Reply to Thread

Message:: [QUOTE="Insider, post: 2900030, member: 24314"]Doug wrote: I don't think you can say that luster has nothing to do it because there are times when it does. For example, say you have a coin that has no wear on it, and almost always if the coin has no wear on it then the coin has to have luster. And there are really only two occasions when a coin will not have any wear, and not have any luster. 1 - when the toning has progressed to the point that all the luster has been destroyed. And 2 - when a coin has been over-dipped and the dip has destroyed the luster. Other than those scenarios, if a coin has no wear then it is going to have luster.So it is in that regard that luster does have something to do with it. A fine point perhaps but one that matters. I agree, and your post/comments are more to the point.  However, many coins that are dipped have either no original mint luster, just a little, a lot, or all of it so in my answer the amount of original mint luster on a coin was not considered to be a factor in dipping.  Now, just to be safe/exact/correct, IMO, worn coins with no original mint luster remaining should rarely be dipped. I've used original mint in my post as the reflection of light from the surface of a metal coin is called luster and even a polished coin with no original mint luster has "luster."  It just does not look like original mint luster.  [/QUOTE]