I recently purchased a 1925 Norse American medal which I believe is uncirculated. However, there doesn't appear to be any cartwheel luster whatsoever. When I look at images online of graded examples, I can't seem to identify any cartwheel luster on them either. Is it originally supposed to be more of a satin circulation strike? Thanks in advance! EDIT: Added images of NGC MS graded examples from the 'net to highlight my point. The original US Mint annual report from 1925 says nothing about the strike type (last pic; it's interesting that back in 1925 they were able to include super sharp images of coins in what seems to be actual size!).
Since I can't seem to find info on the finish of this medal, and unless someone has that info, perhaps someone can check their own uncirculated example and let me know if there's cartwheel luster on the Norse medal. I believe I see some flow lines in the first picture example, so perhaps there really should be cartwheel luster. Though, the first example also appears like it has a satin finish.
They were struck as business strikes, not Proofs in other words. As for the finish, yeah they had a kind of satiny finish, but then so did many coins of the time. Think of Peace dollars for example. But they absolutely had/have luster. But I would readily agree that many of them do not have near as much luster as others. This could easily be due to several things, toning for one, and dipping and or over-dipping to remove unsightly toning for another. To show you one where the luster is readily apparent, look at this one - Now you mentioned didn't see "cartwheel" luster. Well, that's because there are many, many different types of luster. Every coin type there is has it's own unique luster. Some may be similar to others but none of them are the same. As for the coin pics you posted I can readily see the luster on the first and less so on the 2nd due to toning.
The real bright "cartwheel" luster only becomes apparent as the die wears, and the microscopic flow lines are etched into the steel as the metal makes its way from the center of the planchet to the edge. New dies do not have these lines yet, so you get kind of a waxy, wet look. Then after several thousand strikes, they would polish the dies to remove any potential clashes (when the two dies hit each other without a planchet between them - this puts the image of each side onto the other). This is when you get the prooflike finish with mirrored backgrounds and slightly frosty devices. So, even though a coin is not frosty with the cartwheel, there is still luster - just not as pronounced. It is harder to detect, and even harder to tell if a coin has any wear on it. I have a 1936 Wisconsin Commemorative Half Dollar that is without the cartwheel, but the luster is there and goes over the designs. It takes some time and practice to tell the difference.
I would readily agree there's a whole lot of folks who think the same way you do, but that is simply not true. Die wear decreases luster, it does not increase it ! I have discussed this over and over again in many other threads. Depending on the type of luster that a given coin has, such as a satiny luster, yes this is the case. What you are calling a waxy wet look is created by the uniformity of the flow lines on the coin. Uniformity of the flow lines is what creates the most luster, the highest quality luster. This is why Proofs have the highest quality luster there is. Typically they would not polish dies unless there were clash marks, clash marks that were seen by those inspecting the coins as they were struck. Only then would they remove the dies and send them to be re-polished. But it is also typical that re-polished dies do not have the same high quality luster that fresh dies have. This is because it was common for some polishing steps to be skipped when re-polishing, or not as much care taken as there was with the initial polishing. Proof of this are the die polish lines found on so many coins - they were never seen on fresh dies, only on re-polished dies. Typically, it is only with fresh dies that you see Prooflikes. That's not say it can't happen with re-polished dies but it doesn't happen near as often as with fresh dies. Also, re-polishing dies by it's very nature diminishes the quality of the coins. This is partially because re-polishing lowers the relief of the devices, sometimes even removing portions of the design, 3 legged Buffs for example. And as I mentioned above re-polishing was seldom done with the same care of initial polishing. Die polish lines on a coin are a flaw - not a good thing. And they reduce the quality of the luster because they diminish uniformity.
I own a small mint, and actually strike medals. Once you put a few thousand pieces through a die you start to see the luster gradually get brighter and brighter. So what you are saying does not jive with what I have personally seen over the past 18 years. And if you read Breen or Swiatek, you will see that they mention the same phenomenon.
Proofs have no luster - they have a mirrored background. That is why the dies need to be polished after every few hundred strikes - to remove the flow lines. The only luster is on the devices, and that is where the die is bead-blasted. Proof finishes are the antithesis of luster.
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried ! Every single coin there is, when it is struck the metal flows. And if metal flows then there is luster for it is metal flowing that creates luster. This is a simple fact that cannot be argued with.
