A second 3 Cent Silver to debate

Guess the grade, speak your thoughts on strike vs wear, and debate away.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Despite what seems to me to be a (long ago) previous cleaning - I see two stages of toning - I'll hazard the guess that this one made a righteous slab at around AU50-53. My own grade is in the "good XF" range.

 

I should disclose that I completely disagree with the grade this one received, so those who may happen to guess the TPG grade correctly are still wrong, IMO.

 

"If you disagree with me, you're wrong."

There's a thin line between confidence and arrogance, but it's a clear line all the same.

 

I'm not trying to sound arrogant. I do, however, have the coin in hand, and it clearly isn't what the holder says it is in my opinion. I will say however, that these O mint trimes very often have awful strikes and odd looking luster, so maybe I'm the one who's clueless.

 

That was totally meant as a joke; frankly, if you (C-B-D) disagree with a TPG, I'm more likely to consider you right.

 

Im no expert in grading these, so im strictly guessing. I think the holder says AU53. I see a weak strike but the surfaces look odd like an old cleaning.

 

This coin does not look as original as the third coin (I'm working backward on the coins). Plenty of luster yet in the blow up the surface looks grainy and unoriginal. My personal AU-58. But I would sell it all day as an MS and so would every other dealer I know! I have no clue how the professionals graded it. As a stupid guess MS-61 or 62.

 

I'm at 63 on this as it looks to be LDS strike all the Longacre doubling .

 

I'll go 63 as well.

 

This is a coin I want in hand before I decide to buy it. I see no obvious wear, but I also see no luster.

 

???? There is so much luster (reflection of light from a surface) that it looks like a headlight.

 

So, if "luster" is just "reflection of light from a surface", the way to get lustrous coins is to polish them until they're nice and shiny, right?

 

Not helpful at all. I thought you in particular were much smarter than this. Don't be silly, if you make a coin nice and shiny it still has luster. The luster from a polished or shiny coin just does not look like ORIGINAL MINT LUSTER!

 

looks like a slider to me, but I'm no expert 58

 

The toning may be muting it. And coin luster is not just "reflection of light from a surface." It is the light being reflected and scattered by microscopic ridges etched into the die by metal flow. I am not seeing this very well in the photos. Thst does not mean it isn't there.

@-jeffB was just poking fun at your ambiguity, which means you were the unhelpful one here.

 

Nice example! MS62

 

TypeCoin971793, posted: "The toning may be muting it." Technically, it does. However, in an effort not to leave out what I consider the "obvious" (cause of mint luster); I'll add more "fluff" and write that until the toning progresses to the darker stages, any underlying luster is still visible though in some cases it is muted. In a further effort not to leave any more "common knowledge" out of this post: I'm sure you must know that some shades of toning can make a coin with virtually no original surface look PL as the light is reflected from the toning layer rather than the dull metal! "And coin luster is not just "reflection of light from a surface." It is the light being reflected..." FROM THE SURFACE as I originally posted (no matter what that surface looks like including the nonsense about a polished surface). "...and scattered by microscopic ridges etched into the die by metal flow." Perhaps you might have also considered a fresh - never used die - in your "clarification." A die that is polished and has not formed microscopic ridges. Coins struck from that die will still have luster that was not caused by radial wear! "I am not seeing this very well in the photos." As I wrote, there is mint luster all over the untoned areas of this coin. "This does not mean it isn't there." Look again, it is.

As for @-jeffB - "...was just poking fun at your ambiguity, which means you were the unhelpful one here." Note that he has not defended the snarky way he posted something that could have been a very valid and educational question concerning "luster" both mint made and artificial. I hope I answered that completely this time.

 

@Insider, I'm sorry if I caught you at a bad time. You're clearly reading a lot more into my snarky response than I intended to write into it.

I can't infer mint luster from the photos provided, and @TypeCoin971793 apparently couldn't, either. When you seemed to trivialize the definition of luster, I wasn't sure whether you were the one trying to troll. (And maybe you still are, but your last couple of responses seem out-of-character enough that I don't think that's what's happening.)

I can imagine that the pictured coin might display mint luster, but I'm not seeing it clearly in these photos. If I'm missing something obvious from the photos, have I at least made it clearer now where my lapse is occuring? And, if so, can you help?