Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GDJMSP, post: 823060, member: 112&quot;]How do you explain something you have to see to understand ? As I have said before, it&#039;s like trying to explain with words the differences between 2 colors to a man who has been blind since birth. You can&#039;t do it.</p><p><br /></p><p>To understand the differences in various types of luster you need only to look at them - and to understand what luster is. In simple terms, luster is the way that light is reflected and refracted from the surface of a coin. And since light is reflected from everything, the thing that changes luster from one type to another is the way that it is refracted. And refraction depends upon the various differences in the surfaces of the various coins.</p><p><br /></p><p>We have several different types of finishes on our coins. We have the normal business strike finish (can&#039;t really think of a specific name for it) like that found on Morgan dollars. Then we have satin, matte, and brilliant finishes. All of these surfaces reflect and refract light, but yet they all look different to our eyes. And they look different because the surfaces of the coins are different.</p><p><br /></p><p>Now the reason the surfaces are different is because of 2 things - planchet preparation and die preparation. The thing that all struck coins have in common is that the metal flows, it moves when the coin is struck. And how the surface of that coin looks after the strike is dependant upon how the planchet was prepared and the die was prepared. </p><p><br /></p><p>If the planchet is highly polished and die is highly polished - you get the brilliant Proof surface. If the planchet is only minimally polished and the die is only minimally polished - you get the business strike surface. If the planchet is polished to the point that it is more highly polished than the business strike, but less than the Proof; and the die surface is polishd to either a matte or satin finish - then you get one or the other.</p><p><br /></p><p>But in every single case - the metal moves, it flows. And when metal flows, because it is not a liquid, the part of the metal that is flowing or moving is scraping, tearing if you will, against the metal that lies underneath it. Now the molecules of the metal scraping and tearing against each other produce microscopic lines in the surface of the metal that is left exposed once the flow has stopped. The differences in the microscopic lines left on that newly exposed metal are also influenced by the surfaces they are rubbing against - the surfaces of the die. </p><p><br /></p><p>You have to think of it as these things happening in layers. You have the two layers of metal flowing against each other - that&#039;s in the middle. But on the top you have the metal of the die that is not moving. So as the flowing metal moves against the surface of the die, the microscopic flow lines can be flattened or smoothed down depending on how the die was polished. </p><p><br /></p><p>So Conder was right to a degree in that the surface of the die changes the way luster looks. But in every single case you still have the microscopic flow lines in the coin&#039;s metal itself. It is just a question of how deep or shallow those flow lines are that determines the refraction level of the various types of luster we end up seeing with our eyes. But in every case, the luster is there. </p><p><br /></p><p>It can be no other way for the metal did flow and flowing metal produces luster.[/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