Grading

[1949threepence 3,367]

Interesting, if very old thread.

There are numerous examples of lustre traces surviving on less then EF coins. Indeed, some weak strikes have already quickly downgraded to VF whilst still retaining considerable lustre.

[Kronos 0]

With all this confusion do you think thats why the 'Coins of England and the United Kingdom' only grade as high as Unc, apart from FDC (not even BU) when valuing coins in their books?

Edited November 2, 2009 by Mark Sarul

[Rob 3,152]

With all this confusion do you think thats why the 'Coins of England and the United Kingdom' only grade as high as Unc, apart from FDC (not even BU) when valuing coins in their books?

But they do say that copper prices in UNC are for examples with full lustre, so that covers BU. cf. p.446 in the 2009 tome.

[Kronos 0]

With all this confusion do you think thats why the 'Coins of England and the United Kingdom' only grade as high as Unc, apart from FDC (not even BU) when valuing coins in their books?

But they do say that copper prices in UNC are for examples with full lustre, so that covers BU. cf. p.446 in the 2009 tome.

I never spotted that . But to get me out of the hole I have just dug why do other books state different prices for Unc and BU coins. On another note how can you determine a correct price for a coin with say 25%, 50%, nearly full lustre, or is this left to the seller’s opinion.

What I am trying to say is I AM CONFUSED, when I look at one of my coins and one is brighter that the other how do I put a value on the coin when no book can specify this in detail. I think this can lead to confusion for the collector, especially for someone new to the hobby.

Forgive me for being a bit thick, but this is the only part of coin collecting that I am not confidant about (grading). I have the 'Standard Guide to Grading British Coins' but to this extent I am still none the wiser. I suppose it’s like buying a car, to the seller the car can look in great condition but to the purchaser it can look ok, until the time you want to sell the car after you have purchased it.

Mark

[Rob 3,152]

With all this confusion do you think thats why the 'Coins of England and the United Kingdom' only grade as high as Unc, apart from FDC (not even BU) when valuing coins in their books?

But they do say that copper prices in UNC are for examples with full lustre, so that covers BU. cf. p.446 in the 2009 tome.

I never spotted that . But to get me out of the hole I have just dug why do other books state different prices for Unc and BU coins. On another note how can you determine a correct price for a coin with say 25%, 50%, nearly full lustre, or is this left to the seller’s opinion.

What I am trying to say is I AM CONFUSED, when I look at one of my coins and one is brighter that the other how do I put a value on the coin when no book can specify this in detail. I think this can lead to confusion for the collector, especially for someone new to the hobby.

Forgive me for being a bit thick, but this is the only part of coin collecting that I am not confidant about (grading). I have the 'Standard Guide to Grading British Coins' but to this extent I am still none the wiser. I suppose it’s like buying a car, to the seller the car can look in great condition but to the purchaser it can look ok, until the time you want to sell the car after you have purchased it.

Mark

The correct price for a coin with whatever percentage of lustre (or in any other grade for that matter) is what the buyer is happy to pay. This obviously varies from person to person. You can't have a binding, fixed recommended retail price for coins any more than you can for any other item.

[VickySilver 830]

Luster, that part of grading can really create some contraversy. Red usually equates with lustre, but many opinions on what other surface colour can also demonstrate luster - some very brown specimens can demonstrate a silky luster as well, for example.

[scott 144]

yes toning also, i have coins that are lustrous but you cant really see it in the normal way (my 1953 penny is toned in such a way you have to rotaste the coin to see the lustre. and i have a high grade australia penny which is dark brown with great details and has a sort of shine, but not lustrous, just a shine.

better if you see what i mean tbh

the toning, you can see the lustre via the light reflection here

and the australia example, as you can see detail is high but all it has is a shine

[1949threepence 3,367]

With all this confusion do you think thats why the 'Coins of England and the United Kingdom' only grade as high as Unc, apart from FDC (not even BU) when valuing coins in their books?

But they do say that copper prices in UNC are for examples with full lustre, so that covers BU. cf. p.446 in the 2009 tome.

I never spotted that . But to get me out of the hole I have just dug why do other books state different prices for Unc and BU coins. On another note how can you determine a correct price for a coin with say 25%, 50%, nearly full lustre, or is this left to the seller’s opinion.

Because there is a difference between UNC & BU. A big difference, which is almost wholly related to lustre. A coin can still be UNC in terms of wear, but have dulled tired lustre. Conversely, there is no mistaking the bright new looking attractiveness of a genuinely BU specimen.

A BU will nearly always command a premium ~ sometimes a substantial one ~ over one that is simply UNC. BU coins have considerable cache, especially in older coins.

What I am trying to say is I AM CONFUSED, when I look at one of my coins and one is brighter that the other how do I put a value on the coin when no book can specify this in detail. I think this can lead to confusion for the collector, especially for someone new to the hobby.

Forgive me for being a bit thick, but this is the only part of coin collecting that I am not confidant about (grading). I have the 'Standard Guide to Grading British Coins' but to this extent I am still none the wiser. I suppose it’s like buying a car, to the seller the car can look in great condition but to the purchaser it can look ok, until the time you want to sell the car after you have purchased it.

Mark

Value will always be somewhat subjective, and the value relating to what any given individual is willing to pay for a coin, will vary, and is dependent on a number of different factors. But generally the BU will usually attract more money than the lesser specimens.

[Peckris 579]

Because there is a difference between UNC & BU. A big difference, which is almost wholly related to lustre. A coin can still be UNC in terms of wear, but have dulled tired lustre. Conversely, there is no mistaking the bright new looking attractiveness of a genuinely BU specimen.

A BU will nearly always command a premium ~ sometimes a substantial one ~ over one that is simply UNC. BU coins have considerable cache, especially in older coins.

I'd sound a note of caution here. I once bid for an AU Cartwheel Twopence at auction that had part lustre, but I wasn't successful. A dealer over the road had promised me his AU specimen at a discount if I didn't get the auction coin. His coin had no lustre, but over time, its evenness of tone and uniform silky sheen has made me glad I didn't win the auction.

Also I have two AU Vic copper pennies, 1858 and 1859 - neither has lustre, but both have gorgeous even tone, and are stunningly beautiful. Whereas my 1854 halfpenny, Unc with 50% lustre, looks patchy and dowdy by comparison. What I'm saying is, some collectors actually PREFER an Unc coin with no lustre, to one that is part-lustred. And a BU coin, though having full lustre, is no different from any other BU coin of the same type. Whereas one that is toned or patinated or prooflike or rainbow-hued, will be distinctively unique and special.

In the end, it's eye-appeal and beauty that decides the desirability of a coin, and much of that is in the eye of the beholder.

[Red Riley 2]

And a BU coin, though having full lustre, is no different from any other BU coin of the same type. Whereas one that is toned or patinated or prooflike or rainbow-hued, will be distinctively unique and special.

In the end, it's eye-appeal and beauty that decides the desirability of a coin, and much of that is in the eye of the beholder.

I think I agree with you, but I'm afraid that I don't like and never have liked the BU grade and seldom use the term myself. I have seen coins in this condition, straight out of the mint and with no handling whatever - but anything of any age which has not been tampered with will have fallen below that category unless it's been stored in outer space for its whole life. In my view, any grading system falls down once we establish that a coin has not been circulated. With base metal, indicating a percentage of lustre can help, but what of coins where the lustre has dulled uniformly, what of silver?

I have gone off at a slight tangent, but returning to the main point, don't try too hard to ascribe a grade to an unworn coin, just describe what you see, oh, and include a photograph!