW, my previous post was based on memory, the toned coin on the ANA website is actually MS67 and the text states "Fully lustrous". Sorry for the mixup.
The point still stands: The ANA clearly does not take the position that toning precludes a superb gem uncirculated grade.
Only ONE person in the galaxy takes that position.
When you live in an echo chamber it’s easy to have that perception.
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 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
BTW, my previous post was based on memory, the toned coin on the ANA website is actually MS67 and the text states "Fully lustrous". Sorry for the mixup.
The point still stands: The ANA clearly does not take the position that toning precludes a superb gem uncirculated grade.
Only ONE person in the galaxy takes that position.
When you live in an echo chamber it’s easy to have that perception.
This forum never agrees on ANYTHING, except the grading guidelines. That should tell you something.
I grant you I might not be able to detect it under the 10x magnification normally used to examine a coin. But under higher magnification and/or using sophisticated chemical analysis techniques (the type we sometimes use in conducting component failure analysis, SEM-EDS) I'm pretty certain it would be possible to detect it. But that's another discussion.
So Laura isn’t the only one with access to a neutron microscope I see. 😈
@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.
Thanks. There are plenty out there! Good luck in the hunt.
Comments
Many of these coins are being bought for registry sets for bragging rights by millionaires who can fritter away money without a care. I think serious collectors who are wealthy but not super rich put more thought and care how they invest their money
Evidence?
Define "serious collector".
Why is someone with a multi- million dollar registry set automatically a "serious collector"?
501 posts. and still this one self-inflated 'expert' has not seen this coin in hand. This is way past a p***ing contest now, the whole Olympic pool has turned a yellow-green and it's debatable now if that is an original color or not.
This thread is like watching a bad movie with 2 minutes of action crammed into 4 hours.
10-4,
My Instagram picturesErik
My registry sets
Not sure how you know that "many" of these coins are being bought "for bragging rights by millionaires who can fritter away money with out a care." There are serious collectors on the full range of the financial spectrum.
More of a critic than expert.
Yellow-green is definitely not original.
Finally figured it out.
pmh1nic is actually the IBM Watson supercomputer here conducting a psychological test to see how long humans will persist in an unwinable effort to change the mind of an unchangeable mind.
Lots of good data has been collected for the eventual conquering of humans by distracting them in trivial logic loops while the takeover is going on elsewhere.
But you can still win if you just keep trying.
Carry on.
.
.
"To Be Esteemed Be Useful" - 1792 Birch Cent --- "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain." - Lily Tomlin
Are we all done here? I've sort of enjoyed this thread and the back and forth.
Sadist.
Back and forth! Kinda like watching someone shooting a BB gun at a missile silo.
Yea, they didn't have a chance...LOL.
I find it fatiguing.
Actually I had just gotten out of the hospital after surgery (carotid endarterectomy) when this thread started and my blood pressure was too low. The doctor said they might have to put me in ICU if my pressure remain low. I kept returning to this tread to raise it. It’s back to normal now
.
So are the Jack Lee coins now today’s 68+ coins?
This /\
Waiting for jmlanzaf.........
All I can think about when reading this thread…
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
I predict it will grade 68+ one day (if we're referring to the 1946 we auctioned; it's difficult to keep up with this thread!).
Owner/Founder GreatCollections
GreatCollections Coin Auctions - Certified Coin Auctions Every Week - Rare Coins & Coin Values
I could see that.
I wonder what the subject coin would fetch as a 68+.
$250k?
But, I think it's maxed out.
ANYTHING is possible, though....
“I may not believe in myself but I believe in what I’m doing” ~Jimmy Page~
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947)
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
I discussed this with the consignor before we sent to CAC. My thoughts: It's already the single finest graded, so a plus is less important compared to another date, where perhaps there's already a few graded 68.
Owner/Founder GreatCollections
GreatCollections Coin Auctions - Certified Coin Auctions Every Week - Rare Coins & Coin Values
12 million + mintage coin with a 150K price tag?
Lots of members with very skinny wallets talking this coin up (just guessing).
I use to collect Walkers and if I had the money.....Pass!
For some folks the condition rarity thing is a big deal. Paying 10x, 20x premiums for a very nice 68 over a very nice 67 doesn't phase them. It's never been my thing but to each his won't.
At that point; I think it's more about competition.
Being able to say: 'I have the BEST'.
“I may not believe in myself but I believe in what I’m doing” ~Jimmy Page~
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947)
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
Maybe other people can see the difference between a 67 and 68 better than you?
I can see the differences. That said, based on any grading standard you want to apply, the differences by definition are miniscule. A 67 or 68 both have to have exceptional eye appeal and full original luster. Any contact marks must be minor, none detracting. The differences come down to small variations (one or two contact marks and/or slight difference in strike). The issue is not whether or not they are noticed, the difference is not valuing the absence or presence of those differences at 10x or 20x the value of the 67 coin.
The phrase full original luster means full, strong cartwheel luster. It does not mean that there are no changes to luster at all. Any diminution in luster from the light toning on this piece would be de minimis and not disqualifying.
Moreover your position would mean that no toned coin (and virtually no copper or silver piece) would ever grade superb gem uncirculated. This was not the intent. The ANA standards were based on the Sheldon scale for copper coins. There were superb gem pieces at that time and it is ludicrous to think that the scale was created such that the grades 67-70 were never used.
If I recall correctly the ANA standards specifically contemplate color changes as there is even a mention of mellowness in copper.
If the coin failed to make the grade, it would be because of the marks on the sun. Three PCGS graders called it a 68. CAC affirmed. @ianrusell, whose grading skills and opinion I trust, also speaks favorably of it. If everyone who has seen it in hand is okay with the grade, then it is time to consider the possibility that the coin just doesn’t present as well in photos (multiple photographers now) than it does in hand.
Similarly the phrasing “virtually as struck” isn’t excluding light toning. See #2-3 above. That phrase is clearly referring to technical attributes (e.g. surface preservation).
The ANA uses a coin with toning to illustrate the MS68 grade on their website.
So there's that, too.
Link?
Toning disrupts the original luster. If it did not you wouldn't notice it. Toning is caused by thin film interference. It's a twisting of the words "fully original" or "mint state" to apply them to toned coins.
Actually you understand me perfectly. Whatever the intent was the usage of the words fully original luster are a very poor choice of words as far as describing a toned coin.
Again, what the ANA contemplated doesn't change the fact that words have meaning. Some have argued that the meaning of words can differ based on context. I understand that BUT at some point that altered meaning becomes ludicrous. You wouldn't describe a car, airplane, Airstream travel trailer, etc. with a layer of oxidation on its surface as having fully original surfaces, not unless you were inviting a lawsuit.
I understand the details on how the coin was graded. It is what it is. Again, my issue is the terminology that has been used to describe the surfaces of the coin. When you bring toning into the discussion of grading it introduces another very subjective factor in assigning a grade. Personally I like toned coins and I'm suspect of any 70+ year old coin that doesn't have some degree of toning.
When you couple "virtually as struck" with the words "fully original luster" it reinforces the idea that what you're going to see is a silver coin with undisturbed, bright cartwheel surfaces not one with toning and spots.
In reality none of the verbal gymnastics was unnecessary. If all toned coins were dropped from the higher grades they would be then be judged against one another in some subjective fashion. Coins with fully original luster in a state more closely resembling "virtually as struck" would occupy the higher grades. It takes some of the guess work and subjectivity out of the grading of the higher MS coins.
Who started this pointless argument again?
The entire forum agrees on the luster and grading point except for one obdurate individual. There is really no point in trying to convince him of anything.
So now you don’t even consider toned coins mint state?
I don’t think even Ricko would agree with that.
Did you miss the part in the grading guide that it is just that (I.e. a guide and not an edict with any controlling force)?
Actually that's not exactly what I said. I said coins with original surfaces would occupy "the higher grades" meaning toned coins would be in grades where the description for the grade doesn't include the words "original luster", grades 66 and lower.
You also forget about dipping. If a lightly toned coin is properly dipped you won’t be able to detect it. Doesn’t that undermine your argument that the luster is damaged to a degree sufficient enough to to consider it unoriginal? And if toning precludes a superb gem grade, then dipping (I.e. a removal of a layer of metal) certainly does. In that case there are no superb gem coins at all prior to the 20th century with possible exception of a bag hoard date common date Morgan. In other words there would largely be no point in grades MS-67 to MS-70.
https://www.money.org/morgan-dollar-coin-grading
BTW, my previous post was based on memory, the toned coin on the ANA website is actually MS67 and the text states "Fully lustrous". Sorry for the mixup.
The point still stands: The ANA clearly does not take the position that toning precludes a superb gem uncirculated grade.
Only ONE person in the galaxy takes that position.
I grant you I might not be able to detect it under the 10x magnification normally used to examine a coin. But under higher magnification and/or using sophisticated chemical analysis techniques (the type we sometimes use in conducting component failure analysis, SEM-EDS) I'm pretty certain it would be possible to detect it. But that's another discussion.
That said I'm not sure this undermines my argument. What is obvious is the coin in question HAS been altered (toned) to the point where anyone seeing it would know the luster is not fully original. I agree with your statement, taken to the extreme very few if any 19th century coins could be considered fully original since in general extraordinarily care would have had to be taken to avoid all oxidation. This is why I commented that I am suspect of any 70+ year old coin that show no signs of toning and yes, there would largely be no point of MS-67 and higher grades for these coins. But the fact that these coins would not have that number on the label doesn't change the character of the coin.
okay I'm convinced
@pmh1nic I'm guessing your avatar is 66 based on the toning and subdued luster?
When you live in an echo chamber it’s easy to have that perception.
Glad I could contribute to your education
.
This forum never agrees on ANYTHING, except the grading guidelines. That should tell you something.
It should, but it won't.
So Laura isn’t the only one with access to a neutron microscope I see. 😈
It’s almost scary when 99% of us agree on a topic.
Thanks. There are plenty out there! Good luck in the hunt.
Speaking of wonderful MS68 halves, check out this one in the CRO archives. WOW!
https://coinraritiesonline.com/product/1937-walking-liberty-50¢-2/
I like it a lot. The surfaces are very clean. The toning is tasteful.