James Workman Penny sale

[Bernie 203]

Ok, so as i was saying, how can you have a GEF/ABU grade, where is the UNC in between, if it's a GEF then it can't possibly be ABU, surely it should be AUNC next? This grading business is utter confusing

[/quote

I may have the solution to your question !!!!!

If the coin was described as GEF/ABU, this usually means Obverse GEF, Reverse ABU

Coins Described as eg EF-GEF mean that the coin falls between these two grades.

Simples

[Peckris 579]

On the subject of "BU", what about those coins which would definitely be BU if they had been minted last year. But because they are over 100 years old, have that characteristic slight griminess and vaguely faded lustre ? Can they bstill be classed as "Brilliant Uncirculated" ?

Yes, that's am interesting point. If all the original Mint lustre is present but no longer blazing, that MAY be a case for CCC's term "BU slightly toning" (though I don't think they use it this way, often).

You've pretty much stated my view, Peck. I think expressions such as 'full lustre' or 'BU' should be incredibly sparingly used or the industry will lose credibility. In my view Victorian pennies that I would describe in those terms are very rare indeed - I don't think I've ever owned one and I can't even really recall seeing more than the odd one.

To be honest I like a little toning on my pennies as I feel that it can give a coin character, but also blazing lustre is pretty hard to preserve and I would always be a little concerned that the coin would tone when I wasn't looking!

LOL @ "tone when I wasn't looking". I agree mostly about Victorian pennies, though if all the Mint lustre is there but fading to a kind of pale but slightly matte look, then we have the problem of how to describe it in terms that everyone could agree? (Which is where a picture paints 1000 words of course)

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.

Proofs already have their own grade : "FDC", and therefore it should never be necessary to use BU in relation to them.

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 think you are mixing two terms VickyS : "lustre" and "sheen". Lustre is what is imparted by the Mint, a chemical film over the coin, I'm not sure what its chemistry is. What I understand you to be describing is "sheen", which I agree can be present when all lustre has gone, and I have a few gorgeous copper coins that have wondrous sheen but no lustre.

I don't know whose definition of lustre you are referring to by saying that proof coins do not have it, certainly not one I have seen. Proof coins tone in the same way as business strikes, the main difference being in the preparation of the blanks and the dies which may be sand, shot or bead blasted. As such I can see no fundamental difference between the shine of a proof specimen and that of a business strike, the only difference being one of quality.

The term 'full red' is seldom used in Europe and is in itself confusing as the tone is usually not red at all! With a little practice it is easy to see the difference between lutre and an artificially polished surface. A coin which has toned does not by most people's definition have lustre - hence the reason one often sees such descriptions as, 'a little lustre remaining in legend'. The surface may be undamaged, it may even look more attractive than a completely untoned specimen, but does it have lustre? Not in my book.

I agree with you Derek, and I wonder if this a difference between the two sides of the Pond? Certainly in Britain, the term for Proofs has always been FDC and if a proof has suffered any degradation it is described verbally (or there's a picture). It would never be termed "BU". But in all the 40 years I've been involved with coins (in UK), the term BU refers to original Mint lustre, and lustre refers to the same, however much or little of it remains.

[Rob 3,152]

Party pooper time.

I'm glad I'm a contrarian and don't have any serious interest in bronze pennies. As I'm only looking for 3 specific pennies in the period covered by the collection and with only one of these in part 1 which isn't in the right condition, I will divert funds elsewhere. God knows how much material there is to feast on this month with at least a dozen sales excluding this one. Having said that, I do wish the auction houses would spread the material out over the year rather than cramming it all into one month.

[Red Riley 2]

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.

You can quote 'science' all you like but in the final analysis the issue is still very simple. If a coin has any toning at all it cannot be described as having full lustre. Just answer these two questions;

1) Why are coins frquently described as having 'lustre in legend'? I mentioned this in an earlier post but you did not reply to it;

2) Have a look at Michael Gouby's website (http://www.michael-coins.co.uk/). Why do you think he describes all his high grade bronze as AU50, AU70 etc.?

[Red Riley 2]

I am finding the banter rather amusing, don't mind me, I'm enjoying it. You can't offend me very easily, skin like a rhino.

whole collections of perfect coins are almost impossible to get. I know of many coins that are better than James's but they are widely spread about, one in a collection here, one there. In the end we all have to settle for what is available at a price that we are willing to pay.

Before we all start offending each other, grading is in the eye of the beholder, that is why I avoid grading coins myself !!

United states grading, French grading etc is different to British grading. I think in an ideal world, grading should use terms Fine, Good Fine, Near VF, VF etc. but then adding percentages of Lustre if applicable. The Exceptions would be coins struck with proof quality dies, when percentages of lustre could be used on the bronze coins, but bronzed coins or copper proofs would require other additional descriptions.

The reserve prices on James's coins were worked out to be below the current book prices for the grade of the particular coin. My estimated grading !

Yes sorry, this has all got carried away a bit, but I guess in Oscar Wilde's terms 'there is only one thing worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about'.

One lot I will not be bidding on is number 37. When I saw it I had to do a double take as I have its absolute twin. Not only is it in the same condition (I think mine's a bit better but I would say that wouldn't I?) but I also have the same die cracks evident on the reverse at 12 o'clock and in the exergue, so the two coins would have been minted at almost exactly the same time from a reverse die that was not long for this world. Other than the die cracks, the coins are exceptionally well struck and it is curious that neither coin seems to have entered circulation. There is probably an interesting story to be told here, but we'll never know...

Edited September 15, 2010 by Red Riley

[1949threepence 3,367]

Perhaps I'm being a miserable old git but I do find the photographs on both the website and in the catalogue too heavily 'shopped to be overly useful and one more thing, one or two coins are described something like this; 'full lustre, lightly toning'. So that's not full lustre then.

I know Colin Cooke's are a thoroughly professional outfit but I jut felt they could have done better in those areas.

I agree. Some have definitely been photoshopped. For example the cheaper of the 1881 pennies looks absolutely fantastic, but whether it would look as good in the hand is a different matter.

Which one? I could give you my opinion.

The one I've screenshotted and uploaded to imageshack in this link ~ it's No 55 in the list.

It looks a truly beautiful coin, but I've been had before with enhanced images. Not saying it is, but you can't be too careful.

The 1881 F102 is in my opinion a fairly good likeness to the colour of the coin. I attach a scanned image of the coin. Scanned images never flatter a coins appearance.

I believe that the images at CCC are as representative as you can get from photography. The one thing that photography does not show very well is the beautiful mirror appearances of some of the proof issue coins. Proof not being a grade as simetimes used in the USA but the polished dies that the coins were struck from. James's coins were mainly chosen for the quality of the strikes and general appearance of even colour where possible. The original mint bloom would be nice, but unfortunately coins with the above attributes and full mint bloom are like hens teeth, especially in the bun series.

You're right about scanned images, and the one you have provided does not look the same coin as the one in the auction list. No doubt it doesn't do it justice.

I also agree about full mint bloom buns being as rare as hen's teeth. The best I can muster is an 1882H (F 115 12 + N, the common variety) which I bought for about £73 from a collector in Derby who was selling off a lot of his collection. I thought it was a steal, although possesses that typical, somewhat grimy, faded lustre. Pic below:-

Edited September 15, 2010 by 1949threepence

[VickySilver 830]

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.

[VickySilver 830]

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.

[Peckris 579]

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.

No, I said YOU were using the term interchangeably Vick!

I've never heard this "Lustre is not a chemical coating but a deformity of the struck metal" thesis before. I had always thought it was a thin coating applied during the minting process, but I'm happy to be corrected on that score. Be that as it may, it is EFFECTIVELY equivalent to such a coating, as it wears away exactly as if it was, revealing the "bare metal" beneath. One might consider it like a very thin coat of paint (even though it isn't) as that's how it behaves : i.e. it wears unevenly where it is most rubbed, and shows the under metal; it reacts to atmospheric conditions; it lingers finally in faint traces where least exposed. It behaves exactly like a coating that has been applied, whatever the actual process to impart it, and for all intents and purposes that's how collectors and dealers over the years (with the honourable exception of yourself, VickyS) have tended to regard it. At least in my experience.

[scott 144]

i have an interesting example of protected lustre

never sene lustre on low grade before

i have a coin that is brown, however the fields are shiny, lustrous, but dont have the colour

toning to me is still lustre, if it had lustre when it started, and only thing that has made it tone/fade is natural causes and not handling then the grade should not change. especially as those streaky compount bronze coins brong an interesting point, some bits shine better then other parts because of metal mix.

[1949threepence 3,367]

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.

No, I said YOU were using the term interchangeably Vick!

I've never heard this "Lustre is not a chemical coating but a deformity of the struck metal" thesis before. I had always thought it was a thin coating applied during the minting process, but I'm happy to be corrected on that score. Be that as it may, it is EFFECTIVELY equivalent to such a coating, as it wears away exactly as if it was, revealing the "bare metal" beneath. One might consider it like a very thin coat of paint (even though it isn't) as that's how it behaves : i.e. it wears unevenly where it is most rubbed, and shows the under metal; it reacts to atmospheric conditions; it lingers finally in faint traces where least exposed. It behaves exactly like a coating that has been applied, whatever the actual process to impart it, and for all intents and purposes that's how collectors and dealers over the years (with the honourable exception of yourself, VickyS) have tended to regard it. At least in my experience.

I'm no metallurgist, but if you saw an old worn coin in half, the inner part of the coin, revealed by the severing, will appear the same colour as "full mint bloom". Just thought I'd throw that little observation in.

It would actually be very interesting to know more about the whole process of lustre.

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

Once a month we all get excited about lustre.

It's really the lack of standardisation that I find unhelpfull and yes, CCC do occasionally describe a penny in an unhelpfull way - I mean really, what are we supposed to make of uncirculated with full lustre, lightly toned ? (Lot 86)

I wish the industry would adopt the Unc with x% lustre as a standard.

We've already decided, haven't we, that BU is used far too often where pennies are concerned. To me it's very simple really, toning is oxidation, copper reacts with either one or two oxygen molecules, can't remember which is the rarer. So as far as full lustre is concerned, has oxidation commenced, yes or no. If no, then it's full lustre, if yes, then what percentage of the lustre is left.

It is surely much better to describe a penny as unc with 80% remaining lustre than full lustre with 20% degredation. Now I know no-one is doing that, but you get my point.

Pennies with full lustre are quite hard to find and getting harder. I get a bit depressed sometimes, it seems that a coin is described as full lustre as a standard and then blazing full lustre if it's about 85% +

There is too much hype in the world.

No-one is bashing the collection, it's owner or CCC, it's all good clean fun.

[VickySilver 830]

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.

[Gary D 76]

When a coin is struck there will be flow in the metal which will cause heating, this heating and the polishing effect of the metal moving across the surface of the die if probably the cause of the final colour we see.

Gary D

[azda 979]

So what class would we consider this to be, lustre, sheen blah blah blah?

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

So what class would we consider this to be, lustre, sheen blah blah blah?

Well, there is your classic 'traces of lustre remain in the legend'

Grade + 15% ish

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

blah blah blah?

I can't support blah blah blah, going forward - it's not precise enough and in my opinion, should be dropped from the nomenclature that we use.

I've seen blah blah blah's that were clearly only mumbles.

[azda 979]

Have you got a few of yours in Oil 400, most of mine are in olive oil, will change it once a month for some fresh and see how it goes after a year gonna be a long year me thinks. BLAH

Edited September 16, 2010 by azda

[Hussulo 6]

I've drawn a simple picture of how I have always believed lustre on a coin works and how its effected.

[1949threepence 3,367]

On the subject of "BU", what about those coins which would definitely be BU if they had been minted last year. But because they are over 100 years old, have that characteristic slight griminess and vaguely faded lustre ? Can they bstill be classed as "Brilliant Uncirculated" ?

Yes, that's am interesting point. If all the original Mint lustre is present but no longer blazing, that MAY be a case for CCC's term "BU slightly toning" (though I don't think they use it this way, often).

To describe such coins, the term "mature lustre" springs to mind for some reason.

[Peckris 579]

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.

To be fair VS, not many dealers and collectors know about or refer to these microwaves. Probably many are like me - they see a new coin with yellow/gold/red lustre, they think of it like a thin coating, and lo and behold it wears off exactly as if it was. "Sheen" is my own term, though others may have coined it also (pun intended). It is a prperty that any coin may have, though full lustre obviously trumps it. As I say, I have 3 or 4 high grade copper coins with no lustre (or only faint traces), but which have this wondrous silky shimmery surface. The coins are natural metal in colour, i.e. brown or reddish-brown, typical copper, but nevertheless they have this sheen. It is NOT lustre.

So what class would we consider this to be, lustre, sheen blah blah blah?

That looks like classic "lustre" az - traces thereof.

To describe such coins, the term "mature lustre" springs to mind for some reason.

That's as good a term as any!

[VickySilver 830]

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...

[Red Riley 2]

I would call it EF5 - not quite 15 - and in this case the residual lustre is red. Actually quite an attractive coin I feel.

[Gary D 76]

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.

To be fair VS, not many dealers and collectors know about or refer to these microwaves. Probably many are like me - they see a new coin with yellow/gold/red lustre, they think of it like a thin coating, and lo and behold it wears off exactly as if it was. "Sheen" is my own term, though others may have coined it also (pun intended). It is a prperty that any coin may have, though full lustre obviously trumps it. As I say, I have 3 or 4 high grade copper coins with no lustre (or only faint traces), but which have this wondrous silky shimmery surface. The coins are natural metal in colour, i.e. brown or reddish-brown, typical copper, but nevertheless they have this sheen. It is NOT lustre.

So what class would we consider this to be, lustre, sheen blah blah blah?

That looks like classic "lustre" az - traces thereof.

To describe such coins, the term "mature lustre" springs to mind for some reason.

That's as good a term as any!

Having seen pictures of coins being tumbled in weak acid en masse to clean them after the striking (probably where most of the so called bag marks come from) they start life pretty much as bare metal. I would suggest any lustre/sheen is actually caused by the initial formation of oxidation. This over a period of time builds up into what we call tone.

Gary

[VickySilver 830]

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.