I've never owned a coin pre-1964 that was in MS65-MS70 state so I gather my information about how these coins are graded from pictures that I find online. My question is, for a very high graded silver piece, is it possible that it could appear almost matte or cloudy in appearance (in hand)? Like I said, it's hard for me to tell from photos but I was just curious if they're all highly lustrous or almost mirror-like in-hand and not just portrayed as cloudy from the way the pictures are taken. Take this quarter for example: Very flat luster but graded MS66. Also, here's a 1934 Peace that carried the same characteristics: http://cgi.ebay.com/1934-Peace-Doll...em&pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item45f426810e Will they really be that flat looking in-hand?
I have also noticed there is an elment of gradeing that incorporates rarity. I know there are so many different elements but I think grading seems to be like gambling. I am interested in seeing other responses on this thread.
One of the things to consider is the image. Is it an actual photograph, or was it scanned. Scanned images tend to not show the luster of the coin; however, in hand the same coin has terrific eye appeal. Case in point: Here is an 1882-CC MS-65. This is a scanned image. Here is one from PCGS photograde online from their website: You can see the difference between a scan and photo.
^ Good example. But are there ever any instances where a coin will appear to be cloudy in-hand? (Assuming it's MS64 or above)
I've never experienced that from photos I've seen of a particular coin as compared to a scanned image. This is from my collection: 1887 MS-63 from the dealers website: This Morgan may look cloudy in the scanned image, but in hand it has great luster.
Absolutely yes ! Luster is often subdued by toning. Also, not all coins of higher grades - 65 to 67 say - have full luster. The vast majority of all older silver coins have been dipped at one time or another so there is no way they can have full luster. And full luster is not imparted to every coin even when it is freshly minted. There can be huge differences in quality of luster on two coins of the same grade.
Excellent to know, thank you. One discovery [of mine] that led me to question the topic at-hand was the cloudy film that the examples of the mint sets of mine have formed over the last 50 years. Which leads me to my next question: how can you tell an overdipped silver piece from a piece that has developed this 'film' without ever being touched by human hands?
It's a bit of an experience thing, but subdued luster (toned) has an entirely different look than removed (dipped) luster. Subdued luster on a toned coin shines through from underneath the toning. The luster on slightly over-dipped coins will appear dull and lifeless, washed out. But there will be nothing there on the surface to mask it so it is rather obvious that the coin has been over-dipped.
What type of lighting to TPG's use when grading coins? I've noticed that some of my blast white coins look sorta lifeless under tungsten (regular bulb) lighting but they look spectacular under a florescent bulb.
I find with better grade silver Washingtons that there's often (not always) a noticeable correlation with "subdued luster" and lack of hits. I think I've read that these are often some of the first coins struck? They look more satin like than anything else. I wouldn't describe these as cloudy though, just subdued or like you said, matte-like. I look very closely at the letters. If you see inconsistent color inside them the coin has usually either been circulated or dipped. Once you know what your looking for it is easy to walk away from one of these coins. A coin with that film you're referring to usually has been left alone, and like you said, came from a mint set which is good.
Fluorescent is the worst type of light to use - for obvious reasons. The recommended type of light to use to examine coins is and always has been a 75w-100w incandescent bulb.
