Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;charley, post: 26089626, member: 5372&quot;]This is another example of my concerns with GD&nbsp; thoughts.</p><p><br /></p><p>As I have mentioned on many occasions in the past when responding to his commentary, there are YNs that assume his status on CT means his Posts are the definitive fact.</p><p><br /></p><p>He has replied many times in this Thread.... as he does in the majority of his Threads.... with less than the rest of the story, and both YNs and inexperienced (and a number of experienced) collectors assume correct completeness of his explanations.</p><p><br /></p><p>I can set aside his pomposity and condescending language method of transmitting knowledge to others with his Posts, and readily admit I should, and not consider excess egregious intent.</p><p><br /></p><p>But when the Posts are coupled with serious lack of completeness of explanation, knowing YNs and other enquiring collectors are following his position AND assuming completeness, that is simply wrong.</p><p><br /></p><p>Luster is not always present on new minted pieces.</p><p><br /></p><p>GD, knowing he is responding to you in a teaching modality, could have, but did not, explain the absence of Luster in PL/DMPL coins, as an example.</p><p><br /></p><p>The Luster....and there are many types.... are a function of the&nbsp; Dies as they are used.</p><p><br /></p><p>Which type of Luster are we discussing? What Series? Is it artificially polished and/or whizzed?</p><p><br /></p><p>How would the YN/enquiring collector know, without completeness of&nbsp; explanation and the watch out for/don&#039;t assume it is Luster or is not Luster scenarios.</p><p><br /></p><p>There is also the issue of polished coins and whizzed coins expertly done that can simulate Luster.</p><p><br /></p><p>Then there is the issue of polished Dies, but that is another aspect.</p><p><br /></p><p>Then there is the the issue of elusive coin series and dates such as the Jefferson and Buffalo 5c. pieces.</p><p><br /></p><p>You would appreciate and benefit from the comments/ authorship by Physics and/or Mark Feld, as examples of excellent conveyors of information concerning the subject of Luster.</p><p><br /></p><p>I have, on a continuous basis over the years, seen/heard/read comments about Luster by new and very experienced collectors alike, that have a misunderstanding of Luster, while holding the piece in their hands, and especially when judging from an image, and making an assumption the piece is circulated/MS, or AU when it is not, and the comment associated with the opinion is always Luster.</p><p><br /></p><p>Or, and this happens quite frequently, not understanding a cartwheel appearance vs. type of Luster appearance, when the piece is in their physical possession, or calling the Ball on an image of a coin.</p><p><br /></p><p>I do acknowledge and am aware of the caustic-like possibly discourteous &quot;tone&quot; of my thoughts when responding to GD comments.</p><p><br /></p><p>I will be cognizant of this personal failure in future replies, IF GD can stop using &quot;YA SEE....&quot;.</p><p><br /></p><p>&#039;....That is all I have to say about that....&quot;[/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