Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;rmpsrpms, post: 2858378, member: 31773&quot;]I think you are correct, and I&#039;ve been quite gentle in my admonitions since I have a high level of respect for GDJMSP. However, I don&#039;t agree that the way &quot;luster&quot; is being defined by GDJMSP is widely accepted at all. Based on his assertion that a mirror has a high degree of luster, and that proofs have luster, I can&#039;t agree he is using the <b><i>numismatic</i></b> definition of luster. It seems you also believe this, yet it is indeed incorrect. Can you point me to any documentation from any TPG that defines luster in this way?</p><p><br /></p><p>Edited to add:</p><p><br /></p><p>I just looked on PCGS website &quot;Guidelines for Eye Appeal&quot;, and their #2 guideline is:</p><p><br /></p><p>&quot;Luster, or Reflectivity for Proofs&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>So as you can see, PCGS does not consider Proofs to have luster, only varying degrees of reflectivity.[/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