Submitting this coin for conservation is a risk, it could 1) lose its original look and remaining luster 2) receive a details grade 3) grade low AU instead Don’t forget our CT pal C-B-D is a dealer. He’s not going to increase his profit by messing with this coin ;-)
Yes they do, ALL freshly struck coins have luster. Luster is created by metal flow, and since metal flows on every coin that is struck, every coin has luster. But you have to remember there are as many different kinds of luster as there are coin types. In other words, not all luster looks the same.
I have bought so many coins—mostly Peace Dollars years ago—that I would later learn were futzed with, some blatantly so.
Perhaps I remember wrong, but I thought luster (at least hourglass/numismatic luster) increased with striking to a point and that proof coins often lacked luster.
I don't think you remember wrong, you just read or were told bad information at some point and that's what you're remembering. And you're most definitely not alone in that - a lot of folks aren't aware of the truth.
Coin is fugly but original. I think dipping it would make it uglier I’d take this over blast white any day. Early silver should have toning and surface
Yes, they absolutely have luster. They are struck aren't they ? Business strikes or Proofs it makes no difference, ALL coins that are struck have luster - ALL OF THEM ! Business strikes have luster because the metal flows when the coin is struck. It is the metal flow that creates the luster - nothing else, the metal flow. Well, Proofs are struck too, do you think the metal doesn't flow on them ? Of course it does, and when metal flows luster is created so of course Proofs have luster - it is an absolute given ! What you have to get into your head is that there are many, many, different types or kinds of luster, and each and every one of them has a completely different look, appearance to it. Just as there are different coin types, there are different luster types as well. Every coin type has its own unique type of luster. Two of the most commonly recognized different types are Morgans and Peace dollars - do they look the same ? Does the luster on them look the same ? No it doesn't, not by any stretch of the imagination. But because the luster on Peace dollars doesn't look like that on a Morgan would you say that a Peace doesn't have luster ? Of course not - it's just a different type of luster - just like it's a different type of coin. Bust halves, Walkers, Frankies, Kennedys - each and every one of them is a unique type of coin, and each and every one of them has its own unique type of luster. Every type there is has its own unique type of luster - and not a one of them looks the same as any of the others. They do not look the same to the naked eye and they do not look the same when you examine them under high magnification of 60x, 80x, 100x - every single one is different. It's the same with Proofs. But just because they don't look the same, that doesn't mean the luster isn't there. In your post above you used the term hourglass luster. What you were talking about when you said that is like what you see on a Morgan isn't it ? You were using the term hourglass to describe how the luster reflects from the coin in a pattern when you roll it under the light - yes ? How it kind of seems to roll around the coin. Most people describe it as being like how the spokes on a wheel look when the wheel is turning quickly. Well, when you roll a Proof under the light, the exact same kind of thing happens, the same spokes on a wheel effect occurs. But the reflection of light is focused in a much narrower band with a Proof than it is with business strike, much, much narrower. Think of it like this, a Morgan is like that of what you see on a wooden wagon wheel. A Proof is like that of the wire spokes on a bicycle. They both produce the same effect, but one is a much narrower, much tighter pattern than the other. But the same effect is most definitely there. Same thing with luster. This same subject has been discussed on coin forums for as long as forums have existed. And the discussion usually runs along the same lines as this one has. Anyway, back in early '06 a thread started here that led to somebody taking 90x pics the of different types of luster as I have described them just to see if what I was saying was true or not. They found out it was. You can read about it here - https://www.cointalk.com/threads/morgan-toning-vs-peace-toning.12578/ There have been many, many other threads as well, including some where somebody took high mag pics of Proofs. And they show the flow lines on the Proofs as well, just as I have described. And when flow lines are present, luster is present. It's not an opinion, it's a simple scientific fact. Metal flow creates luster, and all struck coins have metal flow, so all struck coins have luster - ALL of them.
Well............................teaches me to ask a question..........................thank you very much for the answer!
I promised I wouldn't dip it. And I didn't. But PCGS did! I like it much better now, even though many of you won't. Tons of luster that I couldn't see beneath the spotted toning. I was 95% sure that PCGS would reject it, due to fear that the black spots wouldn't have luster beneath them, or it was corrosion eating into the coin. All in all they did a nice job, IMO. Got it in hand today and it is blast white. Not exactly what you look for on a coin this old, by any stretch of the imagination.... but I prefer the look of it now as compared to before.