Which would you rather have?

That is mainly my answer.

My main parameter in coin collecting is DETAILS. I wish to have as many details on the coin as possible, and don't care what excuses there are why they aren't there. Weak strike, worn dies, etc are meaningless to me, and it might as well be wear as far as I am concerned.

So, from the choices I would choose A. I will live with chatter as long as the coin was struck with all details possible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That is true, however, as the hypothetical reads all coins receive the same grade. When looking at a coin, the first step is to determine the kind of strike the coin has for that coin, year, and mint. Then one moves on to check for any dings and scratches. Thirdly, one looks to overall eye appeal which includes luster. Luster does not come in until the end and then, it is an overall quality.

Therefore, the serious collector money is on the most perfect and problem free coin of which strike and great fields and devices are most important. Luster is nice and should be sought after, but only after the first 2. It's like gravy.

 

That just isn't consistent with how the TPG's grade coins. I once wrote a thread on this forum asking if strike was even an element of grading by the TPG's, you should read it, it is an enlightening thread.

http://www.cointalk.com/t45572/

My point in that thread is that both luster and surface preservation can be grade limiting but I have seen many poorly struck coins in premium gem level TPG holders. You state that luster comes last. Where are you getting that from? When I grade a coin, I look at the coin from a holistic perspective and my initial impression of the coin is based mostly upon the luster and eye appeal of the coin. It is only upon closer inspection of the surfaces and strike that the final grade is determined. In my experience, strike is the least important element of grading with regards to how the TPG's grade coins. For example, I present a wonderfully toned lustrous and clean 50-D Jefferson Nickel that is mush, yet graded MS67.



Now compare that coin to the 50-D posted earlier that shows slightly muted luster.



I submit to you that if the luster of the second coin was as bad as the strike of the first coin, the grade would be no higher than MS64 despite the surfaces & details. Now don't get me wrong. I am not saying your argument doesn't have merit. It does, and in the eyes of many collectors, you might be right. All I am saying is that what you are saying is not consistent with how the TPG's grade coins.

 

I guess it all depends on whether you agree with only the TPG interpretation of what makes a grade, and what you as a collector like. Like I mentioned, in my field, luster isn't an option 99.99% of the time, so strike and detail trump all. In Jeffersons, Morgans, and others that typically retain luster, I agree, that element is paramount probably more so than strike. While in other coin series both are of equal importance. The OP's original question cannot be answered without taking in the multitude of different series into account, in which case it cannot even be answered so simply.
Guy

 

I agree that once you hit 65 in the grading process, luster is very important (probably most important at that point). But the scenario stated all coins received the same grade. At that point, if not before, a collector should look to strike, then dings and scratches before luster.

With that said, this is all subjective. Some like toning and some don't. Some will sacrifice strike while some will sacrifice luster. I love luster, but if I had to choose, it comes in third place because over time if the coin is properly cared for, strike and any dings and scratches will not change whereas luster will change (it may be minute, it may be really noticeable).

 

Although I generally don't have a clue what half the things you post mean, thanks. I really wanted to know the general opinion on this.

 

It will boil down to what kind of collector you are. I am a person who wishes to see the coins details and study it. Others are more about the beauty of the strike and color. Nothing wrong with any approach in coin collecting, and using any approach can lead to forming a fine collection.

The one word of caution would be to avoid "problem" coins. It can be tempting to buy cheap a coin with a lot of details but a major issue or two, but they are usually wasted money. Better off to save your money for a coin you will really enjoy.

A perfect example would be Paul's post #23. He views the top coin's lack of marks and color, agrees with a 67 grade, and likes it. Good for him, really. I always like it when a collector buys a coin he likes.

For me, its a mushy mess that I would not pay over $10 for, and that is only because of its date and MM. If I found a similar 51d in change I would not bother to keep it for face value. I simply don't like mushy coins, considering them inferior quality.

Same coin, different responses from different collectors. Neither, (or both), of us are right. This is the beauty of this hobby, room for all. Don't judge others collecting habits, and do not accept others judgment of your preferences.

 

Are my language and thoughts that convoluted?

 

Coin B all the way, (although I would like the luster...tough question)

 

i'm going to say C, I love perfect fields. As long as the luster is incredible, I think I can deal with a soft strike.

 

Your loss old fellow..........:devil:

 

Thanks green.

 

In my defense, I'm not a lawyer (or past high school). Just sayin'.

 

Hey, 21, it's all good!

PS This was a great thread!

 

Ok, im going to pose a question and hope the general population doesnt ridicule me into a hole afterwards, but what exactly is 'luster'?

Ive heard the term thrown around for my whole collecting career, but I do not have a firm grasp of the term and how it applies to coins. Is it simply the shinyness of the coin? The golden tint that you see from alot of mint state coins? Does it apply to only silver colored coins? Can someone please clarify this for me before i go insane? Pictures much appreciated as I am a very visual learner!

 

This is a good thread on the subject even though some of the photos are gone.

http://www.cointalk.com/t58435/

 

Easy..

Coin B: Great Strike, Unbelievable fields, but the luster is somewhat lacking

Strike and Fields are static... luster can be conserved

 

Also, check out the thread - I like posting Lincoln cents, how about you? It is under U.S. Coins. The later year Lincolns show a lot of luster. It is that cartwheel effect as you tilt a coin between thumb and finger.

 

Thanks to both of you, ive been dying to ask the question, but felt kind of stupid and this seemed the perfect opportunity. Going to check out the penny thread now, just finished the other one and I feel a little more knowledgeable.

Now i get to go play with some of my slabbed coins to see first hand

 

You go now! I am glad you asked the question because no question is a stupid question from anyone truly seeking knowledge. :smile