What is/was the hardest to learn the evaluate: luster, wear, strike eye appeal

[ad4400]

In a variation of the ‘learn about coins’ and ‘importance of luster, wear, strike, and eye appeal’ threads, which part of luster, surface preservation, strike, and eye appeal did/do you find the hardest to learn to evaluate?

 

Eye appeal is to certain degrees about the other three plus personal preferences, is the most subjective and most apt to lead to disagreements, so perhaps a bad place to start.

 

For me, surface preservation, whether it be wear on circulated coins or hits on an UNC coin, is conceptually easy to get. Granted you need time to learn the appropriate wear/dings for a grade, but as a concept it isn’t that hard. Likewise you need to invest some time to learn what a good strike is, but as a concept, strike is not hard for me to get. I have found evaluating luster the most difficult to learn. Luster on a brown coin, luster under the toning, dipped vs original? Try as I

might, I have the hardest time seeing the cartwheels.

 

What has proved most daunting for everyone else?

[MikeInFL]

Luster and eye appeal were the hardest for me to learn.

 

Spending time with knowledgable collectors and dealers really shortened the learning curve as far as luster is concerned, but as you point out, eye-appeal is the most subjective of the characteristics.

[construct]

Luster is, I think, the toughest at the beginning. Then telling the difference between strike weakness and wear becomes the next challenge. I'm still not always confident in telling the difference.

[cladking]

Wear.

 

It's easy enough on a fully brilliant coin or one with mostly original surfaces (usually) even if it has a little rub, but it can be very difficult to tell. It took me many years to get fairly good at telling weakness from wear and it can still be just a matter of opinion sometimes.

 

Strike is easy. Just look at the detail and the tops of the letters compared to a few thousand other coins.

 

Luster is mostly opinion and mint bloom almost always has a distinctive look.

 

I still don't believe in eye appeal.

[ibyandsellsmith]

Buffalo's can be tricky, as far as strike versus wear. Eye appeal is easy if you like the coin, then it must have eye appeal, unless your talking about resale, then hey it all depends on who your selling the coin too.

[physics-fan3.14]

Luster is, I think, the toughest at the beginning. Then telling the difference between strike weakness and wear becomes the next challenge.

 

I agree. I know for me, at the beginning, I really had no idea what they were talking about when books mentioned luster. Eventually though, after looking at enough coins, I have come to understand what luster is. Just look at enough coins, and rotate them under the light, and you will come to understand that cartwheel effect. Next time you go to a dealer ad4400, ask to see a coin with booming luster and you will understand.

[Arizonadesertrat]

Luster was #1. Many coins, if lustrous, do display a cartwheel effect, others don't (1934 Peace dollars, 1903 Morgan dollars, for example). Judging luster on a darkly toned coin can be a problem. If the luster is attenuated, what then? How many points should be deducted? Etc.

 

 

[Tradedollarnut]

The hardest thing for me to learn was to not look at the field as much and pay attention to the frost on the devices when grading. In the seated series, I think that most collectors overgrade a clean fields coin that has diminished luster on Liberty.

[michael]

What is/was the hardest to learn the evaluate: luster, wear, strike eye appeal

 

EYE APPEAL

[okbustchaser]

I'm not real sure how eye appeal could be hard to determine. One either likes the look of a coin or one doesn't. This has absolutely nothing to do with experience. It has to do with one's personal taste. Even non-collectors when looking at a coin can decide whether or not a coin is (to again quote my 3yo granddaughter) "pretty" or "yucky".

 

It has always been my feeling that the difference between wear and strike was the hardest to determine. Once one learns what luster is then it is less difficult to determine whether it exists on a given coin or not.

 

[BillJones]

I think that judging eye appeal is toughest because it is a skill that is best drawn from an innate talent. I’ve seen some posts here and across the street where a collector claims that a given coin is “beautifully toned” and or “really attractive” when in fact the coin was very ordinary or quite unattractive. Some people have an artistic sense about what really looks nice and what doesn’t. The ability to spot eye appeal can be acquired by some, but for others it’s impossible. They simply don’t get it.

[bsshog40]

I agree Bill, but you have to remember the old saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". What looks attractive to some, may not to others.

[relicsncoins]

It depends on the series for me. I have a heck of time with Buffalo nickels determining strike and wear from each other. That series is one of the toughest for me to grade accurately.

 

JJ

[okbustchaser]

I’ve seen some posts here and across the street where a collector claims that a given coin is “beautifully toned” and or “really attractive” when in fact the coin was very ordinary or quite unattractive.

 

To YOU it may have been very ordinary or quite unattractive. To the poster, however, it WAS “beautifully toned” and or “really attractive”.

 

What is attractive to one has absolutely no bearing on its attractiveness (or lack of same} to another (or even to most}. Again, this is simply a matter of personal taste.

[ant]

strike! that has to be the hardest! i kan never tell an au from a not so good strike ms

[ibyandsellsmith]

I agree Bill, but you have to remember the old saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". What looks attractive to some, may not to others.

That's what I'm talking about, eye appeal is a personnel opinion. How can you get that wrong?