VickySilver

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.

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.

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.

No. Kind of a touchy feely thing where there is a "feel" difference but hard to explain. Look at the metal on a 1919 and on 1921 and will help to some degree. High grade coins with gen. lower relief on .500 coins. Metal browner/ not as white on lower grade .500 fine coins...

That is a trick question. Most coins issued since the 1790s are legal tender. If you were to say: "such as one might reasonable or possibly encounter", I would say silver prior to 1965 (dime, quarter, half, dollar). Nothing since then except for mint errors or hypervarietals; unfortunately there are no freebies in circulation unless you get lucky.

Looks to be plated silver to me. I think I see plenty of spots with copper showing...Some loss of detail with plating. As they said in the American movie, "Forrest Gump", I would run Forrest, run!

I suppose if we were smart, we would hype up such bits also and sell them into this market but somehow can not get into these bits either. Something for everybody I suppose & let it clean the wallets of the competition out when it comes to the coins I am bidding on...

Wow, that certainly is one of the nicer 1882s that I have seen. Very nice indeed!

Boy, I would really like to see the 112 (1882 London) penny & see if it is better than the usual slick washer for that date that we usually see.

Well, there were soom missing bits in the date and variety runs and think they will be in the Part 2 portion of the sale.I will not be competing as it just happens that upgrades I am looking for are not there, so strike off one other competitor.

Wow, all this makes the purchase seem to be a two thumbs down proposition...

Hiya, thanks as to the value thoughts. What about scarcity? I know the 1860s are prohibitively rare, these likely not quite so.

Ah, yes, Roland Harris was the name I remembered...

PS Have always loved these 1934 crowns and had a hoard of three (LOL), now down to two. Do any readers recall who it was that was hoarding this date - I think he (she?) was the source of so many coming to market in the last 3-4 years.

Well packaging and associated "goodies" are fun, but sure a pain when it comes to storage. I always hope that the authentication letters, etc. be preserved but this is separately of necessity and there is risk of loss. This brings to mind the dangers of TPG grading, slabs, and losss of provenance. I got an ex-Norweb piece at London auction and it was NOT identified as such. Sorry, did not mean to pirate the thread...

Looks to be a 50 pound coin (at best), poss. specimen but even this might be in doubt as a little wheelwork with a buffer may bring this appearance.

I am thinking 1100-1200 but only a guess. I do like this date, and considerably more than many of the bunheads that have been going crazy pricewise of late.

So what is the bid going to be that wins?

I second that opinion; question is, what is fair value as I think that is near value at current bid?

Yes, interesting post. I have found the 1915 & 1916 in well struck unc. with lustre a challenge as well and rather settled with what I have in the pursuit of the rarities. I always like an 1918 or 1919 of any mint well struck with pleasant lustre as well.

Darn, will have to ask the seller for a new picture. I think this is the chance I have been waiting for, and a starting bid of only 5k is the bargain!

Pretty nice strike, esp. the reverse. Bit of contact on Georgie's hair but attractive overall; I should think 400 pounds equivalent might have been slightly high but 460 euros a good price in my book. Love nice 18/19 H & KNs well struck and preserved!

AU58 (GEF) 1845 1/2 sov. @ 220 pounds - ebay ~4 yrs ago MS65 Gem Unc. 1841 1/2 sov @ 400 pounds - this coin with tremendous luster - ebay ~also 4 years ago.

Not to butt in but this is why the grading services such as PCGS have good value in certification.