The description is self-explanatory of course. I can see the difference between silver coins that are simply lustrous and those that are "blast white", but how does the difference come about? Is it a matter of die state? Or just how the coin reacted to it's environment? Or not reacted, as it were? Does the term have an official numismatic definition, and are there degrees of it, as in cameos? Or is it loosely-used?
"Blast White" is more of a marketing than a numismatic term. It means generally a coin that is untoned, and does not have a colored patina of any kind. It implies that the coin looks as if it came right out of the mint. Unfortunately, it can be vague, as while it us usually combined with the word 'uncirculated," it isn't anything specific as to the grade of condition of the coin. It usually means an untoned coin, and unfortunately, a coin that has been dipped to get rid of toning, if it is an older coin.
Here are 4 pictures of Kennedy Halves ( your coin of interest) that are all described as "blast white." I randomly picked them. As you notice, there is a wide range of condition, from a PR 70 proof to a "slightly toned" MS 64 business strike, and a couple in between. That is why the term is overused and imprecise.
Thanks morgandude. From what I could see from various listings, it was a subjective term, but I thought perhaps it had something to do with the strike.
"Frosty", while also a marketing term, would be the term having something to do with the strike. A proper frosty coin should be from a fresh die, so the devices appear very crisp. Blast white just means very white, something very hard to achieve for an older silver coin if its not a morgan.
I would think you wouldn't see it used too much where proofs are concerned since the descriptors "DCAM" and "UCAM" are more appropriate. Besides, I always thought "blast white" had something to do with the Manhattan Project. Chris
I dunno, I think frosty is misused as much as blast white is. The term frost or frosty refers to a coin that has a look of having frost, (just like the frost you see on the grass or your windshield in the winter time), on it. Proofs are the coins most commonly described as having frost. The devices, legends, numerals etc on Proofs have frost. But the term is also commonly (and correctly) used to describe Morgans because virtually all unc Morgans have frost on the raised portions of the coin. But there are some Morgans, as well as other coins from the 1800's, that are described as having a frosty look to them. They are different than the average Morgan for even the fields can look to have frost on them. It's kind of like it is with a lot of other numismatic terms. They were originally only used to describe select, choice coins. But over the years some people started using to describe just about any coin, coins that were anything but select or choice. It has gotten to the point that in today's world those words are so over-used and incorrectly used that they have been become meaningless. It's gotten to the point that it is like Morgandude was saying about blast white. Some of those coins are no more blast white than I am, but yet the term is used to describe them. It's gotten so bad that most people wouldn't know a blast white coin if it bit them. The only coins that are truly blast white are those have come straight from the press, and those that have been freshly dipped. All other coins, and I do mean all of them, have some degree of toning and they are not blast white.
Not disagreeing with you there. Almost all numismatic terms have been coopted by the marketers at this point.
I guess it depends on how the buyer(s) interpret it...White, Frosty, Blast white....meh. At one point NGC did use a "W" on their slabs to indicate that a coin had especially white surfaces though.
^ And the Star designation and White designation have no correlation together (I.E. A coin does not need a * to get a W)
Nice one, Hunt! It's the year I was born. My birthday is August 27 in case you want to make a note of it. Chris
I wish it was mine but it's not It's up for grabs though on teletrade this coming wensday; http://teletrade.com/coins/lot.asp?auction=3410&lot=1143 And yes I will make note of it
Well that's exactly the problem Hunter. Numismatic terms have established definitions, and when people begin applying their own definitions to those terms, or changing the definitions, that's when the trouble starts.
And sometimes a coin does not need to even be white to get a "W" designation. In my experience, most of the "T" & "W" designations were assigned during the 4 week period in August-September 2000 when the NGC 8 holder was being used. Here is a thread dedicated to these designations. http://www.cointalk.com/t208532/
