Featured Have you ever wondered what luster looks like?

Doug,
I think we have had the discussion about luster before. Note that the coin above will still have luster when you hold it under a light bulb. The reflected light from the circulated areas is dull while that next to the relief (stars, letters, etc.) is brighter as in the image.

Since students need to know what luster is/looks like to be able to see it. I have found it is easy to teach someone what an MS coin looks like once they see that the ORIGINAL MINT LUSTER that we apply to coins is very different from the original luster reflected from the metal lampshade at their desk or the unnatural luster from a polished coin.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Don't worry about it, you are providing an excellent "classroom experience" for all of us that will lead to further discussion and understanding. Looks like I'll be staying on CT this weekend longer than usual.

 

I was going to post them in a subsequent post last night, but I guess I was tired and forgot. Here they are:

 

TypeCoin971793, posted: "I was going to post them in a subsequent post last night, but I guess I was tired and forgot. Here they are:

View attachment 881995 View attachment 881996

Please forgive me for this hijack...

Since we are writing about luster, and the amount of luster remaining on a coin is a good indication of its grade, Gusee the grade of this coin. It has two grades:

The old days (1950s-70s) and modern (today).

 

It is VF. The presence of luster is a fluke

 

That was my interpretation of the image

 

TypeCoin971793, posted: It is VF. The presence of luster is a fluke.

You have just swerved into answering my question. Please explain why a coin with that much mint luster all over its surfaces is a fluke?

 

Fine in the “Olden Days”...then today, maybe, Very Fine. One of the many coins I know nothing about.

 

The coin was covered in some gunk in circulation, which protected the mint luster until it was cleaned in modern times.

 

Nice and interesting post. These are experiments that I probably wouldn't have done, even in my younger days. Given my compulsive tendencies back then I would have nitpicked coins to death before buying them. With my failing eyesight it has to meet my eye test now. What I see as great eye appeal is surely different through a different set of eyes. Of course I've gone off the rails a bit here regarding the theme of this post.

 

GDJMSP, posted: "To be honest Mike I kind of think you confuse the issue for some with your explanation. I know what you'e talking about, what you mean, and some others probably do too. But I'm not sure that everyone does.

For example, if you look up luster this is what you will see -

View attachment 882011


But that is not the kind of luster that we are talking about when talking about coins.

And the 1 oz AGE that I posted, it had zero original mint luster left on it. There wasn't even any left in the protected areas like inside the closed sections of the letters. When I said zero luster, I really did mean zero original mint luster, as in absolutely none. It took 7 years of carrying that coin in my pocket with other coins and a pocket knife, every single day, with me fingering that coin, rubbing it, using it to flip with, having it land on the ground, sidewalks, dirty floors, asphalt, literally anywhere and everywhere - for it to get that way.

The lighter areas that you see around some of the edges is nothing more than the ordinary reflection of light that you see on almost any object - and all objects reflect light. So in that regard all objects have luster, when luster is used in it's standard definition. If that coin were made of wood you'd still see the edges as being a lighter color in the pics because of the ordinary properties of light being reflected."

Bingo. We've had this discussion before and we each have posted our case. Fortunately, my dictionary has 8 entries for "luster." I have an Unabridged Websters about 8 inches thick in storage that possibly has a few more. I think I can now agree with you for what you have posted as that is what I teach.

BTW All that bright reflection next to the relief is coming from something that is not present in the fields. l

 

GDJMSP, posted: "The lighter areas that you see around some of the edges is nothing more than the ordinary reflection of light that you see on almost any object - and all objects reflect light."

...and the reason that there are lighter areas around the relief is because the quality of the surface is different from that of the fields and therefore it reflects the light differently - in this case, brighter reflectivity = brighter luster.

 

@TypeCoin971793 , do you have Morgans from Philly, New Orleans and San Fran? Each mint had vastly different luster "profiles" (for lack of a better term). It would be interesting to see, for example an 81-S, 78 "P" and 83-O comparison. All are common in mint state.

I might try to do this on my dino lite. If I'm successful, I'll post some pictures as well.

 

Just a P and an S

 

It would still be neat to see the comparison side by side. P minted morgans had a muted luster (In my mind), when comparing them to S mint marked morgans.

 

Mine is an 1886. The luster on those is usually pretty strong

 

Oh wait, I do have an O mint Morgan.

 

Is hard to examine the surface of metal with a common biological microscope. The biological microscope magnifies the light reflected off of a surface, this is why it distorts at high magnification. A metallurgical microscope illuminates what it is magnifying instead of magnifying the illumination. A magnification of 3000 times will show the grain structure of metals.