How Worn Can A Die Be and Still Strike MS Coins?

I actually like that idea a lot, but it would for sure be confusing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

I would call of these Mint State. They are in the same condition as they left the mint and show no evidence of wear through circulation. Isn't that the definition of Mint State?

What am I missing?

 

Doug, where does the 1922 No D Lincoln Cent fall on your scale?

Are there any Mint State examples? The dies surely were worn, to the point where the coin is graded by the reverse rather than the obverse.

 

Thanks Doug. I was trying to answer the OP's original question with an example.

 

I kind of have an example in hand, graded MS66 with a huge die crack across the bust. Made me wonder where this should really be. I know that the TPG's began using what was once the Shelton Scale which this one would be MS but they no longer refer to that scale because if they did, a coin would or should be MS70 as it leaves the chamber.

 

Sometimes common sense is not enough to understand and explain what is happening.

It is true that luster is created by metal flow, but in a more complex way than "common sense" can explain. What I think you are saying is that you believe luster is created by metal flow on a given coin, but this is not the case. When the die strikes the planchet, the resulting coin looks like the die. Planchet metal flow due to striking is obscured by the surface qualities of the die.

I think you've moved into the realm of VLDS and later die states, correct? Certainly there is a lot of excess die wear in these states that cause distortion of the devices and non-uniform field surfaces (I think this is what you mean by "inconsistency"). These later die state coins can have very poor eye appeal (and thus lower grades) because of these qualities.

I think perhaps you have a different definition of luster than the rest of us. The classic type of luster that is created by metal flow lines is "cartwheel luster". Proofs have none of this. Their dies have been polished to eliminate this quality, and planchets polished to ensure the best transfer of the polished die to the coin.

While what you say seems like common sense, it is clear that you need to refine your definition of "luster". Proof coins have very little luster. They may be shiny, but that is not luster in the sense used with coins. In this sense, mirrors have no luster at all, yet they are perfectly shiny and reflective. I think this incorrect use of "luster" is the root cause of your misconception.

 

Actually, later die state coins generally do have more luster, and terminal die states the very most. But it seems your opinions have been formed over years, and that is fine. I'm certainly not going to change my mind, knowing that I am right. I do understand that it seems to follow common sense what you are saying, but common sense is not always correct. Usually common sense is correct when a simple cause > effect relationship is in play. In this case, there are two additional levels involved, ie cause > effect1 > sub-effect1 > sub-effect2:

Cause = Planchet metal flows during striking
Effect1 = Metal flow causes flow lines to be worn gradually into die surface
Sub-effect1= Flow lines are struck into the coin surface by the worn die
Sub-effect2= Flow lines on coin surface create cartwheel luster

 

rmpsrpms, I think this discussion is largely disagreeing on terminology, rather than absolutes.

You're talking about luster defined a certain way, and gdjmsp is defining it in a widely accepted way as far as this hobby is concerned, and as defined by the top grading services within the hobby.

Truth be told, it's semantics.

and just so you know, the person you're discussing it with is a noted numismatist and researcher who has decades of experience in this hobby, not just some smart-aleck who's talking off the cuff.

 

I think you are correct, and I've been quite gentle in my admonitions since I have a high level of respect for GDJMSP. However, I don't agree that the way "luster" is being defined by GDJMSP is widely accepted at all. Based on his assertion that a mirror has a high degree of luster, and that proofs have luster, I can't agree he is using the numismatic definition of luster. It seems you also believe this, yet it is indeed incorrect. Can you point me to any documentation from any TPG that defines luster in this way?

Edited to add:

I just looked on PCGS website "Guidelines for Eye Appeal", and their #2 guideline is:

"Luster, or Reflectivity for Proofs"

So as you can see, PCGS does not consider Proofs to have luster, only varying degrees of reflectivity.

 

I did a quick search to see what resources there were regarding numismatic luster. Here are a few:

https://www.thespruce.com/definition-of-luster-768616

https://www.ngccoin.com/boards/topic/159193-what-you-need-to-know-about-luster/

https://en.mimi.hu/numismatic/luster.html

http://blog.goldeneaglecoin.com/coin-mint-luster/

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/luster-a-guide-for-beginners.58435/

http://www.numismatics.com.au/Blog/Understanding_Lustre

These pages all describe luster the way I describe it above. The evidence in my favor is so overwhelming that I can only conclude you guys must be trolling me!!

 

There is a reason that coins struck with worn dies give off more light or luster but the reason is on the molecular level.

 

I don't know where you get that PCGS does not consider proofs to have luster, as the exact line you quote says "luster, or reflectivity for proofs".

In my education that means that the two of them are equal. Even if they are trying to differentiate the terms used to describe them, the two are equivalents.

You have made your arguments eloquently and articulately. I don't understand why you devolve into calling people trolls just because they take a differing point of view.

Aristotle said that it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. You don't have to accept Doug's definition of luster, but when you read what he says in the context of his definition of luster, he makes his point.

I think you're both hung up on verbiage and the more important lesson in what he is suggesting is the thought that a worn die can be used to create Mint State coins. It is the reflectivity of the metal that helps us to separate the worn from the weakly struck Mint State coin.

 

The dime struck on a nail "may" have been an accident, but it certainly wasn't found in circulation. And that kind of stuff needs to be pulled and destroyed (melted).
The fact that all of those bizarre errors always ends up with the same seller is highly suspicious, a conspiracy between the clandestine mint workers and the dealer.

As you can see I agree with this statement all the way.

 

What they are saying is that luster is used to gauge business strike eye appeal, while reflectivity is used to gauge proof eye appeal. They are not saying that reflectivity can be used for business strikes, nor luster for proofs. This is what they mean by the word "or".

It's not just a differing point of view. You said:

"You're talking about luster defined a certain way, and gdjmsp is defining it in a widely accepted way as far as this hobby is concerned, and as defined by the top grading services within the hobby."

You made the claim that my definition was at odds with the rest of the numismatic hobby, but in fact it is the opposite. Mine is the mainstream definition, and my explanation of how luster is created is the accepted one.

I challenge you to find any reference to the contrary, other than the posts in this thread.

 

With all due respect, every article you quoted above is either a blog post or a post on a forum, sources you yourself said weren't worthy in a previous post.

Nowhere did I say that your definition is at odds with the hobby. I said that Doug was using luster as it is defined and accepted widely within the hobby. You inferred that I said you were wrong when I made no suggestion as to the validity of your definition, I merely suggested that it was different than Doug's.

I think that discussion is a powerful learning tool, even when done on forums like those mentioned and even this one. Even when posters are uninformed but stay on point the discussion can be a great source of knowledge.

Personally, I understand what both of you are saying and don't think that either is absolutely wrong or right. It is the insistence that you are 100% right and that Doug is 100% wrong that gets tiresome, boorish and degrades an excellent discussion.

Make your point and support it with facts. Let the world figure out what to accept and what to discard. I think that we're up to the task.

 

Please use logic. If you say Doug is using the widely accepted definition, and mine is different than Doug's, then you are saying mine is not the widely accepted definition. But based on all I know from 30 years of research in this hobby, and every published reference I can find, it is the exact opposite.

It is you and Doug who are disputing me, and I have provided references supporting my side. It is you and Doug who owe more than your words.