Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;ToughCOINS, post: 2779307, member: 20480&quot;]THAT, Doug, is entirely a matter of perspective . . . literally.&nbsp; I am not saying that the amount of reflected light changes . . . I am saying that the total reflected light likely is the same, but distributed to different destinations.</p><p><br /></p><p>If you look squarely at a proof coin, you can fully appreciate the quality of the luster, but viewing from the same angle robs you of the best view of the luster on a business strike.</p><p><br /></p><p>Conversely, the most favorable angle from which the luster of a business strike may be viewed would substantially degrade the apparent luster of the proof coin, both coins exposed to the same light from the same point of origin.</p><p><br /></p><p>Moreover, as regards your assertion that &quot;Die wear absolutely reduces the amount of luster on Proof coins&quot;, die wear certainly converts luster on proof coins, but I&#039;m not convinced die wear necessarily reduces luster.</p><p><br /></p><p>Consider the isolated case of some 1953 proof Franklin half dollars struck late on a particular die pair, which look so much like business strikes that they are often submitted for superb mint state grades.&nbsp; I have one of these in my SDB from decades ago.&nbsp; Were it not for knowing what a proof looks like at the rim, I&#039;d have submitted that coin with the same goal in mind.&nbsp; That coin is a great example of how proof luster migrated from being an incredibly deep mirror finish to the tantalizing cartwheel luster usually reserved for business strikes.</p><p><br /></p><p>Another example of luster conversion involves the devices of cameo proofs.&nbsp; While heavily frosted at the onset, erosion of the dies eventually mutes the frost and converts it to a deep brilliant mirror finish.&nbsp; This, all by itself, is evidence that the erosion of the dies does not substantially impair the reflectivity of the surfaces, but it does change the direction in which the light is reflected.</p><p><br /></p><p>I cannot help it if the evidence doesn&#039;t convince you Doug, but I remain steadfast in my belief in what I&#039;d label as &quot;conservation of luster&quot; (akin to conservation of momentum or conservation of energy in physics), were it not for the potential confused use of the word conservation in this industry.</p><p><br /></p><p>Respectfully,</p><p><br /></p><p>- Mike[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in