Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;mikenoodle, post: 2858442, member: 307&quot;]I don&#039;t know where you get that PCGS does not consider proofs to have luster, as the exact line you quote says &quot;luster, or reflectivity for proofs&quot;.</p><p><br /></p><p>In my education that means that the two of them are equal. Even if they are trying to differentiate the terms used to describe them, the two are equivalents.</p><p><br /></p><p>You have made your arguments eloquently and articulately. I don&#039;t understand why you devolve into calling people trolls just because they take a differing point of view.</p><p><br /></p><p>Aristotle said that it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. You don&#039;t have to accept Doug&#039;s definition of luster, but when you read what he says in the context of his definition of luster, he makes his point.</p><p><br /></p><p>I think you&#039;re both hung up on verbiage and the more important lesson in what he is suggesting is the thought that a worn die can be used to create Mint State coins. It is the reflectivity of the metal that helps us to separate the worn from the weakly struck Mint State coin.[/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