James Workman Penny sale

[Bernie 188]

Perhaps I'm being a miserable old git but I do find the photographs on both the website and in the catalogue too heavily 'shopped to be overly useful and one more thing, one or two coins are described something like this; 'full lustre, lightly toning'. So that's not full lustre then.

I know Colin Cooke's are a thoroughly professional outfit but I jut felt they could have done better in those areas.

I agree. Some have definitely been photoshopped. For example the cheaper of the 1881 pennies looks absolutely fantastic, but whether it would look as good in the hand is a different matter.

Which one? I could give you my opinion.

[Peckris 579]

Perhaps I'm being a miserable old git but I do find the photographs on both the website and in the catalogue too heavily 'shopped to be overly useful and one more thing, one or two coins are described something like this; 'full lustre, lightly toning'. So that's not full lustre then.

I know Colin Cooke's are a thoroughly professional outfit but I jut felt they could have done better in those areas.

I'm afraid CCC are always describing coins in this particular style, and I've learned to take it with a large pinch of salt. At least there are pictures.

Which of course brings up once again just what lustre is. I do not have a problem with a coin losing some of its "red" and still being full lustre as IMO this implies a fresh, minted surface with no abrasions. In fact, I would consider some entirely brown bits to be full lustre when they exhibit that silkiness of surface with no blemishes, scratches or other breaks.

Couldn't disagree more. To me, lustre means "red" otherwise there is no sense in the description, e.g. "50% lustre". Mint lustre is mint lustre is mint lustre. To me, the only area of doubt is where coins have been "Mint toned" using hypo. These coins, when "fully lustred" should have a gorgeous dark purple sheen, and if any brown is showing through, they are not. But at the same time, I can understand some dealers / collectors preferring to avoid BU in relation to those particular issues. Otherwise BU should mean "fully red". That's what I've always understood anyway.

[1949threepence 3,366]

Perhaps I'm being a miserable old git but I do find the photographs on both the website and in the catalogue too heavily 'shopped to be overly useful and one more thing, one or two coins are described something like this; 'full lustre, lightly toning'. So that's not full lustre then.

I know Colin Cooke's are a thoroughly professional outfit but I jut felt they could have done better in those areas.

I agree. Some have definitely been photoshopped. For example the cheaper of the 1881 pennies looks absolutely fantastic, but whether it would look as good in the hand is a different matter.

Which one? I could give you my opinion.

The one I've screenshotted and uploaded to imageshack in this link ~ it's No 55 in the list.

It looks a truly beautiful coin, but I've been had before with enhanced images. Not saying it is, but you can't be too careful.

Edited September 14, 2010 by 1949threepence

[Red Riley 2]

Which one? I could give you my opinion.

To be honest, almost anything with lustre (e.g. 57, 60, 66, 70). I don't believe it is meant to deceive in any way, but all the lustrous coins look rather like caricatures of themselves and almost as if they have been painted by hand. I don't know whether it's Photoshop or some other package they use, but in the final analysis I would rather see a more realistic result, warts and all.

Won't stop me bidding though!

[1949threepence 3,366]

Which one? I could give you my opinion.

To be honest, almost anything with lustre (e.g. 57, 60, 66, 70). I don't believe it is meant to deceive in any way, but all the lustrous coins look rather like caricatures of themselves and almost as if they have been painted by hand. I don't know whether it's Photoshop or some other package they use, but in the final analysis I would rather see a more realistic result, warts and all.

Won't stop me bidding though!

No 70 doesn't look too good in the pic, to be honest. Although it's damn good for an 1895 2mm.

[1949threepence 3,366]

Which of course brings up once again just what lustre is. I do not have a problem with a coin losing some of its "red" and still being full lustre as IMO this implies a fresh, minted surface with no abrasions. In fact, I would consider some entirely brown bits to be full lustre when they exhibit that silkiness of surface with no blemishes, scratches or other breaks.

Couldn't disagree more. To me, lustre means "red" otherwise there is no sense in the description, e.g. "50% lustre". Mint lustre is mint lustre is mint lustre. To me, the only area of doubt is where coins have been "Mint toned" using hypo. These coins, when "fully lustred" should have a gorgeous dark purple sheen, and if any brown is showing through, they are not. But at the same time, I can understand some dealers / collectors preferring to avoid BU in relation to those particular issues. Otherwise BU should mean "fully red". That's what I've always understood anyway.

On the subject of "BU", what about those coins which would definitely be BU if they had been minted last year. But because they are over 100 years old, have that characteristic slight griminess and vaguely faded lustre ? Can they bstill be classed as "Brilliant Uncirculated" ?

[Red Riley 2]

Couldn't disagree more. To me, lustre means "red" otherwise there is no sense in the description, e.g. "50% lustre". Mint lustre is mint lustre is mint lustre. To me, the only area of doubt is where coins have been "Mint toned" using hypo. These coins, when "fully lustred" should have a gorgeous dark purple sheen, and if any brown is showing through, they are not. But at the same time, I can understand some dealers / collectors preferring to avoid BU in relation to those particular issues. Otherwise BU should mean "fully red". That's what I've always understood anyway.

You've pretty much stated my view, Peck. I think expressions such as 'full lustre' or 'BU' should be incredibly sparingly used or the industry will lose credibility. In my view Victorian pennies that I would describe in those terms are very rare indeed - I don't think I've ever owned one and I can't even really recall seeing more than the odd one.

To be honest I like a little toning on my pennies as I feel that it can give a coin character, but also blazing lustre is pretty hard to preserve and I would always be a little concerned that the coin would tone when I wasn't looking!

[VickySilver 775]

Actually those are very diffent terms and NOT synonymous, BU and lustre. Lustre refers to strike surface and preservation of it - as I said I can show you many a coin that is brown, not even red-brown with silky lustre that simply blooms off of the surface of the coin; no breaks in the lustre, and no wear.

On the other hand I can show you quite ugly red coins that have plenty of lustre breaks where the original struck surface of the coin has contact or bag marks, or even die wear that detract from this lustre.

I take issue with these seen as synonyms and believe it incorrect and technically wrong to blend or mix their usage. This discussion can go on, but am more than glad to express myself and think it should be done as it seems there are many misconceptions and of course many subjective differences as to what constitutes an uncirculated coin and just what lustre is versust the appearance of "redness" on the surface of a bronze or copper coin.

[VickySilver 775]

AS 49 seems to begin to say (and I paraphrase to some extent), the lustre of a pristine and untouched coin from 150 years ago can be preserved even as the redness of the fresh copper begins to fade or subdue. That redness in not actually the lustre, and in fact some "red" coins have only the native fresh surface of copper giving it red colour. The pressure of the strike, and good even die contact on a good alloy coin will impart lustre characteristics - in fact there are similar discussions about cartwheel lustre on American Morgan dollars, much of which is similar to copper lustre on our bronzes. This is why some red-brown or even brown coins of same date can have better lustre than red specimens.

If this does not ring a bell, don't know what to say except that look at the coins themselves to see what exactly I am trying to convey.

[VickySilver 775]

I quite agree that Brilliant Uncirculate coins should be red as the adjective "brilliant" implies. This does not necessarily affect or imply lustre. In fact quite the opposite can be true. A proof that is most brilliant may have poor lustre as it is demonstrating a mirror surface which is in fact not lustre.

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

I think expressions such as 'full lustre' or 'BU' should be incredibly sparingly used or the industry will lose credibility.

Well said.

[Red Riley 2]

Actually those are very diffent terms and NOT synonymous, BU and lustre. Lustre refers to strike surface and preservation of it - as I said I can show you many a coin that is brown, not even red-brown with silky lustre that simply blooms off of the surface of the coin; no breaks in the lustre, and no wear.

On the other hand I can show you quite ugly red coins that have plenty of lustre breaks where the original struck surface of the coin has contact or bag marks, or even die wear that detract from this lustre.

I take issue with these seen as synonyms and believe it incorrect and technically wrong to blend or mix their usage. This discussion can go on, but am more than glad to express myself and think it should be done as it seems there are many misconceptions and of course many subjective differences as to what constitutes an uncirculated coin and just what lustre is versust the appearance of "redness" on the surface of a bronze or copper coin.

I'm sorry but I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. My view (and I believe that of most collectors) is that lustre is that surface shininess which appears on a coin as a result of the minting process and which, given the correct storage conditions will persist pretty much indefinitely. Full lustre = BU or PAS or whatever you want to call it. Anything less can be presented with a percentage figure e.g. 50, 60 or 70% lustre; others prefer to use such terms as 'subdued' or 'degraded' lustre. Whatever you want to call it, that which is not lustre is toning (or in the case of damaged coins, bare metal) and it is therefore not logical to describe a coin with such a phrase as 'full lustre, lightly toning'.

[Beebman 2]

I've just noticed that the first bids are now on the Workman sale page.

[VickySilver 775]

So Red, then a proof has "full lustre"? There is plenty of shine but not lustre according to most definitions of proof. I think perhaps my point is being missed. Lustre is mostly a byproduct of strike and not how fresh the metal surface is and is best seen on the surfaces of currency specimens, though also in the frosting of the devices on proofs that have such (as you are well aware not all proofs have the contrasting device frosting).

I think it important to define terms, and agree that if you say full red that it would be known what is meant; if you should ever find your way over to this (American) side of the pond, I would be more than glad to show you specimens that as I have stated are brown, or even red-brown that have superb lustre but are not red & also coins with considerable red that have lustre or may have relatively poor lustre (even in the absence of cleaning).

Again, I think articulation should be given to these points & the discussion reminds me greatly of the etiology of so-called "carbon spots" that are essentially never carbon, yet the term lives on no matter how inprecise.

[Red Riley 2]

So Red, then a proof has "full lustre"? There is plenty of shine but not lustre according to most definitions of proof. I think perhaps my point is being missed. Lustre is mostly a byproduct of strike and not how fresh the metal surface is and is best seen on the surfaces of currency specimens, though also in the frosting of the devices on proofs that have such (as you are well aware not all proofs have the contrasting device frosting).

I think it important to define terms, and agree that if you say full red that it would be known what is meant; if you should ever find your way over to this (American) side of the pond, I would be more than glad to show you specimens that as I have stated are brown, or even red-brown that have superb lustre but are not red & also coins with considerable red that have lustre or may have relatively poor lustre (even in the absence of cleaning).

Again, I think articulation should be given to these points & the discussion reminds me greatly of the etiology of so-called "carbon spots" that are essentially never carbon, yet the term lives on no matter how inprecise.

I don't know whose definition of lustre you are referring to by saying that proof coins do not have it, certainly not one I have seen. Proof coins tone in the same way as business strikes, the main difference being in the preparation of the blanks and the dies which may be sand, shot or bead blasted. As such I can see no fundamental difference between the shine of a proof specimen and that of a business strike, the only difference being one of quality.

The term 'full red' is seldom used in Europe and is in itself confusing as the tone is usually not red at all! With a little practice it is easy to see the difference between lutre and an artificially polished surface. A coin which has toned does not by most people's definition have lustre - hence the reason one often sees such descriptions as, 'a little lustre remaining in legend'. The surface may be undamaged, it may even look more attractive than a completely untoned specimen, but does it have lustre? Not in my book.

[Bernie 188]

Perhaps I'm being a miserable old git but I do find the photographs on both the website and in the catalogue too heavily 'shopped to be overly useful and one more thing, one or two coins are described something like this; 'full lustre, lightly toning'. So that's not full lustre then.

I know Colin Cooke's are a thoroughly professional outfit but I jut felt they could have done better in those areas.

I agree. Some have definitely been photoshopped. For example the cheaper of the 1881 pennies looks absolutely fantastic, but whether it would look as good in the hand is a different matter.

Which one? I could give you my opinion.

The one I've screenshotted and uploaded to imageshack in this link ~ it's No 55 in the list.

It looks a truly beautiful coin, but I've been had before with enhanced images. Not saying it is, but you can't be too careful.

The 1881 F102 is in my opinion a fairly good likeness to the colour of the coin. I attach a scanned image of the coin. Scanned images never flatter a coins appearance.

I believe that the images at CCC are as representative as you can get from photography. The one thing that photography does not show very well is the beautiful mirror appearances of some of the proof issue coins. Proof not being a grade as simetimes used in the USA but the polished dies that the coins were struck from. James's coins were mainly chosen for the quality of the strikes and general appearance of even colour where possible. The original mint bloom would be nice, but unfortunately coins with the above attributes and full mint bloom are like hens teeth, especially in the bun series.

[VickySilver 775]

Not my definition, as they say, look it up. Lustre is once again as I said imparted to the coin by the strike itself; colour is a result of how much oxidation (by varied oxidants) of the metal.

I am somewhat incredulous Red that you say there is not a difference between currency and proof strikes when you yourself have stated there is a difference.I am suggesting that you check with other references as to what lustre is since it seems you have not mastered this definition. Lustre is not pure shine and it is a mistake to take it that way. The fields on a proof coin are vastly different than a currency strike, and surely you must have seen or appreciate that as we know (?) that this is as a result of the twin factors of planchet preparation and care, pressure and even repitition of strike. This evens out the microsurface of the metal and alters the light reflection/refraction at the surface. Mirror or reflective surfaces are most notable in the proof strikes although we see some proof-like currency strikes with some of the same characteristics.

Lustre is imparted by micro "waviness" which is of course decreased by the proof strking. This is pure optics at the interface of the metal surface..This is not "whose definition?" but rather a scientific ( or at leas the rudiments of it) explanation of lustre that I would suggest you look up...

[VickySilver 775]

By the way, one reference would be Weimar White's Coin Chemistry (please check spelling and title which I believe correct) book where this is discussed.

[Red Riley 2]

It's simple . Does the coin have all the original sheen it had when it was made? Yes/no.

Everything else is obfuscation.

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

It's simple . Does the coin have all the original sheen it had when it was made? Yes/no.

Everything else is obfuscation.

Well said again.

[£400 for a Penny ? 0]

Everything else is obfuscation.

Or in my house, Horseshit.

[azda 973]

On the subject of the CCC grading, i have their monthly catalogue and it's true that their grading is quite hazy, here's one quote they have on a coin GEF/ABU, now when did we suddenly bypass the UNC grade and go straight to ABU after GEF?

Just on the same subject, i've been reading this thread intently, due to the fact that James Workman (in my eyes) has a very nice collection, one that a few of us would give our right testicle for, but i feel that we've suddenly lost the plot and have started bashing the guys collection, bear in mind Bernie is also on the forum and is maybe feeling slightly peed off at the nit picking that's going on with the collection.

The grading is'nt his, it's CCC, i understand that it's CCC that we are talking about but we are also tearing into the mans collection. Personally i think it's damn nice and have had a quick look at the total so far on CCC and its roughly 25k with the bids so far, and some have'nt been bidden on yet, so well done to James and good luck with finding a good home with the deposit.

Ok, am off my soapbox now.

[Bernie 188]

On the subject of the CCC grading, i have their monthly catalogue and it's true that their grading is quite hazy, here's one quote they have on a coin GEF/ABU, now when did we suddenly bypass the UNC grade and go straight to ABU after GEF?

Just on the same subject, i've been reading this thread intently, due to the fact that James Workman (in my eyes) has a very nice collection, one that a few of us would give our right testicle for, but i feel that we've suddenly lost the plot and have started bashing the guys collection, bear in mind Bernie is also on the forum and is maybe feeling slightly peed off at the nit picking that's going on with the collection.

The grading is'nt his, it's CCC, i understand that it's CCC that we are talking about but we are also tearing into the mans collection. Personally i think it's damn nice and have had a quick look at the total so far on CCC and its roughly 25k with the bids so far, and some have'nt been bidden on yet, so well done to James and good luck with finding a good home with the deposit.

Ok, am off my soapbox now.

I am finding the banter rather amusing, don't mind me, I'm enjoying it. You can't offend me very easily, skin like a rhino.

whole collections of perfect coins are almost impossible to get. I know of many coins that are better than James's but they are widely spread about, one in a collection here, one there. In the end we all have to settle for what is available at a price that we are willing to pay.

Before we all start offending each other, grading is in the eye of the beholder, that is why I avoid grading coins myself !!

United states grading, French grading etc is different to British grading. I think in an ideal world, grading should use terms Fine, Good Fine, Near VF, VF etc. but then adding percentages of Lustre if applicable. The Exceptions would be coins struck with proof quality dies, when percentages of lustre could be used on the bronze coins, but bronzed coins or copper proofs would require other additional descriptions.

The reserve prices on James's coins were worked out to be below the current book prices for the grade of the particular coin. My estimated grading !

[VickySilver 775]

Red, I daresay that is a bit ignorant sounding: "everything else is obfuscation". Is science viewed by you as such, for it certainly smacks of the "flat earthers" of the 19th Century. I think such statements are highly charged with ignorance as I was pointing out a subtlety no doubt lost by you in view of such an outrageous statement.

If you are ignorant of such, just state it as so and there are many board members glad to assist; I simply referred to the science in very simply stated terms and even gave you a reference.

I do apologise for slightly pirating this post, but was in fact defending the grading by CCC even though I admit to not having seen this particular collection in hand. I have bought and sold on many occasions to them and while I do not always agree with the grading, it has been close enough to keep me happy and a few others as well given that they have been in business as long as they have.

[azda 973]

Ok, so as i was saying, how can you have a GEF/ABU grade, where is the UNC in between, if it's a GEF then it can't possibly be ABU, surely it should be AUNC next? This grading business is utter confusing