James Workman Penny sale

[scott 144]

yes the alloy effect is very bizzare when you get the streaks.

but tonong still has the cartwheeling, and i have brown coin as well, with the sheen

and no cartwheeling on proofs, the polished dies make no waves?

Edited September 17, 2010 by scott

[azda 979]

Ok, so the 1861 i got on ebay, it is now in hand, it feels like it has like a waxy feel to it for some reason, not felt that on a coin before, but here are 2 hi res pix

[azda 979]

And the REV, personally i think the REV is better than the OBV, although i think the sellers pictures were nicer than mine, maybe photoshopped

[Hussulo 6]

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.

Thats always the way I understood it. You can imagine the tons of pressure when a coin is struck. The metal of the planchet flows into the spaces to fill it. Thats how we are obviously left with raised letters and devices. If you were to look at the field of a coin at microscopic level you would see flow lines. Looking at my picture imagine that you are looking at a dissected coins surface side on. The lustre of a coin is actually the reflection of the light on the field produced by these surfaces.

Proofs are a different kettle of fish. Obviously proof refers to coin that has been produced using a specially prepared process. Talking about your standard mirror like proof surface. the planchets are prepared and polished as is the die. When the coin is struck with polished dies and struck multiple times the field of the coin is much smoother and reflects the light at a much more direct straight way which doesn't produce a lustre like cartwheel shine but more a mirrored reflection.

Some coins appear proof like. They may have been amongst the first few coins struck by fresh dies. They will have a more mirrored surface as opposed to a lutrey surface. The main way you can tell a proof from a prooflike coin is because a proof will have sharper letters and design as well as edges. This is somewhat due to the fact that it has been struck several times and the flow of the metal has been pushed right up into the spaces of the die.

Although red and lustre go hand in hand, because most copper/bronze coins having been freshly struck will be red. Not all red coins have lustre. If you take a toned circulated coin and cleaned it it would be red but won't have any lustre. Also you can get slightly toned coins with lustre (not red) showing through under the toning. If you take 1949threepence's avatar picture for instance. Although its toned you can still see some lustre shining through at 2 and 10 o'clock. Obviously the more a coin tones (which is basically a reaction which forms on the surface of the coin) the more the flow lines are covered and the more the lustre is lost.

This theory is proven when a uncirculated toned coin is carefully dipped. Once the coin has been dipped the toning removed the flow lines are revealed and the coin then once again has lustre. If a coin is over dipped the dipping solution will remove the tops of the lines (which are microscopic) and smooth them out which also would destroy the lustre.

[scott 144]

i have a couple of coins that have the lustre colour but no shine on it.. its definatly not the metal mix or dirt

what is tonong anyway

[Hussulo 6]

i have a couple of coins that have the lustre colour but no shine on it.. its definatly not the metal mix or dirt

what is tonong anyway

Toning is nothing more than oxidation (just like steel rusting) of the metal on a coin. The metal chemically reacts with its environment, whether that is air, the envelope or holder it is in, or a coming in contact with a contaminant. Silver can tone through a spectrum of colours and eventually turns black. It is the presence of sulphur that facilitates this colour transformation.

One of the most well known collectors of colourful rainbow Morgan Dollar (sunnywood) made up this chart:

I'm not saying some of the colourful US coins we see aren't helped along the way chemically but it is interesting to see what is claimed is the stages of colour a coin goes through when toning colourful.

[azda 979]

So can i make up a chart to extract as much geld as i can from my collection? Every US COIN is helped along the way

Edited September 17, 2010 by azda

[VickySilver 830]

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.

[Rob 3,152]

what is tonong anyway

I couldn't agree more.

[Peckris 579]

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.

Vick, you're not reading what I've written (in at least two posts so far) : "lustre" is what a coin leaves the Mint in full possession of. Over time this either oxidises or wears off, leaving traces often in the legend.

"Sheen" (my term) is nothing to do with lustre. It is a quality of a copper or bronze coin that is especially attractive, as it is a silky slightly shiny reflective appearance. The coins I have with "sheen" HAVE NO LUSTRE ON THEM. NO red. But they do have this sheen quality. To wit : one 1797 twopence, two Vic copper pennies, a 1799 halfpenny, and an 1806 penny.

Sheen is NOT repeat NOT an imprecise or inexact term for lustre. IT'S A DIFFERENT THING ENTIRELY. I should know, I dreamed up the term way back in this long thread.

[azda 979]

So can anyone explain the difference to me in auction number 6 and 13 of the Workman sale. 6 says FULL LUSTRE OBV slightly toning and 13 says ALMOST FULL LUSTRE, but to me both have toned to the same degree, so if they are toned, how can they have FULL LUSTRE? How can 1 be different to the other? Look at the pix on the site if you don't have the sale catalogue

Edited September 18, 2010 by azda

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

It is rather indicative of the problem, that we can't even agree what lustre is, never mind how to measure how much remains on a coin.

This is why it's best to form one's own opinion and take ALL descriptions with a pinch of salt and treat each coin on it's own merits.

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

So can anyone explain the difference to me in auction number 6 and 13 of the Workman sale. 6 says FULL LUSTRE OBV slightly toning and 13 says ALMOST FULL LUSTRE, but to me both have toned to the same degree, so if they are toned, how can they have FULL LUSTRE? How can 1 be different to the other? Look at the pix on the site if you don't have the sale catalogue

To my eyes 13 is quite a bit more lustrous ?

I do agree though, that the dealers description is of very little use to the prospective purchaser in distinguishing between the coins. I suppose, to be fair, CCC are expecting the photographs to do most of the talking and it must be quite difficult to come up with something different to say about so many similar coins.

In the end, CCC are giving an opinion, it's their opinion, you are entitled to yours and ultimately you get to choose whether to part with your cash or not.

From the posts on this thread it's quite apparent that there is a wide variance of views on the subject.

Re the Oil, I haven't got round to it yet and if I'm honest, I might have cold feet about dropping £90 of coins into the unknown......

[azda 979]

The problem being 400 is that dealers, when they describe a coin generally talk it up in order to gain more cash, i agree that if we disagree with their garde and specifics then we need not bid or buy, but when you talk a grade more and with lustre then its going to obviously cost more. Problem being, it's like negative equity in a house, it might take years for the said coin to come up to the value he spoke of in the 1st place, then during that time, it may also lose more lustre unfortunately.

Perhaps dealers should just state what the coin is then let buyers decide for themselves what grade and lustre is, but at the end of the day, you are still going to pay over the top prices for something that you believe it is because a dealer says so (or at least new collectors might), we can't say to said dealer, or any dealer for that matter that i disagree with your grade + lustre so i'll give you ex amount, he's just going to laugh at you, then when you eventually pay the dealers price, you are then left with the negative equity in a coin. As i said in a previous post, London coins sold an 1897 with dot for 350 i think it was, very similar grade to James's coin, yet CCC want a 2k starting price, why?

I sold a coin a while back on ebay, a dealer asked me how much i'd take for it, i said, as much as possible, we were talking about a Spink value of 2k. He then starts quoting Spink to me and proceeds to tell me that this is what you should pay from a dealer, so i said to him, just because i'm not a dealer doesn't mean i should'nt expect the same price, why do dealers think that they should be able to buy a coin at 50% or less then be able to sell it on for near full book price, it amazes me. The dealer said to me that he put it what he considered to be a fair bid on a 2k coin, needless to say he was outbid at 125 pounds, what an arse.

Rant over

Edited September 18, 2010 by azda

[Bernie 203]

So can anyone explain the difference to me in auction number 6 and 13 of the Workman sale. 6 says FULL LUSTRE OBV slightly toning and 13 says ALMOST FULL LUSTRE, but to me both have toned to the same degree, so if they are toned, how can they have FULL LUSTRE? How can 1 be different to the other? Look at the pix on the site if you don't have the sale catalogue

To my eyes 13 is quite a bit more lustrous ?

I do agree though, that the dealers description is of very little use to the prospective purchaser in distinguishing between the coins. I suppose, to be fair, CCC are expecting the photographs to do most of the talking and it must be quite difficult to come up with something different to say about so many similar coins.

In the end, CCC are giving an opinion, it's their opinion, you are entitled to yours and ultimately you get to choose whether to part with your cash or not.

There is another factor that hasn't been mentioned yet.

A coins apparent lustre appears to vary with the different type and brightness of light reflecting from the coin.

The appearance can vary enormously when viewed in tungsten lighting compared to bright sunlight.

This will probably wind some of you up .... some dealers photograph bronze coins with very bright halogen lights, this can make a brown coin appear very lustrous. That is my twopenny worth, not getting involved in grading discussion, too much like politics or religion.

[azda 979]

I totally agrre with you Bernie that coins OFTEN appear different in some respects than the one you actually buy, take for example the 1861 i posted in this thread, i posted the sellers picture then the one when i received it, the OBV seems very different to me, although i'm still happy with it.

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

The problem being 400 is that dealers, when they describe a coin generally talk it up in order to gain more cash, i agree that if we disagree with their garde and specifics then we need not bid or buy, but when you talk a grade more and with lustre then its going to obviously cost more. Problem being, it's like negative equity in a house, it might take years for the said coin to come up to the value he spoke of in the 1st place, then during that time, it may also lose more lustre unfortunately.

Perhaps dealers should just state what the coin is then let buyers decide for themselves what grade and lustre is, but at the end of the day, you are still going to pay over the top prices for something that you believe it is because a dealer says so (or at least new collectors might), we can't say to said dealer, or any dealer for that matter that i disagree with your grade + lustre so i'll give you ex amount, he's just going to laugh at you, then when you eventually pay the dealers price, you are then left with the negative equity in a coin. As i said in a previous post, London coins sold an 1897 with dot for 350 i think it was, very similar grade to James's coin, yet CCC want a 2k starting price, why?

I sold a coin a while back on ebay, a dealer asked me how much i'd take for it, i said, as much as possible, we were talking about a Spink value of 2k. He then starts quoting Spink to me and proceeds to tell me that this is what you should pay from a dealer, so i said to him, just because i'm not a dealer doesn't mean i should'nt expect the same price, why do dealers think that they should be able to buy a coin at 50% or less then be able to sell it on for near full book price, it amazes me. The dealer said to me that he put it what he considered to be a fair bid on a 2k coin, needless to say he was outbid at 125 pounds, what an arse.

Rant over

As far as I can see, there are no bids on the 'Dot' yet ?

Well, at least you had the experience of selling and have learned what an imprecise business coin trading is. Generally speaking, over the short and medium terms, we collectors are going to lose money. Fact.

Edited September 18, 2010 by £400 for a Penny ?

[azda 979]

As far as I can see, there are no bids on the 'Dot' yet ?

Well, at least you had the experience of selling and have learned what an imprecise business coin trading is. Generally speaking, over the short and medium terms, we collectors are going to lose money. Fact.

Edited September 18, 2010 by azda

[Bernie 203]

The problem being 400 is that dealers, when they describe a coin generally talk it up in order to gain more cash, i agree that if we disagree with their garde and specifics then we need not bid or buy, but when you talk a grade more and with lustre then its going to obviously cost more. Problem being, it's like negative equity in a house, it might take years for the said coin to come up to the value he spoke of in the 1st place, then during that time, it may also lose more lustre unfortunately.

Perhaps dealers should just state what the coin is then let buyers decide for themselves what grade and lustre is, but at the end of the day, you are still going to pay over the top prices for something that you believe it is because a dealer says so (or at least new collectors might), we can't say to said dealer, or any dealer for that matter that i disagree with your grade + lustre so i'll give you ex amount, he's just going to laugh at you, then when you eventually pay the dealers price, you are then left with the negative equity in a coin. As i said in a previous post, London coins sold an 1897 with dot for 350 i think it was, very similar grade to James's coin, yet CCC want a 2k starting price, why?

I sold a coin a while back on ebay, a dealer asked me how much i'd take for it, i said, as much as possible, we were talking about a Spink value of 2k. He then starts quoting Spink to me and proceeds to tell me that this is what you should pay from a dealer, so i said to him, just because i'm not a dealer doesn't mean i should'nt expect the same price, why do dealers think that they should be able to buy a coin at 50% or less then be able to sell it on for near full book price, it amazes me. The dealer said to me that he put it what he considered to be a fair bid on a 2k coin, needless to say he was outbid at 125 pounds, what an arse.

Rant over

As far as I can see, there are no bids on the 'Dot' yet ?

Well, at least you had the experience of selling and have learned what an imprecise business coin trading is. Generally speaking, over the short and medium terms, we collectors are going to lose money. Fact.

Just one thing (or two)

The LCA dot penny was judged to be EF with some lustre by certain collectors that viewed the coin. There is a massive difference in grade between EF and Lustrous UNC in my opinion. The last UNC dot penny was sold for £1600 according to information that I was given.

After reading comments on this site, James thought it right to lower the reserve price for his dot penny to £1500 before the auction started. In the event of coins not selling, I have agreed to buy the remaining coins that have been returned to him.

[azda 979]

The problem being 400 is that dealers, when they describe a coin generally talk it up in order to gain more cash, i agree that if we disagree with their garde and specifics then we need not bid or buy, but when you talk a grade more and with lustre then its going to obviously cost more. Problem being, it's like negative equity in a house, it might take years for the said coin to come up to the value he spoke of in the 1st place, then during that time, it may also lose more lustre unfortunately.

Perhaps dealers should just state what the coin is then let buyers decide for themselves what grade and lustre is, but at the end of the day, you are still going to pay over the top prices for something that you believe it is because a dealer says so (or at least new collectors might), we can't say to said dealer, or any dealer for that matter that i disagree with your grade + lustre so i'll give you ex amount, he's just going to laugh at you, then when you eventually pay the dealers price, you are then left with the negative equity in a coin. As i said in a previous post, London coins sold an 1897 with dot for 350 i think it was, very similar grade to James's coin, yet CCC want a 2k starting price, why?

I sold a coin a while back on ebay, a dealer asked me how much i'd take for it, i said, as much as possible, we were talking about a Spink value of 2k. He then starts quoting Spink to me and proceeds to tell me that this is what you should pay from a dealer, so i said to him, just because i'm not a dealer doesn't mean i should'nt expect the same price, why do dealers think that they should be able to buy a coin at 50% or less then be able to sell it on for near full book price, it amazes me. The dealer said to me that he put it what he considered to be a fair bid on a 2k coin, needless to say he was outbid at 125 pounds, what an arse.

Rant over

As far as I can see, there are no bids on the 'Dot' yet ?

Well, at least you had the experience of selling and have learned what an imprecise business coin trading is. Generally speaking, over the short and medium terms, we collectors are going to lose money. Fact.

Just one thing (or two)

The LCA dot penny was judged to be EF with some lustre by certain collectors that viewed the coin. There is a massive difference in grade between EF and Lustrous UNC in my opinion. The last UNC dot penny was sold for £1600 according to information that I was given.

After reading comments on this site, James thought it right to lower the reserve price for his dot penny to £1500 before the auction started. In the event of coins not selling, I have agreed to buy the remaining coins that have been returned to him.

Perhaps try another sale next year Bernie if some don't sell, as Rob said in an earlier post, there seems to be a lot of similar auctions coming up and unfortunately not everyone can afford everything. Oh and my my, your bank account might be taking a hammering lol, but it is for a good cause, getting rid of the son for 1 lol (just joking if you're reading this James)

[Rob 3,152]

Talking in general terms, there's another side to the coin (sorry...). Grading and description are very much in the eyes of the beholder as we are mostly agreed, but human psychology and greed come into play. Advertising gVF or whatever coins simply won't attract the same number of eyeballs as an UNC which invariably means no sale. Everyone wants an uncirculated coin at a VF or even EF price but you are most unlikely to get it. Genuine UNCs are actually very, very difficult to find in most instances.

The first filter in choosing which coin to buy is a visual one where you scan the list and in most instances look for the highest grade/most attractive description item. As the resulting shortlist will in most instances only contain UNCs with maybe a few EFs, the incentive on the part of the seller to nudge up the grade and/or glowingly expand the description's appeal is overwhelming. Whether this has been done in this sale's case I can't comment as I have only looked at the picture of the one coin I was interested in. In this instance it looked to be as graded and the description was accurate for the grade. It just didn't look very attractive.

There is no substitute for your own opinion, which if built on solid foundations and you are honest with yourself is the only one to go with. Ask yourself how you would describe that coin as a buyer, but also how you would describe it as a seller. If you feel the coin is not as described, be prepared to walk away. If the price is too much, walk away. Nobody is forced to buy a coin.

Edited September 18, 2010 by Rob

[Bernie 203]

As far as I can see, there are no bids on the 'Dot' yet ?

Well, at least you had the experience of selling and have learned what an imprecise business coin trading is. Generally speaking, over the short and medium terms, we collectors are going to lose money. Fact.

[Red Riley 2]

This is true 400, but as a collector, we always buy to keep, what ticks my boxes though is if it's overgraded from a dealer. I was monotoring an auction in Germany on a British gold coin, i decided not to bother in the end but it sold for about 450 euros.

I had the catalogue from the sale. I then checked a few weeks later on a dealers site and the very same coin was there in his shop, i knew it was the same because it had the same flaw in it as the auction coin, but what riled me was that he upped it 1 whole grade from the auctions grading and was asking 3x what he paid, the coins value for the auctions grade was what he paid, the value for the overgrade is what he's asking for it now, 1350 euros.

I emailed the dealer and asked if it was the same coin, i said perhaps it wasn't because the coins grade was 1 grade more, he replied and just said it was the same coin, no mention of the overgrade though, wonder why.

I actually sent a 1902 low tide penny back to CCC because i didn't think the grade was what they said it was, it also had Verd on it, the pictures didn't show this.

I suppose the question to be asked on the gold coin you mention above is, 'who got it right?'. Auction houses deal with 1000s of coins at a time and will therefore make mistakes. Gold is probably the most difficult metal to grade because of its relative lack of toning and I can accept EF instead of NEF but no two professionals should disagree to the extent of one calling a coin VF and the other EF.

Your final paragraph re the 1902LT is a practical example of what concerns me with the type of pictures CCC use. As you have clearly demonstrated, a tiny spot of verdigris can be the difference between buying and leaving on the shelf. If they use that type of illustration it is incumbent upon them to mention any shortcomings in the blurb. Personally, I would have to say that although I haven't bought much from CCC, I have nonetheless been satisfied with what little I have bought.

Despite my rather heated spat with VickyS, I have found the discussion on lustre an interesting one. I am not a luddite but am still of the opinion that buyers perceive lustre as original untoned surface and a dealer who describes a coin as 'full lustre, some toning' is in an untenable position. Perhaps as Peckris says there is a difference in perception between the UK and the US on this point but I would say that I feel other's comments on the subject have vindicated my view, from a UK perspective at least.

A couple more not entirely unrelated points. I recently had to catalogue 72 uncirculated 20th century pennies, and excluding the 7 1934s and 1944-46s I only managed to grade 4 of them BU (or in my eyes 'fully lustrous coins'!), a 1938 and 3x 1961-67s. Curiously I often see 1938s in this condition, far more than any other date, presumably one of the reasons they are worth buttons. All the others were AU90(%) downwards.

Some while back I conducted an experiment in toning polished coins (I would state that I didn't polish them!) with a toning fluid called 'Tourmaline'. The results were OK but what I actually got was coins with shiny toning which needed further work to make them look like circulated pennies (i.e. distressing them by carrying them in my pocket with the loose change). Looking at Huss's illustration I can only believe this effect was caused by both the valleys and the peaks being completely filled by a very smooth layer of toning whereas with natural toning the surface is much rougher with the odd peak breaking through.

[Rob 3,152]

Gold is probably the most difficult metal to grade because of its relative lack of toning and I can accept EF instead of NEF but no two professionals should disagree to the extent of one calling a coin VF and the other EF.

High grade gold is a nightmare. The number of uncs advertised with surfaces resembling the Somme in July 1916 is appalling. For my money, UNC only starts at a couple of tiny marks.

[azda 979]

Here was an answer i got about this ebay coin 160480085396 it states RED GEM which to me means BUNC. Look at the fingers of Britannia, hence the reason i asked if this was in fact RED GEM

The Reply

Thank you for the question. I consulted PCGS about the wear points of this coin before I listed it. According to PCGS an AU coin must show, quote "the slightest traces of wear visible on the (highest points) of the coin". I believe one of the highest points of this coin is the breast area? It is my understanding that a coin must show wear on more than one point, and this is why a Morgan Silver Dollar can show "incomplete" hair depth over the ear area on the obverse and grade an MS-64 if the cheek area shows no wear. Either way, I'm no expert myself and this is why I have included the grading guide. It is my wish that folks come to their own conclusion about the grade. I hope this answer helps

A bit of a way out from our standards don't you think, hence the reason i asked how long London Coins have been grading for compared to the US grading companies