Can Proof-like Coins still have Cartwheel Luster?

I agree 100% that low end MS details is a valid grade. The coin has a tiny amount of rub and IMO could go as a 60 -61. This is the way scruffy, low end unc's I have seen for sale look. Me Personally, I like AU-58 and possibly details. You must be a dealer in foreign coins.

Dah ... I just saw you are a "world coin enthusiast." Judging from your post, I'll say a very experienced one too

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I'm actually originally from the former Soviet Union (Kiev, Ukraine) and this is where my numismatic hobby began when I was a kid. Coins like this one were among the most common ones I handled as a collector for some time before I branched out and committed to studying world coins in general

 

Here's a video I found. I know someone posted an excellent one here sometime in the past. Near the end of the video he mentions that proof coins do not exhibit luster.

 

I am surprised no one has made any kind of reference to a reflective diffraction grating.

 

Gimme a break; I studied math in school, not physics.

But, it's no coincidence that when you google "reflective diffraction grating," this image comes up:


(From http://lab-training.com/2014/05/06/dispersion-of-light-in-spectroscopy/)

 

edit

 

And I studied chemistry.

 

I do believe it was @physics-fan3.14 I found the thread but the pictures were gone

 

Thanks. IMO this is a nice video for what it is but...It's amazing how things have become twisted by the dealers who started PCGS and they have dragged us all kicking and screaming over to their way of looking at coins.

 

Yeah, and they don't even tell you how they grade certain coins on a curve. A great example is the Bay Bridge half (one of my favorite coins I own!). They typically come with subdued luster, but I see them in 65 slabs all the time. According to the video, you really shouldn't be able to score a 65 with that kind of luster. Oh well.

 

A group of specialists, TPGS's, etc. needs to meet over a weekend and define some things. In the ANA grading Guide, original luster covers the entire Unc range but there is no mention of reflectivity as PCGS has tried to show in the video. The coin w/poor luster has full luster that is only subdued because the coin is toned. IMO, that should not "kill" the grade. In this case the a just placing a higher value/desirability on the brilliant (possibly professionally dipped) specimen.

Grading is so subjective - even among the professionals at TPGS's who grade/authenticate more coins in a year that most of us will ever see

 

Which is why I shut up and listen when you correct me on my use of chemistry-related terms.

 

I studied "How to make friends and influence people."

 

And Thad and other people correct me on mine!

 

Did you pass?

 

Nope. I have forgotten practically everything I read in that book - and I've read it TWICE.

 

OMG. I see we are at it again. NOTE to CT members: My comments here are not personal. I'm just trying my best to drag one of my three favorite posters into the present time.

You are comparing TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TYPES OF ORIGINAL, MINT MADE LUSTER that don't even look the same! I made an attempt (Post#7) to clarify some of the statements you posted earlier in this thread (Post#6). Unfortunately, my description about how RADIAL DIE ERROSION causes cartwheel luster was challenged and you have continued to post more misinformation. Did you EVEN BOTHER to hold a proof coin to test the veracity of my statements in Post#&? OF COURSE YOU DIDN'T - you have a closed mind. The reflection of light from a proof is spread out into a BROAD FLASH that anyone can see moves around the coin's surface in a SIMILAR (but much wider) "cartwheel." It is NOT narrow.

The following information came directly (ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS) from the mouths of U.S. Mint employees on the coining floor (Phila. & Denver) and in the engraving shop (Phila.); ANA grading class instructors, and U.S. Treasury Dept. personnel in DC. Learn it!

METAL HAS LUSTER. Blanks have luster. Planchets have luster. Metal coin dies have luster (Even old rusty ones in the Philadelphia Mint's die closet. Struck coins have luster. The luster on each of these metal objects IS as DIFFERENT as the luster from the first struck coin from a die and the last one it makes. It IS as DIFFERENT as that of a Proof coin and a Mint State example.

The normal "cartwheel" luster we all speak about from coins is caused by die erosion. This means that the LUSTER from a coin made with a fresh die is not eroded enough to produce the LUSTER on other coins after it starts to deteriorate. This is a fact. That is all informed numismatists (including J.D.) believe, know, and teach! It's not "rocket science."

Next Subject:

(?)

OK: Please give me the title of the book you are quoting J.D.'s words from. Is it the PCGS Grading Guide? That is the ONLY PLACE I am aware of that he has written about grading. At the moment, I am not able to reach my copy and could not reach him by phone. So, if that is the book, I'll pick it apart this weekend! I have NEVER, EVER seen any book or article stating your view. I have NEVER, EVER heard a professional grader/authenticator/class instructor confirm the OPINION you hold either.

IMO, you very confused about "luster." I'm not going to discuss this again HERE as your opinions seem to be set into stone. I do wish in the future you would keep many of them to yourself as NO INFORMATION IS BETTER THAN INCORRECT INFORMATION.

 

Sometimes - and I'm more guilty of it than most - we get caught up in the semantics rather than the facts. We have to balance the clear need for hobby-specific definitions against the possibility of semantic nitpicking subtracting from the actual content of the discussion. Yeah, physician, heal thyself.

To my mind, Proofs and Business Strikes follow completely different "luster" progression paths. Part of the appeal of Proof surfaces (to my thinking) is because the "/\/\/\/\" structure of circulating coins isn't really present on Proofs since the dies are so carefully polished (flattened). So a Proof (and, likely, a DMPL Business Strike for the same reason) progress from "reflective" to "circulated" without the intermediate stop of "cartwheel luster." I haven't done any study along those lines; just deductive reasoning which by definition should be questioned by anyone with an opinion.

This would be a good place to contemplate (in one's head, at least) a completely separate mental picture of "cartwheel" vs. "luster," allowing a broader definition of "luster" without the nits I so love to pick.