Hello everyone, I purchased a coin that I received a couple of weeks ago, and it has a trait that I cannot for the life of me explain... I was hoping somebody here would be able to shed some light on it. The coin is an 1820 George IV Halfcrown - certified MS64+ by PCGS (http://www.pcgs.com/cert/33172413). The coin is highly prooflike, showing great reflectivity in both the obverse and reverse fields. However, the fact which surprises me is that it has almost NO luster. While the obverse displays some luster around the devices, the reverse, which shows strong vertical striations (visible in pictures attached - I am guessing they are die polishing lines?) shows absolutely zero visible luster. Overall, I would describe the fields as "mirrorlike" and "watery", but absolutely not lustrous. Can anybody here explain why this might be the case? If I didn't know any better I would almost say the coin had been altered in some way that stripped it of its luster, but given that it is certified MS64+ by PCGS I just don't understand. Thanks!
Unfortunately, IMO, the term "luster" is not understood by a large number of numismatists. I'm going out of town so I may not be able to reply to all the opinions about what constitutes luster that make this more complicated than it is...have fun. 1. Luster is the reflection of light from a surface. The greasy, black, plastic keys on my keyboard have luster. 2. There are different types of luster. The luster from a polished gold ring looks differently from the luster on a freshly waxed floor. 3. Metal objects have luster. A whizzed coin has a different luster than a polished coin. 4. Original coins have original luster of various types, quality, and appearance. 5. Your statement: "The coin is highly prooflike, showing great reflectivity..." indicates that you know the LUSTER from a prooflike surface looks a certain way. This is different from that of a frosty surface which also is lustrous. Bottom line: The TPGS has made the determination that your coin is original and not cleaned. Age has toned down its surface. Nice coin.
I am at home out in the boondocks, which means wretchedly spotty satellite WiFi, so I was not able to load the full sized pictures in the attachments, but I did squint at the thumbnails, and suspected it was a situation like @Insider was describing: an original coin that had a thicker "skin" of toning subduing any luster (or, if I misundertand that definition, "flash") from the coin's surfaces. There is certainly nothing wrong with original "skin", and many discerning collectors seek it. Others prefer a bit more "flashiness". There are varying degrees and it's a matter of preference. But from what I could see in the small pictures available to me at this time, the coin looks OK to me.
Aha! Thank you. That's better, although it still took a moment to load the TrueView on my connection. I would call that "satiny" luster, personally. I will now also add the opinion that I consider that to be a gorgeous coin. No added "flash" or "luster" or whatever needed. It's a beaut.
Looks 65 to me. (I've never been a big fan of + grading). About what coin from the era should look like if it has never been messed with. If it had cartwheels of luster and no tone at all I would have to question how original the piece was.
Me neither, at least not from a TPG. If Bill or Bob the Hometown Dealer does plus-grading on the holder of a raw coin, that's OK. But if you're one of the Big Plastic boys or girls, make up yer mind, already! The eleven different Sheldon Scale points in the MS/PR spectrum were already almost too much hair-splitting. Then you have the fourth-party sticker stuff. Geez.
Thank you all for the responses and compliments! Just to clarify about the appearance of the coin, it does not appear to have "toned over" as a couple of you have said or indicated. I see how the first pictures I posted would give this impression (the surface looks gray-ish), but it is not really the case. To describe as best as I can, I would say that the surface of the obverse is very shimmery and waterlike, with a strong contrast between the fields and the "frosty" devices as brg pointed out. However, it is fairly clear/freshly silvery in color. The reverse appears very "flat" in the sense that it doesn't have the same degree of shimmeriness. This may be due the striations, whatever they are. It is also clean/silvery/untoned in color. When tilted and rotated in good light, the obverse shimmers, but on the reverse, light traces down the lines you can see in the PCGS picture. The obverse barely has a trace of cartwheel effect, while the reverse has none. All this still to ask... Given that there is no clear toning to cover up the usual "cartwheel effect," where is it? This is really what I meant by "luster," as many of us use this colloquially to refer to that effect. I don''t presume to be so arrogant as to say that I know more than a team of PCGS specialists, but if I didn't know any better I would think that the back of the coin had been cleaned, as it just seems very blank to me (more pictures attached). Overall, the coin is fantastic, especially the obverse, which is beautiful in appearance! The back is very nice as well. This is definitely one of my favorite period pieces and coin designs ever, but this is highly subjective, I know
Just what I call "satiny" luster, is all. But please don't ask me to define that. LOL. Regardless what you call it, that's a beautiful coin. I've long been fond of the thistles, shamrocks, and rose in that reverse design. Oh- speaking of George IV, I just bought a shilling. I was given this coin in 1993, sold it in 1994 when I hit hard times, and the friend I sold it to sold it himself just after the millennium. Then, by complete serendipity, I stumbled across it late this summer on the Atlas Numismatics website. I knew I had to have it back. So, 23 years after I initially acquired it, and 22 years after I last saw it, this came back home to me. It cost me 4-1/2 times what I got for it in the 1994 sale, but so what. My Box of 20 needed an error coin. And I need to do the writeup on this and add it in its own thread.
The reverse design on these George IV coins is superb! In my opinion, among the most beautifully designed from the 19th century. And, that includes a LOT of Victorian designs which I adore. The thistle (Scotland), clover (Ireland), and rose (England) symbolism on the reverse is just gorgeous. Period. That's a fantastic coin! congrats!
