Explanations for non-lusturous AU/BU+ 3CN?

[Prethen]

Here's an interesting quandary that I'd like to ask amongst some of the experienced collectors and dealers here. It appears that it is possible that a choice AU or even lower grade BU 3CN could have little or no luster. Why?

 

First off, I hear a bunch of naysayers already stating that's impossible. "All newly minted coins have luster." Well, I guess the first question is, Is that true...do ALL newly minted 19th century nickel coins (esp. 3CN) have cartwheel luster?

 

Luster is basically microscopic breaks on the coin dies that impress themselves on the surface of the coin radiating outward which creates what we see as cartwheel luster. Perhaps someone else has a better technical explanation as mine might be over-simplistic.

 

My first case in point is a very choice AU 1874 (I don't have photos yet for this) that I got some years ago from a reputable dealer. The coins details were great, it looked unmessed with and original. 3CN sort of slightly darken as they tone and this coin looked no different. But, there is essentially no luster to speak of. The dealer agreed with the assertion that new dies that haven't really been worn in and haven't had a chance to develop those microscopic radiant lines and the resulting coins will not be lusterous. Is there much truth to this or is there some other truth?

 

I received an e-mail from another very reputable dealer with an 1889 AU 3CN for sale and he basically said it wasn't lusterous which was typical. I really respect this dealer and I'm guessing this whole non-lusterous near-MS/MS coins has some legs.

 

Let's hear your thoughts.

 

[BillJones]

A Mint State or AU coin can have a subdued appearance, which some collectors call “satin luster.” This most often results when a die has been in service for long while and has not been polished or lapped. Such coins can be attractive, but it’s been my experience that the TPGs short change them. The TPGs sometimes place too much stock in bright luster IMO. Sure a bright, lustrous coin is a candidate for a higher grade, but when the surfaces are marred by large number ugly marks, the luster usually makes the piece only look worse. A basically unmarked satin luster coin that is fully Mint State deserves more than an MS-62!

 

Getting back to your point, however, I would carefully examine any dull coin that is offer as AU-50 or better. Down within the dullness, you should be able to see the metal flow lines (slightly impaired on an AU coin). If none of them are there, the coin either has more wear than it should have, it’s been cleaned or it’s got some very deep tarnish that might disqualify it from the AU or MS grades.

 

I guess you would need to post picture to even begin on this topic, but let me put it this way. My view is that there are FAR too many over graded coins on the market that are in AU-50 holders. Grade-flation is taken its toll on the AU-50 grade. If that AU-50 graded coin does not look AU, it probably isn’t.

 

[Prethen]

The coin noted above is the one pictured below. Let me clearly state that this scan poorly shows the surfaces of the coin...almost giving it a rusty appearance. I'm not sure what happened in the scan, but I don't recall any "brown" on the coin. You'll note that the cheek essentially shows no wear, hence a realistic AU+ grade. In hand, the coin has a dull, but not unattractive, appearance. I've seen this quite a bit with 3CN.

 

[MikeInFL]

Some prooflike coins don't have luster, particularly in the fields. I would assume newly made (or newly polished) dies to be similiar.

 

I don't have nearly enough experience with 3CNs to know if this is the common with those coins, however --- but the reverse of the coin pictured sure looks like its been heavily polished (note missing detail in the ribbons and leaves).

[BillJones]

The only comment I can make from the picture is that I hope the coin is not as brown as it appears in this picture. Brown or most definitely black on a copper-nickel is a sign of corrosion. If this piece is dull and brown, and shows eroded or lightly granular surfaces with a 10X glass, that sadly could be the problem.

[Prethen]

Bill, I agree. I've examine the coin in the past and it does not have that coloration. I have to wonder what happened with that dealer's color saturation during the scan. But, I must admit that I'm really curious to dig the coin out and look at it again the next time I get to the bank and pull out the album. That said, this coin is only an example of any plethora of examples which exhibit the situation that I'm referring to.

[MikeInFL]

Another thought is these coins are simply (over)dipped robbing them of luster.

[Prethen]

Mike, someone else noted that on the PCGS boards, however I would venture to say that would give them a pasty look and not give them a darker gray look (like my example). Plus, when overdipped coins retone they tend to get an ugly golden brown starting at the periphery and usually the toning doesn't hide an old overdipping.

[Conder101]

If the surface of the the die is not smooth but has more of a satin finish the luster on a coin struck from it will be subdued or even lacking altogether. (Note the silver eagles with their textured surface do not have a strong cartwheel luster nor do the satin finish Unc commem dollars or the matte finish 1997 Jefferson nickel. And the smaller the coin the greater the chance that the subdued luster will seem to be no luster.)

 

The mint had a real problem with the coppernickel coins because the hard alloy was VERY destructive to the dies and the mint shop was going crazy trying to keep the coining department supplied with dies because of the tremendous number of dies required for the coppernickel coins. It took ten times as many dies to strike a given number of coppernickel coins as compared to coins of other alloys. This is the reason why the CN three cent and shield nickels have so many die varieties and errors. Dies which would have been rejected for other coins were accepted for these because they needed more dies NOW!!

 

One corner they may have cut in the attempt to keep up the die production rate was to skimp on the polishing of the dies after the final hardening to remove the oxide layer that forms during the heating process. Rather than the time intensive polishing, they may have used a pickling acid bath to remove it or possibly not removed it at all. This would have resulted n a microscopically rough surface to the die which would not have been conducive to the production of a lustrous surface on the coin.

[physics-fan3.14]

Very interesting, this thread has been full of good stuff.