$3 gold piece luster 1 1

[Prethen]

I'm not sure if this topic has been broached before, but I've been looking at a lot of $3 coins in AU (mostly pictures, but some in hand) and I've discovered that these coins quite often (maybe the vast majority) have a minority of their luster remaining in relation to their grade. This experience also includes a number of CAC coins I see and even low-grade MS coins (including CAC'd!). However, it's a fact (forgot which source I read this in) that in order for a coin to be near-gem or better, it must have full luster.

I went to four different sources that have information on $3 gold pieces and they all say relatively the same thing, essentially: "note that pieces may not exhibit luster normally attributed for the grade". I have one AU58 piece that is nearly full luster but even that luster seems to be broken up a bit in the fields. I recently acquired a 58 and 55 that have luster that you might see on a conservatively grade EF45 coin.

I'm sure that this post will suddenly solicit a bunch of photos showing AU's with incredible luster. I do know that they exist but they seem to be like looking for a unicorn. My latest example of EF45 luster (at best) on an AU55 coin is on what I'd say is a very nice 1857. I say it's nice because one thing I've noticed about $3's is that a large number of them tend to be marked up to heck and this one had some pretty reasonable surfaces and I don't find 1857's like this all the time.

So, here's the obvious question. Why? What is it with the fields of $3 gold pieces (and maybe it's certain ranges of years...dunno) that the coin loses it's luster so quickly? Also, a side question, why does it seem that these coins tend to get marked up so easily in the fields when you don't see that on most other denominations? My one guess on this is that the space near the devices is somehow less protected than coins with maybe devices that take up a larger percentage of the coin.

 

Edited February 12, 2023 by Prethen

[Fenntucky Mike]

I can't speak to $3 pieces but luster is not lost just sitting in a collection, unless improperly stored, perhaps it has something to do with mintages and dies used/life?

[Sandon]

   I think the reason that you don't see much luster on $3 gold pieces given "AU" grades by the grading services in recent years, including NGC and PCGS, is because the grading services are no longer following the ANA grading standards requiring that "some" of the luster be present on AU 50 pieces and that "much" of the luster be present on pieces graded AU 55.  This is true for all coins, but particularly true for gold coins, which also seem to show a significant amount of wear in all grades below AU 58. Most AU 50, 53, and even 55 pieces that I that were graded in the last 15-20 years would have qualified for no better than Ch. EF when I began collecting in the 1970s. Many AU 58 graded coins are no better than what I would have just called "AU" in the 1970s and 80s.

  I happen to have acquired in 2016 an 1854 $3 graded AU 58 by PCGS that has nearly full luster and only a trace of wear as it is supposed to in that grade, but it is an outlier. I recommend that you be patient and locate a correctly graded and well struck example, which is usually in an older holder.

  I can't help but show off my correctly graded piece, though the photos don't show its "flash".  Photos are courtesy of Stacks Bowers Galleries.

[Prethen]

Sandon, I'd have to at least partly disagree with you. Yes, perhaps the services are becoming more lenient, but the actual amount of wear on my coins does appear to be in line with ANA grading standards. I know that might seem to be inconsistent with what I noted above, but the actual noticeable run on the devices is very light. For some reason, the field luster is disturbed disproportionately, hence why I'm querying about this.

[Sandon]

   You should remember that gold is softer than silver or other coinage metals, even when alloyed with copper for coinage purposes.  This is why the luster is easily disturbed on the high points of gold coins and why the larger denominations tend to be even more bag marked than Morgan dollars.  Yet nowadays, as you note, there are graded "AU" pieces that have little or no luster even in the fields, including pieces from the Philadelphia and San Francisco mints, which usually turned out high-quality coins, as evidenced by the surviving "true" gems that have full luster.  

   If we were speaking of larger denominations, I'd ascribe some of the lackluster appearance to dirt and other negative effects of long-term storage in European vaults, where they were simply regarded as bullion.  To my knowledge, however, most $3s are from domestic sources, where they frequently became keepsakes or were cherished by earlier collectors. Still, true uncirculated and even AU coins are scarce, so, I believe, grading services and their adherents, including the authors of the "Mega" Redbook, have abandoned the ANA grading standards better to fulfill the demand for allegedly "AU" and lower level "uncirculated" coins.

[RWB]

It is possible that most of the coins you are looking at are EF, and not really 'AU." As others have said, the TPGs have screwed with the designation AU and have now extended it to cover EF coins. The only standard definition of an AU coin is: A trace of abrasion on the highest points and/or disturbance of original luster in the fields. (This is similar to the lie of labeling a circulated coin as "MS62".)

[GoldFinger1969]

It seems like if you excel in one area -- like minimal bag marks -- you can survive a large negative in another area (low or no luster, for example) and stay in the higher grade areas. 

Edited February 13, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[Prethen]

On 2/13/2023 at 6:15 AM, RWB said:

It is possible that most of the coins you are looking at are EF, and not really 'AU." As others have said, the TPGs have screwed with the designation AU and have now extended it to cover EF coins. The only standard definition of an AU coin is: A trace of abrasion on the highest points and/or disturbance of original luster in the fields. (This is similar to the lie of labeling a circulated coin as "MS62".)

RWB, I don't dispute the veracity of the meaning of AU by the classic definition. Even my version (6th edition) of the ANA Grading Standards book states in the Notes on page 307 for $3 gold pieces: "Coins will not always have the exact stated amount of mint luster, strike, or absence of marks....". This note is not found for all series (although I haven't done a large search on that). What I'm finding, is even though an AU58 will have the slightest amount of rub on the cheek, the fields will be subdued and have luster mainly around the rim. Something seems to be going on in general with $3 gold pieces where even the grading standards take notice. This is the part I'm curious about.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 2/13/2023 at 12:10 PM, Prethen said:

RWB, I don't dispute the veracity of the meaning of AU by the classic definition. Even my version (6th edition) of the ANA Grading Standards book states in the Notes on page 307 for $3 gold pieces: "Coins will not always have the exact stated amount of mint luster, strike, or absence of marks....". This note is not found for all series (although I haven't done a large search on that). What I'm finding, is even though an AU58 will have the slightest amount of rub on the cheek, the fields will be subdued and have luster mainly around the rim. Something seems to be going on in general with $3 gold pieces where even the grading standards take notice. This is the part I'm curious about.

So you're saying there's NO luster or hardly any as opposed to luster breaks ?

[RWB]

To make sure we're all using the same meaning -- a "luster break" is an abrupt change in the original surface often caused by light handling of a coin.

On 2/13/2023 at 12:10 PM, Prethen said:

"Coins will not always have the exact stated amount of mint luster, strike, or absence of marks....".

I think this applies to any individual coin. Early strikes off new dies will have little or no luster; overused dies will have such advanced luster that it's given it's own name - "starburst" which is considered a serious defect. "Luster" is a result of metal flow under intermittent pressure, and develops during die use. So...maybe what you're seeing is the result of $3 dies being used to strike a relatively small quantity of coins; prominent luster never has the time to develop.

[Prethen]

On 2/13/2023 at 3:46 PM, RWB said:

So...maybe what you're seeing is the result of $3 dies being used to strike a relatively small quantity of coins; prominent luster never has the time to develop.

This statement is something completely new to me. I didn't realize that this was a possibility. Yes, $3 were all minted in small quantities, although a few years had elevated mintages beyond most of the other years.

[RWB]

"Insights" like the one above, tend to occur when we test the boundaries of "accepted wisdom." Also, when we look at the complete coinage operation and consequences of the mechanical functions and equipment, we can begin to solve many of the mysteries that baffled past writers.

That is: "Learn then Look"

(A little more background... For a long time it was assumed that new dies were "polished" before being put into service. That assumption created a cascade of incorrect speculations which then metastasized into "official pronouncements from Experts." What I did was to go into the original records and asked "How were dies made and put into use? How did proof-like coins originate?" What the original letters said was that the final step in preparing a working die was to temper it, then dip the face into weak acid to remove any "fire scale" or surface oxide. After this dip they went into service.... The rest was mentioned earlier in the thread.  A similar approach was taken toward luster, and sandblast/satin proofs, and so forth.)

Hope this does not sound boastful (I don't want it to be...) -- the information has been there for a long time, just nobody looked -- or maybe bothered to challenge the "Experts," or maybe I was just lucky.

Edited February 16, 2023 by RWB

[GoldFinger1969]

On 2/13/2023 at 5:46 PM, RWB said:

To make sure we're all using the same meaning -- a "luster break" is an abrupt change in the original surface often caused by light handling of a coin.

"Light handling" is going to rub the miscroscopic deformations off the coin ?  I would have thought it would take something a little harsher.  I realize fingers are huge relative to the surface composition of (soft) gold, but I thought it took bag marks or other friction to KO luster.

On 2/13/2023 at 5:46 PM, RWB said:

Early strikes off new dies will have little or no luster

Really ?  Why is that...based on your definition of luster in your Saints book, I would think the age of the dies would be irrelevant (unless they were old and/or failing).  The crystalline structure....the tremendous force applied...how does a new or old die figure into those compositions of luster ?

And annealing on the MCMVII UHRs (now those dies were early !!) certainly brought out the luster on those coins, right ?

Is the composition of luster on these (small) $3 coins different than for later (larger) gold coins ?  Striking and minting technology improved alot from 1854 to the 1920's (to use Saints, as an example).  I don't read much about Liberty Head DEs having great luster from the 1850's, 1860's, etc., either  Of course, coin collecting preservation wasn't as developed as 60-70 years later.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 2/15/2023 at 5:31 PM, RWB said:

Hope this does not sound boastful (I don't want it to be...) -- the information has been there for a long time, just nobody looked -- or maybe bothered to challenge the "Experts," or maybe I was just lucky.

Not at all, I for one appreciate your expert opinion and factual analysis. 

But I'm a bit confused....we've determined that these small $3 pieces have average to poor luster overall.....I don't read about Liberty Head DEs having great luster before the late-1800's (if that)....and we know Saints and Eagles after 1907 had lots of coins with great luster.

I guess I'm confused on what is causing and not causing the luster.  I pretty much had defaulted to your definition in your Saints book that luster was light reflecting off thousands of microscopic ridges caused by the deformations of the crystalline structure as a result of the great force hitting the planchet/gold from the dies (with anywhere from 50-150 tons of pressure). 

The presses from 1850-1890 were probably much less in tonnage strength, I'll wager.  Could that account for less luster and whatever luster was created was more easily "erased" upon handling ?

Edited February 16, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

On 2/16/2023 at 2:59 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Really ?  Why is that...based on your definition of luster in your Saints book, I would think the age of the dies would be irrelevant (unless they were old and/or failing).  The crystalline structure....the tremendous force applied...how does a new or old die figure into those compositions of luster ?

Luster is a result of mechanical stress of steel under fore of repeated impact. At it's beginning, and die has little or no luster because its surface has been formed to match that of the hub. Acid dipping contributes to averaging of the metal surface. Under repeated high pressure impacts die steel gradually deforms into a radial pattern (based on planchet metal flow from center to periphery). This is stable for most of the die's coinage life, but eventually the ridges begin to break down and steel particles rapidly etch the die surface. At the beginning of this breakdown, the die should be pulled and condemned.

This is completely consistent with what I've seen in documents, especially the Royal Mint in the 1880s, and first hand examination of dies.

On 2/16/2023 at 3:04 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

The presses from 1850-1890 were probably much less in tonnage strength

No. The force used was similar during the Liberty designs and decreased a little with Saint-Gaudens and Pratt designs. Silver dollar-size coins required the Mints largest presses. A bigger press was desirable for DE because it put less stress on the machine, not the dies.

[GoldFinger1969]

Fascinating information, thanks Roger. 

[VKurtB]

On 2/13/2023 at 8:46 AM, GoldFinger1969 said:

It seems like if you excel in one area -- like minimal bag marks -- you can survive a large negative in another area (low or no luster, for example) and stay in the higher grade areas. 

Correct you are. 

[VKurtB]

As an aside, I once shared an ANA banquet table with a renowned specialist in smaller U.S. gold coins. He said that the 3 dollar denomination has a higher percentage of counterfeits than any other U.S. coin. He estimates that counterfeits are over 70% of all 3 dollar pieces out there. Daunting, isn’t it?

[GoldFinger1969]

On 2/16/2023 at 1:52 PM, VKurtB said:

As an aside, I once shared an ANA banquet table with a renowned specialist in smaller U.S. gold coins. He said that the 3 dollar denomination has a higher percentage of counterfeits than any other U.S. coin. He estimates that counterfeits are over 70% of all 3 dollar pieces out there. Daunting, isn’t it?

Are they quality fakes or crappy ones ?  If crappy, all the more reason to buy only certified coins (I assume the TPGs can spot the fakes no problem).

[VKurtB]

On 2/16/2023 at 1:17 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Are they quality fakes or crappy ones ?  If crappy, all the more reason to buy only certified coins (I assume the TPGs can spot the fakes no problem).

Yes, allegedly. Oddly enough, many of the counterfeits are alloy correct - the right gold content. The main diagnostic is soft details. 

Edited February 16, 2023 by VKurtB

[GoldFinger1969]

On 2/16/2023 at 2:50 PM, VKurtB said:

Yes, allegedly. Oddly enough, many of the counterfeits are alloy correct - the right gold content. The main diagnostic is soft details. 

Soft details seems to be the tell.  It's not cheap to buy quality striking equipment that can strike with 50-150 tons of pressure PSI.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 2/16/2023 at 10:48 AM, RWB said:

Luster is a result of mechanical stress of steel under fore of repeated impact.

I know steel alloys have improved over the last 100-150 years...but do you know if they have considered using alternative metals that might have stronger tensile or other strengths, like aluminum or tungsten ?

This was interesting:

https://www.thyssenkrupp-materials.co.uk/strongest-metals

Edited February 16, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

For overall utility in striking coins steel alloys are cost effective and easy to work. Steel also adapts well to surface augmentation. Other metals and certain ceramic-metal alloys are better for certain uses.

[RWB]

On 2/16/2023 at 1:52 PM, VKurtB said:

As an aside, I once shared an ANA banquet table with a renowned specialist in smaller U.S. gold coins. He said that the 3 dollar denomination has a higher percentage of counterfeits than any other U.S. coin. He estimates that counterfeits are over 70% of all 3 dollar pieces out there. Daunting, isn’t it?

This is entirely reasonable for $1 and $3 gold. They were in demand from jewelers, especially in Britain, for ornaments due to design, low cost, and small size. If you look in Renaissance of American Coinage 1909-1915 you can learn about the US Treasurer's private stash of these, and what was done with them.

Edited February 19, 2023 by RWB

[olympicsos]

On 2/13/2023 at 4:15 PM, RWB said:

It is possible that most of the coins you are looking at are EF, and not really 'AU." As others have said, the TPGs have screwed with the designation AU and have now extended it to cover EF coins. The only standard definition of an AU coin is: A trace of abrasion on the highest points and/or disturbance of original luster in the fields. (This is similar to the lie of labeling a circulated coin as "MS62".)

A big problem with gold especially. How many Saints and Indian head gold coins graded MS or even as high as MS 65 are truly MS? 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 2/13/2023 at 8:15 AM, RWB said:

It is possible that most of the coins you are looking at are EF, and not really 'AU." 

I'm looking at my 7th Edition ANA Grading Standards.  The big differene I see between the AU grades and the EF grades is that when dealing with luster you have "much of the mint luster still present" (AU-55) or "some of the mint luster" (AU-50) whereas for EF you have "part of the mint luster may be present" (EF-45) and for EF-40 there is no luster description so I presume after the EF-45 amount there could be none by the time you get down to this level.

Edited February 19, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[GoldFinger1969]

On 2/19/2023 at 3:08 AM, olympicsos said:

A big problem with gold especially. How many Saints and Indian head gold coins graded MS or even as high as MS 65 are truly MS? 

At that level, probably most though some could have signs of wear and they are "making it up" with minimal bag marks and/or outstanding luster.  There are some veterans posters I've read who insist that the entire Market vs. Technical grading situation since the late-1990's has resulted in the entire MS category being bastardized with many/most coins not really being truly MS.  

Are (lots of) bag marks signs of "wear" even if different than circulation wear?  If coins "rub" against one another inside the bag is that the same as "rub" from circulation ?  These are from before my time.

The real problem is determining AU coins vs. low-60's MS coins (MS60-62).

Edited February 19, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[GoldFinger1969]

On 2/18/2023 at 10:35 PM, RWB said:

This is entirely reasonable for $1 and $3 gold. They were in demand from jewelers, especially in Britain, for ornaments due to design, low cost, and small size. If you look in Renaissance of American Coinage 1909-1915 you can learn about the US Treasurer's private stash of these, and what was done with them.

When you think about the phrase "as phoney as a $3 bill" you wonder how many Americans even realize that there was a $3 coin !!??  

Edited February 19, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[GoldFinger1969]

On 2/16/2023 at 4:48 PM, RWB said:

For overall utility in striking coins steel alloys are cost effective and easy to work. Steel also adapts well to surface augmentation. Other metals and certain ceramic-metal alloys are better for certain uses.

What do you want to bet that they will endure the higher cost for some exotic metals to strike some special coins in the future ?  I can EASILY see the U.S. Mint or other mints doing that.

"Super-reflective proofs struck with alumuninum or tungsten dies" -- I can see it.  

Edited February 19, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[olympicsos]

On 2/19/2023 at 5:45 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

At that level, probably most though some could have signs of wear and they are "making it up" with minimal bag marks and/or outstanding luster.  There are some veterans posters I've read who insist that the entire Market vs. Technical grading situation since the late-1990's has resulted in the entire MS category being bastardized with many/most coins not really being truly MS.  

Are (lots of) bag marks signs of "wear" even if different than circulation wear?  If coins "rub" against one another inside the bag is that the same as "rub" from circulation ?  These are from before my time.

The real problem is determining AU coins vs. low-60's MS coins (MS60-62).

That is the real problem, I agree. At the same time with gold, there’s things tolerated at the MS level that wouldn’t be tolerated in other series, especially moderns.