$3 gold piece luster 1 1

[GoldFinger1969]

On 2/19/2023 at 10:59 AM, olympicsos said:

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. 

I guess you can say things are a bit more forgiving or lax with larger and/or softer coins.  That's where CAC can play a role.

If we're going by the naked eye -- and not a 5-10x loupe or magnifyer -- then a large gold coin (Saint or Liberty or even Eagle) which is composed of a soft metal is simply at a disadvantage compared to a smaller, harder metallic coin like a nickel or even a small denomination gold coin.

Edited February 19, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[Prethen]

This topic took a somewhat different turn than I expected, but I'm pleasantly surprised by the responses and where this has gone. I do want to kind of summarize what I think I'm seeing here and get back to what I originally was asking about.

First...what I was originally going after is that I'm seeing a large number of AU and low MS $3 gold pieces exhibit little remaining luster in the fields but what looks like rub in those fields. As has been pointed out here, it seems this is likely due to poor handling when the coins were fresh. I'm curious to know why $3 gold pieces may have been more susceptible to this type of experience where the fields essentially get wiped out before seeing much, if any, circulation?

If the coins were technically graded for luster and not actual wear, it would seem that "true" AU and MS coins would be exceedingly rare. Another interesting question would be, how would such a coin have survived to remain in that state (keeping their luster intact) when most/many of their 'brethren" were not so lucky. Perhaps those coins were the ones obtained directly from the Mint? How would they otherwise survive the bagged experience (maybe just being lucky and remaining at the top of the bag)? 

Second...the entire series had relatively very low mintages and their original strikes might reflect this. With the highest mintage around 20K-138K and much of the rest of the series well under 10K, it would seem that a large number of the strikes could come out more as brilliant (i.e. PL) rather than lusterous...yes?

I have two examples of $3's, one in AU50 and another in AU58, where the fields have a PL look to them. I don't own any of the later part of the series (yet...but maybe one day!) such as 1879-1889, but it seems that whenever I see samples of these coins their surfaces have a strong PL quality. Their mintages were puny. Since I haven't had a chance to handle any of those in hand, I can't say if they don't exhibit any luster but only brilliance, though.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 2/19/2023 at 12:03 PM, Prethen said:

I'm curious to know why $3 gold pieces may have been more susceptible to this type of experience where the fields essentially get wiped out before seeing much, if any, circulation?

I'm going to guess that $3 pieces were more likely to be used in everyday commerce, unlike Eagles and Double Eagles which RWB has drilled into us were rarely used for business transactions (except LH DE on the West Coast from 1850-1880 where they were more frequently used).

Is that likely ?

On 2/19/2023 at 12:03 PM, Prethen said:

If the coins were technically graded for luster and not actual wear, it would seem that "true" AU and MS coins would be exceedingly rare.

This is where I really need to see 2 coins in-hand or see hi-res photos.  I want to know for 2 similar coins what is a break in luster and how visible it is.  

Wear is pretty easy to see -- it's rub on high points, more or less.  But luster BREAKS can be tough...if a coin maintains 90% of its original luster, are you/we going to see the 10% that is broken or weak or non-existent ?

Maybe someone has 2 gold coins similar year/type one with luster and one without.  That might help.

On 2/19/2023 at 12:03 PM, Prethen said:

Another interesting question would be, how would such a coin have survived to remain in that state (keeping their luster intact) when most/many of their 'brethren" were not so lucky. Perhaps those coins were the ones obtained directly from the Mint? How would they otherwise survive the bagged experience (maybe just being lucky and remaining at the top of the bag)? 

If Liberty's and Saints could survive maintaining all/most of their luster despite being bagged....I would think smaller $3 gold coins would, too...except I'm not sure they WERE bagged.  They may have gone directly to sub-Treasuries and banks for distribution.  I'm not an expert here, I'm drawing from other gold coin knowledge.

Were these coins bagged ?  Do smaller coins bagged lose luster more easily than larger gold coins ?   This is above my pay grade. 

On 2/19/2023 at 12:03 PM, Prethen said:

Second...the entire series had relatively very low mintages and their original strikes might reflect this. With the highest mintage around 20K-138K and much of the rest of the series well under 10K, it would seem that a large number of the strikes could come out more as brilliant (i.e. PL) rather than lusterous...yes?

Isn't PL easier for a larger gold coin with simple fields ?  It might be tough to create the conditions for a TPG to assign a PL grade on a relatively small coin, no ?

Edited February 19, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[GoldFinger1969]

BTW, I am enjoying this discussion and back-and-forth....helps with gold coins in general and even though I have no collecting interest with $3 pieces it's interesting. 

[RWB]

RE: Gold coin "softness."

Experiments and controlled measurements at the Royal Mint in the 1880s established that die struck gold coins had just a hard a surface as silver, and both were a lot better than copper. (See Roberts-Chandler, et al.) Unalloyed gold and most native samples are soft, but coin gold alloy is hard and striking actually increases the surface resistance to abrasion -- that is: a struck coin's surface is harder than that of the blank planchet from which it was made.

The heavier a coin and/or the greater the distance it falls from press to receiving box, the greater the number and severity of surface damage.

[GoldFinger1969]

On 2/19/2023 at 1:31 PM, RWB said:

RE: Gold coin "softness."  Experiments and controlled measurements at the Royal Mint in the 1880s established that die struck gold coins had just a hard a surface as silver, and both were a lot better than copper. (See Roberts-Chandler, et al.) Unalloyed gold and most native samples are soft, but coin gold alloy is hard and striking actually increases the surface resistance to abrasion -- that is: a struck coin's surface is harder than that of the blank planchet from which it was made. The heavier a coin and/or the greater the distance it falls from press to receiving box, the greater the number and severity of surface damage.

Very interesting...so the 0.999 coins today are SOFTER than their counterparts like the AGE at 0.9167 fineness ?

[Sandon]

   Precious metal coins are alloyed with other metals, usually copper, to make them more durable in circulation.  Today's .999 or finer precious metal coins simply aren't intended to circulate.

[RWB]

On 2/19/2023 at 4:00 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

Very interesting...so the 0.999 coins today are SOFTER than their counterparts like the AGE at 0.9167 fineness ?

Sure. They are also the color of pure gold, not alloyed gold.

Your 0.999 bullion pieces will be AU in an instant if touched. Normal US or Sterling gold would show nothing.

[olympicsos]

On 2/20/2023 at 3:23 AM, RWB said:

Sure. They are also the color of pure gold, not alloyed gold.

Your 0.999 bullion pieces will be AU in an instant if touched. Normal US or Sterling gold would show nothing.

That’s interesting. I wonder how many American Gold Buffaloes are technically AU, especially since now they’re put into rolls and do slide when being ejected out of the coining press. 

[RWB]

The presses used for .999 gold and silver were modified  over a decade ago to avoid marring the delicate pure metal surface. But, once removed from the original Mint capsule, anything could happen.

[olympicsos]

On 2/20/2023 at 6:53 PM, RWB said:

The presses used for .999 gold and silver were modified  over a decade ago to avoid marring the delicate pure metal surface. But, once removed from the original Mint capsule, anything could happen.

This is a reason I don’t blame people for preferring slabbed .9999 gold. If a coin has to be removed from its mint capsule, let the experts do it. 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 2/20/2023 at 11:04 AM, olympicsos said:

This is a reason I don’t blame people for preferring slabbed .9999 gold. If a coin has to be removed from its mint capsule, let the experts do it. 

0.9999 ?  Wasn't aware anybody was going over 0.999. 

[olympicsos]

On 2/20/2023 at 7:18 PM, GoldFinger1969 said:

0.9999 ?  Wasn't aware anybody was going over 0.999. 

The AGB is .9999 fine. 

[GoldFinger1969]

On 2/20/2023 at 5:01 AM, olympicsos said:

That’s interesting. I wonder how many American Gold Buffaloes are technically AU, especially since now they’re put into rolls and do slide when being ejected out of the coining press. 

That gets into the whole debate we've had here and every other coin website has had.....is that CIRCULATION WEAR or BAG WEAR and which are we supposed to focus on as per the ANA Grading Standards or this whole debate between market vs. technical grading ?

Edited February 20, 2023 by GoldFinger1969

[RWB]

On 2/20/2023 at 11:04 AM, olympicsos said:

This is a reason I don’t blame people for preferring slabbed .9999 gold. If a coin has to be removed from its mint capsule, let the experts do it. 

When time a NCLT coin or bullion piece is removed from it's original holder it is exposed to unnecessary risk of damage and surface contamination (spots). The best approach to coin conservation is to leave it in the capsule in which it came. (Yes -- I realize many enjoy paying extra money for no meaningful value.)

[VKurtB]

On 2/21/2023 at 9:33 AM, RWB said:

I realize many enjoy paying extra money for no meaningful value.

Wow, hitting close to home, aren’t we? You’re completely correct, of course, but the slabbing fetish runs strong in these circles.