High "luster"? Methinks buffed. Almost NO detail. Or am I wrong? http://www.ebay.com/itm/1957-FRANKL...88?pt=Coins_US_Individual&hash=item4183d1ca10 Rob
It is a proof, weaker strike. Poor pic from to much light, flash, or reflection. Also overpriced for starting bid or Buy it Now.
I really do have a lot to learn. To me, it looks like all of the detail has been buffed off. Can't see any detail in Ben's hair or on the Bell. Thanks. And no, I wasn't tempted to buy it. Rob
Proofs shouldn't lack detail. I believe that the Mint double-struck proofs to make sure all the details show. But whoever did the polishing did a nice job, at least from what I can see in the images.
I think it is not buffed--just a gem proof that caught the light when it was being photographed. All proofs should look that shinny. Can't tell about the strike, as it is a poorly exposed picture.
I just requested some additional pictures from different angles. My first reaction was that "something isn't right." If the seller provides the pics I'll share.
If you're starting with the Franklin design, there's just not much detail to show, no matter if you strike a hundred times. High on my personal list of "all-time worst designs", although I know there are some who disagree. I'm with @Morgandude11 -- it's a tough photographic subject. I've got sealed-in-Mint-plastic proof Franklins that I'd hate to try to photograph, for the same reason.
