VickySilver

Wow, I had really tried hard to separate colour from lustre and evidently failed. They are actually semi-independent variables.Well, I guess I will let it all rest in any case I do agree with buying the coin for the coin's sake, and hope this CCC Sale of the Workmen pennies comes out well - well could have said "works" out well...

Huss, as I become breathless trying to respond and try to work on an understanding of lustre, you are standing in nicely. BTW, I have met Daniel Carr and he not only is quite a gentleman, but is very knowledgeable about stiking coins and medals; if any readers have a chance they really should talk to him... I am really only trying to spread knowledge and dispel incorrect notions as I would rather proceed with a scientific approach. So na hard feelings...

Yes, many interesting bits of information to be gleaned from these boards. My understanding is that essentially there are TWO types of numerical grading, first is market grade and second is technical grade. As if that is not an absolute nightmare. The Britannia breast issue (sounds a bit mature in subject matter, but is not) is problematic as this represents one of the high points on the coins surface, and there are others, so it is both the last bit to strike up and the first worn. IMO, the American TPG graders technically can grade a coin high with no wear but poorly struck as it may be essentially be "FDC" to mix terms but have only the strike details ooriginally that might be seen on another coin that is only VF for wear but originally fully struck up. Market grading as I understand it tries to give an increase of number for a visually appealing and well struck specimen, etc. Peck, sorry if I do not remember specific questions. Sheen as I understand you to me is most likely lustre; lustre is NOT colour but rather a light phenomena cayssed by metal flow in the strike somewhat influenced by alloy (there is an interesting discussion of this peripherally on the www.pcgs.com US coin forum board as Daniel Carr of Denver describes the difficulties in striking up a modern 1964 D Peace dollar on an old Peace dollar blank where it is noted that detail increases with repetitive striking but lustre is lost as those "mini-peaks" are essentially ironed out by the striking.

Toning is the oxidation of surface metal, and this can be by a variety of "oxidants" as has been stated above. Oxides tend to give a blackish color, sulfas red to green, and chlorides blue to green. There are many complex organic oxidants that are difficult to characterise as well. PS Hussolo, that was a pleasant and civilized way to state it. I wonder if there could be a clinic of sorts at the various shows such as Coinex that these subjects might be covered in a competent manner? Education can only be a postive thing.

I have not had too many bad experiences with ebay, in fact quite the contrary and it has been a very good source for decent coins over the years. I must say that the quality of available material has significantly deteriorated over the last 5-7 years. I have been burned on a couple of occasions to the tune of several unrefunded hundreds of dollars but have literally bought coins on which gains were in multiples of that so overall quite a bit ahead. Not so many bargains these days but occasionally still find the nice bit. Plenty of dross out there so I use directed search functions nowadays.

Title of post should have been: 1986 Cayman Islands Proof Set - Royal Mint "Passin Off" Franklin Mint Coins?

Please see Hussolo diagram, lustre is not caused by oxidation, it is a light property imparted by strike and influenced by alloy and other parameters. It is also moderately independent of colour but can present well with original red. Sheen is probably an inexact description of lustre but would have to see the example.

Yes, Hussulo being much more creative was able to diagram what I have been talking about as the basic model. Thanks for that. Azda's coin looks to be EF with residual red in/arond the legend...

Would that it be so simple. Copper can be oxidized by any of a number of agents that include Oxygen, and commonly chlorides as well as sulfides/sulfur compounds. I can assure you that it is no theory that I have presented, it takes only a bit of investigation to verify exactly what I am saying if you choose not to believe. Once again, lustre is an optical characteristic that is most affected by the surface layer of a coin's metal and its configuration. "Microwaves" of a certain pattern will hold and alter light in such a way as to give lustre. As wear occurs, the little micropeaks are abraded and light is no longer altered as with a coin with undamaged/worn surfaces. Minimal oxidation, even enough to bestow a slight brown or even an apparently heavier brown appearance will not greatly affect lustre. If enough oxidation occurs, the lustre can be lost. As corollary to the above, dipping a silver coin (and possibly copper cleaning agents such as the infamous MS70) will themselves oxidise away the surface of the coin and the "micropeaks" are thus lost. Wear does the same thing as has been said. As per the post above, raw copper metal or alloy primarily of copper will have a fresh unoxidised surface that is "red" but will lack the lustre of a struck surface; this is not to say it has none, only less. PS - I do not use the term sheen though believe I know what is meant by its usage, and it is an inprecise term.

Sorry for the term "microwaves" as I am referring to the metal flow and not the energy form. BTW, some compromise might be available with the term "full mint bloom", as even though it is rather inexact, can be understood to describe a combination of red colour and lustre.

I really do not see why a coin may not have lustre in the legends as these are protected areas and the little microwaves that cause lustre are protected from wear there as well. It turns out that the original struck red colour of the coin is also protected in these areas and as it really is a non-point or at best a corollary to what I have been describing, not really worth separate mention. I have no idea what is in Gouby's head and will defend on crystallographic basis the definition of lustre. Sheen is inexact but I suspect it is being used somewhat interchangeably (ie Peckris) for lustre. Lustre is not a chemical coating but a deformity of the struck metal of the surface of the coin and when undisturbed and of certain pattern yields lustre that is most attractive.

Red, I daresay that is a bit ignorant sounding: "everything else is obfuscation". Is science viewed by you as such, for it certainly smacks of the "flat earthers" of the 19th Century. I think such statements are highly charged with ignorance as I was pointing out a subtlety no doubt lost by you in view of such an outrageous statement. If you are ignorant of such, just state it as so and there are many board members glad to assist; I simply referred to the science in very simply stated terms and even gave you a reference. I do apologise for slightly pirating this post, but was in fact defending the grading by CCC even though I admit to not having seen this particular collection in hand. I have bought and sold on many occasions to them and while I do not always agree with the grading, it has been close enough to keep me happy and a few others as well given that they have been in business as long as they have.

By the way, one reference would be Weimar White's Coin Chemistry (please check spelling and title which I believe correct) book where this is discussed.

Not my definition, as they say, look it up. Lustre is once again as I said imparted to the coin by the strike itself; colour is a result of how much oxidation (by varied oxidants) of the metal. I am somewhat incredulous Red that you say there is not a difference between currency and proof strikes when you yourself have stated there is a difference.I am suggesting that you check with other references as to what lustre is since it seems you have not mastered this definition. Lustre is not pure shine and it is a mistake to take it that way. The fields on a proof coin are vastly different than a currency strike, and surely you must have seen or appreciate that as we know (?) that this is as a result of the twin factors of planchet preparation and care, pressure and even repitition of strike. This evens out the microsurface of the metal and alters the light reflection/refraction at the surface. Mirror or reflective surfaces are most notable in the proof strikes although we see some proof-like currency strikes with some of the same characteristics. Lustre is imparted by micro "waviness" which is of course decreased by the proof strking. This is pure optics at the interface of the metal surface..This is not "whose definition?" but rather a scientific ( or at leas the rudiments of it) explanation of lustre that I would suggest you look up...

So Red, then a proof has "full lustre"? There is plenty of shine but not lustre according to most definitions of proof. I think perhaps my point is being missed. Lustre is mostly a byproduct of strike and not how fresh the metal surface is and is best seen on the surfaces of currency specimens, though also in the frosting of the devices on proofs that have such (as you are well aware not all proofs have the contrasting device frosting). I think it important to define terms, and agree that if you say full red that it would be known what is meant; if you should ever find your way over to this (American) side of the pond, I would be more than glad to show you specimens that as I have stated are brown, or even red-brown that have superb lustre but are not red & also coins with considerable red that have lustre or may have relatively poor lustre (even in the absence of cleaning). Again, I think articulation should be given to these points & the discussion reminds me greatly of the etiology of so-called "carbon spots" that are essentially never carbon, yet the term lives on no matter how inprecise.

I quite agree that Brilliant Uncirculate coins should be red as the adjective "brilliant" implies. This does not necessarily affect or imply lustre. In fact quite the opposite can be true. A proof that is most brilliant may have poor lustre as it is demonstrating a mirror surface which is in fact not lustre.

AS 49 seems to begin to say (and I paraphrase to some extent), the lustre of a pristine and untouched coin from 150 years ago can be preserved even as the redness of the fresh copper begins to fade or subdue. That redness in not actually the lustre, and in fact some "red" coins have only the native fresh surface of copper giving it red colour. The pressure of the strike, and good even die contact on a good alloy coin will impart lustre characteristics - in fact there are similar discussions about cartwheel lustre on American Morgan dollars, much of which is similar to copper lustre on our bronzes. This is why some red-brown or even brown coins of same date can have better lustre than red specimens. If this does not ring a bell, don't know what to say except that look at the coins themselves to see what exactly I am trying to convey.

Actually those are very diffent terms and NOT synonymous, BU and lustre. Lustre refers to strike surface and preservation of it - as I said I can show you many a coin that is brown, not even red-brown with silky lustre that simply blooms off of the surface of the coin; no breaks in the lustre, and no wear. On the other hand I can show you quite ugly red coins that have plenty of lustre breaks where the original struck surface of the coin has contact or bag marks, or even die wear that detract from this lustre. I take issue with these seen as synonyms and believe it incorrect and technically wrong to blend or mix their usage. This discussion can go on, but am more than glad to express myself and think it should be done as it seems there are many misconceptions and of course many subjective differences as to what constitutes an uncirculated coin and just what lustre is versust the appearance of "redness" on the surface of a bronze or copper coin.

Which of course brings up once again just what lustre is. I do not have a problem with a coin losing some of its "red" and still being full lustre as IMO this implies a fresh, minted surface with no abrasions. In fact, I would consider some entirely brown bits to be full lustre when they exhibit that silkiness of surface with no blemishes, scratches or other breaks.

No. Kind of a touchy feely thing where there is a "feel" difference but hard to explain. Look at the metal on a 1919 and on 1921 and will help to some degree. High grade coins with gen. lower relief on .500 coins. Metal browner/ not as white on lower grade .500 fine coins...

That is a trick question. Most coins issued since the 1790s are legal tender. If you were to say: "such as one might reasonable or possibly encounter", I would say silver prior to 1965 (dime, quarter, half, dollar). Nothing since then except for mint errors or hypervarietals; unfortunately there are no freebies in circulation unless you get lucky.

Looks to be plated silver to me. I think I see plenty of spots with copper showing...Some loss of detail with plating. As they said in the American movie, "Forrest Gump", I would run Forrest, run!

I suppose if we were smart, we would hype up such bits also and sell them into this market but somehow can not get into these bits either. Something for everybody I suppose & let it clean the wallets of the competition out when it comes to the coins I am bidding on...

Wow, that certainly is one of the nicer 1882s that I have seen. Very nice indeed!

Boy, I would really like to see the 112 (1882 London) penny & see if it is better than the usual slick washer for that date that we usually see.